The Pope is the head of the Roman Catholic Church. However, the Papacy is more than a position of earthly leadership. Roman Catholics are to believe that the Pope is Christ's actual representative on earth.
The Pope is said to be infallible whenever he makes an official decree on matters of faith and morals. According to Catholic doctrine, it is impossible for the Pope to teach false doctrine. Catholics are expected to obey the Pope without question even when he is not making an "infallible" statement about doctrine. They are expected to submit their wills and minds to the Pope without question. (Catechism 892, 2037, 2050) [67]
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches the following:
Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent" which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it. [68]
The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, as authentic teachers, preach to the People of God the faith which is to be believed and applied in moral life. It is also incumbent on them to pronounce on moral questions that fall within the natural law and reason. [69]
The infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pastors extends to all the elements of doctrine, including moral doctrine, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, expounded, or observed. [70]
It was at the First Vatican Council when the infallibility of the Pope was initially pronounced.
So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: LET HIM BE ANATHEMA...
We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable. [71]
Not only did Vatican I clearly designate the Pope as the head of all Christians, with "supreme power" but anathematized anyone who thought otherwise. Vatican I also promulgated the doctrine that the Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra.
The 1983 Code of Canon Law says of the Pope:
The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he can always freely exercise. [72]
The same Code of Canon Law also states:
There is neither appeal nor recourse against a decision or decree of the Roman Pontiff. [73]
Pope Bonafice VIII proclaimed of his own office:
Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. [74]
This same Pope also declared:
The Roman Pontiff judges all men, but is judged by no one. [75]
And in what can only be described as blasphemous, he also affirmed:
That which was spoken of Christ...'Thou hast subdued all things under His feet,' may well seem verified in me. I have the authority of the King of kings. I am all in all and above all, so that God, Himself and I, the Vicar of God, have but one consistory, and I am able to do almost all that God can do. What therefore, can you make of me but God? [76]
Please remember that the Roman Catholic Church has made it very clear that Papal proclamations are infallible and irreformable. So these claims of Pope Bonafice, that he, with God, are "above all" is still official Catholic doctrine to this day.
Vatican I said:
If anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that it was a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: LET HIM BE ANATHEMA. [77]
The classic text that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support their doctrines on the Papacy is Matthew 16:18.
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18).
The context of Matthew 16:18 is as follows:
"When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:13-19)
"There it is!" the Roman Catholic says. "Christ built His church on Peter, making him the first Pope! Peter is the 'rock' of the church!"
It can be demonstrated that the "rock" of Matthew 16:18 is not Peter.
Every single use of the word "rock" in the Bible figuratively is a direct reference to God: (Deuteronomy 32:4; 32:15; 32:18; 32:30; 32:37; 1 Samuel 2:2; 2 Samuel 22:2; 22:3; Psalm 18:2; 18:31; 18:46; 28:1; 31:2; 31:3; 42:9; 62:2; 62:6; 62:7; 71:3; 78:35; 89:26; 92:15; 94:22; 95:1; Isaiah 8:14; 17:10) and then in the New Testament: (Romans 9:33; 1 Corinthians 10:4; 1 Peter 2:8 and 1 Corinthians 3:11).
That list is an exhaustive one, meaning that the above list contains every single reference to the word "rock" in the Bible when it is used figuratively. And in every single case, 100% of the time, "rock" refers to God.
It was a very common Jewish expression (and still is) to call God "my rock and my redeemer," "the rock of my salvation" etc.
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (Greek: petros), and upon this rock (Greek: petra) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18).
The Petra of Matthew 16:18 is not the same thing as Petros which means Peter. It's a play on words, no doubt, but the Bible tells us that Petros means stone, not Rock.
"And when Jesus beheld [Peter], he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone" (John 1:42).
Given the overwhelming Old Testament precedence of "Rock" referring to God, Jesus is not only attesting to His Deity here, but is in fact making a distinction or a contrast between Himself and Peter. Yes, Peter is a stone, in the sense that every Christian is a lively stone (1 Peter 2:5), but, in contrast, Jesus is the "chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed" (1 Peter 2:6-8).
In contrast to Peter being a stone (Petros), Jesus is "The Rock" (Petra) of our salvation. Every hearer there, steeped in Old Testament Theology, would have understood well that "Rock" meant Lord or Messiah, and would never have interpreted the "Rock" to be Peter. They would have understood that Jesus was saying, "Yes, Peter, you are a stone, but I am The Rock, and I will build my church on myself."
The Roman Catholic Church claims Papal authority based on their erroneous teaching that Christ built His church on Peter. When we consult the complete counsel of Scripture, the overwhelming Old Testament and New Testament references to "Rock" meaning God make the point clear that the church of Jesus Christ is not built on Peter, but built on the Lord Jesus Christ. It is for this very reason that the Apostle Paul could truthfully say that "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 3:11). That's why Petros is Peter but Petra is Jesus. And that's why Jesus' church is built on Jesus and everyone who names Him as Savior is part of the church.
