Why do Protestants reject the Pope's authority?

[GKC]

pablope,
I know this response was directed to Jon, but I think these assumptions cannot be generally applied to those who do not accept the authority of the Roman Pontiff. There are people here, JonNC included, who truly seek the truth.

I’ve been discussing these issues with Catholics for 3 three years. Trust me, my life would be so much easier, if I just swam the Tiber–especially with all that is going on in TEC. But I can’t force myself to believe something that doesn’t add up–not that I want to have the discussion all over again. I really don’t. I’m just saying, it’s not always fear, pride, etc. that keeps people from entering the Catholic Church. The Orthodox don’t accept Papal authority. So, it doesn’t add up for them either.

As an Anglo Catholic, I hold many common beliefs with Catholics in Communion with Rome. In fact, I get pounded on a regular basis, over these common beliefs, on an Anglican Forum (go figure) that has a number of " more reformed" Anglican members.

I understand that this is a Catholic Forum and Catholics will passionately defend their faith. I expect and respect that.

However, the sledgehammer approach uch: rarely accomplishes anything good, and there are examples of that on both sides posting on this thread.

For many, it is all about truth. Just say’n.

Anna

Yep.

I think I know that forum of which you speak.

GKC

 

[joe370]

=ltwin;9742679]Yes, I believe in ecclesiastical authority. However, there are certain doctrines that the Catholic hierarchy will require me to embrace that I think are wrong. Therefore, I cannot accept their ecclesiastical authority.

Seems fair… When choosing an ecclesiastical authority, do you base your decision on your understanding, interpretation and discernment of the Holy Bible?

I appreciate that the Catholic Church acknowledges that it has played a role in the disunity within the Christian world. However, that still does not absolve them of responsibility for those splits; just as Protestants recognizing their role in the splits does not absolve them of responsibility for them. All sides are guilty, and I don’t think that Catholics have any reason to be smug towards Protestants.

Smugness on either side…Like you said though, we are all just (sinful and fallible - my addition) humans just as the apostles were, and yet they taught infallibly via the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I’m not sure if I would confine it to that. Weren’t the differences by then already pretty entrenched?

In the east - yes: Chalcedonian vs non-Chalcedonian…5th century…

Anyway the split between the Church in the East and the West is what I’m referring to. But there are other examples. The Great Western Schism is another example in history where the credibility of the Catholic Church and the credibility of the papal office itself takes a big hit.

Yes, it took a big hit. Satan came close to destroying Jesus’ church but we know that can never happen. Doctrinally speaking, I discovered that there was no division during the western schism.

I mean the Pope is claiming to be Christ’s Vicar, but you have all this ecclesiastical infighting and political involvement. It’s a mess.

You bet; it was a mess, but Jesus is in control, and therefore His church will never steer completely off course; after all, scripture tells us that He is the Head and Savior of His Mystical Body, the Church in spite of the never-ending onslaught of Satan and company: Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring—those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus.

It’s not true that the Catholic Church claims to be the only Church that teaches the fullness of the truth and that if any Christian wants the fullness of the truth he/she must leave his current denomination and join the Catholic Church?

Agreed. Eastern Orthodox churches make that same claim, due to their apostolic succession. I of course believe that the fullness of truth is found in the CC. Perhaps I am wrong and the fullness of truth is found in the east or the Anglican church or one of the many Protestant churches, but everything in me has led me to the Catholic church. To each their own…

Well, if I were a Catholic who converted to the Pentecostal Church and I came back to my Catholic parish and began sharing my new Pentecostal beliefs would I be given a microphone and the pulpit?

Exactly. My only point is that it cuts both ways…I actually admire their ecclesial integrity.

I’ll speak for Pentecostals. We believe that anyone is capable of teaching falsehood.

Even the apostles or was the church to which they belonged the only church of John 16:13 and John 14:16?

That is why it is important to know the Bible for yourself so that if a pastor teaches something that is clearly contrary to the Word of God then you know that that pastor is a false prophet and you can find a church where the Word of God is rightly taught.

