Why do Protestants reject the Pope's authority?

[Izdaari]

Now, for example, you find the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church (USA) preaching that Jesus is one way, among many, to God. There are Bishops in that church that insist the Bible has no particular relevance for today, but that it is “an interesting historical document that details how an ancient people related to God as they understood Him”.

Many mainstream Protestant denominations disassociate themselves from such heresy.

And indeed, many Episcopalians (myself included) don’t buy into that stuff either. But it doesn’t mean I’m quitting the Episcopal church over it. It just means I think the next Presiding Bishop should be more orthodox. I’m not looking for a hardcore conservative. But someone who is more like N.T. Wright and less like Spong would be good.

 

[mac1234567]

SEE: www.gotquestions.org for all your questions!!!

 

[1AugustSon7]

CaptFun and 1AugustSon----

I believe you both have brought up similar ideas—namely, that you believe God used an ultimate singular head to lead Israel before Christ.

1AugustSon, I think you believe that singular head to be the high priest, right?

CaptFun, if I understood you correctly, you seemed to be saying that the authorized singular headship could move around somewhat—

from Moses and then Joshua,
to a Judge (like Deborah),
to a single prophet ( like Samuel),
then perhaps to a king during the relatively brief time of unity in Israel’s monarchy (David and Solomon),
then maybe to one of the kings of the two kingdoms or to one of the prophets of one of those kingdoms ( like Elijah and then Elisha, who both served the northern kingdom);
and so on till during Jesus’ time we see Him give the authority of Moses to the scribes and Pharisees, though whether those Pharisees with authority were to be of the House of Hillel or the House of Shammai He doesn’t specify.

I’m interested in investigating this idea (of a singular headship given to Israel) further, on its own thread, since this one is going all over the place already. I’m just not seeing it, gentleman, but it may be due to my own incomplete knowledge. I’m really busy with work, probably for the next several months, but maybe we could delve deeper into this topic again at some time on its own thread.

Thanks, CaptFun, for taking my original question graciously. It wasn’t meant as a challenge, but more as thinking to myself “Hmm…that doesn’t seem quite true to me, but I’m willing to explore it further with you.”

Ordinarily Israel under the Mosaic Covenant always had a visible centre, whether it was the Tent of Meeting or, later, Jerusalem and the Temple as also a permanent religious leader (the high priest). Moses’ perogatives were distributed variously: his temporal powers or authority as leader of the community descended in an indefinite form to others (and was made definite, e.g., under the Judges or under the Davidic monarchy. This was clearly maleable.). His religious responsibilities, perogatives and authority were taken up by the Levitical priesthood and also by the Prophets that God Himself raised up for Israel.

Therefore, a 1st century Jew would naturally expect the Messiah to establish or do something similar, seeing as the Messiah was to be one even greater than Moses: Moses provided (organizational) structure and laws, etc., to the Israelites; therefore, quite naturally, one would expect the Messiah to provide something similar; hence the Apostles argued over who would be greatest in His kingdom. The Catholic argument is that indeed He did provide something similar by way of the Church; and, like Moses, left the absolutely political aspect indefinite. Consequently Christian countries can form themselves into democracies, monarchies or any various combination of things; however, they cannot form their own churches or replace God’s priests; nor can they persecute the righteous or the saints, especially if they are preaching the gospel, a reform of morals or decrying injustices, sacrileges, etc.

My point for this argument is that we should rather have expected Our Lord and His Apostles and disciples to have to explain to the faithful why the Church was going to be without an ultimate religious head or leader on earth, rather than expecting them to preach what a 1st century Jew certainly would not have found radical or strange: i.e., the existence of an ultimate religious head over the religious community, which he (the Jewish convert) was already accustomed to and would have expected of the Messiah to provide, following Moses, anyways.

 

[1AugustSon7]

did you mean special correction? Quite often Peter would speak in error and then Christ would be forced to make a correction.

No, I meant special instruction. Certainly regardless the other Apostles would have from time to time been in error; notwithstanding, Our Lord took special time and care to ensure the orthodoxy of Saint Peter’s doctrine, as if correcting all through him.

I wouldn’t deny it either…but again, special does not equal supreme…nor was his the only special and intimate relationship

It needs to be supreme in order to fulfill those obligations Chist Himself laid upon him: e.g., to feed His sheep.

yes, Peter was a leader. In a number of ways his leadership was surpassed by Paul.

