Why do Protestants reject the Pope's authority?

[JonNC]

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?

I wish to say to you, Joe, Erich, etc., that you all do such a spendid job of professing your faith, and I sincerely thank you all for the charity you treat me with.

It is so important that it ought to be mentioned. But it seems that it is more than not mentioned, its disputed, not in a specific way, but by laying out jurisdictions. It speaks of Alexandria in the same way as Rome, as having the same kind of jurisdiction in their particular areas.

Jon

 

[GKC]

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

What he said.

GKC

 

[JonNC]

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.

Where have I said, my friend, that it says Peter is insignificant? Look back on my posts, and I think you’ll see I am not arguing, as others might, that the Roman See is insignificant. In fact, I think you’ll find that, as protestants (even other Lutherans) go, I’m pretty supportive of the Bishop of Rome. some people ask me why I just don’t become Orthodox. My response is 2 reasons: 1) I am, after all, a western Christian, 2) I submit that maybe they are wrong. I just don’t know.

But what is that authority? His peers - and yes, I believe the other patriarchs are his peers - seem to disagree with him regarding his supremacy. And for me, that is the issue - the disagreement, which leaves at this point a split authority.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;9757536]**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. **
Who was in charge of that council in Acts? Not Peter. (Now this, in and of itself, doesn’t render your argument null, but it does raise the question, was his authority seen as supreme?)
On SS, as you know, I wouldn’t subscribe to that notion of it anyway. Lutherans recognize that sola scriptura is a post-apostolic era practice.

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.

why would you think that, based on this, Peter considered his authority supreme. Paul certainly didn’t seem to think so.

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? **

Doesn’t it seem that James is in charge? Nevertheless, one doesn’t see supremacy here, and a key ingredient here here is that it is at council, not on his own.
Finally, if one must view this in light of Tradition, Nicea canon 6 doesn’t support an interpretation of scripture here as universal jurisdiction.

Jon

 

[1AugustSon7]

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

Universal Jurisdiction would seem necessary for this:

[16]
He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. [17] He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

I mean to say, that my argument would be that it would follow necessarily that Saint Peter would have/need a universal jurisdiction in order for him to fulfill this divine commandment (gentle and wholesome as that commandment’s aim most certainly is).

 

[gamewell45]

If you think about it, everyone except Catholics reject the Pope’s authority. Not just Protestants.

Very good point.

 

[SteveVH]

If you think about it, everyone except Catholics reject the Pope’s authority. Not just Protestants.

Why would that be surprising? If they accepted the Pope’s authority they would be Catholic.

 

[Porknpie]

Why would that be surprising? If they accepted the Pope’s authority they would be Catholic.

Agree. Have to look at both sides of this coin: “why reject” and “why not reject” . Catholics would argue for faith and reason. Non-Catholics would argue faith too but the reason part becomes very problematic. Some extreme churches would argue a different faith and no reason. IMHO.

 

[JonNC]

Universal Jurisdiction would seem necessary for this:

I mean to say, that my argument would be that it would follow necessarily that Saint Peter would have/need a universal jurisdiction in order for him to fulfill this divine commandment (gentle and wholesome as that commandment’s aim most certainly is).

Why? Can’t this be done as it was in the early Church? Did not all the apostles feed His sheep?

Jon

 

[Erich]

Who was in charge of that council in Acts? Not Peter. (Now this, in and of itself, doesn’t render your argument null, but it does raise the question, was his authority seen as supreme?)

Actually… In Acts 15:12, “the whole assembly fell silent” after Peter – not James – had the last word.

The NAB’s footnote to Acts 15:13-35 says the following:

Some scholars think that this apostolic decree suggested by James, the immediate leader of the Jerusalem community, derives from another historical occasion than the meeting in question. This seems to be the case if the meeting is the same as the one related in Gal 2:1-10. According to that account, nothing was imposed upon Gentile Christians in respect to Mosaic law; whereas the decree instructs Gentile Christians of mixed communities to abstain from meats sacrificed to idols and from blood-meats, and to avoid marriage within forbidden degrees of consanguinity and affinity (Lev 18), all of which practices were especially abhorrent to Jews. Luke seems to have telescoped two originally independent incidents here: the first a Jerusalem “Council” that dealt with the question of circumcision, and the second a Jerusalem decree dealing mainly with Gentile observance of dietary laws (see Acts 21:25 where Paul seems to be learning of the decree for the first time).

