Posted on 07/10/2007 8:10:26 AM PDT by topcat54
The death of Pope John Paul II and the election of Pope Benedict XVI have drawn great attention to the papacy in recent months. Such intense interest is remarkable. Much of it relates to the personality and accomplishments of John Paul II. He was a man of great courage and contributed significantly to the collapse of communism in eastern Europe.
Part of the interest also results from the powerful images that Rome can offer television cameras. Some of the greatest art and architecture of western civilization serve as a backdrop for elaborate rituals performed by gloriously clad clerics.
Part of the appeal for many—including non-Roman Catholics—is the sense of continuity and certainty provided by the institution of the papacy. The office of the pope connects us with the past, with a time of greater Christian presence and influence at all levels of society and culture in the west. It also speaks of certain moral standards defended against the relativism of our times.
All of these elements of appeal for the papacy went largely unexamined by the media. I heard few authentically Protestant voices challenging the papacy on historical or theological terms. A few Protestant leaders briefly provided words of praise for John Paul II, but the only criticism of papal theological positions came from more liberal Roman Catholics.
Perhaps the nature of the event (and of the media) made it unlikely that much Protestant opinion would be expressed. But in America—with many more Protestants than Roman Catholics—one might have expected some media exploration of why Protestants do not acknowledge the pope as the head of the church. The repeated claims that the pope is the successor of Peter and that the papacy is a 2000 year old institution went unexplored and unchallenged.
This Protestant silence says much about the state of Protestantism today. After observing the postponement of a royal wedding and the presence of the Prince of Wales, the prime minister and the Archbishop of Canterbury at the papal funeral, one Oxford historian declared, “Protestant England is dead.” Similarly, in America the reaction to the death of John Paul II was surprising. Our president, a Methodist, ordered American flags flown at half-staff—an honor not even accorded Winston Churchill. And while Mrs. Lillian Carter headed the American delegation to the funeral of John Paul I, the president and two former presidents represented the United States at this funeral. Does the American response indicate that Protestant America is more interested in religious toleration or a Christian united front than it once was?
Historic Protestant View of the Pope
Historically Protestants have been very critical of the papacy as an institution. They have rejected the papacy for its theological claims and for its tyrannical exercise of power over the churches.
Rome’s Claim #1: The Bishop of Rome is the earthly head of the whole church. Protestants have wanted to show historically and theologically that this claim is invalid. They have argued that the papacy is not a 2000 year old institution. Even if Peter did minister and die in Rome, it can not be demonstrated that he was bishop there in the Roman Catholic sense of that word. For Rome a bishop is a separate office in the church superior to the ministers (or priests) who serve under him. If Peter was a bishop in Rome, he was bishop in a New Testament sense where bishop is simply another term for minister or elder (see Titus 1:5-7). In I Peter 5:1 Peter simply refers to himself as a “fellow elder.”
Certainly many churches in the first five hundred years of the history of the church did not recognize a sovereign authority in the bishop of Rome. The churches of Eastern Orthodoxy have never recognized such a claim, and many churches in the western part of the Roman empire during those early centuries did not recognize them either.
Rome’s Claim #2: Peter is the rock on which the whole church is built. Roman Catholics have argued that Jesus indicated that the church is built on Peter as its rock, appealing to Matthew 16:18, 19. Peter (Petros) confesses that Jesus is the Christ, and Jesus responds that on this rock (petra) he will build his church. Most Protestants have insisted that Jesus the Christ is the rock on which the church is built. (Some argued that Peter as the confessor and believer in Christ stood for the faith of the church and in that sense was the rock.) Peter in his first epistle sees Jesus as the rock, calling Jesus the rock of offense (I Pet. 2:8). Also the keys of the kingdom given to Peter in Matthew 16 are not uniquely given to him, for Matthew 18:18 shows that they are given to all the disciples.
Even if Peter were the head of the entire church and the rock on which the church is built as the leading apostle, that fact would not demonstrate that Peter’s power could be passed on to anyone else. Only Jesus makes apostles, and even Rome grants that the office of apostle does not continue in the church beyond the first century.
The Pope as Antichrist: In Europe during the Middles Ages voices were raised against the claims of the Bishop of Rome. Some medieval Christians—notably radical followers of St. Francis of Assisi and of John Hus—argued that the pope was in fact the Antichrist because of his power, wealth and corruption. The pope’s use of military power, his accumulation of vast wealth and various moral scandals in the Vatican all seemed to support this belief.
The conviction that the pope was the Antichrist was held by almost all Protestants in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. When the pope refused to support reformation in the church and began to use the power of his office to persecute the advocates of reform, Luther concluded that the pope was Antichrist. Most other Protestants followed Luther in that belief.
