Why do Protestants reject the Pope's authority?

[Nicea325]

Itwin:

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.

Give one case where a pope messed up in regards to doctrine? Not his personal errors,but in regards to doctrine? Did he add to it? Did he alter it?

At times, the Catholic Church has been ran badly, which calls into question the argument.

Indeed. Ever heard of a guy named Peter and Judas? One denied him and the other betrayed him. Your point being?

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?

Again,give a historical case where it messed up in 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.

You seem to confuse personal error with what truly constitutes doctrinal error.

 

[joe370]

Itwin:

Give one case where a pope messed up in regards to doctrine? Not his personal errors,but in regards to doctrine? Did he add to it? Did he alter it?

Indeed. Ever heard of a guy named Peter and Judas? One denied him and the other betrayed him. Your point being?

Again,give a historical case where it messed up in doctrine?

You seem to confuse personal error with what truly constitutes doctrinal error.

 

[Nicea325]

Some people truly have a profound misunderstanding of doctrine.

 

[Radical]

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.

they don’t recognize the level of authority that is claimed by the Papacy….if they did, they would be Catholic. Like me, they reject the claim of divinely appointed supremacy

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?

I wouldn’t deny a considerable importance, but importance does not establish a divine appointment. No clear teaching in scripture establishes a divine appointment of supremacy. No clear teaching in scripture establishes a continuation, through succession, of any divine office given to Peter. Nothing in scripture gives any indication that the appointment would have anything to do with Rome. So we are left with the claim of supremacy for the bishop of Rome and no express scriptural backing for that claim of supreme leadership. IMHO one could fairly expect that, if such a supreme office was actually instituted and continued by God, then it would be characterized by an adherence to the style of leadership required by God. Christ (in the verses that I previously provided on this thread) made it clear that it was not to be a “lord it over others” style of leadership. You mentioned that one mustn’t ignore history, so please tell me, how many Popes in the last 15 centuries were not “lord it over” types? For the record, signing a document under the title “servant” does not determine the style of leadership…it is a question of how the style compares to the king next door. Titus and 1 Timothy make it clear as to what God required as the qualifications of an overseer…and again, since you mentioned that one mustn’t ignore history, please tell me how many Popes in the last 15 centuries did not meet those qualifications? It seems to me that there are great periods of time in the history of the Papacy where it would not be characterized by an adherence to the style of leadership required by God. That, to me, speaks volumes. Also, for the record, I am also well aware that the standard response (around here at least) is to employ the slogan “God promised infallibility/supremacy not impeccability”. No protestant expects a sinless Pope…it is that we expect that the office (of the true Vicar of Christ) if it existed, would be characterized by an adherence to the style of leadership required by God

Ignorance is not an excuse of the law.

there are exceptions to that rule….but I do prefer the fully informed decision, so please get back to me on the above questions about the Popes of the last 15 centuries.

Why would the location of Christ’s death have any role to play?

why wouldn’t it?..why wouldn’t the location of where he established the Church and where he died and rose again trump anything to do with Peter?

The logic of Saint Peter’s successor’s being in Rome draws from the fact that Saint Peter himself established…

does any serious scholar think Peter established the church at Rome?

…. and lead the Roman Church there.

what? When he showed up at Rome the overseers that had been leading that church all resigned?..It seems more likely that the existing leadership remained in place as Peter was an apostle who tended to move around.

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.

there wasn’t a vacancy in Rome. The Roman leadership that existed before Peter arrived continued while he was there and then continued further upon Peter’s death. As to a vacancy in the universal church, most Christians then had little exposure to that alleged leadership….or the lack thereof. When would the Church at Jerusalem have learned of Peter’s death?..and upon learning of that death, how did anything actually change for them?

A scholarly consensus hardly matters.

it certainly does if you want to claim that “to be steeped in history is to become Catholic”….or that the Catholic understanding is the most reasonable one.

There is arguably a scholarly consensus that Christ was a very wise man…

not amongst Christian scholars (as is the case with the consensus that I mentioned) will you find a consensus that Jesus was only a very wise man

You mean sort of like a college of Cardinals?

no, I mean like a group of presbyters….if Peter’s authority, whatever it was, passed to the leadership of the church located at the place of his death, then it passed to a group of presbyters ….and if it could pass to a group, then why not a group that included the presbyters of the churches that Peter actually founded?

