Many non-believers -- and indeed many Christians -- may not understand how the papacy relates to protestants, but the Baptist Press has a brief and informative explanation.
Amid expressions of appreciation for the conservative moral views of Joseph Ratzinger, the German cardinal who was elected as the 265th pope of the Roman church, various evangelical leaders reiterated their disagreement with Catholicism’s papacy from a biblical standpoint.“Evangelicals do not find any biblical warrant for the office of the papacy or the elaborate structure of the Roman Catholic Church,” Daniel Akin, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, N.C., told Baptist Press.
“Further, the Catholic system's emphasis on merit, works salvation and veneration of Mary and the saints are issues that those committed to ‘sola scriptura’ could never endorse or affirm,” Akin continued. “While we can appreciate the moral stand on life and marriage of the papacy, we will resolutely maintain that our High Priest is Jesus Christ in whom we have direct access to the true and living God.”
There's scripture in the article to back it all up.
As a protestant who converted to Catholocism when I got married, I really never understood the big deal of some of the disputes. I understand the issue of wanting less ceremony. I also understand wanting to do the interpretation of scripture on your own instead of relying on a preisthood, so a lot of the distinction is more a personal choice on how to worship than anything else (I rely on others to choose my stocks, so this Catholic version suits me, but YMMV). I also understand the anger some still feel centuries after the Catholic church was more a political force than religious one, although I think today that no one can really complain, but grudges die hard.
On some of the others issues you outlined, you have to keep in mind that the Catholic church has 2,000 years of baggage versus no more than a few hundred, or even far less, for some of the protestant sects. So some of the things going on are based on this baggage that the other sects don't have.
Let's take the Saints and Mary. When the Christian church was expanding (and there was only the Catholic church then) and going into pagan areas, one of the ways they got people to convert was by doing this:
"Oh, this god you worship? That's a SAINT. Yeah, he's a part of our church, so you can still venerate him as a saint, but below Christ. And that goddess?! That' not a goddess! That's MARY! You're just confused. Now convert over here and join our Church, and you can keep some of your cultural beliefs within the fold of our system." Incidently, the Saint/Mary thing is optional, and not all Catholics are into it (for example, Mary is big in South America/Mexico and not such a big deal in the U.S.)
There are a lot of things like this that most people don't know about. For example, did you know one branch of the Catholic church allows priests to marry? It's true. It was because when it accepted in a branch of the Orthadox church back into the Fold in the 1500s (Google "Council of Brest"), part of the deal of the re-merger was that this branch's priests - although they report in through the Pope - can still marry.
So, Michael, you have centuries of polical, social and expansionist history behind the Catholic church that you don't have with any other sect. Because if this it will be easy to find fault. And like any human institution, it will be impossible to please everyone anyway.
There are, of course, bible verses to support Catholic practices as well.
I think that Anon makes a fair point - one which many fundamentalist Protestants are blind to - namely that they have their own practices and traditions that are identical to Catholic practices because those practices meet the same needs. For example, I became involved in a discussion about whether there were "mortal sins." I said there was and cited 1 John 5:16. She hauled out some study manual which talked about that passage bein an anti-gnostic text. I observed that what she was doing was appealing to a "magisterium" - exactly like a Catholic - and that if the text required that kind of attention, perhaps we needed to understand it through tradition.
I think Anon gestures at another interesting point - where Protestantism emerged in a world that was essentially Christian; Catholicism grew out of a pagan world. At the time of the emergence of Catholicism, your typical Catholic knew a lot of pagans. Many of those pagans were mothers and fathers who might or might not ever be baptized. Many were authentically good people. It is hardly surprising then, that Catholicism would read scripture in such a way that beloved Mom and Dad, who maybe never had a chance to hear the gospel, were not necessarily condemned to an eternity of suffering, which I think may account for the faith-works debate and tthe Catholic doctrine of invincible ignorance, but I'm freely speculating at this point.
anon: Actually, the Eastern Orthodox churches are willing to ordain priests who are already married, but they don't allow priets to marry after being ordained. And yes, there is a lot of baggage that goes along with such an old institution, which is part of the reason why smaller, decentralized churches are more advantageous in some ways. The essential point is that the hierarchical RCC structure simply isn't found in the Bible, and there is no basis in scripture for papal authority.
