The claims of the Catholic Pope

Introduction:

 

For more than 40 years now, ever since the close of the Vatican 2 Council in 1965, Roman Catholic and Protestant theologians and church officials have been cautiously engaging in dialogue at a scholarly level.  This is not a bad thing, since both sides claim to follow the same Lord, and isolation only perpetuates and reinforces the religious division that Jesus and the apostles condemned (John 17:20-23; 1 Corinthians 1:10-13).  We should be willing to study the Scriptures with anyone, anytime, anywhere, so that together we may determine the will of God.

 

On a personal, grass roots level, lay people on both sides of the Catholic/Protestant divide have gone much further, enthusiastically ignoring the long-standing doctrinal differences of their respective religions and increasingly cooperating in a widening array of social projects, Christian concerts, service ministries, etc.  Even though much that is beneficial has been accomplished, and many personal relationships have been fostered, I am convinced this has not entirely been a good thing, because for the most part this rapprochement was based on an ignorance of, or even willful disregard for, the significant doctrinal differences between the groups.  Many of those participating in such cooperative endeavors had been lulled into thinking that personal friendships and shared ministry projects had ushered in a new era of reconciliation and reunion.

 

Well, just a few weeks ago they received a rude awakening. Last July the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which Benedict XVI headed before becoming the current reigning pope, signaled it has had enough of such fuzzy, feel-good thinking.  The agency issued a statement saying that any Christian community which does not recognize the supreme authority of the Pope, and which does not recognize that the Catholic Church is the one, true path to salvation, is "defective" and is "not a true church."

 

After a generation of ecumenical celebrations, this harsh statement comes as a disappointment to many liberal Catholics who have long been hoping for a reformation of their church's ecclesiastical hierarchy.  For Protestants it had a much more painful impact – it was the religious equivalent of a slap in the face to many of the clergy who assumed the "bad old days" of religious disagreement were long gone.

 

In reality, this development may providentially prove positive, by forcefully reminding everyone involved of the "D" word – the continuing importance of DOCTRINE.  For a generation now I have watched with concern as church leaders tried to fudge and finesse their way around significant doctrinal differences, rather than address them honestly and forthrightly.

 

READ Acts 20:26-31      It is the sacred obligation of any preacher to speak TRUTH, without fear or favor, compromise or cowardice. In particular, the question of authority is an especially important issue in religion – it is one of the fundamental issues that must be addressed before any meaningful discussions can be held between different religious groups.

 

And, despite all the friendly overtures of the past, last July's statement by the Vatican makes it clear that the official view of authority in the Catholic church has not changed:  Benedict truly believes that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, Summus Pontifex, Pontifex Maximus, the prince of the apostles, the Head of the church, the supreme authority to which all true believers must submit. 

 

Throughout my ministry I have attempted to avoid the extreme of sectarianism:  after all, those of us in the churches of Christ know what happens when any group attempts to set itself up as the "one true church" and casually condemns all others to perdition.  We fervently believe that Christ and the teachings of his appointed apostles are the only standard, not any man or ecclesiastical bureaucracy.  Moreover, our church has been willing to cooperate with a wide variety of religious groups when such collaboration can help us more effectively address community concerns (I am the program director for the Union County Marriage Enrichment Campaign; cf. school supply campaign).

 

There is, however, another extreme that also must be rejected:  abandoning all attempts to preach and practice what the New Testament calls "sound doctrine."

 

PLEASE TURN to 1 Timothy Chapter 4.

 

In recent years I have occasionally encountered, from among some of my own preaching colleagues, a strong reaction, sometimes bordering on outright hostility, whenever doctrinal issues are raised. There seems to be a feeling that it is sectarian, narrow-minded, and in bad taste to point out doctrinal differences.  Evidently the apostle Paul failed to get that memo, because he says in Verse 16:

 

"Watch your life and DOCTRINE closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourselves and your listeners."

 

Why is doctrine important?  Go back to the beginning of this chapter and READ Verses 1-5.

 

• When the Holy Spirit warns that one mark of apostasy is "forbidding people to marry" (1 Timothy 4:3), and one requirement for a church leader is that he demonstrate effectiveness as a husband and father (1 Timothy 3:2-4) does it matter that the Catholic hierarchy has steadfastly and repeatedly refused the entreaties of many bishops to allow the priests to marry? 

 

• When Jesus condemned the imposition of religious traditions, giving them the authority that is reserved for Scripture, does it matter that the Catholic Church makes their church's traditions authoritative?

 

• When Jesus commands us to "do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven" (Matthew 23:9), does it matter that the Catholic church elevates one man to be the "Pope" (from the Latin poppa, or "father")?

 

Either the Bible is true or the Pope is correct – but they cannot both be right, because they are teaching contradictory doctrines.

