Why do Protestants reject the Pope's authority?

[joe370]

Yes.

Jon

Here are a few quotes from leaders in the east (Constantinople):

AD 387 - John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople; his language is strong and when he uses the words whole world, obviously he cannot be referring to non-believers outside the universal church. It seems like a bit of hyperbole to express the importance of the Peter’s place in the church:

"(Peter), the foundation of the Church, the Coryphaeus of the choir of the Apostles, the vehement lover of Christ …he who ran throughout the whole world, who fished the whole world; this holy Coryphaeus of the blessed choir; the ardent disciple, who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, who received the spiritual revelation. **Peter, the mouth of all Apostles, the head of that company, the ruler of the whole world. **

In those days Peter rose up in the midst of the disciples (Acts 15), both as being ardent, and as intrusted by Christ with the flock …he first acts with authority in the matter, as having all put into his hands; for to him Christ said, 'And thou, being converted, confirm thy brethren.
He passed over his fall, and appointed him first of the Apostles; wherefore He said: ’ ‘Simon, Simon,’ etc. (in Ps. cxxix. 2). God allowed him to fall, because He meant to make him ruler over the whole world, that, remembering his own fall, he might forgive those who should slip in the future. And that what I have said is no guess, listen to Christ Himself saying: ‘Simon, Simon, etc.’

And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproaches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren …and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, ‘How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,’** this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world.** (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)

AD 430 - John Cassian:

That great man, the disciple of disciples, that master among masters, who wielding the government of the Roman Church possessed the principle authority in faith and in priesthood. Tell us, therefore, we beg of you, Peter, prince of Apostles, tell us how the Churches must believe in God (Cassian, Contra Nestorium, III, 12, CSEL, vol. 17, p. 276).

5th century AD: Macedonius, Patriarch of Constantinople:

Macedonius declared, when desired by the Emperor Anastasius to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, **that such a step without an Ecumenical Synod presided over by the Pope of Rome is impossible.’ (**Macedonius, Patr. Graec. 108: 360a (Theophan. Chronogr. pp. 234-346 seq.)

 

[CaptFun]

Why do Protestants reject the Pope’s authority?

I don’t know, but for fun I may hire someone to yell this out in a quiet moment at the ballgame! :dancing::extrahappy:kpeople:

 

[gordonh]

Another interesting question… I sometimes go to All Saints Anglican Church in the Brisbane City and they are what are referred to as High Church of England (Oxford Movement). The Mass is from the Anglican Missal and in the intercession for the Church they always say “Our Bishop Benedict” so not all outside of the Roman Catholic Church reject the Pope.

 

[GKC]

Another interesting question… I sometimes go to All Saints Anglican Church in the Brisbane City and they are what are referred to as High Church of England (Oxford Movement). The Mass is from the Anglican Missal and in the intercession for the Church they always say “Our Bishop Benedict” so not all outside of the Roman Catholic Church reject the Pope.

Our late rector would routinely include both the Pope and the Greek Orthodox Patriarch, in the prayers for faithful bishops in the Mass.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[pismopal]

“…I did not want a pope…now I have a hundred…” Martin Luther

 

[joe370]

“…I did not want a pope…now I have a hundred…” Martin Luther

Everyone who starts and heads their own church, and claims to teach truth ( IOW, claiming to teach infallibly) is in fact acting in the same capacity as the Pope. The common rejoinder from folks who start their own churches is: we don’t claim to teach infallibly, to which I ask, so you claim to teach fallibly aka untruths?

No answer…

Infallible = truth

Fallible = untruth

 

[joe370]

Our late rector would routinely include both the Pope and the Greek Orthodox Patriarch, in the prayers for faithful bishops in the Mass.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

That’s cool.

 

[GKC]

That’s cool.

I thought so too.

GKC

 

[joe370]

CaptFun;9765950]Why do Protestants reject the Pope’s authority?

