Why do Protestants reject the Pope's authority?

[JonNC]

From The Authority of the Pope: Part I, which covers the views of the popes and other Church Fathers up to the year A.D. 341: [T]he Church Fathers recognized that Jesus made Peter the rock on which he would build his Church, that this gave Peter a special primacy, that Peter went to Rome, and that he left successors there. … [T]hey also understood that Peter’s successors shared in his special authority or primacy.

In a wide variety of ways, the Fathers attest to the fact that the church of Rome was the central and most authoritative church. They attest to the Church’s reliance on Rome for advice, for mediation of disputes, and for guidance on doctrinal issues. They note, as Ignatius of Antioch does, that Rome “holds the presidency” among the other churches, and that, as Irenaeus explains, “because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree” with Rome. They are also clear on the fact that it is communion with Rome and the bishop of Rome that causes one to be in communion with the Catholic Church. This displays a recognition that, as Cyprian of Carthage puts it, Rome is “the principal church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source.”

Most significant are the passages below in which the popes, by their statements or their actions, reveal their understanding of their own authority in the Church, such as when Pope Clement I commanded the church of Corinth to reinstate its leadership, or when Pope Victor excommunicated the churches of Asia Minor as a group, after which the other bishops sought to change Victor’s mind but did not challenge his authority to have made the excommunication.

From The Authority of the Pope: Part II, which covers the years from A.D. 342 to A.D. 597:Council of Chalcedon

“Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, ‘We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out” (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]).

“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!’” (ibid., session 2).
Something* certainly changed between 451 AD and the Great Schism!

Well, of course a Catholic document would take this stance! I would be incredicly surprised otherwise.
Where in this is there universal jurisdiction?

Jon

 

[jrtrent]

jYou accept the authority of the church, just not the catholic church - right?

That is a very good question. I have joined an Anglican church, but the priest had told me before I was confirmed that there was scope for disagreement in some things within Anglicanism. I don’t have a problem with those things we confess in the liturgy or catechism, and there isn’t much else the church requires that we believe. But what if my views change? Suppose I decide I just can’t abide staying in a church which includes the filioque in its version of the Nicene Creed (and that does bother me some)? Do I accept the authority of the church that they’re using the proper form (and actually, I haven’t yet asked the priest if reciting/believing that phrase is mandated, so it may be a non-issue), or do I let myself be my own authority and drift to yet another denomination? Of one thing I’m certain, there’s a lot more problems within myself and my consistently living a life devoted to God than any nitpicking I could do with the church.

Was he really denying his own universal jurisdiction?

I’ll grant that the source I quoted with respect to John the Faster and Gregory the Great may be in error. I didn’t research it for myself, just stated what was in a book I’d recently read. I have found a couple of other sources for information, and will be reading those for further information. You or Nicea325 may have other sources to recommend.

saintannas.com/Articles/UniversalPatriarch.pdf

orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/guettee_thepapacy.pdf

 

[TexanKnight]

As one who isn’t Christian, I would say the problem with the pope is the idea of infallibility.

It just doesn’t make sense. No human being can be infallible.

As far as the subject of church hierachy goes, as congregationalists, we don’t believe in hierarchy of any sort. Each congregation is autonomous and decisions are made by the members of that congregation.

That is so important to us, that one of our seven principles is the support of the democratic process.

So, aside from that, I have no particular problem with the pope.

Peace,

Seeker

My understanding that the Pope is not infallible to the extent he does not sin. He is infallible as to doctrine.

 

[joe370]

Well, of course a Catholic document would take this stance! I would be incredicly surprised otherwise.
Where in this is there universal jurisdiction?

Jon

Hey Jon. Jesus seems to be telling us that the Master (Jesus) will set a steward “over his household” and “set him over all his possessions.” Who is the steward in Luke 12 in your opinion?

[41] Peter said, “Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?”
[42] And the Lord said, "Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time?
[43] Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will find so doing.
[44] Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions.

 

[JonNC]

Hey Jon. Jesus seems to be telling us that the Master (Jesus) will set a steward “over his household” and “set him over all his possessions.” Who is the steward in Luke 12 in your opinion?

[41] Peter said, “Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?”
[42] And the Lord said, "Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time?
[43] Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will find so doing.
[44] Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions.

Hi Joe,
How is that steward defined? I consider the pope a (if you want to “the”, ok) steward even now, but the details of his stewardship seems different now than what it was in the early Church. Is his stewardship to appoint all bishops? If so, when was that determined? Certainly not at Nicea.

Regardless of what Rome says, regardless of what the EO says, there’s a difference ofopinion, enough of one that we approach a schism of a thousand years. Authority, in my opinion, is not resolved until that schism is. And when it is, I will accept that resolution.
Jon

 

[joe370]

Hi Joe,
How is that steward defined? I consider the pope a (if you want to “the”, ok) steward even now, but the details of his stewardship seems different now than what it was in the early Church. Is his stewardship to appoint all bishops? If so, when was that determined? Certainly not at Nicea.

