The Pope, His role in non-catholic Christianity, and the connection between Catholicism and Protestantism

Seeing as we have one suggestion and one vote for it plus a vote for one of my topics, I'll start us off with the Pope etc...

I didn't want to come into a post regarding the pope unprepared so I went ahead and I did some basic research. Catholics out there please correct me if I'm wrong in this regard but this is what I've come to understand as the reasoning for the Primacy of the Pope, the infallibility of the pope in ex cathedra (I think I phrased that right), and the general idea of the apostolic succession. The primacy of the pope is based off the idea that Christ referred to Peter as "the rock upon which I shall build my Church" (Matthew 16:18, and yes I did play with the wording a bit there but it was purely for grammatical purposes). In other words, due to that passage and the fact that there are numerous other passages throughout the Gospel that seem to point to Peter, James, and John are used to declare Peter the first pope and the leader of the church. The other two items come from this. The idea of the apostolic succession comes from a combination of these passages and the fact that the Old Testament Church/Judaism relied upon a High Priest, whose title was passed down through the ages. The argument is, just as the High Priesthood necessitated a succession of power so does the primacy/leadership of the church in these latter days. The infallibility of the pope then, again to my understanding, essentially a logical offshoot of these ideas basically arguing that if the pope is the spiritual successor to Peter and appointed by God Himself, then it follows that, while in ex cathedra, the pope's decrees come straight from God.

Personally, I follow the idea of both the Primacy of the Pope and the apostolic succession. I understand where the idea comes from and I understand the logic that it follows. In fact, though I'd also argue that Peter's primacy within the 12 is more or less irrelevant, I'm more than willing to accept that as valid. The apostolic succession though is where I draw the line and it is for 2 reasons. The first is that there is nothing in the Scriptures calling for the idea of the apostolic succession, simply passages regarding Peter or the triumvirate of Peter, James, and John, as closer to Christ. The second is the bit concerning the connection with the High Priesthood of the Old Testament. In the Old Testament the High Priest was the only one that could enter the Holy of Holies, the High Priest was, in other words, the intercessor for the people to God. He committed the sacrifices and interceded on the people's behalf for God. It was necessary then for this rule to be passed down, for one to succeed another through the ages, for without an intercessor the people would be lost. However, since Christ came, since His Death and Resurrection, He is our intercessor, the Great Intercessor as it were. Christ is the greatest and last intercessor, He is still going to God on our behalf, still taking on our sins, still defeating Death. Therefore, there is no need for equivalent duties of the High Priest. That is also why I feel as though the idea of the infallibility of the pope is both incorrect and treading in very dangerous waters. But more on that either in the comments or perhaps a follow up post. If I'm just completely wrong in regards to all this, just ignore all of the above lol.

On the other hand, my own church the Luther Church Missouri Synod or LCMS has a president. Clearly the earthly church needs earthly leadership. We need earthly leadership for the earthly church for everything from how to pay our pastors/priests/ministers or whatever name you use, to how to lead schools and so forth. Long story short, we need some form of earthly leadership for the earthly necessities of the church as well as to help lead and figure out how to perform our eternal function of bringing others to Christ. So in that regard, yes the pope is necessary. My problems with the pope then are 2 fold. The first is the spiritual side, I feel like the pope is sometimes held up as a substitute for Christ, which obviously is wrong. The second part is that I think the Catholic church, under the leadership of the pope, sometimes finds itself too deeply involved in earthly affairs. Long story short once again, I believe that, were the pope/Catholic church as a whole, to reduce the spiritual power of the pope and slightly reduce the earthly involvement, the pope would be mostly a positive. As it is I still believe that the pope is a net positive.

In regards to his role with protestantism, well there I'd like to defer to my other protestant friends. While I obviously don't think the pope is infallible or even "follow" him, I don't have a problem with him either and I can understand why he exists and how some might look to him for leadership. However, that's just me.

Thoughts, comments, or ideas are obviously welcome and encouraged. If I've gotten anything wrong in the reasoning behind the papacy etc please correct me.