Because almost all (with the exception of a few) believe that the bible alone is the Christians only authority, not any one man. Ironically, this idea gives each and every sola scriptura advocate, be it a man or woman, the final say so (authority) in the matter. It is impossible to deny for the simple fact that the holy bible is not self-interpretive. It requires an actual human…

 

[CaptFun]

Because almost all (with the exception of a few) believe that the bible alone is the Christians only authority, not any one man. Ironically, this idea gives each and every sola scriptura advocate, be it a man or woman, the final say so (authority) in the matter. It is impossible to deny for the simple fact that the holy bible is not self-interpretive. It requires an actual human…

That pretty much sums up the title of the thread.

Interestingly this Sunday’s Gospel is the Mark 8:27-35 version of Peter’s proclamation that Jesus is the Christ. In this one, Jesus’ promise of the keys to Peter is left out whereas the otherwise similar section says:

Matt 16:17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.

18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

In both though, Peter showed he was not ready to take office just yet, as he “rebukes” or pulls Jesus aside and “remonstrates” with Him over His Masters’ prediction of His own crucifixion.

Even though Jesus seems to call Peter “Satan” (or was he addressing Satan, whom he perceived was tempting Peter to tempt Jesus from the cross?); He later singles out Peter and tells him to “Feed His Sheep” three times.

Jesus does not commission a Bible (alone or otherwise) and in fact the entire New Testament was written after Jesus Ascended back to heaven.

The Pope’s authority is also a gift of God for the unity Jesus Himself prayed for (for His Church). Throughout the Old Testament God used ONE leader or prophet at a time to lead his people on Earth.

Your point about the Bible not being self-interpreting is well taken.

 

[gordonh]

Our late rector would routinely include both the Pope and the Greek Orthodox Patriarch, in the prayers for faithful bishops in the Mass.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

I think I would have got on really well with your late rector.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Throughout the Old Testament God used ONE leader or prophet at a time to lead his people on Earth.

CaptFun–Could you go through all of Israel’s history and give examples of this “one leader or prophet at a time” idea, please?

 

[GKC]

I think I would have got on really well with your late rector.

Most of the parish did.

How about a sung Angelus after Mass?

GKC

 

[Radical]

These numbers -]are/-] *seem *dated. According to the CIA World Factbook, concerning the religion(s) of **the entire **human population:
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)…

if you added up your numbers you would realize the mistake that you made….namely that these type of charts usually include 5-6% that are labelled independent Christians….and they would fall into the rejecting Papal authority group. Do the math this way: 33.35% Christian. In there is 16.83% Catholic leaving 16.52% non-Catholic Christian. Reduce the Catholic by 11% (of 16.83) and add that number to the non-Catholics and we get 15% accepting and 18.35% rejecting.

…- not that this at all matters even in the slightest or is the least bit relevant.

you are right that percentage of adherents amongst all Christians does not determine the truth of a matter, but you are wrong as to relevance. The facts are relevant to an argument commonly seen on these threads. That argument is:

a) As per John 17:23 Christ desired unity for all who would believe in Christ through the apostles’ message

b) w/o an authority in place to define all doctrine, believer’s would be left with their subjective opinions to define the doctrine/interpreting scripture

c) with subjective opinions defining doctrine/interpreting scripture the inevitable result is numerous divisions (see the numerous protestant denominations as proof)

d) therefore, Christ for the sake of and to enable unity, established the needed authority(being the magisterium of the CC centered on the Papacy)

That is one way to look at it, but the percentages that we were considering yield this:

A) As per John 17:23 Christ desired unity for all who would believe in Christ through the apostles’ message(please note that it is unity for all those who believe in Christ)

B) an infallible teaching authority (ITA) could be the means of achieving the unity Christ prayed for.

C) an ITA could only effectively serve as the means of achieving unity if it was established by Christ in an irrefutable manner, otherwise the truth as to the identity of the ITA becomes subjective …and Christ would have known of this need and would have acted to fulfill it

D) conservative Catholics recognize the Catholic magisterium as being that ITA and, in contrast, more than half of all believers in Christ do not recognize the magisterium of the CC as the ITA establishing that the ITA was not established in an irrefutable manner (please note that this point would still be established if the rejecting percentage was only 40%); and

E) therefore, an ITA centered on the Papacy was not the means that Christ employed to achieve the unity among all believers.

