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.
In the 1571 and 1662 texts of the 39 Articles of the Church of England was article XXI:
.... . When [general councils] be gathered together (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all not not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining to God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.This is an approach which seems to me to deny any reliable authority of any kind, since, as we see "proving things from Scripture" is a horse race.
I don't say this disparagingly. I just think it represents a very different approach to ecclesiology, apostolicity, and the promise of God's Spirit leading the Church.
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 infallibility but confidence" shows that the caricature is truthful as far as caricatures go.
One of my problems is that many of the arguments from some of you all are only against the caricatures. (See further below.) :)
If I am hair-splitting, then you appear to be saying that confidence may not be had without infallibility. I disagree. In my view, infallibility is only at a divine level. I do not claim any burning-bush experiences, and I do not claim a monopolistic Bat-Phone hot-line to God. I don't even claim that when I take a vote among my buddies that I somehow have these things. Instead of all that, I simply claim confidence. The point is that I do not claim what you claim for your hierarchs AT ALL. The Holy Spirit DOES lead me individually, but in no way does that mean I have all truth today, yesterday, or tomorrow. Your Church, OTOH, does claim that for all time. MASSIVE difference.
We say the Spirit leads us in sanctification, a lifelong process. For you, there is no sanctification of the Church, it is always, and for all time, perfect and infallible. This is not hair-splitting, these are opposite views.
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.
I do not deny your last clause. But here, you are attacking a caricature. Therefore, your idiomatic expressions are NOT OF the truth. You are lumping in all Protestants together in order to defeat all of them together. It would be identical to my declaring that Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are BOTH definitionally wrong because you are not in communion with each other. I doubt you would see that as a fair argument. As I have said so many times, I do not speak for all Protestants, NOR do I think I should have to, in order to defend the beliefs I do have.
BTW, I do not think the Orthodox would say that each Protestant is his own church. They deny that we even worship in a church (small "c"). If anything, I think they would have to say that each Protestant is his own "assembly". :)
Your 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.
Even among Reformers, NONE here claim that all interpretations among us lead to the same conclusion, even though all are directed toward scripture. Of course the vast majority of our interpretations DO lead to the same interpretation, but we are not infallible. This does not defeat Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is our base, just as the Church's interpretations are your base. You can't tell me that you aren't still learning about your own Church's pronouncements of truth, along with the writings of the Fathers. The same idea applies to us. We are still learning too, as the Holy Spirit leads us.
I find it highly ironic that you would be complaining about the plain text of scripture. You cannot seriously look me in the eye and say that you favor it more than we do. It isn't even close. To us, plain meaning is foundational, and interpretation is done when necessary. For you, Tradition is foundational, and interpretation is done ALL the time as a necessity.
Remember my hypothetical challenge from several months ago. I proposed putting 100 spiritually-neutral, but intelligent people in a room with a Bible. They had to read it cover to cover and then answer a series of fair questions to discern what their respective understandings of "faith" were. I boldly proclaimed that the weight of the evidence would clearly show a leaning MUCH MUCH more toward Reformed theology than Apostolic. I stand by that today. The reason is that ALL we use is the Bible. We don't have to make it match Tradition or anything else. If your faith was really close to the plain meaning of scripture, then you wouldn't need Tradition to interpret it to the degree it does.
In fact, a few knowledgeable Catholics have admitted to me on these threads that without the Roman Catholic "lens" (Tradition) on scripture, that the Bible could even be a dangerous book to read. We would say no similar thing, for while teaching would normally be required to reach the same beliefs I have, a "blind" reading of the plain text will bring the average person a great distance closer to Reformed beliefs than Catholic ones.
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 perspicuous scripture -- cannot be more diverse.
Here again, you are lumping in all Protestants into the same pot. I do not condone nor endorse any Protestants with "modern sexual ethics". I do not speak for them.
I do not know enough about "rudimental sacramentality of praxis" among Protestants to really comment on it at length. Infant Baptism doesn't bother me so much, but a church with priests literally forgiving sins would. :)
On eschatology, I have asked a number of times for the official RC view of it, and I have never gotten a clear answer. That tells me that you guys are all over the map about it just like we are. :) So, unless I can be corrected, I don't think it's fair to criticize even general Protestantism for not being unified on this issue.
However, after all of the above, you do raise a very legitimate issue on Arminianism vs. Calvinism. There can be no denying that this is a large issue for us. I lament it, but it is nonetheless THERE. I haven't thought through all the details yet to know if it is a fairly accurate comparison, but what comes to my mind is Roman Catholicism vs. Orthodoxy. I thought of this from observing how the two pairs argue with and against each other. I'm leery of opening up this train of thought, but the similarities I noticed were pretty interesting to me. Perhaps it is best to just see what happens. :)
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.
Well, I will agree that there is no Protestant authority in the form of an only human man, living or dead. That's obvious. However, I disagree that for us the authority stops at the individual. We say the authority stops at scripture. Now, if the attitude of people like me was that we interpret scripture, as led, and that was the end of it, then you would have a point. But we don't. I have always maintained my willingness to reevaluate any of my views if someone could show me a better scriptural understanding than the one I had. Please believe me that this is not some irrelevant platitude, it has actually happened to me, right here on FR. I flipped like a pancake once I was shown a higher truth supported by more relevant scripture. That's why I don't think the buck stops with us as individuals, and I don't think "conceit" is an accurate word to use here to describe our outlook.
BTW, you said that the pope would never claim the conceit of the following: "the authority stops at the individual sovereignly interpreting the scripture under the leadership, he claims, of the Holy Ghost." To be frank, if someone had asked me to describe the Catholic position of the pope's authority, I could have easily used words like this. How would you correct them in the case of ex Cathedra?