Regardless of what Rome says, regardless of what the EO says, there’s a difference ofopinion, enough of one that we approach a schism of a thousand years. Authority, in my opinion, is not resolved until that schism is. And when it is, I will accept that resolution.
Jon

So, we agree that Luke 12, regarding the steward whom Jesus sets over His household, is referring to Peter alone? I had thought, as a former non-catholic: if I connect that passage to Matthew 16, where Jesus explicitly gives one man the keys of the kingdom (the Greek is singular - denoting one man) suddenly universal jurisdiction seems more plausible. The next thing I had to ask myself was: would a schism or multiple schisms render that universal jurisdiction null and void? The answer had to be no if scripture is to be trusted:

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven…”

To me it became clear that Peter, as the steward of Jesus’ church (by the power of Jesus of course) was, and continues to be the key (no pun intended…LOL…) to the church’s success, doctrinally speaking, and if that was an accurate assessment then a schism, be it the 5th century, the 11th century or the 16th century, could never render Jesus’ church vulnerable to the gates of hell. Is that a possibility?

 

[Erich]

Well, of course a Catholic document would take this stance! I would be incredicly surprised otherwise.
Where in this is there universal jurisdiction?

Part I has 10 specific examples, and Part II has 14 specific examples, showing that the popes and the other Church Fathers recognized the unique authority of the pope, the bishop of Rome, in his role as the successor of Peter.

Per forum rules, I did not post the articles in their entirety; I posted links.

 

[Nicea325]

Council of Chalcedon

“Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, ‘We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out” (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]).

“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!’” (ibid., session 2).

Something certainly changed between 451 AD and the Great Schism!

Well, of course a Catholic document would take this stance! I would be incredicly surprised otherwise.
Where in this is there universal jurisdiction?

Jon

Blessings my friend! My dearest friend, if the council clearly says he is the head,then wouldn’t logically follow he has a primacy? Many argue the early church does not mention it,which is not true. More important, if it was an early tradition and for the most part accepted,why would it have to be constantly mentioned?

 

[KP3243]

Well, of course a Catholic document would take this stance! I would be incredicly surprised otherwise.
Where in this is there universal jurisdiction​

If Jesus told Peter in the Bible in Matthew 16:18 this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’ and the Chair of Peter still exits today I trust what Jesus says more than any group of human beings. Besides that the word Catholic comes from the Greek word καθολικός (katholikos) meaning “universal” and you can find the Church refered to as Catholic in the early Church Father’s writings while the Apostle John is still alive.

Added Bonus:
Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.

 

[joe370]

Hi Joe,
How is that steward defined? I consider the pope a (if you want to “the”, ok) steward even now
Jon

**I think Acts 15 gives us a good working example of an ecumenical council (with Peter speaking as the universal vicar of Jesus) - resolving doctrinal matter. It clearly undermines the notion that scripture alone is to be used to resolve doctrinal matters which is something you and I do not embrace:
**
15 Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.

**This, to me, clearly rules out sola scriptura, for even saint Paul, (the author of many books of the NT) did not defer to scripture alone.

**3 The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them. 5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”
Here we see the the first hint of an ecumenical council comprised of church leaders…
6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.

**Pretty bold statement for Peter to make in my humble opinion. The following would seem more befitting if in fact the Petrine office had no universal authority:

Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from the church, or from the council, the message of the gospel and believe.

Peter seems to be speaking, with universal authority, as the voice of the ecumenical council, regarding the universal church…Peter settles the matter, and James stands up and addresses a completely different issue: the Noahide laws. **

God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up.

**Next, we see James changing the topic, speaking about the easement of tensions between the Jews and the gentiles, rather than the issue of circumcision which was the purpose of Paul’s visit.
**
“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

**Next we see the council’s letter to gentile believers…As a former sola scriptura advocate I had always thought it was strange that Paul hadn’t simply defered to scripture alone, or recommended that they defer to scripture alone, or better yet, his own judgement and authority.
**
22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. 23 With them they sent the following letter…

**Instead, Paul defers to a council, with Peter authoritatively speaking on behalf of both Jew and gentile i.e. the universal church (…Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe) and James speaking regarding a separate matter. James simply does not seem to be addressing the doctrinal issue (circumcision) brought forth by Paul and Barnabas, but rather about whether the Gentiles should obey the Noahide code, which led to me to believe that Peter had already definitively settled the matter prior to James speaking. Your thoughts? **

 

[joe370]

Blessings my friend! My dearest friend, if the council clearly says he is the head,then wouldn’t logically follow he has a primacy? Many argue the early church does not mention it,which is not true. More important, if it was an early tradition and for the most part accepted,why would it have to be constantly mentioned?

“Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, ‘We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out” (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]).

“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!’” (ibid., session 2).

Certainly a schism would not invalidate the preceding. The function of the Petrine office is to guide Jesus’ church, doctrinally speaking, and protect His church from the gates of hell i.e. schismatic movements that lead the flock away from Jesus’ church, and Petrine office derives its power and efficacy from Jesus alone.