So, if my former Pastor believes in a symbolic understanding of the Eucharist and I see just the opposite in the bible, I can tell him that his teaching on that particular doctrine is clearly contrary to the Word of God? He will just say the same thing to me. Where does that leave us?

Every Christian, every minister, every bishop, every elder, every denominational proclamation or action is judged in the light of Scripture and held to the standard that Scripture sets. If they go against Scripture then you have to stand up and say this is wrong and if you insist on continuing to walk contrary to Scripture then I cannot go with you.

If every Christian, every minister, every bishop, every elder, every denominational proclamation or action is judged in the light of Scripture and is held to the standard that Scripture sets, then sacred scripture trumps ecclesiastical authority - right? Everyone, be it the Pastor or minister of a church or people like you and me, should only defer to sacred scripture via the guidance of the Holy Spirit, when it comes to discerning truth - right? That to me is a spiritually and doctrinal bankrupt model, which was why I could no longer adhere to the practice of sola scriptura. But that’s just me, I could be wrong…

 

[Mystophilus]

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.

I wholly agree, which is why I find that there is distinct limit to how far I am willing to push my beliefs against someone who chooses to believe the opposite. God forbid that I should ever dissuade someone else of the truth!

 

[ltwin]

Seems fair… When choosing an ecclesiastical authority, do you base your decision on your understanding, interpretation and discernment of the Holy Bible?

Well, I have to read it for myself, but no one reads the Bible in a vacuum. We rely on what we’ve been taught and the various theologies that we’ve been exposed to. If all I’ve ever been exposed to is a Pentecostal reading of the Bible then it will be quite easy for me to read the Bible through a Pentecostal lens. However, when I come into contact with competing theologies then it gets interesting. I have to look at both and see which one is most faithful to Scripture. Maybe neither is. And then you have to widen your search.

Since I am Pentecostal, I look for Pentecostal churches to be apart of and naturally once apart of those churches I submit to that church’s spiritual leadership. Now there are parts of traditional Pentecostal belief and practice that I have reservations about. However, compared to any other Christian church, I think its the best option I currently know of.

Smugness on either side…Like you said though, we are all just (sinful and fallible - my addition) humans just as the apostles were, and yet they taught infallibly via the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Yes, they did. There were multiple of them. Why does the Catholic Church today only recognize Peter’s successor as infallible? Or are ecumenical councils also thought of as having authority to interpret doctrine infallibly as well?

Even the apostles or was the church to which they belonged the only church of John 16:13 and John 14:16?

The apostles certainly had their faults, but God did speak through them in an extraordinary way. I’m not convinced that he continues to do that with the Pope. Certainly the Holy Spirit continues to speak truth to us today. I find it hard to justify confining that ministry to the papal institution. I understand that ministry of the Holy Spirit as being given to the entire church, and while I cannot see the big picture it is my hope that God is moving us all into ever greater unity and ever greater truth.

So, if my former Pastor believes in a symbolic understanding of the Eucharist and I see just the opposite in the bible, I can tell him that his teaching on that particular doctrine is clearly contrary to the Word of God? He will just say the same thing to me. Where does that leave us?

Your certainly free to do that. However, your opinion might have carried more weight if you spoke to him about your belief before you left the church. Then you could explain to him why you were leaving the church and give him the opportunity to hear what you thought. Who knows, he might have changed his mind and converted to Catholicism too.

The important point is that as soon as you realized in the light of God’s Word that communion was not symbolic you were responsible for that knowledge that had been granted to you. Knowing what you now know, it would be impossible for you to continue to go to a church that taught differently. Your only choice was to leave that church for a church in harmony with what you know to be the truth. There is nothing wrong with that.