It seems to me that Catholics around here want to be certain about the points of their faith. The CC, b/c of its claimed infallible teaching authority, allows that desired certainty. Unfortunately, the claimed teaching authority that eliminates uncertainty was not established in a manner that is w/o uncertainty (for Christians as a whole). We therefore have an uncertain identification of the purported instrument of certainty.

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.

…and it is still obscure today for more than half of all Christians….errr make it that the original “promise of supremacy” is not even seen by more than half of all Christians. Think about what you are asking me to believe. Christ is supposed to have appointed Peter the supreme leader. That leadership is supposed to have transferred to the bishop of the city where Peter died and then remained with that city’s bishop notwithstanding the location of the death of any successor…as opposed to transferring back to the bishop of the city where Christ died (for instance). Assuming I accept the obscure establishment of that authority and assuming that I accept that irregular method of transferring authority, we still have the problem that the scholarly consensus is that the Church of Rome was led by a group of overseers (and not a single bishop) well into the second century. So what happened then? Did we have a group of Popes leading the Roman Church? This whole claim of authority is critical to the Christian faith….past Popes have taught that its acceptance is necessary for salvation. So how come didn’t Christ teach such an important thing in a less obscure manner?….in a way that could be easily and clearly recorded in the gospels so as to prevent the uncertainty that has arisen among non-Catholic Christians. Look at all the things of lesser importance that are recorded. What gives? A quite reasonable conclusion would be that the promise of supremacy was never actually made by Christ and that to read between the lines of the gospels to find such a promise is simply wrong

 

[CaptFun]

CaptFun–Could you go through all of Israel’s history and give examples of this “one leader or prophet at a time” idea, please?

I talked in Bible class. Now I got an assignment.

Probably the most interesting detail concerning God’s hand in an Old Testament (and then a New Testament) hierarchy comes from Jesus’ own lips when he references the*** “Chair of Moses”.***

Matthew 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples,

2 saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their*** seat on the chair of Moses.***

3 Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.

4 They tie up heavy burdens 3 (hard to carry) and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them.

5 All their works are performed to be seen. They widen their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels.

6 They love places of honor at banquets, seats of honor in synagogues, 7 greetings in marketplaces, and the salutation ‘Rabbi.’ 8 As for you, do not be called ‘Rabbi.’ You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers.

9 Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven.

10 Do not be called ‘Master’; you have but one master, the Messiah.

11 The greatest among you must be your servant.

12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled; but whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

13 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites.*** You lock the kingdom of heaven before human beings***. You do not enter yourselves, nor do you allow entrance to those trying to enter.

This “Chair of Moses” is a bit like a Pope speaking “Ex-Cathedra” (“from the chair”) and in this case in concert with his Bishops or a Council (Scribes and Pharisees are plural, but the chair is ONE).

Keys are mentioned too - and Jesus is critical of the keyholders. He promised to give the keys to Peter when He found out His Father had revealed to Peter His true identity.

Jesus gives instructions to his apostles not to get big headed or desire worldly honors
but rather to be servants. This is why Popes sign documents as “Servant of the Servants of God.”

Especially spiritual leaders are not to imagine they take God’s own place even when they are his deputies. Hence “call no one on earth your father” means “don’t put any human being in God’s place.” To his apostles this might have been a distinction regarding the Pharisees and Scribes whose authority Jesus had temporarily affirmed despite being critical of their stewardship.

As for the word “father” it is nonetheless used about 300 times in just the four Gospels alone (written after Jesus had uttered the above, died, rose, ascended and sent the Holy Spirit). While not equating anyone with God as Father, Abraham is so called in New Testament scripture in a very interesting passage of James.

James 2:20 Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?

