Why do Protestants reject the Pope's authority?

[JonNC]

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!).

Curious, that you would reject the LCMS on the grounds that the confessions refer to the papacy as antichrist, but you also do not accept the claims of the papacy that actually brought about the charge that. What the confessions say is that said claims are against Christ.
I think the term is dated, and doesn’t help dialogue, and it is not doctrine, but universal jurisdiction remains the singular issue that prevents me from converting.

Jon

 

[Izdaari]

“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?

Suppose, just as a thought experiment that the early Christians had been Baptists, that they determined the Canon, and that Catholicism was a later revelation that you accepted as valid… would you then reject the Canon because it wasn’t your particular branch of Christianity that came up with it? No? Well, neither would I. But in that situation, you wouldn’t necessarily think the Baptists were right about everything else and were the One True Church, would you? Neither would I.

 

[Mystophilus]

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?

The first issue is not whether they taught consistently, but what they taught consistently. It is rather closely analogous to discussions within Catholicism over dogmata, doctrines, and disciplines, but we do not have a centralised authority capable of bringing such discussions to a swift end.

The second issue is the degree to which apostolic teachings, e.g. that women must keep silent in church, that women cannot be priests, must be followed now.

Why don’t Anglicans demand conformity among high church, low church, and broad church?

Er, “high” and “low” are primarily designations of ceremonialism and liturgy, not of theology except when it pertains directly to functions within the service, e.g. sacraments. My parish is “high church, liberal”: robes, incense, some genuflection, but also very happy with women priests and fairly soon likely to accept gay priests.

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?

While I realise that this can seem quite alien to a Catholic perspective, we are actually much less bothered than you generally are by these differences. Many Protestants move freely and easily between church of various Protestant denominations, hardly noticing any difference between them apart from structures of church governance.

Some, and this is particularly true in Anglicanism, actually celebrate the range of Christianity within our denominations, or even our individual parishes. I am happy that I am united in the belief in Christ with a friend who earnestly asserts that evolution is a lie of the Devil, even when I am convinced that evolution is just what happens.

What we have achieved is unity in diversity. I will not pretend that it is always easy, but it has been working for half a millennium so far.

 

[JonNC]

=Erich;9744471]Given that the title of this thread is “Why do Protestants reject the Pope’s authority?” my questions were not at all off-topic.

The topic is why protestants “reject” the pope, not about protestant ecclesiology. But as I said, I am more than happy to dialogue.

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!

It is precisely 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).

Apology of the Augsburg Confession -
Article XIV: Of Ecclesiastical Order.
24] The Fourteenth Article, in which we say that in the Church the administration of the Sacraments and Word ought to be allowed no one unless he be rightly called, they receive, but with the proviso that we employ canonical ordination. Concerning this subject we have frequently testified in this assembly that it is our greatest wish to maintain church-polity and the grades in the Church [old church-regulations and the government of bishops], even though they have been made by human authority [provided the bishops allow our doctrine and receive our priests]. For we know that church discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laid down in the ancient canons, with a good and useful intention.

The issue for us is not AS. The issue is the later claims made regarding the Bishop of Rome and his jurisdiction and supremacy, claims that are not made for him in the early Church. I’ll say it yet again, were the EO to accept this sumpremacy and universal jurisidiction, then I would too, and be in RCIA the next day.

Jon

 

[GKC]

The first issue is not whether they taught consistently, but what they taught consistently. It is rather closely analogous to discussions within Catholicism over dogmata, doctrines, and disciplines, but we do not have a centralised authority capable of bringing such discussions to a swift end.

The second issue is the degree to which apostolic teachings, e.g. that women must keep silent in church, that women cannot be priests, must be followed now.

Er, “high” and “low” are primarily designations of ceremonialism and liturgy, not of theology except when it pertains directly to functions within the service, e.g. sacraments. My parish is “high church, liberal”: robes, incense, some genuflection, but also very happy with women priests and fairly soon likely to accept gay priests.

While I realise that this can seem quite alien to a Catholic perspective, we are actually much less bothered than you generally are by these differences. Many Protestants move freely and easily between church of various Protestant denominations, hardly noticing any difference between them apart from structures of church governance.

Some, and this is particularly true in Anglicanism, actually celebrate the range of Christianity within our denominations, or even our individual parishes. I am happy that I am united in the belief in Christ with a friend who earnestly asserts that evolution is a lie of the Devil, even when I am convinced that evolution is just what happens.