If every Christian, every minister, every bishop, every elder, every denominational proclamation or action is judged in the light of Scripture and is held to the standard that Scripture sets, then sacred scripture trumps ecclesiastical authority - right? Everyone, be it the Pastor or minister of a church or people like you and me, should only defer to sacred scripture via the guidance of the Holy Spirit, when it comes to discerning truth - right? That to me is a spiritually and doctrinal bankrupt model, which was why I could no longer adhere to the practice of sola scriptura. But that’s just me, I could be wrong…

Why is it bankrupt to say Scripture is our standard and measuring rod. Anything contrary to it is out. Anything that conforms to it is in. And why shouldn’t ecclesiastical authority be held accountable to Scripture? Should our leaders just be able to make everything up as they go along?

I’m not proposing the regulative principle that Scripture must say that you can have carpet in churches in order for you to have carpet in churches. That is just stupid. I mean that If Scripture indicates something about doctrine or Christian living then Scripture should be adhered to. Obviously, the question then becomes how do you determine what Scripture says. That’s a topic too big for the purpose of this thread.

 

[pablope]

pablope,
I know this response was directed to Jon, but I think these assumptions cannot be generally applied to those who do not accept the authority of the Roman Pontiff. There are people here, JonNC included, who truly seek the truth.

I understand that this is a Catholic Forum and Catholics will passionately defend their faith. I expect and respect that.

However, the sledgehammer approach uch: rarely accomplishes anything good, and there are examples of that on both sides posting on this thread.

For many, it is all about truth. Just say’n.

Anna

Hi, Anna…let me clarify…

When I said pride…i meant both sides…maybe it was not evident.

And this…

Fear of losing one’s own authority?

Refusal to let go of the present situation?

Applies to both sides too.

 

[vsedriver]

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.

does this mean that you don’t consider Holy Scripture to be infallible?

 

[joe370]

ltwin;9743222]Well, I have to read it for myself, but no one reads the Bible in a vacuum. We rely on what we’ve been taught and the various theologies that we’ve been exposed to. If all I’ve ever been exposed to is a Pentecostal reading of the Bible then it will be quite easy for me to read the Bible through a Pentecostal lens. However, when I come into contact with competing theologies then it gets interesting. I have to look at both and see which one is most faithful to Scripture. Maybe neither is. And then you have to widen your search.

I understand.

Since I am Pentecostal, I look for Pentecostal churches to be apart of and naturally once apart of those churches I submit to that church’s spiritual leadership. Now there are parts of traditional Pentecostal belief and practice that I have reservations about. However, compared to any other Christian church, I think its the best option I currently know of.

I can relate for that is how I feel about the CC. If you feel with all of your heart soul gut, and mind that the Pentecostal church is the house of the living God and pillar and foundation of truth, then, in my opinion you are truly home brother.

Yes, they did. There were multiple of them. Why does the Catholic Church today only recognize Peter’s successor as infallible? Or are ecumenical councils also thought of as having authority to interpret doctrine infallibly as well?

You are right: ecumenical councils also are thought of as having authority to interpret doctrine infallibly. And when the Pope speaks from the chair, it is only done after he convokes an ecumenical council; like acts 15.

The apostles certainly had their faults, but God did speak through them in an extraordinary way. I’m not convinced that he continues to do that with the Pope. Certainly the Holy Spirit continues to speak truth to us today. I find it hard to justify confining that ministry to the papal institution. I understand that ministry of the Holy Spirit as being given to the entire church, and while I cannot see the big picture it is my hope that God is moving us all into ever greater unity and ever greater truth.

Not the pope alone, but rather the apostles successors with the pope as their leader. For example, when the pope defined the I.C. and Mary’s assumption, the decision was made by the entire council, prior to the pope ratifying them excathedra.

I too hope and pray that God is moving us all into ever greater unity and ever greater truth. Amen to that…I suppose the Holy Spirit will continue to :hammering:at it.

Your certainly free to do that. However, your opinion might have carried more weight if you spoke to him about your belief before you left the church.

I did just that, and he said: I won’t allow catholic heresy in my church. First thing I noticed was the fact that he said my church and not Jesus’ church, and Jesus said, I will build my church. We are still good friends though, just as long as I keep my mouth shut, which I failed to do a few times…

Then you could explain to him why you were leaving the church and give him the opportunity to hear what you thought. Who knows, he might have changed his mind and converted to Catholicism too.