Peter never went to Paul; Paul went to Peter.

a majority indeed does….it is the linchpin of much that is claimed and it won’t be easily abandoned…nevertheless, the majority isn’t anywhere near what it once was.
I had said that nothing in scripture gives any indication that the appointment would have anything to do with Rome. You supplied this passage:

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.…and then posted:

What are you thinking? Is it your belief that if you can find a positive statement about the Roman church somewhere in scripture, then you are justified in claiming any other positive thing that you want for the Roman church?
​

No. You made the claim that there existed nothing in scripture that would suggest Rome might have special place or perogatives over or for the whole Church. The verse I gave immediately proves the contrary; further, the more important point is that the Roman Church is Saint Peter’s Church and that when he was martyred there existed immeditely a double vacancy: of his Church particularly and of the whole Church universally as touching upon her visible head on earth. This reality was peculiar (or unique) to the Roman Church alone of all the Churches.

I can’t imagine that someone would value that approach, but earlier it seemed that you thought that if you could show that Peter was a leader of any sort, then you were justified in taking a great leap and claiming that Peter’s leadership was of a supreme type. Further, it would seem that the good faith of the Roman church was something that arose before Peter even got to Rome, before Rome could have a Pope,…so how is the faith of the Roman congregation in any way connected to the alleged housing of a supreme office decades later?

See above.

this sounds somewhat similar to the Israelites of the OT who rejected God as their king and insisted upon the appointment of an earthly monarch. Scriptures say that he relented on that occasion, but where does it say that God went against his desire (for no earthly monarch for his children)for a second time?

The Pope is not the political leader of Christianity. He is the religious head and leader, which is different.

did you mean the sort of beneficial leadership that made bad tradition and that couldn’t recognize the messiah when he was standing right in front of that OT spiritual leader?

God Himself ultimately ordained that “bad tradition.” Please recall that Saint Paul himself confessed even after Our Lord’s Ascension that it was wrong for him to speak evil of a leader of his people.​

 

[SteveVH]

Hi Steve,
Well, I think the last part applies to the Catholic Church, as well, that Rome has put its own interpretation of scripture and Tradition to conclude, I believe, long after the early councils, that it alone has universal jurisdiction.

I would think that since the Catholic Church determined the canon of scripture and that the New Testament is a Catholic document, that its interpretation would supercede all others.

I think it difficult to interpret the giving of the keys to St. Peter implies that he alone, and only one of the sees, holds those keys, particularly since Christ also grants the power to bind and loose on all of the Apostles. The keys are given to the Church on Earth, not simply to one see.

If we had a “Church on Earth” rather than “churches on earth” all in disagreement with each other, I might agree. The reality is that Christ sarted only one Church. He desired unity within that Church. The Pope is the sign of that unity. You are correct that the power to bind and loose was given to all of the Apostles, but in the context of one Church, with one leader of that Church, not separate and distinct “churches” each doing their own thing and disagreeing with the others.

Congrats on becoming a new grandfather. My one-year-old granddaughter is sitting here with me, waiting for her mom to get here this evening after being deployed. My son is still deployed, so we’ve had her for 3 weeks. Lots of fun.
Jon

Ah, now we get to the important stuff. I had no idea how being grandfather would impact my life. I can’t get enough of the little guy. It just doesn’t get any better than this. By now your granddaughter’s mom is home and with her daughter. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall to see that reunion. Prayers for the safe return of your son, Jon.

God bless.

Steve

 

[CaptFun]

CaptFun and 1AugustSon----

I believe you both have brought up similar ideas—namely, that you believe God used an ultimate singular head to lead Israel before Christ.

1AugustSon, I think you believe that singular head to be the high priest, right?

CaptFun, if I understood you correctly, you seemed to be saying that the authorized singular headship could move around somewhat—

Hi AbideWithMe. I jumped to that Chair of Moses scripture because it is an amazing one. We don’t have a “genealogy” for who succeeded Moses and Joshua in a chronology down to the day that Jesus referred to the office. But it existed per Jesus’ own revelation. And He advises the people to do as “the chair” said - even though, personally, some of those folks were hypocrites and about to be replaced by the apostles and the Church.