21 Was not Abraham** our father **justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?

22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works.

23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called “the friend of God.”

24 See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

To sum up, most always there is a unitive leader. God does not choose competing prophets at the same time to confuse people. He makes distinctions between God-sent prophets and false prophets who speak on their own without being sent.

To the outside world Christianity can look like a tower of Babel. But the ONE voice of the Church through its established teachings, dogmas, and its ONE Pope (capable of speaking with authority and truth to unify) can quell the confusion.

Before there even was an Israel:

Sometimes the one in charge is the name of the book - Daniel, Jeremiah, Isaiah, or the prophet sent to Kings like Elijah was sent to King Ahab (there were many false prophets but Elijah was God’s). In Elijah’s case he ended up with a successor, Elisha. Elisha didn’t come into his power until Elijah was gone.

There were the Patriarchs like Noah and there was Abraham then Isaac then Jacob “in charge” even though there were siblings who might have had another claim.

Sometimes there was a King AND a Prophet with separate powers (Samuel the prophet annointed King Saul, then King David) and later when Samuel had died, the prophet Nathan came and advised David (who repented of his sin).

The book of Judges predates the books of Kings and Chronicles and shows another manner where one person had pre-eminence:

Judges 2:16 Even when the LORD raised up judges to deliver them from the power of their despoilers, 17 they did not listen to their judges, but abandoned themselves to the worship of other gods. They were quick to stray from the way their fathers had taken, and did not follow their example of obedience to the commandments of the LORD.

18 Whenever the LORD raised up judges for them. he would be with the judge and save them from the power of their enemies as long as the judge lived; it was thus the LORD took pity on their distressful cries of affliction under their oppressors.

19 But when** the judge** died, they would relapse and do worse than their fathers, following other gods in service and worship, relinquishing none of their evil practices or stubborn conduct.

20 In his anger toward Israel the LORD said, "Inasmuch as this nation has violated my covenant which I enjoined on their fathers, and has disobeyed me,

21 I for my part will not clear away for them any more of the nations which Joshua left when he died."

 

[GaryTaylor]

 

[Anna_Scott]

Hi Gary,
I haven’t bumped into you in a long time. I see you’ve chosen the “minimalist” approach to this topic.

Anna

 

[1AugustSon7]

…and it is still obscure today for more than half of all Christians….errr make it that the original “promise of supremacy” is not even seen by more than half of all Christians.

No the Orthodox and even most Anglicans at least tacitly acknowledge that something special was not only granted to Saint Peter but also to his successors, resulting at least in an honorary headship or a sort of first among equals status. Furthermore, how many of said Christians who only know Christ through the Bible could deny the enormous historical evidence of the important role played by the Bishop of Rome not only in Western but even in universal Christianity for most of the history of Christianity? Ignorance is not an excuse of the law.

as opposed to transferring back to the bishop of the city where Christ died (for instance).

Why would the location of Christ’s death have any role to play? The logic of Saint Peter’s successor’s being in Rome draws from the fact that Saint Peter himself established and lead the Roman Church there. As head of that Church as well as the universal Church, when Saint Peter died, there was a vacancy in both the Roman Church as also the whole universal Church as touching upon her common head and leader on earth.

Assuming I accept the obscure establishment of that authority and assuming that I accept that irregular method of transferring authority, we still have the problem that the scholarly consensus

A scholarly consensus hardly matters. There is arguably a scholarly consensus that Christ was a very wise man who was intimately close to God but that most people do not know or understand the overall significance or import of this -as is proven, for instance, by the fact that a huge portion of Christians disagree amongst each other on an endless variety of points.

is that the Church of Rome was led by a group of overseers (and not a single bishop) well into the second century.

You mean sort of like a college of Cardinals? The nature of the organization of the local and of the universal Church is not absolutely definite;- much of it is maleable so as to serve best the present needs of the Church. This allows the Church to accomodate herself to changing times and circumstances.

So what happened then? Did we have a group of Popes leading the Roman Church?