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.

I am happy to stay with the words contained in the NT and ditch the explanations added by the ECFs.

 

[Radical]

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.

and?..I don’t see anything about supremacy in “feeding”. Peter’s denial is mentioned in all four gospels….given that attention, it would seem to be the more significant of the two events. Also, what about “feed my sheep” establishes an office that continues through succession? How do you get to such a claim w/o an extremely questionable interpretation?

Indeed, many *sola scriptura *advocates deny that Christ even established a religion let alone a Church.

a good number of renowned Catholic scholars do too.

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.

please explain this claim of yours to me.

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 could be, but the author of Hebrews makes it pretty clear that Christ assumed that role.

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.

you mean that we should expect something along the lines of a statement that Jesus would be sending someone new (the Holy spirit) as the guide?

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?

well, if you want to make those arguments, feel free. By all means, present your argument that:

a) b/c it isn’t recorded that Christ instructed his disciples to record his teachings;

b) we should not honour and obey his words thusly recorded.

However, if you want to make a good comparison, you should:

1. have me first come up with an obscure interpretation by which I claim that Christ instructed his disciples to record his teachings;
2. then point to a number of passages where the disciples debate whether they should record any of Christ’s words (ie debate the thing which was supposed to be settled according to my interpretation);
3. point out that the fellows who ended up recording Christ’s words did not meet (in a number of instances) the qualifications that Christ established for a writer;
4. point out that the fellows who ended up recording Christ’s words did not write in the manner that Christ prescribed.
5. From there, question whether my forced interpretation is legitimate and whether the record that we have is really divinely inspired.

For the record, if I knew that the authors of the NT did not meet the qualifications that Christ set for writers and that they did not write in the manner that Christ prescribed, then I would deny that they were divinely inspired in that action…

 

[joe370]

Radical;9775181]and?..I don’t see anything about supremacy in “feeding”. Peter’s denial is mentioned in all four gospels….given that attention…

Why, considering that Jesus already did and then said:

"Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”

 

[SteveVH]

No clear teaching in scripture establishes a divine appointment of supremacy. No clear teaching in scripture establishes a continuation, through succession, of any divine office given to Peter. Nothing in scripture gives any indication that the appointment would have anything to do with Rome.

No clear teaching? How about receiving the keys to the Kingdom of heaven; the power to bind and loose; the power to forgive sins. Is that not a divine appointment? The last command Jesus gave to the Apostles was to go out and make disciples of all nations. How were they to accomplish this all in their lifetimes? They weren’t, it would have to require succession of Apostolic authority.

 

[JonNC]

No clear teaching? **How about receiving the keys to the Kingdom of heaven; the power to bind and loose; the power to forgive sins. ** Is that not a divine appointment? The last command Jesus gave to the Apostles was to go out and make disciples of all nations. How were they to accomplish this all in their lifetimes? They weren’t, it would have to require succession of Apostolic authority.

Hi Steve,
That may be divine appointment, but does not speak to supremacy. Every pastor/priest has the power to bind and loose, to orgive sins, and Peter’s reception of the keys on behalf of the Church does not speak to supremacy.

Jon

 

[LRCnow]

The 39 Articles have authority only within the Church of England, and were adopted more to favor the political positions of the Hierarchy during the 1500’s. First the Ten Articles, then the Six Articles, then the Forty-Two Articles and finally the Thirty-Nine Articles; each one a human sovereign response to their own needs politically.

I have a hard time in believing the God endorses such human behavior.

 

[GKC]

The 39 Articles have authority only within the Church of England, and were adopted more to favor the political positions of the Hierarchy during the 1500’s. First the Ten Articles, then the Six Articles, then the Forty-Two Articles and finally the Thirty-Nine Articles; each one a human sovereign response to their own needs politically.

I have a hard time in believing the God endorses such human behavior.

More or less accurate, though the Articles technically are binding in the CoE only on ordinands.