Historic Protestant View: Biblical Basis
These early Protestants appealed to various texts of the Bible to support their contention. They cited 2 Thessalonians 2:3,4,9,10: “Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God….The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.” Those Protestants noted that the Pope opposed the truth and claimed miracles to support his unbiblical teaching. They argued that he seated himself in the heart of the church which is the temple of God and took divine prerogative to himself, especially in changing the Gospel of grace.
They also applied Revelation 13:6,7 about the beast to the pope: “It opened its mouth to utter blasphemies against God, blaspheming his name and his dwelling, that is, those who dwell in heaven. Also it was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them….” (See also Daniel 7:25.) Protestants claimed that Rome’s rejection of the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone was a blasphemy against God and his grace in Christ. This doctrine was anathematized, or denounced as accursed, at the Council of Trent (1545-1563), a council which Rome believes is an official ecumenical council of the church. Trent’s anathemas were approved by the popes and remain a condemnation of that doctrine to this day. Further, many Protestant believed that because the popes supported the persecution of Protestants, leading to the martyrdom of tens of thousands of them in the sixteenth century, the papacy was revealed as the Antichrist.
Historic Protestant View: The Confessions
So strong was this Protestant conviction about the Pope that it was incorporated into several Protestant confessions. Philip Melanchthon in the official Lutheran “Apology of the Augsburg Confession,” (1531), Article 15, wrote: “If our opponents defend the notion that these human rites merit justification, grace, and the forgiveness of sins, they are simply establishing the kingdom of Antichrist. The kingdom of Antichrist is a new kind of worship of God, devised by human authority in opposition to Christ….So the papacy will also be a part of the kingdom of Antichrist if it maintains that human rites justify.”
Martin Luther wrote even more strongly in the Lutheran confessional document, the Smalcald Articles (1537), Part 2, Article 4, “The Papacy,” “this is a powerful demonstration that the pope is the real Antichrist who has raised himself over and set himself against Christ, for the pope will not permit Christians to be saved except by his own power, which amounts to nothing since it is neither established or commanded by God.”
The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), chapter 25, section 6 declared: “There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.”
While confessional Lutherans have not changed their confessional statements, most American Presbyterian churches have removed the declaration that the pope is Antichrist from their confession.
Conclusion
If many Protestants today are not persuaded that the pope is the Antichrist, what should we say of him? Has the theology of the Roman Catholic Church about the pope and about the Gospel changed? The Roman Catholic Church has changed some of its claims about being the only institution in which one can find salvation. It is willing to call Protestants in some sense separated brothers. There does seem to be more toleration and less commitment to coercion on the part of the bishop of Rome. We should be glad for these changes.
Still the basic teaching about the authority of the pope has not changed and the teaching about the Gospel also has not changed. The Roman Catholic Church still anathematizes the Protestant and biblical doctrine of justification.
The most important criterion by which any minister must be evaluated is this: did he preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ? As Paul taught clearly: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8). By that standard we must conclude that Pope John Paul II was no more a success than his predecessors since the time of the Reformation. Let us pray that Pope Benedict XVI, a very learned man, may come to see the truth as it is in Christ and teach it faithfully.
(c)2005 Westminster Seminary California All rights reserved
As an aside, it’s ironic that the more conservative churches (like mine) are getting fuller, as I think young and old alike sense the lack of liberal compromise in doctrine, and are seeking more honesty and solidity in these difficult days we live in. Remember how packed the churches were right after 9-11? Too many churches now focus on “the show” and forget the Gospel and a modicum of reverence. Just my 2 cents.
Thank you for at least answering this question. Now will you answer the others. For the fourth time - where did you get your figure of 20,000 demoninations and (third time) where do you get that 5 churches start weekly. And for the second time, do you really mean churches or denominations here?
>>There is no ‘victory’ to be won or defeat to be borne in the exercise.<<
You’re my hero!
Those are two very, very interesting articles.
Would you estimate that there are any less than 20,000 denominations which have both [separate leadership and separate beleifs]?
Of course, but if there is also an accepted standard core of beliefs, which binds us all (Catholics, Protestants, etc) as brothers. We have a saying that goes: “we can agree to disagree”, but leave in peace. We don’t deny others the right to believe what they want, but rather will remove ourselves from sharing in the sacraments, due to differences in doctrine/dogma that will probably never be resolved this side of eternity. We tend to err on the side of caution out of respect for the sanctity of the sacraments themselves.
I mean a set of beleifs that is not 100% congruent.
It must be that new math! Either that or they need to replace the batteries in their calculator, or maybe somebody switched the + with the - button, or maybe someone finally DID invent the fusion bomb and they did their beta testing with protestants! And we thought we glowed because we were letting this little light of mine shine... lol
I ran across them a few years back and I had a hard time remembering my filing system on where to find them. I find it interesting that the catholic apologists actually backed down.
Sorry, but the bishop in Rome is not my holy father.
