All Catholics are taught to revere the pope as the sole Vicar of Christ (God’s chief representative to the world). The official stance is that this position has been inherited through the centuries from Peter, who is considered the first pope and the first Bishop of Rome. However, it cannot be proven historically that Peter was ever in Rome. It is certainly possible, but not verifiable.
The Bible passage often used to prove the legitimacy of the office of the pope, and the tradition of papal succession, is Matthew 16:13-19:
When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?”
So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
In verse 18, Jesus declared that Simon’s name would be Peter (the original Greek is Petros). That was not the first time Jesus conferred a name with that meaning on Simon. When this fisherman by trade was first introduced to the Son of God, Jesus made a similar announcement. However, instead of the Greek word Petros being used, the Aramaic word Cephas was chosen for Simon’s new name. Here is the passage:
One of the two who heard John speak, and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. He first found his own brother Simon, and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which is translated, the Christ). And he brought him to Jesus. Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, “You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas” (which is translated, A Stone). (John 1:40-42, See 1 Corinthians 1:12; 3:22; 15:5, Galatians 2:9)
Both Petros (from the Greek) and Cephas (from the Aramaic) mean “a rock” or “a stone”—so Catholic theologians explain, according to Jesus’ prophetic words, Peter was “the rock” on which the church would be built. However, it should be noted that when Jesus said, “You are Peter,” the Greek word for Peter is petros, which is masculine. Then, when He said, “Upon this rock I will build My church,” the Greek word for rock is petra, which is feminine. So, the masculine word is used for Peter, but the feminine form is used for the rock/foundation of the church. If the Messiah was truly referring to Peter both times, it seems logical that He would have used a masculine form of the word both times as well. That would make more sense. There are several traditional Catholic responses to this point, but none is convincing. I believe petra was a reference to something different altogether, yet to be explained.
However, even if the Messiah did intend to say that Peter (petros) was the rock (petra), He never foretold that there would be a continuation of such an office. Nor did He foretell that there would be a group of church leaders called cardinals who would wear red (scarlet) vestments as a symbol of their willingness to shed blood in the defense of the Catholic faith. Nor did He instruct that a college of these cardinals, made up of no more than 120 bishops and Vatican officials, elect a candidate to the office of pope by a two-thirds majority.[1] These are all just religious traditions that developed through the centuries.
The voting process utilized in choosing a pope could be compared to the method the early disciples used to try and fill the apostolic position abdicated by Judas Iscariot. They cast lots between two noted disciples, Barsabas and Matthias. (See Acts 1:12-26.) Because the lot fell on Matthias, they included him as one of the twelve apostles. However, we are not told in Scripture this was actually God’s will or something He led them to do. They may have just assumed it was a good decision. I tend to think the person divinely ordained to replace Judas was someone altogether unexpected, someone who was intent on destroying the church initially. His name was “Saul of Tarsus,” later to be known as Paul, the apostle (Acts 9:11). This seems like a far more logical choice, because Paul actually manifested the “signs of an apostle” (2 Corinthians 12:12). Jesus chose the other eleven by Himself; He could certainly choose the twelfth.
I also tend to believe that the “rock” (petra) Jesus referenced in this well-known passage was not Peter, but rather, it was the “rock” of divine revelation. Remember when Simon confessed that Jesus was the Messiah, Jesus responded:
“Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter (petros), and on this rock (petra) I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:17-18)
Look closely at the wording and the construction of the sentence. Jesus did not say, “I’ve given you this name that means ‘a rock,’ Peter, because on you I will build My church.” Instead, it seems more likely that His statement communicated something like the following:
People have not convinced you of My identity, Peter; My Father in heaven has revealed this to you, and on this rock of divine revelation, I will build My church and will empower them to overcome Hades itself. Those who receive this inspired insight will not be shaken from it.
Whether or not this interpretation is right is somewhat inconsequential. It is true that Jesus could have meant Peter when He spoke of the foundation “rock” of the church. However, even if He did, He never commanded that such a superior apostolic office be established perpetually.