If part of the “keys” Jesus promised Peter would have included “the chair of Moses” there would be an affirmation of unity (one voice deciding or speaking for God) and power. It is something similar in any case, with Peter’s commissioning having more detail given than the origination of the “Chair of Moses” - which apparently existed all along from the time of Moses, but appears in scripture just that once (yet from the horse’s mouth as it were).

from Moses and then Joshua, - that is a succession of sorts, yes. Whether it is the beginning of the Chair of Moses or whether that refers to the Aaronic priesthood (Aaron got his power through Moses’ asking for him to be included in the initial ministry - and God agreed though preferring Moses to be the speaker - and perhaps the High Priest too(?).

to a Judge (like Deborah), - Yes, Israel was ruled by Judges according to the book of the same name. HOW these got their offices (a direct call from God? Election? Both?) isn’t so clear. But (per the thread and the Pope’s authority) they were a point of power, and unity (i.e. there seemed to be just one Judge “ruling” at a time. Or if there was more than one, these did not disagree and lead to a still unsettled spiritual war.
to a single prophet ( like Samuel), - Yes, prophets too. And these could ‘outrank’ even annointed Kings, priests, whomever when they spoke in God’s name. Sometimes these were opposed by false prophets - who could be more powerful and politically backed or popularly backed at the time (but again, the ONE person speaking for God becomes apparent in scripture. We don’t have to wonder if Elijah was in the right and dredge up the teachings of the 50 prophets of Baal that King Ahab and Queen Jezebel preferred.

then perhaps to a king during the relatively brief time of unity in Israel’s monarchy (David and Solomon), - Yes and Saul was part of that too, but was "removed’ from God’s favor (although David patiently waited until Saul had died to become King, even though he’d been annointed by Samuel when Saul was still alive. Which reminds me of the spirit of the “Chair of Moses” teaching of Jesus - David willingly put himself under the obedience of “God’s annointed” (Saul) even when Saul wasn’t personally so good!

then maybe to one of the kings of the two kingdomsYes. Who had “the chair of Moses” then, I wonder. Judah’s Kings were physically related to King David by blood - but Israel was created by God too. Prophets were sent to each Kingdom - and in a way, via scripture, they are unified even when separated politically by God’s call to them. or to one of the prophets of one of those kingdoms ( like Elijah and then Elisha, who both served the northern kingdom);
and so on till during Jesus’ time we see Him give the authority of Moses to the scribes and Pharisees, though whether those Pharisees with authority were to be of the House of Hillel or the House of Shammai He doesn’t specify. I was thinking that since the office was called the “Chair of Moses” - it was an office (or power) that existed right along. Interestingly Jesus didn’t say “since the High Priest Annas (or Caiaphas) has taken his seat on the Chair of Moses …” but the Pharisees and Scribes, it is more like a Church Council ruling than one man’s (unified) ruling. Or like "Bishops speaking in union with the Pope (See of Peter … first among the apostles and first Bishop of Rome). That is … infallibility can be shared when taught in union (the truth doesn’t fight with itself).

Infallibility isn’t necessarily the last word on a matter (though it can be if pronounced). Following a Pope’s ordinary teachings on Faith and Morals is a safe bet (presuming one’s own veracity - good will in doing so). As God is a God of order and not confusion …

1 Corinthians 14:27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, let it be two or at most three, and each in turn, **and *one ***should interpret.

28 But if there is no interpreter, the person should keep silent in the church and speak to himself and to God.

29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others discern.

30 **But if a revelation is given to another person sitting there, the first one should be silent.
**
31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged.

32 Indeed, the spirits of prophets are under the prophets’ control,

33 since He is not the God of disorder but of peace. As in all the churches of the holy ones …

(Continued due to length)

---

 

[CaptFun]

CaptFun responds in red and green

CaptFun and 1AugustSon----

I believe you both have brought up similar ideas—namely, that you believe God used an ultimate singular head to lead Israel before Christ.

1AugustSon, I think you believe that singular head to be the high priest, right?

CaptFun, if I understood you correctly, you seemed to be saying that the authorized singular headship could move around somewhat—

I’m interested in investigating this idea (of a singular headship given to Israel) further, on its own thread, since this one is going all over the place already. I’m just not seeing it, gentleman, but it may be due to my own incomplete knowledge. I’m really busy with work, probably for the next several months, but maybe we could delve deeper into this topic again at some time on its own thread.

Thanks, CaptFun, for taking my original question graciously. It wasn’t meant as a challenge, but more as thinking to myself “Hmm…that doesn’t seem quite true to me, but I’m willing to explore it further with you.”

