Anglicanism: Protestant or Catholic

Paul didn’t immediately go out preaching the word after his encounter. He spent much time with Peter and the others before being sent out. Yes, these men are called by God, guided by the Holy Spirit, and as far as seeing the Lord, which seems to be your litmus test, who are we to say that each pope hasn’t seen the Lord? Can you positively say that they haven’t?

First, allow me to clarify... my litmus test is scripture. As a follower of Christ, is there a higher litmus test we can use? There are additional scriptural signs of an Apostle that the Bible contains, and I sent these to you in an earlier post (#100). Please feel free to go over them and confirm what they say.

If the Popes have/had seen Christ, and have NOT made this known to their followers, then this may also be an issue. The signs, wonders, etc were all to attest to and verify that the Apostles were who they claimed.

As to Paul, scripture tells us that he DID go out immediately and preach. While I'm not sure what bearing this has on the question of Catholic Apostolic Succession, I've included the passage below.

Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul's eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, and after taking some food, he regained his strength.
Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God. (Acts 9:18-20)

I believe the Greek makes clear that the 'at once' here refers to immediately following his baptism, and concurrent with the time spent with the disciples in Damascus, but we'll need someone with access to NT Greek to confirm this.

I guess in the end, the question is;
Is the Pope your 'head', or is Christ Jesus? If there is disagreement between their teachings, who will you put your faith in?

Is the Pope your 'head', or is Christ Jesus? If there is disagreement between their teachings, who will you put your faith in?

Pardon me for being frank, but that is a rather stupid question. Of course, the head of all is Christ Jesus. The leader of the Church on earth is His vicar, the pope. Just as Jesus himself set up when He gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter.

I have a question for you. You say your litmus test is scripture. Are you a proponent of Sola Scriptura? If so, where in scripture does it say that scripture is the sole authority? And what did the early Church use for NT scripture since most of it was not yet written?

Understood... but if the teachings of the ‘vicar’ contradict the head, what do you do? Do you merely accept the Popes words as sacrosanct, and if you do... has he not become your head?

The scriptural justification for papal ‘vicarship’ is also questionable. It’s rather late and I’d rather not get into it now, but if you look at the Greek of the most commonly used supportive text, it does not refer to Peter as the ‘rock’ in a way that denotes that he is the physical rock (please correct me if I’m wrong).

It also ignores other scripture where Peter is chastised... for instance where Christ rebukes him with, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”
(Mt 16:23)
Please note that I am not saying Peter is Satan... he remains an Apostle of Christ and one of the foundations upon which Christ spread his Good News.

As to ‘Sola Scriptura’, except in discussion with Catholics, the term never comes up. It is often used as some kind of condemnation... as if a it is somehow wrong to base your faith entirely upon the Word of God. What a sad thing when people use trust in scripture as an attack.

I do not look only at scripture however, and I think you'll find this true of even those who claim adherence to 'Sola Scriptura'. We all look at the writings and lives of Brethren in Christ, both past and present. For example, I usually have at least one missionary biography going at any given time, and also look at the writings of early Christianity (ie Tertulian, Justin Martyr, Augustine of Hippo, etc). More recent theologians and thinkers also top my reading list (ie. Ajith Fernando, NT Wright, John Dominic Crossan, etc). I should mention that merely because I read them does NOT mean I agree with everything they write.

I absolutely affirm though, that the highest authority is the Word of God contained in scripture. It is scripture that I use to measure the people that I read.

We are to use the Words of God to test the wisdom of man... not the other way around.

Understood... but if the teachings of the ‘vicar’ contradict the head, what do you do?

They don't contradict. In matters of the faith and of morals, the pope is infallible.

it does not refer to Peter as the ‘rock’ in a way that denotes that he is the physical rock

Petra vs. Petros, correct? IMO, that shows the importance of Peter against the importance of Christ. Obviously, Peter's importance pales in comparison. Now, that's just my opinion on "petra" vs. "petros" ... I'm sure the Church has an official stance on this, but you asked for my personal opinion when we began this and I'm offering that.