The infallibility of the pope
There are two expressions of infallibility in Catholicism: ordinary and extraordinary. Ordinary infallibility happens when the bishops throughout the world, along with the pope, agree on certain tenets dealing with faith and morals. Extraordinary infallibility applies to the pope filling this role by himself. Ecumenical councils are also considered infallible when they make solemn decrees on faith and morals. (The word “ecumenical” means from the whole world.)
Though many Catholics have assumed it throughout the history of the church, the infallibility of the pope has never been an established Catholic doctrine—that is, until the last 150 years. It was formally declared during the First Vatican Council held in 1869-70 when Pope Pius IX was in office.[2] Strangely, over five centuries prior, in 1324, Pope John XXII issued a bull titled Quia Quorundam in which the concept of papal infallibility was described as a doctrine or work of the devil.[3] So two different popes, whose opinions are supposed to be inspired and authoritative, expressed two very different opinions on this essential issue.
Most non-Catholics and some Catholics are unaware that the Pope is only considered infallible at certain choice times.
There are four criteria for papal infallibility:
(1) The pope must be speaking about faith and morals.
(2) He cannot introduce a new doctrine and declare it infallible. It must be handed down through tradition and Scripture.
(3) He must be speaking officially in his role as the head of the Catholic Church.
(4) He must officially declare that what he is teaching is infallible.
That level of indisputable authority occurs only when the pope claims to be speaking ex cathedra (a phrase that means from the seat—an implication that the message is coming from the papal throne or more perfectly, from the seat of Peter). This belief is based on a statement Jesus made at the end of His conversation with Peter, promising him the power of “binding” and “loosing.” Here is the exact quote:
“And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:19)
These phrases Jesus used were well-known Hebrew idioms in that day, used in the Mishna, the oral tradition of the Jews. To “bind” meant to prohibit certain behaviors and beliefs by indisputable authority; to “loose” meant to allow or establish them by indisputable authority. Did Jesus give this authority exclusively to Peter, to be passed down to his successors? Absolutely not! The same promise with the same wording was made to all the disciples two chapters later:
“Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 18:18)
The Complete Jewish Bible renders it a way that is easier to understand:
“Yes! I tell you people that whatever you prohibit on earth will be prohibited in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven.” (Matthew 18:18 CJB)
All born again believers who fulfill the call to discipleship, who are truly walking with God, who are living a life of sacrifice and abiding in truth, are authorized to declare and establish the biblical, New Covenant standard of truth in this world.
All sincere, yielded, and dedicated sons and daughters of God are “ambassadors of Christ,” commissioned to share moral, religious, and spiritual guidelines with all those they influence (2 Corinthians 5:20). You could also describe that responsibility as “binding” and “loosing,” just as Jesus did. This is the true meaning of that passage.
The full list of “infallible” statements
Read the subtitle above one more time. Then imagine how long this “full list” might be before you proceed. You are probably expecting a lengthy record of hundreds of papal pronouncements spoken over many centuries. Surprise! Only two papal declarations have officially been labeled ex cathedra—yes, only two:
- The Immaculate Conception of Mary—Pope Pius IX claimed infallibility in asserting the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary in 1854, in his bull titled “Ineffabilis Deus” (“grandfathered in after the First Vatican Council’s declaration of papal infallibility in 1870”).
- The Assumption of Mary—Pope Pius XII claimed infallibility in declaring the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary as an article of faith in the Catholic Church, November 1, 1950.[4]
Both these Marian doctrines are extra-biblical and were never a part of the New Covenant belief system espoused by the early church. If papal infallibility is true, then these two doctrines are indisputable. They cannot be questioned by any Catholic. However, because they are not supported by Scripture, they absolutely should be questioned—by Catholics and non-Catholics alike—as well as the legitimacy of this extreme claim that popes can speak, at certain times, without error—or, as ex cathedra implies, “from the seat of Peter.”
Though papal infallibility has been executed only twice, through the centuries, “the Magisterium” has expressed numerous decisions on matters of faith and morals considered infallible, especially during the decision-making process of ecumenical councils.