 

Way back in 1302 A.D., Pope Boniface VIII decreed in the Unam Sanctam "for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff" (Catholic Encyclopedia, "Unam Sanctam").   The Catholic church has continued to assert this authority, based on five interlocking claims:

 

a)      That Jesus intended for his church to have a Pope;

b)      That this earthly head of the church was to serve in Rome;

c)      That Jesus installed Simon Peter as the first Pope;

d)     That Peter traveled to Rome as served there for the last 25 years of his life;

e)      That there has been an unbroken line of succession ever since, maintaining the authority of the Catholic church as the one and only true church. 

 

Since, according to the Pope, you and I belong to a "defective" church, I think it only appropriate that we use this as a case study in the importance of doctrine. Allow me to provide, from the Bible, seven reasons why I reject the authority of the Catholic Pope.

 

MY TOP SEVEN REASONS TO REJECT PETER AS THE FIRST POPE*

 

7.  Peter was a married man.  The Gospels speak of Peter's mother-in-law (Matthew 8:14;  Mark 1:30;  Luke 4:38) and generally that indicates a wife is somewhere in the picture – wives and mothers-in-law usually go together in a package deal.  I've known a number of individuals who wanted a wife without a mother-in-law, but I've never met a man who wanted a mother-in-law without a wife!

 

Paul asked in 1 Corinthians 9:5, "Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?"   Paul said in 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6-7 that an overseer [episkopos or bishop] must be the husband of one wife.

 

It was the Spanish Council of Elvira (A.D. 295-302), canon 33, that imposed celibacy upon bishops, priests and deacons.  "If they continue to live with their wives and beget children after their ordination, they are to be deposed" (Catholic Encyclopedia, "Celibacy of Clergy").  Still later, in A.D. 1123, the Council of Lateran imposed celibacy on all clergy.  By continuing to enforce this man-made religious law, the Pope is forbidding precisely what God commanded and, I believe, contributing to a very unhealthy situation!

 

6.  The silence of the Scriptures is overwhelming:  NO apostle or inspired writer EVER hinted that Peter was supreme.  If Peter were the first pope, you'd think the Scriptures would have mentioned it!  After all, inspired men were obligated to reveal the truth – the whole truth and the whole counsel of God (John 16:13; Acts 20:27).  Yet one finds no evidence that Peter regarded himself as supreme or that others taught he was supreme.  One finds no evidence that Peter regarded himself as supreme or that others taught he was supreme.  One finds no evidence of Peter being treated like a god or being the final answer to questions.

 

If Peter were a pope, one would expect him to act like popes do.  Peter never celebrated mass, prayed to Mary or to "saints," used beads to pray, used "holy water," practiced celibacy, or presented his ring or foot to be kissed.  There is not one word in the New Testament – not even a hint – of anything resembling the institution of the papacy.

 

5.  Peter did not accept worship.  When Peter entered his house, Cornelius fell at his feet and worshiped him.  But Peter raised him up, saying, "Stand up; I am just a man" (Acts 10:26).  Peter demonstrated no pretensions of divinity.  Catholics require bowing before and displaying acts of worship to a man, the Pope.  In presumption, popes have proclaimed themselves "God on earth" for all Catholics to adore.  "The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, he is Jesus Christ himself" (Catholic National, July 1895).  Leo XVIII said, "We [popes] hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." The difference between the Peter of the Bible and the arrogance of popes is astonishing.

 

4.  Peter did not render the decision at the Jerusalem council.   Peter helped introduce the problem at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, and if he was the Pope, the head of the church, this should have been a perfect opportunity to demonstrate his primacy!  Instead, it is James who actually rendered the decision.  James said, "Therefore it is my judgment" (Acts 15:19) and attributed his authority to the Holy Spirit (v. 28).  If Peter were pope, he should have had the final word.

 

3.  Paul rebuked Peter for hypocrisy.  "But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.  For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision" (Galatians 2:11-12).  If the pope indeed stands as a substitute for Christ, how is it that he could be rebuked for his behavior?

 

The apostle Paul argued that he ranked equally with Peter.  Never once does he indicate he is subject to Peter in any way.  Paul never reported to Peter in any way.  Paul never reported to Peter about his mission trips.  Paul said those of "high reputation," James, Cephas and John (Galatians 2:6-9), whom he calls "pillars," not the foundation (v. 9), contributed nothing to him (v. 6).  The impartial God assigned Peter to be the apostle to the circumcised, and Paul would be the apostle to the Gentiles.  Thus the doctrine that Peter was responsible for all the churches is a myth.

