Meaning a perpetual assuredly infallible (conditionally) papal office, to whom all the church looks to. But which is invisible in the NT church. While being the street-level leader among the 12 and exercising a general pastoral role, yet nowhere is the church corporate exhorted to look to Peter as its supreme infallible head, and as rendering the final decree on issues, much less in Rome, or referred to as such, not even in the church epistles where he is rarely mentioned, or in Peter's own epistles ("a servant," "an elder," "an apostle") or in the letters to the 7 churches.
Submission to the pope as supreme is not even set forth as a solution to church problems, and where he is shown conferring sanction then he is the second among others "who seemed to be pillars," and is publicly rebuked, (Gal. 2) while in Acts 15 it is James who provides the final decree on what should be done, confirmatory of Peter's proposal and the doctrine of Paul.
And instead of the pope being the more sure word, Peter sets for Scripture as being that. (2Pt. 1:19-21) While the RC magisterium effectively presumes to be the supreme authority, its words are not wholly inspired of God.
And in critical addition, the Holy Spirit nowhere shows or teaches successors to the foundational apostles, with the only one being for Judas in order to maintain the foundational number - that being 12, and only 12, contra Rome, and which was by the non-political OT method of casting lots, which Rome has never used.
In addition, even Catholic scholarship supplies evidence contrary to the myth of a perpetual infallible papacy to whom all the church looked to. Among others , Klaus Schatz [Jesuit Father theologian, professor of church history at the St. George’s Philosophical and Theological School in Frankfurt] on Priesthood, Canon, and the Development of Doctrine in his work, “Papal Primacy”:
"The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative." “If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no.” (page 3, top)
It is likely that the Roman church was governed by a group of presbyters from whom there very quickly emerged a presider or ‘first among equals’ whose name was remembered and who was subsequently described as ‘bishop’ after the mid-second century. (Schatz, 4). More :
Furthermore, the claimed apostolic successors of Rome are not actual apostles, as they fail of the requirements of personal discipleship, and degree of supernatural attestation, and of virtue, under which the unity of the NT church was realized, with manifest apostolic power, purity, passion and performance which supernaturally attested and established the apostles as being of God.
Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. (2 Corinthians 12:12)
But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power. For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness? (1 Corinthians 4:19-21)
But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, .... (2 Corinthians 6:4-7)
The deformation of the church was progressive , with a key pope even in the century employing a murderous mob to secure his seat, and politically expanding the papacy .
Increasingly errors were established as doctrine, with traditions of men being perpetuated, and faith becoming much institutionalized, and carnality in both rule and morals increasing. Reformation, if imperfect, was thus necessitated.
Yet the church never ceased to exist as the body of Christ, which is visibly manifest wherever by faith which worketh by love, as long as humble faith existed in Christ to save, as "The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit." (Psalms 34:18) However, the visible church is never perfect, and is not the bride of Christ, nor is the church of Rome even one church in reality, but exists in sects and schism.
For indeed, Catholicism's unity is largely on paper and merely organizational, but while overall Christianity exists as a divided kingdom, yet there is a blessed spiritual unity among born again believers due to a shared personal conversion an and relationship with Christ as per Jn. 17:21,23, and which is greater than their external divisions which is transcends.
The Protestant experiment tried to replace the Pope with Scripture and gave it sole authority.
As usual, RCs must resort to using a straw man to justify RC unScriptural presumptions. SS does not make Scripture the sole authority, and leaving every man to fend for himself what Truth is, but holds Scripture as the only supreme infallible authority as the wholly inspired and thus assured, word of God, and thus the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims. Which it is abundantly evidenced to be.
And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)
In contrast, Rome cannot claim plenary inspiration for the supreme authority for RCs, while just what is infallible and its meaning and that of other magisterial teachings can require varying degrees of interpretation.
Nor does SS leave the believer to fend for himself, or the church without ecclesiastical authority, but as Westminster affirms,
"It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..." (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm)
But not as enjoining unconditional obedience as to an assuredly infallible magisterium, which Rome presumes, and which is the Real Issue .
But Protestants cannot agree on what Scripture says and have no earthly way to resolve their conflicts. While they say that authority resides in Scripture alone, the fact is, in claiming the anointing of the Holy Spirit and thus the ability to properly interpret Scripture, they really place the locus of authority within themselves and become the very pope they denounce. Having denied that there is a pope they become pope. If no one is Pope, everyone is pope.
This also is a miscontruance, as to be a pope is to claim the anointing of infallibility, which is only what cults effectively claim, leaving the RC objection to be that of lay people correctly discerning what Truth is in contradiction to the magisterium. Which is what RCs argue is necessary.
For the RC polemic is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God.
Would you not agree that this is your real argument?
I have read that some objectors think Catholics arrogant in asserting that we have a pope whom we trust to be anointed by God to teach us without error on faith and morals. But which is more arrogant: to claim there is a pope (not me), or to in fact act like one myself?
This is based upon the straw man that SS adherents are claiming assured personal infallibility, which is what makes the pope the RC pope (which even the EOs reject), or that SS rejects the teaching office, both of which are manifestly false.
The faithful believer is to seek to persuade souls by "manifestation of the Truth." (2Cor. 4:2) Thus the real objection objection remains that of Scripture being the transcendent supreme standard for obedience, and to the laity being able to correctly judge what is of God in contradiction to the magisterium. Therefore you need to justify the real RC argument as described above, rather than engaging in the use of straw men.
Where's the Church Lady when you need her??
Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.[1]
Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who "sold" the Papacy
Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy
Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.[2]
Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.[3]
Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony[4]
Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.