The word for "Peter," Petros, means a small stone (John 1:42). Jesus used a play on words here with petra which means a foundation boulder (cf. 7:24, 25). Since the NT makes it abundantly clear that Christ is both the foundation (Acts 4:11, 12; 1 Cor. 3:11) and the head (Eph. 5:23) of the church, it is a mistake to think that here He is giving either of those roles to Peter. There is a sense in which the apostles played a foundational role in the building of the church (Eph. 2:20), but the role of primacy is reserved for Christ alone, not assigned to Peter. So Jesus' words here are best interpreted as a simple play on words in that a boulder-like truth came from the mouth of one who was called a small stone. [78]
Roman Catholics claim that the Pope has power to "bind and loose" based on Matthew 16:19.
"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19).
John MacArthur wrote:
Does Peter have an exclusive hold on the "keys of the kingdom?"
Compare Matthew 16:19 with Matthew 18:15-20:
"Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."
All this must be understood in the context of 18:15-17, where Christ laid out specific instructions for dealing with sin in the church... The sum of it all means that any duly constituted body of believers, acting in accord with God's Word, has the authority to declare if someone is forgiven or unforgiven. The church's authority is not to determine these things, but to declare the judgment of heaven based on the principles of the Word. When they make such judgments on the basis of God's Word, they can be sure heaven is in accord. In other words, whatever they "bind" or "loose" on earth is already "bound" or "loosed" in heaven. When the church says the unrepentant person is bound in sin, the church is saying what God says about that person. When the church acknowledges that a repentant person has been loosed from that sin, God agrees. [79]
In his sermon, "The Pope and the Papacy," MacArthur stated:
Peter was not given any authority that every believer was given. This is the authority to say to someone your sins are forgiven or your sins are not forgiven based on whether or not they believe, repent.
You have the right to say to someone "you can enter the kingdom" by how they respond to the gospel. You can say to someone "you're loosed from your sins because you put your trust in Christ." You can say to someone "you are bound in your sin because you refuse Christ." You can say it as well as I can say it; Peter can say it; anyone can say it. [80]
Roman Catholics also point to John 21:15-17 as evidence that Peter was given a special office above the other disciples.
"So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep" (John 21:15-17).
Steve Rudd wrote:
"Feed my lambs." "Feed my sheep." "Feed my sheep."
Was Jesus giving Peter a unique role as head shepherd?
Or was he reinstating Peter to the same shepherd status of all Christians, saying it three times, once for each denial of Jesus (John 18:17, 25, 27)?
To suggest this proves Peter is a pope is short sighted. Jesus was reversing, by ceremony, the three denials of Peter with three confessions of faith. Three times Peter denied the Lord, and three time Peter was asked to proclaim his love for the Lord. The emphasis was not on Peter "leading the church as a pope" being promoted to "top position" but rather accepting him back from the realm of condemnation into the common fold of the apostles who had not denied the Lord. Peter was told to be a shepherd of the sheep not a pope. [81]
Roman Catholics claim that Peter was head of the church in Rome during the New Testament period, yet the Biblical evidence is not there to support such a claim.
Consider the following:
James White pointed out:
Does the New Testament as a whole lead us to believe that Peter was considered the head of the church? Was Peter viewed as the Vicar of Christ on earth? Did Christians of his day think of him as the Holy Father? Did the other Apostles recognize Peter as their spiritual head and leader? Did they instruct people to obey Peter as the Pope? Does the New Testament lead us to believe that there was an office of Pope to which all Christians looked for guidance and one which the Church's unity itself was founded? And do we find in the words, actions, and writings of Peter evidence that he interpreted Jesus' words in Matthew 16:18-19 in the way modern Roman Catholics do? [82]
Steve Rudd wrote:
Why Peter Was Not a Good Choice For the First Pope:
- Peter denied the Lord three times. (John 18:17, 25, 27)
- Peter was rebuked by the Lord (Matthew 16:23; John 21:20-22)
- Peter was rebuked by Paul (Galatians 2:11)
- Peter was not superior to the other apostles (2 Corinthians 11:5; 12:11)
- Jesus is the head of His church [83]
James White concluded:
We find data from the page of inspired Scripture showing that the early Christians did not look to Peter or to any bishop of Rome as the head of all Christians. [84]
Mary Ann Collins, a former Nun, wrote:
The history of the early Church shows that the Bishop of Rome was considered to be just another bishop. For example, Pope Gregory (590-604 A.D.) explicitly stated that all of the bishops were equal. He specifically repudiated the idea that any one bishop could be the supreme ruler of the Church. (William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, pp. 56-63) [85]
The following are various quotations from Christians over the years who have concluded from the scriptural evidence that the Roman Catholic teaching regarding the Papacy is wrong:
[The Pope] is called "Holy Father;" he's usurped a title intended for God. He's called "the head of the church;" he's usurped a title intended for Christ. He's called "the vicar of Christ"; "vicar" connected to the word "vicarious," the one who stands in the place of Christ, and he has stolen that from the Holy Spirit. He has set himself in the place of God, he has set himself in the place of Christ, and he has set himself in the place of the Holy Spirit, and that is overstepping your bounds. [86]
Christ did not redeem his church with his blood that the pope might come in and steal away the glory. He never came from heaven to earth, and poured out his very heart that he might purchase his people, that a poor sinner, a mere man, should be set upon high to be admired by all the nations, and to call himself God's representative on earth. Christ has always been the Head of the church. [87]
Really it is hard to say whether the claim to infallibility is more ridiculous or more wicked. Wicked because it attributes to man what belongs only to God. Ridiculous because Popes have been so wrong so often. [88]
The Early Fathers, and the theologians and canon lawyers of the Middle Ages, never taught that the bishops or the Pope were infallible. This is demonstrated by the fact that in 680 A.D. the Sixth Ecumenical Council condemned a pope as a heretic. It was not until the fourteenth century that the theory of infallibility began to emerge. With the development of this theory came a change in the interpretation of some biblical passages. (William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, pp. 34-55)...