GKC

 

[jrtrent]

More or less accurate, though the Articles technically are binding in the CoE only on ordinands.

Whether technically binding or not, the 39 Articles are the confession of faith for Anglicans. I quoted some of them earlier in this thread just to show that there are profound differences in doctrine between Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism, just as there are differences to be found in the doctrine and practice of any two different religions. We can be accepting and respectful of our differences, but how or why would one expect that a church leader from one faith should be seen as authoritative for people who hold a different faith?

Why do protestants reject the authority of the Pope? In part, it’s for the same reason protestants reject the authority of the current Prophet and President of the LDS church, or the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses–all of these teach things that protestants don’t believe.

Here’s a short blurb from J. C. Ryle’s book Knots Untied on the 39 Articles (Ryle was an Anglican Bishop in the late 19th century):

"Every well-organized Church throughout Christendom has its Confession of faith: that is, it has a carefully composed statement of the main things in religion which it considers its members ought to believe. . . Every member of a Church ought to be able to render a reason of his membership, and to say what the great principles of his Church are. To do this his Church supplies him with a short creed, manual, or Confession, to which at any time he may refer inquirers. This was the object of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England. They were intended to be “the churchman’s confession of his faith.”

 

[Anna_Scott]

Hey, Anna. It was ugly, don’t ask. Anyway, hope all is well with you also. I’m a new grandfather so things couldn’t be better right now.

God bless.

Steve

Congratulations Grandpa!

 

[acuddymar]

To Wings of Eagles:

Infallibility makes perfect sense if you understand what is actually involved. It means that by the grace of the Holy Spirit he cannot err when speaking on faith and morals. Isn’t this exactly what Christ would have done to make sure that his words and intent are passed down accurately through the ages? In Protestantism, everyone is allowed to interpret Scripture as they feel inspired to do. If you had something that you felt was extremely important for people to get straight, would you think it was ok for everyone to put his own private meaning into it? I don’t think Christ would at all. Infallibility doesn’t mean he cannot err if he thinks the Yankees are the greatest baseball team or that carrots are bad for you.

 

[GKC]

Whether technically binding or not, the 39 Articles are the confession of faith for Anglicans. I quoted some of them earlier in this thread just to show that there are profound differences in doctrine between Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism, just as there are differences to be found in the doctrine and practice of any two different religions. We can be accepting and respectful of our differences, but how or why would one expect that a church leader from one faith should be seen as authoritative for people who hold a different faith?

Why do protestants reject the authority of the Pope? In part, it’s for the same reason protestants reject the authority of the current Prophet and President of the LDS church, or the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses–all of these teach things that protestants don’t believe.

Here’s a short blurb from J. C. Ryle’s book Knots Untied on the 39 Articles (Ryle was an Anglican Bishop in the late 19th century):

"Every well-organized Church throughout Christendom has its Confession of faith: that is, it has a carefully composed statement of the main things in religion which it considers its members ought to believe. . . Every member of a Church ought to be able to render a reason of his membership, and to say what the great principles of his Church are. To do this his Church supplies him with a short creed, manual, or Confession, to which at any time he may refer inquirers. This was the object of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England. They were intended to be “the churchman’s confession of his faith.”

The Articles are in no sense normative for Anglicans in general, though I often find, in the wide variety of Angcians I stumble across (motley, that’s us) Anglicans who think they are. In the sense that there is nothing to forbid an Anglican from adopting them, confessionally, or, indeed, an Anglican jurisdiction from doing so, there is only one limited case in which, technically (that is, legally, in an Erastian situation) the articles are supposed to be normative. That is for odinands in the CoE, IOW the Parliamentary Act of Subscription/1571.

Any other Anglican, unless there is some equally compelling legal situation, is free to assert/affirm the Articles, in part, or in whole. Or to deny them, in the sense that they do not constitute a Confession. Any Trinitarian Christian would certainly affirm many of them, but, merely because they exist, in the form they do, and originated, in the circumstances they did, compels no Anglican (except as noted) to take recognition of them, as such. They are theology as statecraft; how Elizabeth I chose to govern her fractious Church, as it was and as she wished it to be. Hence the term “Articles of Peace”, binding not on faith, but on preaching. If you find them compelling, go for it. But nothing formally compels Anglicans generally to do the same. Anglicanism is Creedal, not confessional.