It also ignores other scripture where Peter is chastised

At no time does the Church deny that Peter was human and erred as humans do. A sinless life is not a requirement of an apostle. God does not called the qualified, he qualifies the called. Also, not long after being chastised, he also denied Christ 3 times as predicted. But read on ... he then became a pillar of faith.

What a sad thing when people use trust in scripture as an attack.

Wasn't an attack on my part. From reading your replies, you sounded as if that was something you held to.

We are to use the Words of God to test the wisdom of man... not the other way around.

Agreed. But God's word is not limited to the Bible. As scriptures says ... we will know them by their fruits.

At no time does the Church deny that Peter was human and erred as humans do.

In matters of the faith and of morals, the pope is infallible.

Why do you ascribe to the Pope infallibility, when you do not ascribe it even to Peter? If we look at the Apostles, they were far from perfect in matters of faith. They lacked the faith to walk on water, they ran from Christ when he was arrested, they denied him when questioned... so where does the idea that the Pope is infallible come from? Historically, there have been many Popes of poor and even depraved morality. I do not say this to condemn any Pope or Catholic believer, but to affirm that the Pope is just a man, subject to human failures... and must be accounted as one. There is only one who is perfect, and we should not credit men with the qualities that belong to God. To do so merely builds false idols.

But God’s word is not limited to the Bible.

Absolutely... but we use to scriptures to test whether something conforms to God’s Word.

His peace be with us all.

Why do you ascribe to the Pope infallibility, when you do not ascribe it even to Peter?

Regarding the Churh in matters of faith and morals, I do. Does that mean that Peter was perfect? Does that mean the popes are perfect? No ... they're sinners just like you and me and in need of a savior. It does not mean they can walk on water. And the infallibility does not apply to them personally. Only regarding the Church.

Up until now I've given you only my opinions. Now I am going to refer you to another source. Please follow this link to read more of the following snippet regarding papal infallibility.

The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists and other "Bible Christians" often confuse the charism of papal "infallibility" with "impeccability." They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due.

The following is also part of the linked article.

As a biblical example of papal fallibility, Fundamentalists like to point to Peter’s conduct at Antioch, where he refused to eat with Gentile Christians in order not to offend certain Jews from Palestine (Gal. 2:11–16). For this Paul rebuked him. Did this demonstrate papal infallibility was non-existent? Not at all. Peter’s actions had to do with matters of discipline, not with issues of faith or morals.

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

Sorry to take so long to get back to you Al.

(Al wrote) And the infallibility does not apply to them personally. Only regarding the Church.

This is parsing it quite a bit. Only God is infallible. To ascribe this characteristic to any man is biblically unsound, and I would argue a contradiction of one of God’s key commands... to place no gods before Him.

Does God guide His children? Absolutely. Does this mean that even in matters of faith and morals they are always correct? Certainly not.

You mentioned some who have cited Papal personal sinfulness, and your sources state
Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability.

I would say both infallibility and impeccability are attributes we can only assign to God. No man can be 'perfect' in either sense of the word.

The very fact that there have been 'bad Popes' goes against one of the key arguments for Papal infallibility; namely that they have been given a special 'charism' by God.

Yet we are clearly told that faith without actions is dead (James 2:14-24), and even within Catholicism (please correct me if I'm misinformed) you hold that if a man is inwardly saved by grace, that this salvation is made complete and is shown outwardly by his actions.

Most certainly a 'mature' believer, one who is chosen to be a leader or elder within the church, is to be able to distinguish between good and evil (Heb 5:13-14), to put off their corruption, falsehood and unwholesome talk (Eph4:17-32). If the 'bad Popes' fell away or never had the Spirit of God, please look at what Hebrews tells us about this in chapter 6.

If you hold that the Pope is infallible, even only in matters of faith and morals, then I would respectfully ask you to consider... have you not made a man or a 'church' into your God?

I do not question whether you are a believer and follower of Jesus Christ, or whether any particular Pope was or is. Rather, as one Brother in Christ to another, I ask you to look upon what God tells us in His Word, and ask whether you and your church are in obedience to it.

May His Spirit be a guide to all those who call upon His name.

I’ve had more comments about ‘Protestant’ on this forum than I’ve ever seen any place else. What exactly do you think a ‘Protestant’ is?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.