"And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." -- Matthew 23:9
I can’t argue this, but I found it.
From Dave1988 on the Catholic Answers boards —
33,000+ denominations of Protestantism and counting
I was at the library one day researching something, and I saw the much talked about Protestant reference, the World Christian Encyclopedia by David B. Barrett, George T. Kurian, and Todd M. Johnson (2001 edition). I thought I’d see for myself what it says. This is what I found....
David Barrett, et al, does indeed refer to “over 33,000 denominations in 238 countries.” (Table 1-5, vol 1, page 16). This refers to his unique definition of a “Christian denomination” but does not include small ones (congregations of a couple hundred or less), which would dramatically increase this number beyond all imagination. Barrett also states there are 242 total Roman Catholic denominations (year 2000 numbers). So I looked into what he believed these denominations were.
Barrett breaks down his encyclopedic reference by country. So I looked up how many Roman Catholic denominations are within the U.S. according to Barrett. Much to my surprise, Barrett shows ONLY ONE Roman Catholic denomination for the United States.
So I wondered where the heck are these 242 denominations? I looked in Barrett’s reference for Britain, and again he listed ONLY ONE Roman Catholic denomination. I thought surely that of the 238 countries within his encyclopedic reference there must be a country that had more than ONE Roman Catholic denomination. There wasn’t. I could not find one country listed by Barrett that had more than ONE Roman Catholic denomination.
So, what does Barrett mean when he states there are 242 Roman Catholic denominations? It seems Barrett is counting each country as it’s own denomination. So, for Barrett, the Roman Catholic Church of the USA is a different denomination than the Roman Catholic Church of Canada. I don’t know how he got 242 denominations from 238 countries listed, however. Some numbers from Barrett’s...
Denominations / Paradenominations:
1970: 26,350
1995: 33,820
Under U.S. Country Table 2, of the 6,222 US denominations, there’s only ONE Roman Catholic denomination listed, and there’s 60 Orthodox denominations. Barrett labels the rest of the denominations: Protestant, Anglican, Independent, and Marginal. The more commonly accepted classification of Christianity used even by Protestant scholars, such as Leslie Dunstan in his book Protestantism, Christianity consists of: (1) Catholic, (2) Orthodox, and (3) Protestant. So, using this more commonly understood classification....
Number of U.S. Denominations
Catholic 1
Orthodox 60
Protestant 6,161
Remember, the above numbers are derived using Protestant sources only. Barrett differs from other Protestants such as Dunstan as to what constitutes a Protestant denomination. What Dunstan would call Protestant, Barrett describes as:
Barrett’s classification:
Protestant 660
Anglican 1
Independent 5,100
Marginal 400
That’s just for the U.S. Yet, there’s but ONE Catholic denomination in the U.S., either by Dunstan or Barrett’s standard.
Another way of looking at it is not to use Barrett’s fuzzy understanding of denominations at all. What does Webster call a denomination? Let’s see... Webster calls a ‘denomination’ a “a religious organization uniting local congregations in a single legal and administrative body.” The category called “Protestantism,” since it does not actually “unite” any local congregation into a “single legal and administrative body,” is more accurately a grouping of denominations rather than a denomination, according to Webster’s definition. How does one know if their “denomination” is of the Protestant kind?
You might be a Protestant if....
(1) You believe the Bible consists of only 66 books
(2) You believe authority rests with Scripture Alone (Sola Scriptura)
(3) You believe justification is by Faith Alone (Sola Fide)
How many of the “denominations” listed by Barrett fall into this category? I’m betting over 33,000. Let’s look at it this way, of the 33,000 that Barrett classifies, which ones refute the pillars of Protestantism shown above? (a) Catholic Church, (b) Oriental Orthodox (5th century schism), (c) Eastern Orthodox (11th century schism). Any others? Perhaps I’ve missed a few. Even if you break apart the Orthodox Churches into separate Patriarchates (Bishops), that doesn’t reduce the BIG number of 33,820 by very much, does it? Some would say, “well that number is completely inflated” based upon Barrett’s fuzzy definition of “denomination.” On the contrary, I would say that it is a MUCH LARGER NUMBER of denominations using Webster’s definition of “denomination.”
Even within the Catholic Church, the most diverse forms of Catholicism, the Latin and Eastern Rite, share the same government, the same “religious organization uniting local congregations in a single legal and administrative body.” In other words, Canon Law for the Eastern Rite and Canon Law for the Latin Rite come from the same single government, chaired by the same Vicar.
In the U.S. the next largest so-called “denomination” after the Catholic Church is referred to as “Baptist” according to http://www.adherents.com/
Is this a single denomination by Webster’s use of the word? Can the Baptist denomination rightly be called a “religious organization uniting local congregations in a single legal and administrative body?” I don’t believe so.