What we have achieved is unity in diversity. I will not pretend that it is always easy, but it has been working for half a millennium so far.

This distinction as to the meaning of low and high is accurate, and one I also use, with the doctrinal distinction being Anglo-Catholic or evangelical/reformed. But the other usage, of low/high for both continuums, is not unknown.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[GKC]

The topic is why protestants “reject” the pope, not about protestant ecclesiology. But as I said, I am more than happy to dialogue.

It is precisely about authority.

The issue for us is not AS. The issue is the later claims made regarding the Bishop of Rome and his jurisdiction and supremacy, claims that are not made for him in the early Church. I’ll say it yet again, were the EO to accept this sumpremacy and universal jurisidiction, then I would too, and be in RCIA the next day.

Jon

My late, fervently high and Anglo-Catholic rector, made similar observations as in your last sentence. It would require a close look, at the least.

GKC

 

[JonNC]

My late, fervently high and Anglo-Catholic rector, made similar observations as in your last sentence. It would require a close look, at the least.

GKC

After a thousand years, how could such an event be considered anything but the obvious movement of the Holy Spirit within the Church? And therefore, how could one resist?

Jon

 

[ltwin]

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 elophants in the room.

The undivided church collected the different books of the canons and used criteria to determine whether they were authoritative. Certainly God was directing their efforts, but it was not as simple as the apostles giving those men the authority to define the canon. There were debates and disputes over what books would go into the canon and on the authenticity of the books. God was definitely in it, but it was a very human process trying to identify which books were inspired and which ones were not. It seems there was less involvement with the Pope and more involvement with individuals proposing their own lists of the most likely candidates and over time we get closer to the list of books we have today. And these decisions are later ratified by church councils.

 

[Lochias]

The undivided church collected the different books of the canons and used criteria to determine whether they were authoritative. Certainly God was directing their efforts, but it was not as simple as the apostles giving those men the authority to define the canon. There were debates and disputes over what books would go into the canon and on the authenticity of the books. God was definitely in it, but it was a very human process trying to identify which books were inspired and which ones were not. It seems there was less involvement with the Pope and more involvement with individuals proposing their own lists of the most likely candidates and over time we get closer to the list of books we have today.

Regardless, that undivided church was the Catholic Church, headed by the Pope. The Pope was involved, and he did right by the Holy Spirit. When did he stop doing right? Can you point out to me the exact moment when the Pope’s divine inspiration, leadership and authority jumped the rails?

 

[ltwin]

Regardless, that undivided church was the Catholic Church, headed by the Pope. The Pope was involved, and he did right by the Holy Spirit. When did he stop doing right? Can you point out to me the exact moment when the Pope’s divine inspiration, leadership and authority jumped the rails?

If anything, The question is when did the Bishop of Rome emerge as the Pope as we recognize the papal institution today? The question is when did the claim to universal jurisdiction emerge?

If anything, the formation of the canon supports a conciliar view of church government, not papal authority.

 

[Lochias]

The question is when did the Bishop of Rome emerge as the Pope as we recognize the papal institution today? The question is when did the claim to universal jurisdiction emerge?

That’s been gone over many times on this website. Authority was given to Peter by Jesus. Individual trappings of office may have changed or evolved with the times, but the authority and purpose of the Pope has never changed. History of the Early Church, starting in Acts and continuing onward, shows this authority in action.

 

[ltwin]

That’s been gone over many times on this website. Authority was given to Peter by Jesus. Individual trappings of office may have changed or evolved with the times, but the authority and purpose of the Pope has never changed. History of the Early Church, starting in Acts and continuing onward, shows this authority in action.

Obviously, that argument is not persuasive for everyone.

 

[Lochias]

Obviously, that argument is not persuasive for everyone.

Objective truth is rarely to everyone’s taste. Jesus knew that, first-hand.

 

[kbwall]

Suppose, just as a thought experiment that the early Christians had been Baptists, that they determined the Canon, and that Catholicism was a later revelation that you accepted as valid… would you then reject the Canon because it wasn’t your particular branch of Christianity that came up with it? No? Well, neither would I. But in that situation, you wouldn’t necessarily think the Baptists were right about everything else and were the One True Church, would you? Neither would I.