PSB: Yes, I can understand why some people may have wanted to twist doctrine to make it more appealing to pagans, but that doesn't make it ok, it's still heresy.
Anyway, I don't really want to get into a huge religious battle with other Christians.
That wasn't my point - my point was about charity and viewing historical and sociological developments with sympathy toward the people involved in those developments.
It is undoubtedly harder to condemn people to an eternity of screaming agony when you know them to be essentially good but ignorant - one in that context is not likely to describe non-christians as evil whose every work is sin and displeasing to God because one actually know that to be wrong; such a person would know that there are such thing as "virtuous pagans." (Cf. Dante's Inferno.) Incidentally, this is a historical and sociological point.
The other thing you missed is that an essential part of the understanding - i.e., the construction or interpretation - of the texts by which people live - e.g., contracts, constitutions, the Bible etc. - is to look at what people have actually done when faced with the need to put the text into action. One canard of contract law is "show me what people did and I'll tell you what they meant." So, the 2,000 years of "twising doctrine to make it more appealing to pagans" may actually be the actual and true meaning of the text. Again that's a sociological and historical notion, not a theological one.
For example, why is it the case that at the very moment that Constantine takes the oppressed Christian church out of persecution, he makes the Bishop of Constantinople the equal of Rome? The answer is that Christians during the first three centuries - prior to any accession to state power - actually understood that the successor
to the See of Peter had a particularly important role to play in the structure of the church, as was suggested by Matt. 16:18 and other texts. The subsequent development of the Papacy during the Middle Ages was nothing more than adapting that original understanding to subsequent circumstances; we wouldn't have had the modern papacy without the fall of the Roman Empire in the West and the Barbarian Invasions. Again, those are historical and sociological points, not theological.
One sees similar developments in nondenominational Christianity. Nothing in the Bible speaks about services with Big Screen TVs or Country Western music; such things are simply "unbiblical". On the other hand, the Bible clearly speaks to the need to be baptized, the beginnings of a hiearchy, the ability of a specially selected group to forgive sins and the need to eat the flesh and drink the body of Christ. Likewise, the idea of a rapture was entirely unknown to Christianity until the late Nineteenth Century, but today it is a rock solid article of faith among nondenominational Christians.
Sorry for being boring, but you raised the subject. Next time you want to engage in unchallenged hit and run digs at "unbiblical" religions, just put up a warning.
PSB: Good on you for bringing up Constantine. His Sunday "sabbath" is an example of pagan baggage carried not only by Catholics, but by the vast majority of Protestant sects, as well. Adventists and the World Wide Church of God keep the sabbath, and I assume Messianic Jews do, but AFAIK, that's about it.
Sunday sabbath has nothing to do with paganism.
The Catholic Church says: The sabbath, which represented the completion of the first creation, has been replaced by Sunday which recalls the new creation inaugurated by the Resurrection of Christ. The Church celebrates the day of Christ's Resurrection on the "eighth day," Sunday, which is rightly called the Lord's Day. On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound . . . to abstain from those labors and business concerns which impede the worship to be rendered to God, the joy which is proper to the Lord's Day, or the proper relaxation of mind and body. Every Christian should avoid making unnecessary demands on others that would hinder them from observing the Lord's Day.
Well-reasoned, Biblically-inspired theology. Nothing about pagans.
"The Son of Man is Lord even of the sabbath." Mk 2:28
My invisible cloud being is better than your invisible could being, and I'm willing to fight to the death to prove my point.
As a Catholic I'm always reaching out for good relations with the hellbound.
This is theologically sound. Many Catholics would agree with you. See Catholics Against The Pope!
http://catholicsagainstthepope.blogspot.com
Being a born again spirit filled CHRISTIAN ,I see nowhere in the bible where we should pray to Mary or saints ,but only directly to GOD through JESUS CHRIST our lord,and I see nowhere in the bible where we should venerate "the pope" as a godlike figure as I had seen on National TV when the pope went to his eternal "Nobody comes to the FATHER but by ME", quoted the LORD JESUS CHRIST.
Please convince me otherwise.......................