I suspect the label ‘Baptist’ is yet another grouping of denominations like the word “Protestant,” since according to one Baptist scholar, every
“local Baptist parish church is a law unto itself. Its relations with other Baptists churches, its compliance with recommendations from national church headquarters, its acceptance of any resolutions formulated at regional , national, or international conventions — all these are entirely voluntary on the part of the parish church.” (Religions of America, Leo Rosten, ed.)
If it is true that every Baptist parish-church is a law unto itself, then isn’t every individual Baptist parish-church, according to Webster, its own legal and administrative body, its own denomination? I wonder how many Baptist parish-churches are in the world? I know there are too many to easily count here in Colorado Springs.
Are there any major denominations within Protestantism, for example Lutheranism, which can be correctly called a denomination by Webster’s usage? If so, I’m not familiar with them. Missouri-Synod Lutherans want nothing to do with the World-Lutheran-Federation Lutherans, for example.
Therefore, I believe 33,000 is a tragically conservative number of Protestant denominations IN THIS COUNTRY (U.S.) let alone in the world.
Anti-Catholic Evangelical apologist Eric Svendsen is quoting from an earlier edition of the same encyclopedic source. Unfortunately, if you’ve read Dave Armstrong’s article on the subject, you know that Eric Svendsen’s polemics fall flat upon its face (as usual). The beauty is, Svendsen still has not faced up to the fact that there is ONE Catholic Church listed for every country Barrett lists. Nor has he addressed the fact that all those “denominations” that use a 66-book Protestant Bible, and uphold the pillars of Protestantism (sola scriptura and sola fide) are PROTESTANT even if they claim otherwise. Calling themselves “non-denominational” may be a clever marketing technique, but the world (including Protestant authors) knows them as Protestants.
HOW do you defind a set of beliefs? One one hand, you can define that set to include all true Christians, regardless of which, if any church they attend. On the other end of the range, you would have to say that you need to take the number of true believers that have ever lived (only God knows the heart) and multiply that by about .90 because there will always be different beliefs on different issues which are very minor.
Thank you once more for trying to answer my question. I appreciate it. But will you answer the others??? They really are not hard. If you don't know, then please just say that. For the fifth time - where did you get your figure of 20,000 demoninations and (fourth time) where do you get that 5 churches start weekly.
I am not anti-Catholic (I married one), but I want to state that the Catholic church has its own fractured groups, even though they present themselves only as a united front. Take a look at the Catholicized African tribal/indiginous beliefs, such as Santa Ria or Voodoo. Ever been to a Native American Catholic church? Many of them infuse their native tribal rituals and beliefs into Catholic teachings. The difference between the Catholics and Protestants in this regard, is that the Catholics contain them officially under one umbrella, whereas the Protestant tradition gives many the reaction to break away. Who knows which approach is best? Does it depend on the spiritual enemy of the age?
Read post 71.
That’s been the abuses and innovations allowed for the past 40 years and now B16 is correcting them. He wants a leaner, stronger church.
When I refer to the Holy Father, I do not do so in the meaning of Holiness of God, rather it is in the meaning of his position at head of the Catholic Church in which Christians are being maintained during their earthly sojourn. For the Catholic Church, the Pope is the chief amongst the saints in Catholicism and as such the lowest of servants for all. Saints aren’t holy folk, they’re believers living out their salvation in fear and trembling. I would bet the Holy Father would agree with that because he is not puffed up in himself. Remind yourself of the designations of teachers, bishops, etc. as described in the Bible, and the reason for their position in the body of believers.
Christians, Catholics, Mormons, Witnesses, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Atheists all together in Heaven. It’s going to be a glorious day isn’t it?
then the fact is that new denominations arise daily and it is the result Satan’s influence on failable people.
The Catholics avoid this by having one guy decide, the Orthodox difer to the councils and refuse to admit any innovations in beleif. Thus maintaining single groups (schismatic groups for instance the SSPX or ROCiE could be classified as protestant in many ways since they’ve stepped out of that authority).
The protestants proliferate like the splitting of ameobas however because they have no authority to appeal to.
Obviously.
If you believe that the gospel of Roman Catholicism is the gospel of the Bible, then you ought to be a Roman Catholic.
I believe that Roman Catholics have far more in common with Protestants than either of us have with Islam, Hinduism, Taoism, etc. I believe they've gotten some things wrong over the years, which is why I'm not a Catholic -- but I see no need to scream at them about it. I think Britain's system of a parliamentary democracy with a figurehead monarch is stupid... but I don't waste time trying to convince them to adopt our Constitution.
If you think this is about God's secret sovereign election (decretive will), then you do not understand reformed theology.
God told Moses that He chooses to be gracious to whom He chooses to be gracious. I personally won't presume to inform Him as to whom He can and can't offer grace.
Why?
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.