Actually yes. In that hypothetical scenario, where Baptists were the ones to assemble the Bible and actually come straight from Apostolic succession, then I would be Baptist, and not Catholic, for the very same reasons that I am Catholic and not Baptist today.

Like the other guy said, they’re the ones that assembled the Bible and determined the doctrine of the Trinity, which means at one point, they did have complete, infallible authority. Why would this authority stop? Either they always had it, and still have it, or they don’t have it and never had it.

 

[Izdaari]

Actually yes. In that hypothetical scenario, where Baptists were the ones to assemble the Bible and actually come straight from Apostolic succession, then I would be Baptist, and not Catholic, for the very same reasons that I am Catholic and not Baptist today.

Like the other guy said, they’re the ones that assembled the Bible and determined the doctrine of the Trinity, which means at one point, they did have complete, infallible authority. Why would this authority stop? Either they always had it, and still have it, or they don’t have it and never had it.

IMO, they don’t have it and never had it… at least, not uniquely. They are a Christian church, so they do have it… to the extent that it exists to have. But so too do all other legit Christian churches.

The Canon is correct, not because any one church hierarchy held authority, but because the Holy Spirit was working in the council. The workings of the Holy Spirit may be found anywhere Christians are found.

 

[joe370]

Izdaari;9749164]IMO, they don’t have it and never had it… at least, not uniquely. They are a Christian church, so they do have it… to the extent that it exists to have. But so too do all other legit Christian churches.

So, all churches, regardless of when it was established, have the God-given authority to teach in the name of Jesus?

The Canon is correct, not because any one church hierarchy held authority, but because the Holy Spirit was working in the council.

It was not a Baptist, Lutheran, Pentecostal council etc. etc…It was a catholic council of bishops that determined the holy canon and quashed heresies (e.g. Arianism, which denied the Trinity, claiming that it wasinconsistent with the unity of God) - that cropped up time and time again.

Why trust the judgement of those catholic councils?

The workings of the Holy Spirit may be found anywhere Christians are found.

No one is denying that the Holy Spirit may be found anywhere Christians are found. The only point, which seems rather plausible, is the fact that the Holy Spirit, the spirit of truth, would never guide one body of believers to believe one thing and another body of believers to believe the exact opposite e.g. either the Eucharist is what the catholic church says it is, as per the ineffable guidance of the Holy spirit or the Eucharist is what the Baptist church says it is, via the ineffable guidance of the Holy spirit. The only other viable option to entertain is the idea that the Holy spirit no longer ineffably guides any one church anymore.

 

[joe370]

Objective truth is rarely to everyone’s taste. Jesus knew that, first-hand.

From my experience, as a former protestant, relativism is the name of the game when it comes to doctrinal truth.

 

[JonNC]

From my experience, as a former protestant, relativism is the name of the game when it comes to doctrinal truth.

Well, Joe, perhaps I reside in the last fortress (or at least one of the last) against such thinking amongst non-catholic western Christians. At least I hope so. When I see the LCMS go to women clergy, open communion even to the unbaptized, altar fellowship with communions who reject the real presence, etc., then I should and will change said residency.

Jon

 

[hieroglyph]

Great question.

As a former Protestant here is my personal experience.

Catholics were viewed as different. Everything about Catholics was different. If you spoke about anyother branch of religion other then the one who’s church you attended, they were different too.

How could Protestants accept the Popes authority when they mearly see him as different? Being Catholic was just as wrong as being Reformed, Baptist ect. Maybe wrong is a harsh word.

I personally believe that thru-out history every religion believes theirs is the only one to follow. In fairness to other religions they too may think that we as Catholics rejuect their leaders of authority.

It is so simple yet so complex.

When I was Protestant we respected the Pope, highly respected the Pope. We thought he was a wonderful leader to his people. We were also taught to respect everyones views on religion. But let me tell you, the division between the people and churches was very strong with I grew up way back in the 60’s and 70’s.

I hope this helps.

That is so true! It is seen as different and even “cultish” rather than one of the world’s top religions (which it is). I’ a former Protestant as well, and was shocked to find out by reading old literature how very Catholic all of Christendom was not so long ago.

 

[GKC]

Well, Joe, perhaps I reside in the last fortress (or at least one of the last) against such thinking amongst non-catholic western Christians. At least I hope so. When I see the LCMS go to women clergy, open communion even to the unbaptized, altar fellowship with communions who reject the real presence, etc., then I should and will change said residency.

Jon

I know the feeling.

GKC