 

When Paul writes to the church in Rome he sends personal greeting to 26 different individuals, but the name of Simon Peter is not on the list.  If Peter had been the bishop of Rome for 25 years prior to his death, as the tradition claims, why did Paul not even mention Peter in his epistle?  If Peter is Pontifex Maximus and "prince of the apostles," why would Paul neglect to greet him or acknowledge him?

 

2.  There was to be equality among the apostles.  In Matthew 20:20-28, the mother of James and John requested, "Command that in Your kingdom these two sons of mine may sit, one on Your right and one on Your left" (v. 21).  This is an odd request if Peter is supreme.  If the Lord had given the chief place to Peter in Matthew 16:18-19, why would James and John even ask this question in chapter 20?  Upon hearing the brother's request, the 10 became indignant with the two brothers.  Jesus did not want to create supreme pontiffs but rather servants.  In Matthew 20:25-28, Jesus said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them.  It is not so among you, but whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

 

The papacy, with its pomp, politics, and power, is the antithesis of the humble fellowship Jesus describes!

 

1.  Simon Peter himself regarded JESUS as the Rock & Head of the church.  Catholics point to Matthew 16 for proof that Jesus founded the church on Peter himself.  Jesus said to Peter, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.  And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it.  I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven"  (Matthew 16:17-19).

 

I have visited the Vatican in Rome, and there have seen, inscribed in gold letters four feet high on St. Peter's Basilica, the words "On this rock I will build my church."  They reflect the Catholic interpretation of this passage:  that Jesus is saying he would build his church upon PETER and give the keys (authority) of the kingdom uniquely to him.  The original Greek, however, distinguishes Peter from the rock.  While the Lord gives Simon the name "Peter" (petros, masculine), Jesus goes on to speak of the rock (petra)  with a feminine word.  Petros refers to a stone that a man might carry; whereas petra refers to a huge rock, cliff or ledge.  The distinctions between masculine and feminine and between large and small are obvious.

 

Catholic scholars say Jesus did not speak Greek here but Aramaic, and the word "Cephas" is the same whether masculine or feminine.  The Scriptures we have, however, are only in Greek; and Matthew, an apostle and eyewitness to this event, made the distinction.  Jesus had already noted that wise men build upon the rock (petra) of His word (Matthew 7:24-27).  Jesus built His church on Peter's revealed confession that He was the Christ, the Son of the living God, not on Peter.

 

If Peter himself were the rock upon which the church is founded, he did not know it.  He pointed to Jesus as the chief cornerstone; there is salvation in no one else (Acts 4:10-12).  Peter said, "Behold I lay in Zion a choice stone, a precious corner stone, And he who believes in Him shall not be disappointed"  (1 Peter 2:6).  JESUS was "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense" (v. 8).

 

Peter introduced himself as "an apostle of Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 1:1) but never the "prince of the apostles" or the rock on which the church is built.  In 1 Peter 5:1, Peter says, "Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your FELLOW ELDER." (Note his attitude of humility!)  In verse 4, he speaks of JESUS as the "Chief Shepherd."  Nowhere does he argue for supremacy, claim to be Christ's vicar, or exalt himself above his fellow elders.

 

In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul points to Jesus as the foundation of the church.  In Ephesians 2:19-22, Paul says God's household is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together is growing into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit."

 

Paul clearly said that God put JESUS "far above all rule and authority and ….. gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all" (Ephesians 1:21-23).

 

I don't reject the authority of the Pope because I am prejudiced against Catholics; I reject it because I love JESUS.  He is my Lord, my Savior, and the only head of his church!

 

Conclusion:

 

Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, responded to this restatement by the Catholic church of its claim to primacy by writing that basic differences are often forgotten "in this era of confusion and moral laxity.  We should together realize and admit that this is an issue worthy of division.  The Roman Catholic Church is willing to go so far as to assert that any church that denies the papacy is no true church.  Evangelicals should be equally candid in asserting that any church defined by the papacy is no true church.  This is not a theological game for children, it is the honest recognition of the importance of the question."  [Source: "Baptist:  Document invites challenge to papal authority," El Dorado News-Times, July 21, 2007, p. 8-A]

 

As Dr. Mohler correctly points out, serious issues between believers cannot be wishfully waved away, as though they did not matter.  Doctrine does matter:  it mattered in the first century, and it continues to be important today.

In conclusion, we find our identity – legitimacy – spiritual life in our relationship with Jesus Christ!  Thus our mission statement to truly be a church "of Christ"!

 

Any doctrine – or institution – or denominational structure that detracts from the supremacy of Christ – is ultimately defective!

 

 

*SOURCE:  The section on the "Seven Reasons" is substantially reworked (and re-ordered) from "Was Peter the First Pope?" by Phil Sanders, Gospel Advocate, June 2005, p. 20-23.

 

Dan Williams

 El Dorado, Arkansas