I do this one a lot.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

the Thirty Nine Articles is a document of its time, as the abuses it addressed predated the reforms of Trent, as Anglican Fr. Newman pointed out in Tract 90, his defense of Anglo-Catholicism.

anyone using the 39 articles as a weapon against current Roman Catholic practices is making a very deceptive argument.

Westerby

 

[SteveVH]

Peter’s reception of the keys on behalf of the Church does not speak to supremacy.

To what then does it speak? The keys were given specifically to Peter, with the other Apostles present. I’m not sure I have the energy to go through this entire argument, but the book of Acts demonstrates quite clearly that it was Peter who spoke definitively (concerning doctrine) and that once he spoke the issue was put to bed. Tradition supports the scripture, as far as Peter’s place in the Church. It is natural that each non-Catholic faith tradition must come up with a different viewpoint in order to justify the fact that they do not follow the Pope and recognize his universal authority. I don’t think you would deny that there is a real motivation to interpret the scriptures and history to one’s advantage in this regard.

 

[GKC]

the Thirty Nine Articles is a document of its time, as the abuses it addressed predated the reforms of Trent, as Anglican Fr. Newman pointed out in Tract 90, his defense of Anglo-Catholicism.

anyone using the 39 articles as a weapon against current Roman Catholic practices is making a very deceptive argument.

Westerby

I would not necessarily agree with the conclusion. The Articles, as did those that preceded them, represented conditions of the day, as you say. Nothing prevents an Anglican from asserting that such doctrine was perfectly correct, and adopting them as a contemporary form of confession of belief. But nothing requires that (save as noted).

GKC

 

[1AugustSon7]

they don’t recognize the level of authority that is claimed by the Papacy….if they did, they would be Catholic. Like me, they reject the claim of divinely appointed supremacy

Notwithstanding the point remains: you have not rebutted the fact that most Anglicans and even the Orthodox generally affirm not only that something special was granted to Saint Peter, which the Scriptures clearly give witness to, but also to his successors there was a special importance within the Church, which results for them at least acknowledging that the Holy See has a special place or role within the Church, if only an honorary one.

I wouldn’t deny a considerable importance, but importance does not establish a divine appointment. No clear teaching in scripture establishes a divine appointment of supremacy.

Denied. It is without doubt objectively that the Gospels themselves bear witness to a Divine Commission granted directly to Saint Peter.

Further, the scriptures consistently and constantly portray Our Lord taking Saint Peter aside for special instruction. There was a special and even intimate relationship between the two that none of the sacred writers denied and even made a point to display. Moreover, in the Gospels and even the Acts of the Apostles, Saint Peter is consistently portrayed as leading the Apostles and speaking on their behalf, as well as on behalf of the whole Christian community. All of this contributes objectively to a special commission from Our Lord and none of it can possibly serve or avail the contrary.

No clear teaching in scripture establishes a continuation, through succession, of any divine office given to Peter.

Or even of any of the Apostles generally; notwithstanding, the super-majority of Christians acknowledge at least apostolic succession generally by way of the bishops.

Nothing in scripture gives any indication that the appointment would have anything to do with Rome.

Denied.
Romans 1:7-8:

[7] To all that are at Rome… [8] First I give thanks to my God, through Jesus Christ, for you all, because your faith is spoken of in the whole world.

This Apostle elsewhere insists that he never lies; yet he affirms already in the Apostolic age that the faith of the Roman Church is “spoken of in the whole world”. Certainly it would at least be known in all of the Churches; already, in the Apostolic Age, the Roman Church was conscpicously famous for her faith.

So we are left with the claim of supremacy for the bishop of Rome and no express scriptural backing for that claim of supreme leadership.

The foundation of it is in the scriptures; again, those verses in the Gospels that acknowledge a special role played by Saint Peter.