The word “Magisterium” is from the Latin word magister meaning teaching. Within Catholicism, it means three primary, related things:
(1) The authority imparted to the Catholic Church to teach the doctrine of Christ,
(2) The authorities in the church who together validate and teach those doctrines (the pope—who is the Bishop of Rome—as well as all the other bishops in the church worldwide),
(3) The authorized teachings themselves.
The meaning of papal titles
Believers outside the Catholic Church would most likely agree unanimously that no single individual should ever be considered the sole Vicar of Christ, the chief representative of the Lord Jesus Christ in this world. The Bible instead insists there is only “One God” and “one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5). Besides, it is possible that the early church had plurality of leadership. Paul visited Jerusalem and perceived that “James, Cephas, and John” (all three) were “pillars” in the church, and normally, pillars in a building are of equal height (Galatians 2:9).
The Bible clearly reveals that God ordains apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, and evangelists in the church (the fivefold ministry) to represent Him and to fill various offices of ministerial authority and service. (See Ephesians 4:10-12.) Scripture also confirms the status of bishops and elders (1 Timothy 3:1, 1 Peter 5:1). But the Bible never suggests that there should be a “chief apostle,” “head bishop,” or “supreme shepherd” presiding over the entire church other than the Son of God who is called, “the Apostle and High Priest of our confession” (Hebrews 3:1). Jesus is also referred to—ironically, by the apostle Peter—as “the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls” and “the Chief Shepherd” (1 Peter 2:25, 5:4). Jesus alone qualifies for these excellent entitlements, because:
He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence. (Colossians 1:18, See Ephesians 5:23)
The meaning of the word “pope”
The word “pope” is not found in the Bible. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, it comes from the “ecclesiastical Latin papa,” and the “Greek papas,” and is “a variant of pappas, [meaning] father.”[5] Is it acceptable for this title to be used for a religious leader? Jesus taught otherwise, instructing His disciples:
“Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.” (Matthew 23:9)
In all fairness, though, there seem to be biblical exceptions to this injunction. For instance, Paul described both Titus and Timothy as his “sons in the faith,” inferring his position as their spiritual father. (1 Timothy 1:2, Titus 1:4.) He also exhorted the Corinthian church:
For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. (1 Corinthians 4:15)
There is no indication, however, that this word was consistently used for Paul in acknowledging his status. He was never referenced as “Father Paul.” It was a symbolic, relational description, not an official title. Paul was a spiritual father to Timothy and Titus because most likely, he was used to bring them into the kingdom and was personally involved in their lives, helping them to become spiritually mature leaders.
So, the title “pope” is probably meant to simply be a warm, affectionate term—a way of proclaiming that the person occupying this position is the respected patriarchal head of the Catholic “family,” not just the leader of an organization. However, Ephesians 3:15 indicates that the “whole family in heaven and earth” is named after the name of Jesus, so He alone should receive this recognition.
Pontifex Maximus
The pope is also referred to as “Pontifex Maximus” (Latin for the greatest priest or chief priest). He is also called “the Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church.” The word “pontiff” was originally used for the members of “the college of priests” in the ancient, religion of the Roman empire. That polytheistic worldview involved the worship of many false gods and goddesses. Such deities are, indisputably, the product of human imagination. Paul revealed that they are demons masquerading as divine beings. (See 1 Corinthians 10:20-22.)[6] Though “Pontifex Maximus” began strictly as a religious title for the most prominent pagan priests, it was eventually assigned to political leaders of the empire as well, beginning with Augustus.[7]
Regarding the Catholic use of this title, it is somewhat logical that it be conferred on a religious leader who presides over nearly half-a-million subordinate priests worldwide. However, biblically and technically, once again, such an exalted status belongs to Jesus alone, for He is “the Great High Priest” (the true, eternal “Pontifex Maximus”) according to the following verse:
Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need. (Hebrews 4:14-16)
Three other important points:
- Symbolic meaning—Though the etymological roots of this title (Pontifex Maximus) are not certain, it has been suggested that the word “pontifex” comes from a combination of the Latin word for “bridge” and the suffix for “maker”—so the title “Pontifex Maximus” means the greatest bridge builder.[8] Once again, this role and this position belong to Jesus alone, for He is the One who built the bridge from time to eternity, from earth to heaven, through His death and resurrection.
