I am bringing the reader's attention to the dissonance here: the declaration is that the Protestants have zero popes, but the actual behavior is that they have a dosen thousand of them, if not more. If the declaration of zero-popes were followed, we would not have the spectacle of others telling us what veneration of saints is or what the Mass is, or the Scripture is.
Well, this goes to my original point, that you believe that there MUST be a Pope, under any belief system. When we give our views and cite scripture as the source, you say we are our own popes. You appear to be saying that we aren't allowed to give our views, unless we claim infallibility, etc. We don't claim infallibility, but we do claim confidence in scripture. It's perfectly fine if you disagree with our views, but they are not based on anything remotely resembling a self-imposed papacy.
IOW, it appears you have instituted a ruling that when we give our views it is only proper if we couch our language to be wishy-washy, and without certitude. If we declare scripture concretely, then we are popes. If we hedge our views as random opinions, then you will allow us to be lone wolves who are simply wrong. It isn't intellectually honest for you to use the Church to characterize our beliefs, but then when we use the Bible to characterize your beliefs, you claim we are self-proclaimed popes.
"If the declaration of zero-popes were followed, we would not have the spectacle of others telling us what veneration of saints is or what the Mass is, or the Scripture is."
You know, MD, I find myself in the odd position of siding with FK on this one. That is not to say that I think that personal revelations about the meaning of scripture are all equally valid as inspired by the HS. Demonstrably they are not. The default position, however, is not an infallible papacy but rather an infallible Church. In all honesty, I've always thought that the old Protestant saw about "Every man a pope", whatever its pedigree, is a very bad and misleading comment.
FK, you say that you don't claim claim infallibility, but you do calim confidence in scripture. Well, we all have that. With all due respect, while you don't claim infallibility, you certainly do claim, in the face of centuries of evidence to the contrary, that it is the HS which leads you individually to the proper understanding of scripture. I can understand how such a notion can arise out of the Western cult of the individual, but unless you are ready to subscribe to the revisionist Episcopalian notion of "pluriform truths" about the Faith, I think that in rejecting the Pope, you have likewise rejected The Church and an assurance of The Truth or a fair and humble statement that The Church simply doesn't know.
(Pssst: I think if you go to the message in question, you'll find that annalex said that, not me. --- Nad I'm here thinking,"Hey, I don't even remember that and it was over a thousand posts ago!" and worying about Alzheimers. FK, man ( [or woman, as the case may be], don't DO that to me!)
I think this is a case when a caricature is defeated by pointing to the photograph. Well, yes, the President does not really have ears and nose that long. But is the caricature pointing to a truth? Your hair-splitting "not infallibilty but confidence" shows that the caricature is truthful as far as caricatures go.
It is true that the Protestants do not claim infallibility. They also do not have pastors who are heads of state, dress like medieval royalty and get their shoe kissed. The serious issue is indeed not that you have a multiplicity of leaders who claim succession of Peter, singularly represent the Church, and have primacy over bishops (the functional description of papacy), but, like Kolokotronis said, that you have multiplicity of doctrinally autonomous churches. A Catholic sums it up as each one is a pope. An Orthodox would sum it up as each one is a church. These are all idiomatic expression of the truth that you would not deny: that in Protestantism the lines of authority do not converge at the top.
You claim that they converge at the scripture is a slogan. They do not. Several foundational points of Protestantism are not scripture. Sola scriptura and sola fide, for example, are a peculiar, strained interpretation of some passages, and completely bizarre inversion of the plain text of some other passages. On your fundamentals you converge in the interpretation of the scripture, and you choose the least natural interpretation of it. On everything else you simply do not converge at all: some believe in free will, others don't, some are "arminian" others "calvinist"; some adopt modern sexual ethics and others don't; some have rudimental sacramentality of praxis, others don't; your eschatological views -- all based on the same supposedly perspicious scripture -- cannot be more diverse.
Also appeals to authority -- even Protestant authority -- do not work with you, because the authority stops at the individual sovereignly interpreting the scripture under the leadership, he claims, of the Holy Ghost. This is a level of conceit no pope of Rome would claim. By this measure you are not all popes, you are all Holy Ghosts.