(continued due to length )

I’m interested in investigating this idea (of a singular headship given to Israel) further, on its own thread, since this one is going all over the place already. I’m just not seeing it, gentleman, but it may be due to my own incomplete knowledge. I’m really busy with work, probably for the next several months, but maybe we could delve deeper into this topic again at some time on its own thread.It is hard to follow the thread of the Chair of Moses - Moses was a Levite on both sides of his family (as was Aaron). And Levites owned no land in the promised land but were part of both Judah and Israel.It was the tribe that was given the Levitical Priesthood (offices and duties) and a group whose purification is prophesied in the LAST book of the Old Testament. After praising Levi and announcing that instruction comes from the lips of the priest, Malachi quotes the Lord as saying that “You (Judah? Levities of the day? Unfaithful Jewish people) have made void My covenant with Levi …”

But in Chapter 3 (the last chapter in the Old Testament …) comes this.

Malachi 3:1 Lo, I am sending my messenger to prepare the way before me; And suddenly there will come to the temple the LORD whom you seek, And the messenger of the covenant whom you desire. Yes, he is coming, says the LORD of hosts.

2 But who will endure the day of his coming? And who can stand when he appears? For he is like the refiner’s fire, or like the fuller’s lye.

3 He will sit refining and purifying (silver), and he will purify the sons of Levi, Refining them like gold or like silver that they may offer due sacrifice to the LORD.

We Catholics would see that “due sacrifice” as being the only sacrifice of the New Testament. Jesus Christ. Offered in the sacrifice of the Mass (a re-enactment of the Last Supper, presided over by Jesus Himself, the new High Priest.

That night of the “Last Supper” he announced a “New Covenant” told his apostles to “Do this …” and that “This is my body … This is my blood … take and eat of it all of you …” which explained HOW we could obey His mandates so powerfully emphasized in John Chapter 6.

Later in scripture Jesus is called “High Priest” of the “Order of Melchizadek”. The apostles, bishops and priests they commissioned continue to offer that “due sacrifice” still today in the mass. The Malachi 3 reference MUST apply to Jesus (versus any other candidate … like John the Baptist or Peter or ??).

Acts 6:6 They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them. 7 The word of God continued to spread, and the number of the disciples in Jerusalem increased greatly; even a large group of priests were becoming obedient to the faith.

The Church’s real unity is in the Holy Spirit of course - and sometimes there are controversies within the Church that are settled in time - perhaps with all parties being sincere (as in the first Council of Jerusalem, settled by Peter’s pronouncement that
the new Gentile converts would not have to be circumcised nor have to obey the Mosaic law … and that he’d been instructed by a vision from God and an angel that many foods formerly forbidden were now “clean” and could be eaten.

Thanks, CaptFun, for taking my original question graciously. It wasn’t meant as a challenge, but more as thinking to myself “Hmm…that doesn’t seem quite true to me, but I’m willing to explore it further with you.”

Seek and we shall find.

 

[awantz]

In the protestant church, the pastor is voted in.

 

[Micah11]

kbwall
So what makes all these Protestant leaders better than the Pope?

They’re not better than the pope. Neither is the pope better than them.

 

[JonNC]

=SteveVH;9783864]I would think that since the Catholic Church determined the canon of scripture and that the New Testament is a Catholic document, that its interpretation would supercede all others.

Not the Orthodox, Steve?

If we had a “Church on Earth” rather than “churches on earth” all in disagreement with each other, I might agree. The reality is that Christ sarted only one Church. He desired unity within that Church. The Pope is the sign of that unity. You are correct that the power to bind and loose was given to all of the Apostles, but in the context of one Church, with one leader of that Church, not separate and distinct “churches” each doing their own thing and disagreeing with the others.

I see it as one Church with the sad disagreements you mentioned. And I agree that the pope is in fact a sign of that unity. and recent popes have strengthened that sign of unity, IMHO.

Ah, now we get to the important stuff. I had no idea how being grandfather would impact my life. I can’t get enough of the little guy. It just doesn’t get any better than this. By now your granddaughter’s mom is home and with her daughter. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall to see that reunion. Prayers for the safe return of your son, Jon.

Thanks for your prayers, Steve. The current situation is scary. My granddaughter left with our wonderful DIL this morning. It was quite the difficult good bye.

God bless.

And also with you, Steve.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Are you suggesting that you accept the authority of what God teaches in Bible verses? Certainly, in Acts 17:10-13, the Bereans are commended for testing everything Paul teaches, by the authority of scripture.

But perhaps more to the point: as you have suggested, it is a widely accepted standard that doctrine taught in the Word of God ought to be believed. The declarations of Christ himself, and His appointed messengers, are the basis for the core doctrines of the church.

If, beyond that, you choose to recognize another doctrinal authority, you are free to do so, but lacking the warrant of Scripture, you are unlikely to achieve universal agreement among all Christians … much the same as the Bereans would have rejected teaching that could not stand up to that test.