You kinda had to be there if you know what I mean. LOL…

The important point is that as soon as you realized in the light of God’s Word that communion was not symbolic you were responsible for that knowledge that had been granted to you. Knowing what you now know, it would be impossible for you to continue to go to a church that taught differently. Your only choice was to leave that church for a church in harmony with what you know to be the truth. There is nothing wrong with that.

True, but that alone was not enough, for I wanted to find the visible church founded by Jesus in the first century; I wanted to belong to the same church the apostles and their successors belonged to, and for me it came down to the eastern orthodox churches and the catholic church. The early church fathers really helped me make that leap to the CC.

Why is it bankrupt to say Scripture is our standard and measuring rod. Anything contrary to it is out. Anything that conforms to it is in. And why shouldn’t ecclesiastical authority be held accountable to Scripture? Should our leaders just be able to make everything up as they go along?

Oops, perhaps I misspoke. Scripture as the Christians standard and measuring rod is based on each persons understanding of that standard, and when people come away with opposing beliefs there is no spirit-guided church to arbitrate via God’s guidance. In other words, in the end when two people, who share polar opposite beliefs about the same teaching, refuse budge an inch, division ensues, and this has been happening little-by-little for about 500 years, which has led to so many autonomous churches. It really bothered me so long ago…

I’m not proposing the regulative principle that Scripture must say that you can have carpet in churches in order for you to have carpet in churches. That is just stupid. I mean that If Scripture indicates something about doctrine or Christian living then Scripture should be adhered to. Obviously, the question then becomes how do you determine what Scripture says. That’s a topic too big for the purpose of this thread.

I agree friend; much too big…

Well, must catch some shut-eye; I have enjoyed our conversations.

Talk to you a little later…

 

[Erich]

Somewhat off topic, Erich, but I’ll abide.

I think the big question that each and every Christian (especially folks who start their own churches) should ask themselves is:

Was I given any kind of authority, by Jesus, to define doctrines and resolve doctrinal differences when they occur? When I asked myself that very question the answer was a resounding NO! :dts:

Given that the title of this thread is “Why do Protestants reject the Pope’s authority?” my questions were not at all off-topic. Joe (and other posters) hit the nail on the head when he/they identified the root answer to that question… it’s all about authority!

What is a “pastor?” The word is from the Latin, in fact, and it means - quite simply - “shepherd.” Those who call themselves “pastor” are claiming to be a shepherd of God’s flock. The term “pastor” is also interwoven with the biblical term “overseer,” or “elder” - in the Greek, episkopos, or “bishop” (Acts 20:28). Further, to be a “pastor” (shepherd, overseer, elder) is also to be an “ambassador” for Christ (c.f. 2 Cor. 5:18ff).

This is no light responsibility, and Scripture tells us that this position is never self-appointed. That is, no man can merely take it upon himself, of his own initiative, to start shepherding God’s flock. The same, of course, goes for “ambassadors.” The dictionary defines the word to mean, an “authorized messenger or representative” - thus, an ambassador must be sent. In fact, the word “apostle” is Greek for “sent one.” To this we can add the words of St. Paul, who says that preachers must be “sent.” (Rom. 10:15)

Now, what does “to be sent” mean, except that someone in authority over you has conferred the privilege and authority upon you? In fact, it goes without saying that the one who confers the authority must be superior in authority to the one being commissioned, since no one can confer that which he does not possess himself.
In other words, a congregation’s vote cannot suffice, Scripturally speaking, to appoint a man as “pastor,” since the congregation (of inferior authority) cannot confer superior authority upon a man.

