Why do Protestants reject the Pope's authority?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kbwall
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As far as I am concerned Jesus says clearly “whatever you bind on earth…” Unless we think Jesus meant only one side of the earth (say in this case West jurisdiction), he would say to Peter “whatever you bind on the area you eventually reside in”.

But Earth is in its entirety hence Universal.

MJ
 
I think that every church needs a leader (pastor,president,elder, etc…)but not a Vicar of Christ and that’s precisely why we don’t have one, tThe term “vicar” comes from the Latin word vicarius, which means “instead of.” In the Catholic Church, the vicar is the representative of a higher-ranking official, with all of the same authority and power that that official has. Calling the pope the “Vicar of Christ” implies that he has the same power and authority that Christ had over the church. The title is derived from Jesus’ words in John 21:16-17 to Peter, “Feed my lambs . . . Take care of my sheep.” This, according to Catholic reasoning, defines Peter as the Prince of the Apostles, the first pope, and fulfills the words of Jesus in Matthew 16:18-19 (calling Peter the rock upon which Jesus will build His church).

For a better understanding of whether or not it is biblical to consider that a mere man is the representative of Christ, we turn to the pages of Scripture to find out what it says about Jesus’ role in our lives, when He walked the earth and what He continues to do right now. The letter to the Hebrews draws the comparison between Jesus and the high priest Melchizedek (Genesis chapter 14) and contrasts this with the old Levitical priesthood. The question posed is, if perfection could be obtained by following the law, why was another priest to come (Hebrews 7:11)?

The writer says, “For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of power of an indestructible life. For it is declared ‘You are a high priest forever in the order of Melchizedek.’ The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God” (Hebrews 7:14-19).

This makes Jesus superior to the priests, and more importantly, the high priests. This is the key text: “Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, He has a permanent priesthood. Therefore, He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them” (Hebrews 7:23-25).

This means that Jesus is our high priest forever. Since He is “holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, [and] exalted above the heavens” (Hebrews 7:26), He is unlike other priests in that He “does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for His own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once and for all when He offered Himself” (Hebrews 7:27). Men are appointed by the Law, and men are weak. But the Son was appointed by the New Covenant, and He has been made perfect forever (Hebrews 7:28). The ministry of Jesus is superior to the old, and it is founded on better promises (Hebrews 8:6).

The Bible says of Jesus that there is no other name by which men can be saved (Acts 4:12). There is only one mediator between God and men, and that is Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5). We can now see that there is no biblical foundation for claiming to be a representative of Christ on earth. No man could do what Christ has done, or what Christ is now doing on behalf of humankind. But the title of vicar also carries with it another implication: the bearer has the same jurisdictional power of the official he represents. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus Christ is the one who says He will build His church; He never delegates this power. By claiming the title of Vicar of Christ, the reigning pope is, in fact, promising to do what Christ promised.

Jesus does indeed predict a “vicar” in the sense of a “replacement” for His physical presence here on earth. However, this “vicar of Christ” is not a priest, high priest, bishop, or pope. The only biblical “Vicar of Christ” is the Holy Spirit. John 14:26 declares, “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” John 14:16-18 proclaims, “And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor to be with you forever — the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept Him, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. But you know Him, for He lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.” The Holy Spirit is Christ’s “replacement” on the earth. The Holy Spirit is our Counselor, Teacher (John 14:26), and guide into all truth (John 16:13).

In claiming that the pope is the “Vicar of Christ,” the Catholic Church rejects the sufficiency and supremacy of Christ’s priesthood, and grants to the pope roles that Christ Himself declared would belong to the Holy Spirit. It is therefore blasphemy to ascribe to the pope the title of “Vicar of Christ.”
God bless
 
I think that every church needs a leader (pastor,president,elder, etc…)but not a Vicar of Christ and that’s precisely why we don’t have one, tThe term “vicar” comes from the Latin word vicarius, which means “instead of.” In the Catholic Church, the vicar is the representative of a higher-ranking official, with all of the same authority and power that that official has. Calling the pope the “Vicar of Christ” implies that he has the same power and authority that Christ had over the church. The title is derived from Jesus’ words in John 21:16-17 to Peter, “Feed my lambs . . . Take care of my sheep.” This, according to Catholic reasoning, defines Peter as the Prince of the Apostles, the first pope, and fulfills the words of Jesus in Matthew 16:18-19 (calling Peter the rock upon which Jesus will build His church).