What God teaches in the Bible is not the same argument that the Bible-Alone is the FINAL authority. The Bereans were not “Bible-Only” advocates if that is what you are suggesting?

Another doctrinal authority? How about the church Jesus founded? Scripture is “a” authority, not “THE” only authority.

 

[SteveVH]

Not the Orthodox, Steve?

Not at the time the New Testament was penned and not at the time the canon was determined. It was one Church.

I see it as one Church with the sad disagreements you mentioned. And I agree that the pope is in fact a sign of that unity. and recent popes have strengthened that sign of unity, IMHO.

Thanks for your prayers, Steve. The current situation is scary. My granddaughter left with our wonderful DIL this morning. It was quite the difficult good bye.

I can’t even imagine, Jon. My heart aches even thinking about it. I just put your son on my list of intentions for my daily rosary. I haven’t had to experience one of my children in harm’s way. That has to be tough, but I know you also have to be very proud of him.

Blessings.

 

[JonNC]

=SteveVH;9785121]Not at the time the New Testament was penned and not at the time the canon was determined. It was one Church.

And it will be again, at least at Parousia. Come, Lord Jesus.

I can’t even imagine, Jon. My heart aches even thinking about it. I just put your son on my list of intentions for my daily rosary. I haven’t had to experience one of my children in harm’s way. That has to be tough, but I know you also have to be very proud of him.

Thank you so much, Steve. My son is my hero.

Jon

 

[Micah11]

Then what are they dependent upon?

That is you opinion, and you’re welcome to it.
In doing the historical research of popes throughout history, the authority exercised was in no way led by the Holy Spirit therefore I do not recognize him as an authoritative figure.

 

[SteveVH]

And it will be again, at least at Parousia. Come, Lord Jesus.

Thank you so much, Steve. My son is my hero.

Jon

Indeed, he is a hero for everyone in this country!

 

[JonNC]

Then what are they dependent upon?

That is you opinion, and you’re welcome to it.
In doing the historical research of popes throughout history, the authority exercised was in no way led by the Holy Spirit therefore I do not recognize him as an authoritative figure.

As one of the historic patriarchates of the Church, how can one not see the office (and the man who holds it) as authoritative at least in that sense?
One doesn’t have to accept the level of primacy as the CC claims the office has to see it in some ways, as the early Church did, as authoritative.

Jon

 

[pismopal]

They’re not better than the pope. Neither is the pope better than them.

Better…better? I am sorry but “better” is not the issue at all. The pope leads 1 billion Christians who submit to his authority. He is in an apostolic line of heads of the Church since St Peter who was given that authority by Christ. I will leave it to someone else to compare the Holy Father with the gentleman who leads the community gathering on main street, Anytown USA.

 

[Micah11]

Better…better? I am sorry but “better” is not the issue at all.

I’m sorry, you’ll have to take that up with the person who started this thread who said:

So what makes all these Protestant leaders better than the Pope?

The pope leads 1 billion Christians who submit to his authority. He is in an apostolic line of heads of the Church since St Peter who was given that authority by Christ. I will leave it to someone else to compare the Holy Father with the gentleman who leads the community gathering on main street, Anytown USA.

However, truth is not determined by tally. I do not find the papacy any more “inspired” than any other believers on the planet, and some of the actions were certainly not spirit led- at least not the Holy Spirit anyway.

 

[Micah11]

As one of the historic patriarchates of the Church, how can one not see the office (and the man who holds it) as authoritative at least in that sense?
One doesn’t have to accept the level of primacy as the CC claims the office has to see it in some ways, as the early Church did, as authoritative.

Jon

Easy. Scripture says, by their fruits you will know them.
If the actions contradict the teachings of Jesus, then how can he be under the guidance of G-d and why would I support that?

 

[pismopal]

I’m sorry, you’ll have to take that up with the person who started this thread who said:

However, truth is not determined by tally. I do not find the papacy any more “inspired” than any other believers on the planet, and some of the actions were certainly not spirit led- at least not the Holy Spirit anyway.

No Catholic (including the popes) I know has ever claimed that everything that all popes have done has been, or is even supposed to be, led by the Holy Spirit. What we claim is that, in the matter of faith and morals…I said FAITH AND MORALS, the popes and our current pope is led by the Holy Spirit when making those decisions ex cathedera (officially,in other words)and is protected by the Holy Spirit from error. The pope cannot rely on the Holy Spirit to reveal what team will win the world series but he can lead his flock in the direction we need to go…always without error. You must be very busy keeping up with all “the other believers on the planet”.