 

[joe370]

Well, of course a Catholic document would take this stance! I would be incredicly surprised otherwise.
Where in this is there universal jurisdiction​

If Jesus told Peter in the Bible in Matthew 16:18 this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’ and the Chair of Peter still exits today I trust what Jesus says more than any group of human beings.

 

[Nicea325]

“Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, ‘We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out” (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]).

“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!’” (ibid., session 2).

Certainly a schism would not invalidate the preceding. The function of the Petrine office is to guide Jesus’ church, doctrinally speaking, and protect His church from the gates of hell i.e. schismatic movements that lead the flock away from Jesus’ church.

Indeed. I just do not understand how countless of writings confirm Peter’s headship and the Bishop of Rome over the centuries are either denied or rejected?

 

[joe370]

Indeed. I just do not understand how countless of writings confirm Peter’s headship and the Bishop of Rome over the centuries are either denied or rejected?

It was those very writings that helped me believe, along with scripture of course.

 

[Nicea325]

It was those very writings that helped me believe, along with scripture of course.

Unfortunately many will still deny it or flat out reject them a legit. My question is this:

If the primacy of the Bishop of Rome was an innovation,then where are the writings supporting the “other” tradition which obviously would supersede the CC position?

 

[Izdaari]

Although many Protestants apply St. Paul’s words, “rightly divide the word of truth,” to themselves, in fact, these words were written to St. Timothy specifically, not to the congregation in general.

Maybe so. What I wrote there was not from Paul, but from Ayn Rand.

 

[KP3243]

I wont go as far as saying that to have a Pope is wrong because that be too much especially when as has been said all religions have some kind of nominated person figurehead.

I think its the idea of absolute authority? His word goes, for all Catholics. If you don’t like the rules then you can leave. Good Catholic Priests would be able to educate their parishioners so that they do like the rule? But is that healthy too?

That to me is roboticness and ignoring that we are all unique individuals. So its not the role of the Pope I don’t object to but the style of how the role is carried out - its as good as backdoor dictatorship because you not allowed to think for yourselves. You have got to agree to it each and every point.

I prefer to be able to seek guidence from a Priest when I am struggling and they help to work a way through and not just be told I should think xyz. And yes I listen to the sermons and struggle with the challenging bits at times but work through it in my own time but not necessarily agreeing.

You should have absolutely no problems with the Pope considering Jesus himself establishes the office himself. It is only the traditions of man that have led people astray and that have confused very good people and very devout Christians. The Pope doesn’t have absolute authority, Jesus still does. It sounds like you view the Chair of Peter like it is a dictatorship comparable to Stalin. Through the Holy Spirit, which Jesus gave to his Church at Pentacost Jesus has guided and led his Church. Do you really think Jesus would allow his Church to be run like a bad dictatorship and allow it to mislead people?

The Church stands for the truth that is why the doctrine hasn’t changed in 2000 years and the Church Jesus established has outlasted the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Dark Ages, the British Empire and two World Wars. It doesn’t need free thinkers it needs to continue to give people the truth! We are not individuals we are one body!!!

 

[KP3243]

…

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;9757205]

So, we agree that Luke 12, regarding the steward whom Jesus sets over His household, is referring to Peter alone?

I on’t go as far as to say “alone”. Jesus also tells the disciples to avoid a “pecking order”.

I had thought, as a former non-catholic: if I connect that passage to Matthew 16, where Jesus explicitly gives one man the keys of the kingdom (the Greek is singular - denoting one man) suddenly universal jurisdiction seems more plausible. The next thing I had to ask myself was: would a schism or multiple schisms render that universal jurisdiction null and void? The answer had to be no if scripture is to be trusted:

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven…”

Even if it is “more plausible”, the fact is that Nicea canon 6, nor any of the other councils states this to be the case. In fact, it speaks of the other sees in the same way.

To me it became clear that Peter, as the steward of Jesus’ church (by the power of Jesus of course) was, and continues to be the key (no pun intended…LOL…) to the church’s success, doctrinally speaking, and if that was an accurate assessment then a schism, be it the 5th century, the 11th century or the 16th century, could never render Jesus’ church vulnerable to the gates of hell. Is that a possibility?

I can see Peter as having a primacy, but no council in the early Church grants him universal jurisdiction (I’m intentionally ignoring infallibility ex cathedra, as that’s just a whole other issue).
As for the gates of Hell prevailing, we’ve discussed this before. This cannot happen, not simply because of St. Peter’s standing, however it is viewed, but because of Christ. The gates of Hell cannot prevail against the Church because of Christ, and the Church includes the Church triumphant, and if you wish, the Church Suffering.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Part I has 10 specific examples, and Part II has 14 specific examples, showing that the popes and the other Church Fathers recognized the unique authority of the pope, the bishop of Rome, in his role as the successor of Peter.

Per forum rules, I did not post the articles in their entirety; I posted links.

I recognize the unique role of the pope, Erich. I’m just saying that that unique role did not, in the early Church, include universal jurisdiction. It was a primacy, not a supremacy.

Jon