The Scriptural pattern for such things is:

• God the Father (the superior authority) sends Jesus Christ
• Jesus, in turn, sends the Apostles “as the Father has sent me” (John 20:21), that is, in the same manner, with the same authority: “all authority” (Matt. 28:18).
• The Apostles possess the Gospel message precisely because it was “entrusted” to them, i.e., given to them, and not taken by them on their own initiative.
• The Apostles pass the mission and authority on to men like St. Timothy and St. Titus (“with all authority” Tit 2:15)
• The second apostolic generation is expected to entrust the mission to the next generation, ad infinitum. There can be no other reason why St. Paul would leave his two spiritual “sons” (Ss. Titus and Timothy) explicit instructions about the qualifications for overseers, elders, bishops, etc. (c.f. 1 Tim 3:1-7, Tit. 1:5-9), than that he expects them to confer apostolic authority on new men who meet those requirements.

As mentioned above, the mission and the message can only be passed on by someone who first possessed it. That is, the mission does not merely entail preaching the message, but with it comes the authority to spiritually “reproduce” and pass on the necessary authority to the next generation. In the context of conferring His authority on the Apostles, commissioning them to go in His name to build and govern His Church, Jesus does the very same thing His Father did to the First Adam: He breathes upon them, gives them the Spirit, and “fathers” them, spiritually speaking.

Protestants reject the Pope’s authority because they (at least, the vast majority) reject entirely the notion of apostolic succession (even though it can be shown, from Scripture, that apostolic succession is the ordinary means of transmitting apostolic authority and the Gospel message).

 

[Anna_Scott]

All valid points. You’ve got to follow your heart and truly believe that the catholic church is the church founded by Jesus circa AD 33, on Pentecost, otherwise you will never be at peace with your choice. Good luck Anna on your journey wherever that may lead you.

Thank you, Joe. It’s good to know that someone understands.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Hi, Anna…let me clarify…

When I said pride…i meant both sides…maybe it was not evident.

And this…

Fear of losing one’s own authority?

Refusal to let go of the present situation?

Applies to both sides too.

It can, but not always.

I officially left the Southern Baptist Church a little over two years ago-actually the same month I started attending an Episcopal Church. I had to let go of all kinds of things. My entire belief system was turned upside down. I worked through most of those changes here on CAF.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Yep.

I think I know that forum of which you speak.

GKC

Word gets around.

 

[Link0126]

True, but they (Jesus and St. Paul) never called for celibacy to be mandatory either, even if it is a matter of discipline.

And the Church does not claim they did. That’s why it’s a matter of discipline, it is simply a rule instituted by the Church not by God.

 

[Nicea325]

A problem for you,but not for the men or women who choose such a life style. Second, have you even bothered to study the reasons behind it? From your responses it seems you haven’t and only seem to express: It is a problem.

To put it more specifically, does the Bishop of Rome (does any bishop?) have the authority to require clergy (to require anyone?) to be celibate?

And does anyone in the military have the authority to say men and women entering a military academy must be single? So a priest must have a divine power to decide such a discipline?

For Protestants, we don’t see where in Scripture the Pope or anyone else has been empowered to require clergy to remain celibate.

No offense,but a Protestant fallacy: Where in the Bible does it say it? First of all,where does the Bible teach it must be said from the Bible-only? Where do Protestants get their authority to allow openly gay people to be ordained? Where is that in the Bible,if that is the position you hold to?

You’re assuming that Peter and his successors early on were able to assert control over every single Christian community in the world.

No more than you assuming he didn’t-and? Do you honestly believe authority over Christ Church was a “to-each-his-own” approach?

I don’t think that is a realistic historical model, and the history of Christianity shows there was a lot of diversity.

Sounds as though you are advocating divisions as the normal set up from Christ and the Apostles? Did not matter if it does not seem realistic to you,Christ and the 12 never advocated or encouraged divisions. Did not matter who disagreed, it does not change the fact Chirst left His Church and wanted us all to be one as the Gospel of John says.

And no one is denying different sects existed also called heretics and schims. However, still does not change the fact there existed ONE orthodox Church founded by Jesus. Again, if one chooses to be outside,then that is on them,not God…

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Well Protestants certainly did not unite it,no matter how much you wish to deny it.