The claim for papal infallibility does not stand up to the test of history. For example, Pope Zosimus (417-418 A.D.) reversed the pronouncement of a previous pope. He also retracted a doctrinal pronouncement that he himself had previously made. Pope Honorious was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680-681 A.D.). He was also condemned as a heretic by Pope Leo II, as well as by every other pope until the eleventh century. So here we have "infallible" popes condemning another "infallible" pope as a heretic. In 1870, the First Vatican Council abolished "infallible" papal decrees and the decrees of two "infallible" councils. (William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, pp. 63-71)
In the seventeenth century, the Catholic church officially condemned Galileo as a heretic because he taught that the earth revolves around the sun. This did not conflict with the Bible or with the teachings of the Early Fathers. However, it was contrary to seventeenth century Catholic theology. The Greek philosopher Aristotle taught that the sun revolves around the earth. Aristotle influenced Thomas Aquinas, a thirteenth century theologian and "doctor of the Church" whose theology had a major impact on the Catholic Church. Some modern astronomers believe that Galileo was right. Others believe that Einstein's theory of relativity makes the question irrelevant... Either way, Galileo was not a heretic for disagreeing with Aristotle. The "infallible" pronouncement of the Catholic Church regarding Galileo's teaching was wrong. [89]
I am persuaded that if at this time, St. Peter, in person, should preach all the articles of Holy Scripture, and only deny the Pope's authority, power, and primacy, and say that the Pope is not the head of all Christendom, they would cause him to be hanged. Yea, if Christ himself were again on earth, and should preach, without all doubt the Pope would crucify him again. [90]
The Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God. This is, properly speaking to exalt himself above all that is called God... Therefore, just as little as we can worship the devil himself as Lord and God, we can endure his apostle, the Pope, or Antichrist, in his rule as head or lord. [91]
It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is no sane man ought to raise a question. If it be not the Popery in the Church of Rome there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name. It wounds Christ, robs Christ of His glory, puts sacramental efficacy in the place of His atonement, and lifts a piece of bread in the place of the Saviour, and a few drops of water in the place of the Holy Spirit, and puts a mere fallible man like ourselves up as the vicar of Christ on earth. If we pray against it, because it is against Him, we shall love the persons though we hate their errors; we shall love their souls, though we loathe and detest their dogmas. [92]
He is in an emphatical sense, the Man of Sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled the Son of Perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers... He it is... that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped... claiming the highest power, and highest honour... claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone. [93]
The oracles of God foretold the rising of an Antichrist in the Christian Church: and in the Pope of Rome, all the characteristics of that Antichrist are so marvelously answered that if any who read the Scriptures do not see it, there is a marvelous blindness upon them. [94]
We here are of the conviction that the Papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist... personally I declare that I owe the Pope no other obedience than that to Antichrist. [95]
Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt... I shall briefly show that (Paul's words in II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy. [96]
This establishes the pope as the central figure for the Faith in the same way that the apostles of other cults are established. While they acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the central figure of the faith to which they adhere, there can be no true relationship with Him apart from the dictates of the hierarchical pronouncements. The cult of the papacy is in itself sufficient grounds to recognize the Roman Church as a cult. The display of adoration, the gaudy parade of a mere man as if he were a god, the pandering to idolatrous worship through bowing down and kissing his ring, the insistence that he be addressed as His Holiness the Pope (or Father) of all Christians cannot but confirm to any Christian -- let alone professed cult-watchers -- that Roman Catholicism is a cult. [97]
In regard to the death of John Paul II,
We should grieve for that man, because he gained the whole world but lost his soul. The most loved and admired man by Catholics in the world, blinded by the prince of this world, never saw the light of the true gospel. [98]
This document written to the glory of God.
© 2006, Mark Edward Sohmer. Please feel free to quote from it in context, and distribute it in its entirety without profit.
Author retains the right to prohibit others from distributing for illegitimate purposes.
The latest version of this document can be found at:
http://www.sohmer.net/media/GoR.
Please note that this is an HTML version of a document originally published as an Adobe Acrobat File. The original Adobe Acrobat File can be found at http://www.sohmer.net/media/Gospel_of_Rome.pdf.