Origen in the beginning of the 3rd century placed the latter council in Antioch: “Wherefore, as there is some obscurity about this matter [food], without some explanation is given, it seemed good to the apostles of Jesus and the elders assembled together at Antioch, and also, as they themselves say, to the Holy Spirit, to write a letter to the Gentile believers, forbidding them to partake of those things from which alone they say it is necessary to abstain, namely, “things offered to idols, things strangled, and blood.”” [Contra Celsus 8.29]

 

[Erich]

Doesn’t it seem that James is in charge? Nevertheless, one doesn’t see supremacy here, and a key ingredient here here is that it is at council, not on his own.

Acts 15:1-11 describes a Jerusalem council that dealt with the question of circumcision. In verses 7-11, Peter spoke… and in verse 12, “the whole assembly fell silent”. In other words, debate over.

Acts 15:13-35 describes a Jerusalem decree dealing mainly with Gentile observance of dietary laws (the same one Paul describes in Galatians 2:1-10). The Apostle James renders his judgement beginning in verse 19.

In rabbinical debates to this day, all listen as one person speaks, then another in turn. Finally, when the debate is finished, those who are to judge announce their individual decisions in inverse order of rank.

That is, the junior rabbi announces his decision first, using the ritual words “It is my decision.” The next senior then announces his decision, and so on. The final decision is pronounced by the senior rabbi, after hearing the decisions of those junior to him.

For James to speak first shows he was junior to the Apostles present. For his decision to be accepted without any further pronouncements shows that his words were fully accepted by those senior to him.

James, by the way, was a Pharasee – and the issue (strict adherence to the outward trappings of the Law) was a Pharasitical issue, so his pronouncement decided the issue, since he set aside all the outward trappings.

 

[ltwin]

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 problem with that logic is that many times throughout history (especially when the papacy actually had real political power) the Catholic Church was ran like a bad dictatorship and people were mislead.

 

[jrtrent]

Acts 15:1-11 describes a Jerusalem council that dealt with the question of circumcision. In verses 7-11, Peter spoke… and in verse 12, “the whole assembly fell silent”. In other words, debate over.

No. It’s all one council. The occasion is given in verse 5, “But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”

According to verse 12, the multitude kept silence after Peter spoke because they were listening to Barnabus and Paul, who added to the information previously given by Peter. John Darby recounts the episode succinctly:

“After much discussion at Jerusalem, full liberty for which was given, Peter, taking the lead, relates the case of Cornelius. Afterwards Paul and Barnabas declare the wonderful manifestation of God through the power of the Holy Ghost which had taken place among the Gentiles. James then sums up the judgment of the assembly, which is assented to by all, that the Gentiles shall not be obliged to be circumcised, or to obey the law; but only to abstain from blood, from things strangled, from fornication, and from meat offered to idols.”

 

[SteveVH]

No. It’s all one council. The occasion is given in verse 5, “But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”

According to verse 12, the multitude kept silence after Peter spoke because they were listening to Barnabus and Paul, who added to the information previously given by Peter. John Darby recounts the episode succinctly:

“After much discussion at Jerusalem, full liberty for which was given, Peter, taking the lead, relates the case of Cornelius. Afterwards Paul and Barnabas declare the wonderful manifestation of God through the power of the Holy Ghost which had taken place among the Gentiles. James then sums up the judgment of the assembly, which is assented to by all, that the Gentiles shall not be obliged to be circumcised, or to obey the law; but only to abstain from blood, from things strangled, from fornication, and from meat offered to idols.”