- Overflow from the Old Testament—The concept of an earthly “high priest” is an overflow from the Old Testament way of doing things, which was certainly right, relevant, and revealed by God for that season, but no longer correct, for the New Covenant has drastically altered the divine order. All believers are priests in this era of grace (1 Peter 2:5,9). Therefore, there is no exclusive, mediatorial priesthood ordained by God to preside over His people. Also, the entire hierarchal authority structure of Catholicism—from the pope down to the priests—is non-biblical and wrong.
- Necessary for salvation—According to the Catholic Catechism (CCC, paragraphs 846-847), if anyone knowledgeably rejects the Catholic Church, he or she forfeits salvation. Since the papacy is such an inseparable part of the doctrinal basis of the church, it seems logical that to reject the office of pope is to reject the church as a whole. In an encyclical entitled Mortalium Animos, released on January 6, 1928, Pope Pius XI, referring to the Catholic Church and the papacy, blatantly insisted, “In this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.”[9] So, even though it is normally not a trumpeted concept, in the foundation of the Catholic belief system is this unavoidable issue that creates a huge stumbling block. To reject the pope is to reject the church; and to reject the church is to reject salvation. Yes, it really is as simple as that—and simply as wrong as it can be.
Good popes and bad popes
Some popes have been very influential in promoting righteous causes and establishing justice in the world. For instance, Pope John Paul II was a key player in the destabilization of communism in eastern Europe from 1979 to 1989. What an accomplishment that was! But not all popes have exhibited the godly character expected of someone filling such a notable and respected position. Through the centuries, there have even been some extremely corrupt popes.
You can easily do the research yourself if you want to verify that claim. However, I am not interested in citing a list of specific examples, because corruption can be found in the leadership of many religious organizations. An expose’ of immorality, greed, violence, or ungodly behavior would accomplish little or nothing—except in proving that the office of the pope has not always been occupied with saintly individuals who were shining examples of holiness. Instead, some have been erring, sin-prone human beings in need of redemption, just like the rest of us.
A final observation
If this office of the papacy was truly ordained by God, is it not logical to assume that anyone filling such an exalted position (“the Vicar of Christ”—God’s chief representative) would only speak truth, and would be extremely careful to vocalize and emphasize the most essential biblical doctrines? Most likely, you are nodding your head in agreement, even saying, “Yes, of course!” However this has never been the case.
Some of the most important truths out of God’s Word have consistently been neglected or misrepresented by the leadership of the Catholic Church—especially the true understanding of how an individual can be “born again.” (See the article on this website titled “The Wonder of Being Born Again.”) Even though some popes, like Pope Benedict XVI, have indicated that true Christianity, above all, is a personal relationship with Jesus, I have never heard any popes properly explain how to enter that relationship through spiritual rebirth—not according to the biblical standard. Yet Jesus indicated that encounter is absolutely essential in order for a person to enter the kingdom of God.
If this most important truth is being neglected or misrepresented, how can the office of the papacy ever be considered a legitimate institution?
__________________________________________________________________________________________
[1] https://www.usccb.org/offices/general-secretariat/how-new-pope-chosen, accessed 1/6/2022.
[2] https://theconversation.com/should-catholics-view-the-pope-as-infallible-109548#:~:text=The%20First%20Vatican%20Council%20in,matters%20of%20faith%20and%20morals, accessed 10/3/2021.
[3] https://www.population-security.org/19-CH11.html, accessed 9/5/2022. Also, former priest, Richard Bennet, in his video presentation on YouTube, presented this historical fact: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k-jvWchaXE.
[4] https://uscatholic.org/articles/201105/is-there-a-list-of-infallible-teachings/ accessed 1/6/2022.
[5] https://catholicsay.com/what-is-the-meaning-of-the-title-pope/, accessed 1/7/2022.
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifex_maximus, accessed 3/6/2022
[7] Ibid., accessed 3/16/2022.
[8] Ibid., accessed 3/6/2022.
[9] https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11morta.htm, accessed 8/24/2022.