Further, simple reason itself tells us that it would have been a defect or even a fault not to have an ultimate singular head of the Church to preserve her faith and unity. The question becomes why -even though there existed precedent of a spiritual leader of God’s people in the Old Testament- would God not give His Church a like boon and benefit in the perfect and Eternal Covenant?

IMHO one could fairly expect that, if such a supreme office was actually instituted and continued by God, then it would be characterized by an adherence to the style of leadership required by God. Christ (in the verses that I previously provided on this thread) made it clear that it was not to be a “lord it over others”

Absolutely, and it is isn’t: Christian [specifically the Church’s] power, authority and jurisdiction are indeed defined quite differently than what its vulgar sense and use would suggest. It harmonizes with the quote you had just provided as well as Our Lord’s gentle command of Feeding His sheep, feeding *His *lambs.

 

[1AugustSon7]

so please tell me, how many Popes in the last 15 centuries were not “lord it over” types?

The Popes have generally been remarkedly patient and earnest for the unity of the Church. Indeed, within the Church today many actually complain of the Church’s being far too gentle and tolerant and not exercising her spiritual powers and perogatives [e.g., excommunication] more frequently. That is to say, the Church and the Popes leading her are almost tolerant to a fault [seemingly tolerating scandal], according to the perspective or opinion of many.

For the record, signing a document under the title “servant” does not determine the style of leadership…it is a question of how the style compares to the king next door.

I agree that words alone do not necessarily make somehing so. But if you want an example of the pacific nature of the Papacy all you have to do is look at the history of England during the Reformation. Countless souls were confused and distressed because the Popes refused to formally sever or excommunicate the reformers and innovators until all possible hope of reconciliation was completely lost. Keep in mind that Catholics were already dying for their faith - for the Papacy specifically. Without doubt this must have pained the hearts of the Popes; for they were not ignorant that these men [and women] were dying for their fidelity to the Holy See - that is, to an extent, for their person.

Titus and 1 Timothy make it clear as to what God required as the qualifications of an overseer…and again, since you mentioned that one mustn’t ignore history, please tell me how many Popes in the last 15 centuries did not meet those qualifications?

How many Christians fail to fulfill their baptismal vocations? Does this mean Christianity is a failure? How many Christians live up to their lofty vocation as Christians? How many Christians consistently and constantly savour of the Sermon on the Mount? Notwithstanding, there is a difference between what is required and what is requested; all Christians are called to singular heroism in the living and profession of their faith- even to the shedding of their blood; however, the evangelical counsels, for example, remain voluntary. There have been indeed many singular instances of Popes who not only died for the faith [the first Popes were singularly targeted for execution and hence they had very short reigns] but are also remarkable and extraordinary men even by secular standards and admission.

It seems to me that there are great periods of time in the history of the Papacy where it would not be characterized by an adherence to the style of leadership required by God. That, to me, speaks volumes.

Yes; and for all of that there has never been any period where the Popes perverted the faith or drowned the Church in doctrinal errors. That says more: it attests to a singular Divine Protection.

Also, for the record, I am also well aware that the standard response (around here at least) is to employ the slogan “God promised infallibility/supremacy not impeccability”. No protestant expects a sinless Pope…it is that we expect that the office (of the true Vicar of Christ) if it existed, would be characterized by an adherence to the style of leadership required by God

No. It seems to me you expect them to be rather more than men.

 

[jrtrent]

The Articles are in no sense normative for Anglicans in general, . . . I do this one a lot.

It would appear that you and J. C. Ryle come to different conclusions on the matter. I haven’t been an Anglican very long, and the group I belong to is not part of the Anglican Communion, but I do find it odd that the articles would not be considered normative when the prayerbook at the Church of England website includes this quote:

We have therefore, upon mature Deliberation, and with the Advice of so many of Our Bishops as might conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this Declaration following:

That the Articles of the Church of England (which have been allowed and authorized heretofore, and which Our Clergy generally have subscribed unto) do contain the true Doctrine of the Church of England agreeable to God’s Word: which We do therefore ratify and confirm, requiring all Our loving Subjects to continue in the uniform Profession thereof, and prohibiting the least difference from the said Articles; which to that End We command to be new printed, and this Our Declaration to be published therewith.