Again I’m not denying anything. I’m pointing out that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox split. Both claim to be the True church. Both have impressive pedigrees. Which should I believe? Should I embrace papal infallibiltiy? Or should I follow the Orthodox hierarchy?

Therefore you admit Protestanism has not united Christianity but has divided it more? The CC and EO do not make any claims out of their own accord,but merely repeat what has been handed down over the centuries. Does not matter if they men in charge back in the 11th century caused a big split. Cannot change the fact Apostolic Succession and Apostolic Deposit was passed on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Sorry,but you are simply adding the CC to the mix and array of splits within Protestant circles. Christ founded His church and if one decides to leave His church,does not negate or lessen the fact Christ still left ONE Church. Either one is in or out.

As I said above, why should I assign “true church” status to the Catholic Church. Seems to me the Orthodox Church has at least as good a claim on that status as the Catholic Church does.

And no educated Catholic would ever deny the Orthodox as being true. And why? Because they are part of the true church,which both sides unfortunately split.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
First of all, I want you to present me one official CC document stating the CC is DEMANDING ALL Christians to be Catholic?

You claim to be the only Church that has the fullness of truth. Logically, that demands that any Christian and non-Christian that wants the fullness of truth must join the Catholic Church.

Again,the CC does not make any claim out of its own accord. Moreover,the CC and EO merely repeat what has been handed down from Christ and the Apostles. Protestanism makes claims,Catholicism & Orthodoxs merely parrot the Apostolic Deposit of Faith down over the centuries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Second, the CC is NOT a denomination. Denominations is a terminology applicable to Protestants,since divisions cannot stop. Protestants simply want to add the CC to their world of “denominations” and label it one as well.

Unlike you, I don’t see the Catholic Church as particularly special among the various Christian groups. So yes I do use the word “denomination” to refer to the Catholic Church, just like I refer to any other Christian group. If that offends Catholics, then I apologize and will refrain from using the offending word on this forum.

By all means, I am not offended. I am just correcting a commom error by non-Catholics. You are free to call the CC a denomination,but the facts of the matter are simple: Christ did not found a denomination,but His Church.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Well if we are human and we all make mistakes,then why continue to make more mistakes by spliting and dividing more and more? Yet Protestants cannot accept papal infallibility? Due to the fact most Protestants do not comprehend it,plain and simple.

Oh, we comprehend it. We know exactly where it can lead and that is why we don’t accept it.

Sorry,but the majority of Protestants I speak to have a profound misunderstanding. The fact you do you not accept it has no bearing on doctrinal Truth. The Arians rejected Christ shared divinity/substance with the Father,did that stop orthodoxy from moving forward? Nope! If you do not accept infallibility and most Protestants reject it,then it must conclude that Peter’s own NT writings must be fallible-correct? Moreover, all the authors of the Bible wrote fallible letters-correct?

 

[GKC]

Word gets around.

I was invited there, but if I wished to confront Anglicans, there’s a TEC church about 3 blocks from my house.

GKC

 

[ltwin]

A problem for you,but not for the men or women who choose such a life style. Second, have you even bothered to study the reasons behind it? From your responses it seems you haven’t and only seem to express: It is a problem.

Clerical celibacy is not a problem. It’s going beyond Scripture and making something mandatory and obligatory that is the problem, and it brings up questions of authority. I personally respect anyone who commits to a lifestyle of celibacy. It is a gift of God just as marriage is.

And does anyone in the military have the authority to say men and women entering a military academy must be single? So a priest must have a divine power to decide such a discipline?

Does any military require lifelong celibacy? If a priest is able to embrace a life of such discipline that is great. But what of many potential priests who are not strong enough to live a life of celibacy with integrity? If someone is called to a life of marriage, why should that eliminate him from eligibility to be a priest?

No offense,but a Protestant fallacy: Where in the Bible does it say it? First of all,where does the Bible teach it must be said from the Bible-only? Where do Protestants get their authority to allow openly gay people to be ordained? Where is that in the Bible,if that is the position you hold to?