The only problem is this. There was much debate until Peter spoke. Peter made a definitve statement concerning the issue in question. He stated what they believed concerning salvation of the Gentiles. Then the assembly fell silent. The controversy was over. Paul and Barnabas were not making a further agrument, they simply related what they had experienced among the Gentiles. Peter had spoken and the issue was put to rest.

 

[Nicea325]

The problem with that logic is that many times throughout history (especially when the papacy actually had real political power) the Catholic Church was ran like a bad dictatorship and people were mislead.

Bad dictatorship and mislead people? You’ve got legit primary sources supporting such a position?

 

[Nicea325]

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

But here lies an issue with opponents of the papacy. The cultural and local customs factor.

What many forget is that Jesus lived in the Eastern part of the world and culture,customs and language carried very differently than our current world. If supremacy was an issue and Jesus had a problem with it, I find it odd he never mentions a thing about Israel’s kings and Rome’s universal jurisdiction? Again, why would something so commonly believed and practiced in first century Palestine and Europe need to be mentioned repeatedly in order to get approval?

 

[SteveVH]

But here lies an issue with opponents of the papacy. What many forget is that Jesus lived in the Eastern part of the world and culture and language carried very differently than our current world. If supremacy was an issue and Jesus had a problem with it, I find it odd he never mentions a thing about Israel’s kings and Rome’s universal jurisdiction? Again, why would something so commonly believed and practiced in first century Palestine and Europe need to be mentioned repeatedly in order to get approval?

Not to mention that Peter was made the head of the universal Church, which kind of implies that his supremacy, if he had any at all, was to be universal.

 

[Radical]

But here lies an issue with opponents of the papacy. The cultural and local customs factor.

What many forget is that Jesus lived in the Eastern part of the world and culture,customs and language carried very differently than our current world. If supremacy was an issue and Jesus had a problem with it, I find it odd he never mentions a thing about Israel’s kings and Rome’s universal jurisdiction? Again, why would something so commonly believed and practiced in first century Palestine and Europe need to be mentioned repeatedly in order to get approval?

*From Matt 20:

20 Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him.

21 “What is it you want?” he asked.

She said, “Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom.”

…24 When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers. 25 Jesus called them together and said,** “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you.** Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

From Mark 10:

35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to do for us whatever we ask.”

36 “What do you want me to do for you?” he asked.

37 They replied, “Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.”

…41 When the ten heard about this, they became indignant with James and John. 42 Jesus called them together and said,** “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43 Not so with you.** Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

and from Luke 22:

35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to do for us whatever we ask.”

36 “What do you want me to do for you?” he asked.

37 They replied, “Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.”

…41 When the ten heard about this, they became indignant with James and John. 42 Jesus called them together and said,** “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43 Not so with you.** Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

From Mark 9:

33 They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, “What were you arguing about on the road?” 34 But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest.

35 Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, “Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all.”

From Luke 9:

45 But they did not understand what this meant. It was hidden from them, so that they did not grasp it, and they were afraid to ask him about it.

46 An argument started among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest. 47 Jesus, knowing their thoughts, took a little child and had him stand beside him.

and from Luke 22:

A dispute also arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them,** “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26 But you are not to be like that. *Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves.

…so then, after Peter was supposedly appointed to a supreme position, the 12 still didn’t clue in and continued to argue about who would be the greatest?..and still asked about being favored with being the right hand guy?. Christ didn’t have a problem with his own universal jurisdiction, but he made it clear that the disciples weren’t to rule in the manner of the examples that you provided and most certainly didn’t ever answer with, “Why do you keep arguing or asking about this matter?..Don’t you remember, I already made Peter supreme?”

 

[Izdaari]

Why would that be surprising? If they accepted the Pope’s authority they would be Catholic.

QFT!

If we accepted the Pope’s authority, we would be Catholic.

So, since we’re not Catholic, I would think that we don’t accept it would be normal and expected. Amen?

 

[funny4god]

Well First and for most we Protestants do not recognize the pope is because the bible never mentions anything about Jesus giving his power to a pope or Bishop. gotquestions.org/vicar-of-Christ.htm. This link will answer your question as to why? Hope this helps God Bless!!!