For a better understanding of whether or not it is biblical to consider that a mere man is the representative of Christ, we turn to the pages of Scripture to find out what it says about Jesus’ role in our lives, when He walked the earth and what He continues to do right now. The letter to the Hebrews draws the comparison between Jesus and the high priest Melchizedek (Genesis chapter 14) and contrasts this with the old Levitical priesthood. The question posed is, if perfection could be obtained by following the law, why was another priest to come (Hebrews 7:11)?

The writer says, “For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of power of an indestructible life. For it is declared ‘You are a high priest forever in the order of Melchizedek.’ The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God” (Hebrews 7:14-19).

This makes Jesus superior to the priests, and more importantly, the high priests. This is the key text: “Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, He has a permanent priesthood. Therefore, He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them” (Hebrews 7:23-25).

This means that Jesus is our high priest forever. Since He is “holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, [and] exalted above the heavens” (Hebrews 7:26), He is unlike other priests in that He “does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for His own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once and for all when He offered Himself” (Hebrews 7:27). Men are appointed by the Law, and men are weak. But the Son was appointed by the New Covenant, and He has been made perfect forever (Hebrews 7:28). The ministry of Jesus is superior to the old, and it is founded on better promises (Hebrews 8:6).

The Bible says of Jesus that there is no other name by which men can be saved (Acts 4:12). There is only one mediator between God and men, and that is Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5). We can now see that there is no biblical foundation for claiming to be a representative of Christ on earth. No man could do what Christ has done, or what Christ is now doing on behalf of humankind. But the title of vicar also carries with it another implication: the bearer has the same jurisdictional power of the official he represents. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus Christ is the one who says He will build His church; He never delegates this power. By claiming the title of Vicar of Christ, the reigning pope is, in fact, promising to do what Christ promised.

Jesus does indeed predict a “vicar” in the sense of a “replacement” for His physical presence here on earth. However, this “vicar of Christ” is not a priest, high priest, bishop, or pope. The only biblical “Vicar of Christ” is the Holy Spirit. John 14:26 declares, “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” John 14:16-18 proclaims, “And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor to be with you forever — the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept Him, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. But you know Him, for He lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.” The Holy Spirit is Christ’s “replacement” on the earth. The Holy Spirit is our Counselor, Teacher (John 14:26), and guide into all truth (John 16:13).

In claiming that the pope is the “Vicar of Christ,” the Catholic Church rejects the sufficiency and supremacy of Christ’s priesthood, and grants to the pope roles that Christ Himself declared would belong to the Holy Spirit. It is therefore blasphemy to ascribe to the pope the title of “Vicar of Christ.”
God bless
Dear funny4god, you are not allowed to cut paste. How about you give your own opinion with references. Gotquestions is “supremely” anti-Catholic.

MJ
 
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
Hi Jon!

I always hear people say that there was no evidence of papal supremacy and papal infallibility in the early Church. I will quote a Bishop Church Father to disprove this claim. I will quote only one quote to disprove both of those claims. I have quoted this patristic writing before and have never received an answer. In fact, no one has ever addressed it on here whenever I present the quote.

Here it is:

“This most holy See has preserved the supremacy over all Churches on the earth, for one especial reason among many others; to wit, that **it has remained intact **from the defilement of heresy. No one has ever sat on that Chair, who has taught heretical doctrine; rather that See has ever preserved unstained the Apostolic grace.” --Theodoret (Eastern Father) Epistle 116 to Renatus.

Another translation puts it like this:

“Wherefore, I beseech your sanctity, persuade the very sacred and holy archbishop to bid me hasten to your council. For that holy see has precedence over all churches in the world, for many reasons; and above all for this, that it is free from all taint of heresy, and that no bishop of heterodox opinion has ever sat upon its throne, but it has kept the grace of the apostles undefiled. Confident in your justice I shall accept your decisions, whatever they may be, and shall claim to be judged by my writings.”

Source: Translated by Blomfield Jackson. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 3. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1892.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2707116.htm.

Blessings!
 
If you think about it, everyone except Catholics reject the Pope’s authority. Not just Protestants.
Very good point.
And how many rejected Christ’s authority when He came to earth and preached?

How many rejected the Apostles’ authority when they went out and preached?

Also, almost everyone except the Catholic Church believe contraception is permissible and not a sin. All that proves is that the Catholic Church can be right about a teaching even when almost everyone else is against that teaching.
 
And how many rejected Christ’s authority when He came to earth and preached?

How many rejected the Apostles’ authority when they went out and preached?

Also, almost everyone except the Catholic Church believe contraception is permissible and not a sin. All that proves is that the Catholic Church can be right about a teaching even when almost everyone else is against that teaching.
And how did the Prophets fair in the OT?

Oh… mankind just decided to make that an exusable evil. The Objective Truth is the truth regardless who believes it.
 
Who was in charge of that council in Acts? Not Peter.

Doesn’t it seem that James is in charge?

Jon
“If anyone should say ‘Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?’ I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that See but of the world.”

-St John Chrysostom (Homily 88 on Gospel of John)
 
Bad dictatorship and mislead people? You’ve got legit primary sources supporting such a position?
Read Desiderius Erasmus’ Praise of Folly, 1515. He gives a scathing critique of not only the papacy but all sectors of the medieval society. In any case, he brings up a lot of places where the shepherd’s of Christ’s flock are too caught up in buying their office, political affairs at the neglect of their religious office, gathering wealth, and advocating war.
 
Just replying to the OP, I think Protestants reject the Pope’s authority because they do not detect it in Scripture. The more advanced, magisterial Protestants also reject the Papacy because they think it cannot be found in history.

Not being a Protestant, I dare not speak for them: great is the danger of slander and falsehood from such speculation. Let us look at their own words; for example, I think many will agree that this is a genuine example of a Protestant thread, on an Anglican forum:

forums.anglican.net/threads/saint-cyprian-the-anglican.342/

The poster here explains the meaning derived from quoting St. Cyprian of Carthage (and later St. Basil the Great): forums.anglican.net/threads/saint-cyprian-the-anglican.342/#post-5260
 
I always hear people say that there was no evidence of papal supremacy and papal infallibility in the early Church. I will quote a Bishop Church Father to disprove this claim. I will quote only one quote to disprove both of those claims. I have quoted this patristic writing before and have never received an answer. In fact, no one has ever addressed it on here whenever I present the quote.
At the time of this letter, Theodoret had been deposed as bishop and condemned as an enemy of God for his support of Nestorius (a support he later retracted), and he wrote letters of appeal to several bishops, not just the one at Rome. You note that the source was a translation by Blomfield Jackson. If you read the history of Theodoret written by Jackson, you will see that he addresses the use of Theodoret’s appeal to the Pope as showing an Eastern acknowlegement of papal supremacy, and concludes that such a use is unwarranted. Of course, I believe Jackson was an Anglican, so you may find his arguments and conclusions to have a bias.
 
Just crunching the numbers here.

Catholic: 1.2 billion
Orthodox: 230 million
Protestant: 800 million

On paper around 54% of all Christians do not reject the authority of the Pope.
On paper around 46% of all Christians do reject (at some level) the authority of the Pope
So (on paper) the majority of all Christians do not reject the authority of the Pope.
 
Read Desiderius Erasmus’ Praise of Folly, 1515. He gives a scathing critique of not only the papacy but all sectors of the medieval society. In any case, he brings up a lot of places where the shepherd’s of Christ’s flock are too caught up in buying their office, political affairs at the neglect of their religious office, gathering wealth, and advocating war.
So your answer, if you had lived back then, regarding certain members of Christ’s flock, (not just limited to the 16th century by the way) being too caught up in political affairs, buying their office and then neglecting it, all the while gathering wealth, and advocating war - would be:

Leave the catholic church?

If that is correct then any advice for that person in 1515 AD who would take your advice, if you had lived back then, as far as his next move, now that he has, hypothetically left the catholic church?

Perhaps starting his own church, in your opinion, is a viable solution?
 
Read Desiderius Erasmus’ Praise of Folly, 1515. He gives a scathing critique of not only the papacy but all sectors of the medieval society. In any case, he brings up a lot of places where the shepherd’s of Christ’s flock are too caught up in buying their office, political affairs at the neglect of their religious office, gathering wealth, and advocating war.
We had a few Popes guilty of some serious sin. The current Pope still is a sinner. So am I. How about you? However, on faith and morals, the church teaches infallibly, protected by Jesus til the end of time. Contraception is a good example:

Catholics - always has been immoral
Many non-Catholics - immoral until 1930 than suddenly “moral”

This is despite the pill … is an abortifacient in it’s third way of preventing pregnancy.

From Merriem-Webster: “Abortifacient” an agent (as a drug) that induces abortion. :mad:

Does your church allow for contraception? If so, by what tradition & authority?
 
JonNC;9761317]I on’t go as far as to say “alone”. Jesus also tells the disciples to avoid a “pecking order”.
A pecking order, which is a colloquial term for a hierarchical system, does not apply to Peter alone? I agree. :)I was just talking about the church being built on Cephas, as well as Cephas and the keys which he received from Jesus. Were those metaphorical keys to be passed on, from Cephas, to a successor who would then do the same with the idea of that succession of authority continuing until Jesus’ return? If Jesus’ church, as Jesus said, is in fact built on Cephas (which includes Simon’s profession) shouldn’t everyone want to belong to that church, regardless of the century or the sins committed within that church? After all Jesus reminds us that it is that specific church that will never be overcome by the gates of hell.

Continued…
 
Just crunching the numbers here.

Catholic: 1.2 billion
Orthodox: 230 million
Protestant: 800 million

On paper around 54% of all Christians do not reject the authority of the Pope.
On paper around 46% of all Christians do reject (at some level) the authority of the Pope
So (on paper) the majority of all Christians do not reject the authority of the Pope.
the numbers are of interest…but yours need some work.

first, I expect the 1.2 billion figure for Catholics is inflated…for example it may count all those baptized into the CC in latin america…even though many of those have left the CC for protestantism (and of course do not accept the authority of the Pope)

second, if you look at a study such as this one , then you will note that only 89% of Catholics accept that the Pope is the divinely appointed successor of Peter…as such, even if you ignored the first problem of an inflated figure for the CC, you should still move about 11% of Catholics to the rejecting side to get:

accepting Catholics: 1,068 million

rejecting Catholics: 132 million
Orthodox: 230 million
Protestant: 800 million

…and the majority is not what you said it is.
 
Why? Can’t this be done as it was in the early Church? Did not all the apostles feed His sheep?

Jon
The early Church did not have the authoirty to do away with any divinely granted perogative(s); that would seem to constitute an abuse. It was not the Church that said to Saint Peter: “Feed my lambs,” etc., but it was Christ our Lord Who did.

Further, it seems to me that the Apostles were generally taken as an exception to the rule for the sake of the universal promulgation of the Gospel, themselves also having special perogatives granted to them by the Lord for the Gospel’s sake, which special perogatives did not necessarily pass on to their successors the bishops.
 
*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?”
A Catholic commentary on John 21:17:
Commentary on John 21:17:
[17] Feed my sheep: Our Lord had promised the spiritual supremacy to St. Peter; St. Matt. 16. 19; and here he fulfils that promise, by charging him with the superintendency of all his sheep, without exception; and consequently of his whole flock, that is, of his own church.
(Emphasis mine.)

That exact nature or determinate form of the original promise [of “the supremacy”] may still have been obscure for the Apostles generally, even for Saint Peter himself, until this point.
 
the numbers are of interest…but yours need some work.

first, I expect the 1.2 billion figure for Catholics is inflated…for example it may count all those baptized into the CC in latin america…even though many of those have left the CC for protestantism (and of course do not accept the authority of the Pope)

second, if you look at a study such as this one , then you will note that only 89% of Catholics accept that the Pope is the divinely appointed successor of Peter…as such, even if you ignored the first problem of an inflated figure for the CC, you should still move about 11% of Catholics to the rejecting side to get:

accepting Catholics: 1,068 million

rejecting Catholics: 132 million
Orthodox: 230 million
Protestant: 800 million

…and the majority is not what you said it is.
These numbers -]are/-] *seem *dated. According to the CIA World Factbook, concerning the religion(s) of **the entire **human population:
World Factbook:
Christian 33.35% (of which Roman Catholic 16.83%, Protestant 6.08%, Orthodox 4.03%, Anglican 1.26%)
I.e., 33.35% of the world’s population is Christian. 16.83% of **the world’s **population is Catholic. Protestants, Orthodox and Anglicans combined form 11.37% (of **the world’s **population). So even if “only” 89% of Catholics formally acknowledge the Pope’s supremacy (reducing the number to around 15%), it still constitutes a majority of Christians with room to breathe (yes, even in Latin America)- not that this at all matters even in the slightest or is the least bit relevant.

Source: cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html
 
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.
No Catholic is going to deny, there were a few bad popes a long time ago and it isn’t run like a dictatorship today and for most of it’s history it wasn’t run like a dictatorship. The College of Cardinals was created in a direct response to the abuse of power so that the Chair of Peter wouldn’t be abused by Italian principlaities at war with one another. No one should want the job of Peter’s successor. If you read Pope Bendict’s brother’s new book, the current Pope prayed really hard to God after the first ballots were cast and pleaded with God not to chose him.

Anyways, the more important thing to remember is the doctrine of the Catholic Church has never failed because it is both divinely inspired and protected from being wrong. Whenever the Church needs to be humbled or cleaned out God humbles us and cleans it out and He as numerous times.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top