The Bible doesn’t say Bible only anywhere. Yet having a measure to judge everything by is a good thing. Take for example the gay clergy issue. Those Protestant churches that ordain homosexual clergy are in direct violation of Scripture. The only way they can justify their position is by ignoring and devaluing the place and authority of Scripture in the life of the church and the individual Christian.

No more than you assuming he didn’t-and? Do you honestly believe authority over Christ Church was a “to-each-his-own” approach?

I believe it was a lot more complicated and dynamic then you seem to think.

Sounds as though you are advocating divisions as the normal set up from Christ and the Apostles? Did not matter if it does not seem realistic to you,Christ and the 12 never advocated or encouraged divisions. Did not matter who disagreed, it does not change the fact Chirst left His Church and wanted us all to be one as the Gospel of John says.

And no one is denying different sects existed also called heretics and schims. However, still does not change the fact there existed ONE orthodox Church founded by Jesus. Again, if one chooses to be outside,then that is on them,not God…

Yes, there have always been divisions and disagreements in the Body of Christ.

Therefore you admit Protestanism has not united Christianity but has divided it more?

Have I ever denied it? I merely point out that it goes both ways.

The CC and EO do not make any claims out of their own accord,but merely repeat what has been handed down over the centuries. Does not matter if they men in charge back in the 11th century caused a big split. Cannot change the fact Apostolic Succession and Apostolic Deposit was passed on.

Well, get back with me when the two competing one universal true church make up and are under one banner again. Then we can talk about me joining the one universal true church. It will make my decision a lot easier.

Again,the CC does not make any claim out of its own accord. Moreover,the CC and EO merely repeat what has been handed down from Christ and the Apostles. Protestanism makes claims,Catholicism & Orthodoxs merely parrot the Apostolic Deposit of Faith down over the centuries.

Despite the above, the belief that the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth logically means that if any person wants the fullness of truth he has to leave his current church or religion and join the Catholic Church. Correct?

Sorry,but the majority of Protestants I speak to have a profound misunderstanding. The fact you do you not accept it has no bearing on doctrinal Truth. The Arians rejected Christ shared divinity/substance with the Father,did that stop orthodoxy from moving forward? Nope! If you do not accept infallibility and most Protestants reject it,then it must conclude that Peter’s own NT writings must be fallible-correct? Moreover, all the authors of the Bible wrote fallible letters-correct?

The writers of Scripture were God breathed. They were inspired. It’s hard to put the words of the Popes on that level.

 

[Lochias]

The writers of Scripture were God breathed. They were inspired. It’s hard to put the words of the Popes on that level.

And a group of inspired Catholics, using the authority handed down to them from the Apostles and guided by a Pope, decided on the final set of books that you now hold over any other authority. It’s hard to take your position too seriously when you just flat-out ignore those kind of elephants in the room.

 

[Izdaari]

And a group of inspired Catholics, using the authority handed down to them from the Apostles and guided by a Pope, decided on the final set of books that you now hold over any other authority. It’s hard to take your position too seriously when you just flat-out ignore those kind of elephants in the room.

I prefer to say inspired Christians, who happened to be Catholic, but yeah, that’s all true. But I’ve never ignored it. The Catholic Church deserves full credit for the Canon, and I’m grateful to them for it. But that doesn’t mean they’re always right about everything.

 

[jrtrent]

And your responses with all due respect in regards to Catholicism are in error. I asked you to tell me what year and the name(s) of the clergy who invented Purgatory? You have yet to answer me.

The answer to that question has no bearing on the subject at hand, and I’m sure you’re more than capable of finding the answer on your own. You have made it clear that what I do or don’t believe does not matter to you or to anyone else, and that’s fine; however, what I believe is the only basis I have for accepting or rejecting the Pope’s authority. And the rejection of that authority is what this thread is about.