No, we never did. No See outside of Rome ever claimed anything approaching a universal primacy or supremacy.

This whole claim of authority is critical to the Christian faith….past Popes have taught that its acceptance is necessary for salvation. So how come didn’t Christ teach such an important thing in a less obscure manner?

It wasn’t obscure for nearly a millenia. It wasn’t even challenged. Christ also isn’t recorded as giving a lengthy sermon on the nature of the Most Holy Trinity as we formally understand that quintessentially important doctrine today. Regardless, the last of the Gospel writers made a point at the closing of his Gospel to include the fact of Saint Peter’s special commission directly from our Lord: Feed my lambs, feed my sheep.

….in a way that could be easily and clearly recorded in the gospels

It is; also see previous comment where the exact same argument could be made against the doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity. Indeed, many *sola scriptura *advocates deny that Christ even established a religion let alone a Church. This argument (the bible doesn’t seem to clearly or explicitly state it, at least to my satisfaction) constantly fails because it always results in a reductio ad abusrdum.

Further, it could be argued from the precedent and example of the [Old Testament] ancient church [the Mosaic Covenant] that God had accustomed His people to having a singular specifically religious head [the high priest] on earth. It would have been an exception to the rule and custom of God’s people not to have a religious leader on earth; ergo, we should rather have expected Christ or the Apostles to have taught (for the sola scriptura argument) that the Church would not continue or have this custom, rather than their naturally and logically expecting a continuation of what was already established in the OT, although (of course) within the context of the New Testament/Covenant.

so as to prevent the uncertainty that has arisen among non-Catholic Christians. Look at all the things of lesser importance that are recorded. What gives? A quite reasonable conclusion would be that the promise of supremacy was never actually made by Christ and that to read between the lines of the gospels to find such a promise is simply wrong

Likewise it could be argued that Christ never taught that the New Testament should be written or honoured among Christians but only the Old Testament; likewise it could be argued that there is no Church at all; likewise it could be argued [enter anything here]. Perhaps Christ actually wanted us to use the Old Testament as the sole or final authority on religious matters, and the New Testament was but merely an interpretative guide or commentary on understanding and applying the Old?

 

[ltwin]

Well, it looks like you missed my point, or you just don’t want to answer. By the way I was absolutely not attempting to be flippant or sarcastic; I really wanted your opinion.

If the Catholic Church had been led like a dictatorship and continues to mislead people, doctrinally speaking, then logically speaking, people should search for truth elsewhere.

Where do you suggest I go (if I were to believe, what you are suggesting) to find a church that has never misled people, doctrinally speaking? Please be specific…

You seem to be suggesting that I’m suggesting you should leave the Catholic Church because it hasn’t always been led by perfect people. But that’s not what I’m suggesting. Rather, I’m suggesting that the argument that “You can trust that the Pope wont mess up doctrinally because Jesus would not let his church be ran badly” is flawed. At times, the Catholic Church has been ran badly, which calls into question the argument. If the Catholic Church can mess up on everything else, one can reasonably ask, why is it specifically protected from not messing up when it comes to doctrine? Protestants have no problem saying that no church is perfect and that every church has the potential to get things wrong, doctrinally or otherwise.

 

[joe370]

You seem to be suggesting that I’m suggesting you should leave the Catholic Church because it hasn’t always been led by perfect people. But that’s not what I’m suggesting. Rather, I’m suggesting that the argument that “You can trust that the Pope wont mess up doctrinally because Jesus would not let his church be ran badly” is flawed. At times, the Catholic Church has been ran badly, which calls into question the argument. If the Catholic Church can mess up on everything else, one can reasonably ask, why is it specifically protected from not messing up when it comes to doctrine? Protestants have no problem saying that no church is perfect and that every church has the potential to get things wrong, doctrinally or otherwise.

I understand. Just curious: do you believe that Jesus, somehow, successfully preserved doctrinal truth for believers of every generation in spite of the fact that all churches, at some point in history, have been run badly?