I don’t believe that the Roman Catholic teaching on universal papal authority, papal infallibility, the immaculate conception, purgatory and indulgences, to name a few, are true, and neither does any other Christian denomination that I’m aware of. Since I don’t believe those teachings are true, how could I accept the authority of a church leader who does think they’re true? Apparently, not even all the Popes believed in universal authority–the book Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy includes this quote from St. Gregory the Great (Bishop of Rome from 590-604), “Whoever calls himself universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor to the Antichrist.”

You told Itwin that his not accepting papal infallibility “has no bearing on doctrinal Truth.” Well neither does your acceptance of it, nor that of the entire Roman Catholic church. One poster in a recent or current thread made the point that the less there is to believe, the easier it is to believe. The Roman Catholic church puts out a lot of unique things that are to be believed in order for one to become a member; the Anglican church, on the other hand, takes a cautious, more restricted look at what one must believe:

“the Church of England’s prime interest in this period was the recovery of the faith of the primitive, undivided Church. Hence, in the canons of 1571, authorized the same year as the 39 Articles, bishops and priests of the Church were directed to “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 and ancient bishops have collected from this self-same doctrine.” It would be impossible to claim to be the inheritor of the faith of the early Church without inheriting also the decrees of the early councils. Thus, Anglican theologians spent a tremendous amount of time, from the Elizabethan Settlement up and until the English Civil War, articulating an understanding of conciliarity that would uphold the doctrines of the great early councils without allowing for the errors of Trent.” conciliaranglican.com/2011/08/03/ask-an-anglican-the-ecumenical-councils/

When the AFLC Lutheran church I belonged to split due to internal strife/dissent, I looked for an alternative. I could not join with another of the local Lutheran churches because they were either too liberal (ELCA, with its ordination of women and homosexuals) or would require me to accept the teaching that the Papacy is the Antichrist (LCMS and WELS; the AFLC used only the Augsburg Confession and Luther’s Small Catechism as its confessional statement, rather than the entire Book of Concord). I did not find the teachings of the traditional Anglican church I now belong to be a barrier (though my Baptist friends tell me it’s just one more progression on my way to Rome, and that sooner or later I’ll end up Catholic!).

 

[Lochias]

I prefer to say inspired Christians, who happened to be Catholic, but yeah, that’s all true. But I’ve never ignored it. The Catholic Church deserves full credit for the Canon, and I’m grateful to them for it. But that doesn’t mean they’re always right about everything.

“Happened to be Catholic?” That’s what all the Christians were back in those days.

Further, if you agree that the Catholic Church had enough authority and divine inspiration to choose the Canon of the Bible that you now hold as your highest authority (correct me if I’m wrong on that assumption), where do you logically assume that they suddenly stopped having the authority required to issue rules and regulations for other areas of Christian life?

 

[jrtrent]

IThe Catholic Church deserves full credit for the Canon, and I’m grateful to them for it.

The church was undivided when the canon was determined, but sometimes people credit the Roman Catholic church for that when it was really other parts of the church that were responsible. This topic came up in another thread recently, so here’s a cut-and-paste from that:

. . . the Orthodox have always used the Septuagint, which was in place long before Christ was born, so the Catholic Church did not determine the Old Testament. The earliest record existing that lists the 27 books of the New Testament is an annual Easter letter written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in 367. The church at Rome was a bit behind the East in formally recognizing the 27 NT books:

“The West began to realize that the ancient Apostolic Churches of Jerusalem and Antioch, indeed the whole Orient, for more than two centuries had acknowledged Hebrews and James as inspired writings of Apostles, while the venerable Alexandrian Church, supported by the prestige of Athanasius, and the powerful Patriarchate of Constantinople, with the scholarship of Eusebius behind its judgment, had canonized all the disputed Epistles. St. Jerome, a rising light in the Church, though but a simple priest, was summoned by Pope Damasus from the East, where he was pursuing sacred lore, to assist at an eclectic, but not ecumenical, synod at Rome in the year 382. . . The Damasan catalogue presents the complete and perfect Canon which has been that of the Church Universal ever since.” newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm