The pope, or papacy, is the office and institution of the Bishop of Rome, who is considered the successor of Saint Peter and is seen as the head of the worldwide Catholic Church. The pope holds supreme authority over the church and has jurisdiction over all Catholics around the world. The pope is also the head of state of the Vatican City.
While the pope and papacy are central in Catholicism today, the Bible does not explicitly mention the papacy or a pope leading the church. However, Catholics believe the pope’s authority is biblical and derives from the apostolic succession beginning with Peter as the first pope. Here is an overview of relevant biblical passages concerning Peter and the papacy:
Peter as Leader and “Rock” of the Church
In Matthew 16:18-19, Jesus tells Peter: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Catholics interpret this passage as Christ establishing Peter as the rock or foundation for the church. They believe Peter was given special authority by being given the “keys of the kingdom,” representing the power to make binding decisions for the church on matters of doctrine and practice.
However, Protestants generally interpret the “rock” as referring to Peter’s confession of faith in Christ, not Peter himself. They believe Christ alone is the foundation of the church. The authority to bind and loose was later also given to other disciples (Matt 18:18), not just Peter.
In John 21:15-17, Jesus charges Peter to “feed my lambs” and “tend my sheep,” which Catholics see as giving Peter a special pastoral role for the whole church. Protestants acknowledge Peter had a certain precedence and honor among the apostles but do not believe this passage indicates unique authority over the entire church.
Peter’s Prominence in the Book of Acts
In the Book of Acts, Peter appears as a prominent leader and spokesperson for the early church:
– Peter initiates finding a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:15-26)
– Peter preaches at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-40)
– Peter performs miracles, including healing the crippled beggar (Acts 3:1-10) and raising Tabitha from the dead (Acts 9:36-43)
– Peter pronounces judgment on Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11)
– Peter is the first apostle to preach to the Gentiles (Acts 10)
– Peter asserts his apostolic authority at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:7-12)
Catholics believe Peter’s prominence in Acts reflects the other apostles’ recognition of his authority. However, Protestants argue Peter was simply one of several leaders God raised up in the early church. They point out that others like Paul and James also exercised significant leadership and authority at times in Acts.
References to Peter in Paul’s Epistles
In Galatians 2:7-8, Paul refers to Peter as an apostle who was entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised, just as Paul was entrusted with the gospel to the Gentiles. Catholics believe this reflects Peter’s special status, while Protestants argue this simply refers to the geographic division of their missionary work.
In 1 Corinthians 1:12 and 3:22, Paul criticizes factions claiming unique allegiance to particular apostles like Peter. Catholics believe this shows the early church recognized Peter’s special position, while Protestants argue this passage actually undermines any special authority for Peter.
Overall, Protestants do not believe these sparse references establish a biblical basis for the papacy as traditionally understood by Catholics. The New Testament does not contain an explicit record of Peter’s whereabouts, travels, writings, or deeds as the leader of the church.
Objections to Petrine Primacy
In addition to questioning the biblical support for papal authority in general, some Protestants raise objections to the Catholic understanding of Peter’s primacy in particular:
– In Matthew 23:8-11, Jesus teaches all his disciples not to claim special titles or authority over others. This seems inconsistent with claiming Peter and his successors have supreme authority.
– Peter is often rebuked in the Gospels for misunderstanding Jesus’ words and actions. Protestants argue it seems unlikely Christ would establish the entire church on someone prone to err.
– Paul records confrontations with Peter in Galatians 2 over Peter’s hypocrisy and fear of the Judaizers. This seems at odds with the Catholic belief in an infallible, supremely authoritative papacy.
– There are no records of Peter’s activity as bishop or pope in Rome in early church history. The first references connecting Peter to Rome come later from church fathers like Dionysius and Irenaeus.
Teachings about Church Leadership in the Pastoral Epistles
1 & 2 Timothy and Titus instruct church leaders on the qualifications and duties of elders/overseers (episkopos) and deacons. They contain no references to a supreme role for Peter or a distinct hierarchical authority for bishops. Rather, they depict a collective leadership by elders/bishops alongside deacons in local congregations.
Protestants argue these passages better reflect the biblical model of church government – with authority resting in scripture and Christ as head, while leadership is exercised collaboratively by qualified, local leaders. There is no hierarchy or single human head over the global church.
Interpretations of the “Keys of the Kingdom”
The reference to the “keys of the kingdom” in Matthew 16 is a key passage in the debate over Petrine authority and papal succession. Catholics and Protestants interpret the passage very differently:
The Catholic View:
– The keys represent supreme authority over the church Christ gave uniquely to Peter.
– This includes the power to determine orthodoxy and make authoritative, binding decisions concerning faith and morals that all Christians must follow.
– Christ conferred these keys on Peter alone in Matthew 16, not to all the disciples.
– The keys and associated authority were passed down from Peter to each subsequent bishop of Rome through apostolic succession. This establishes the biblical basis for the papacy.
The Protestant View:
– The “keys of the kingdom” represent the message of salvation through faith in Christ which was entrusted to all the apostles, not just Peter.
– The power to bind and loose refers to the authority of the church collectively and local bodies of believers to discipline sinful members through excommunication, not centralized control over doctrine and practice.
– This authority to bind and loose was later also conferred on the other disciples (Matt 18:18), showing it was not a unique power belonging to Peter alone.
– There is no evidence in scripture of an exclusive transferal of authority from Peter to the bishops of Rome to establish a papacy.
Interpretations of Matthew 16:18 – “On this rock I will build my church”
Like the “keys of the kingdom,” Matthew 16:18 is critically important in evaluating biblical support for the papacy. Catholics and Protestants again interpret it differently:
The Catholic View:
– “This rock” refers to Peter himself, so Christ is saying he will build his church on Peter.
– As the rock, Peter was given a position of preeminence and authority to lead the apostles and the early church.
– This establishes Peter as the first pope ordained to be the head of the entire church.
The Protestant View:
– “This rock” refers not to Peter but to his confession of faith in Christ.
– So Christ is saying he will build his church on the gospel message Peter confessed, not on Peter himself.
– Peter has no unique leadership role or authority over the other apostles here.
– Rather, Christ alone is the foundation and head of the church (1 Cor 3:11, Eph 5:23)
Papal Succession and Peter’s Position in Rome
The Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession holds that Peter’s apostolic authority was uniquely passed down to the bishops of Rome, so each pope inherits supreme authority over the whole church. But Protestants argue:
– There is no explicit biblical evidence Peter was ever a bishop in Rome or that he traveled to Rome at all. The first references to this idea come later in the writings of church fathers like Dionysius of Corinth and Irenaeus.
– There are no biblical accounts of Peter or any other apostle passing down their authority to successors. The criterion for replacing Judas was someone who had accompanied Jesus throughout his ministry and witnessed his resurrection (Acts 1:21-22), not apostolic succession.
– Peter seems to have played an important leadership role in the church in Jerusalem (Galatians 2, Acts 15), which seems inconsistent with being bishop of Rome.
– Even if Peter was active in Rome, the Bible nowhere portrays him transferring his apostolic authority to the bishop of Rome rather than another apostle before his death.
Possible Support for the Papacy in Isaiah 22?
Some Catholics argue Isaiah 22 provides a biblical precedent for the papacy being passed down through successive occupants of the same office:
Isaiah 22 describes a succession of authority amongst the stewards of King Hezekiah’s house in Jerusalem. Verse 22 says of one steward, “And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.”
Catholics argue this Old Testament succession of authority holding keys foreshadows and provides a biblical basis for the papacy – a succession of popes holding authority and keys for the church through history.
However, Protestants make several counterarguments:
– This is an example of divine authority given to a royal line of kings, not to clergy or the church which did not yet exist.
– The context is plain this refers to succession under a monarchic model among Hezekiah’s royal administrators in Jerusalem, not anything approximating bishops or popes.
– Some Protestants argue the priestly line of Aaron provides a more relevant Old Testament model for church leadership, not royal dynastic succession.
– This passage is not explicitly applied to the church or papacy anywhere in the New Testament.
Overall, Protestants do not find Isaiah 22 to be a convincing biblical precedent or basis for succession of papal authority. The papacy as an institution does not exist in the Old Testament, and Protestants believe it should be evaluated based on New Testament texts speaking directly to church structure and leadership.
Arguments Against the Necessity of the Papacy from Protestant Principles
In addition to questioning the biblical basis for the papacy, Protestants also object to the institution of the papacy as unnecessary and contradictory to key Protestant doctrinal principles:
– The papacy undermines the Protestant doctrines of scripture alone (sola scriptura) and Christ alone (solus Christus) as the supreme authority for the church.
– The papacy is an unnecessary human institution not prescribed in scripture, since Christ alone is the head of the church.
– The papacy contradicts the priesthood of all believers by creating a special class of Christians (clergy) with higher authority than other believers.
– The papacy elevates flawed, sinful men to a position of infallibility and supreme authority they are not worthy of, rather than recognizing Christ alone as head.
– The history of corrupt and power-hungry popes contradicts the notion that this is a divinely guided institution.
Arguments Against the Infallibility of the Pope
The doctrine of papal infallibility, defined dogmatically at the First Vatican Council in 1870, is particularly objectionable to Protestants because it ascribes an attribute of God – infallibility – to a man. They argue:
– Only God is infallible. No man can make completely authoritative and binding doctrinal pronouncements freed from any error. This improperly equates the pope’s authority with God’s.
– There are examples throughout history of popes contradicting each other on issues of faith and morals, undermining the idea that all papal decrees are infallible.
– The Bible nowhere ascribes infallibility to Peter or any apostle, so there is no biblical basis for papal infallibility.
– Even Peter erred and had to be rebuked at times (Gal 2:11-14), so he clearly was not individually infallible.
– The doctrine of papal infallibility was only officially defined in 1870 and represented a departure from earlier understandings. It lacks biblical and historical basis.
Conclusion
The papacy as traditionally understood by Catholics, with the pope exercising supreme authority over the worldwide church through apostolic succession from Peter, lacks clear and definitive biblical support according to Protestant interpreters. While Peter was certainly an important early church leader, Protestants see no new testament evidence he was established as the head of the church in the unique role of pope. Nor was his authority uniquely passed to the bishops of Rome to establish an unbroken line of papal authority over all Christians.
Rather, Protestants argue the New Testament depicts a collaborative leadership structure with Christ alone as head and foundation of his church. The Catholic doctrines of papal authority, infallibility, apostolic succession from Peter, and the necessity of the papacy contradict key Protestant beliefs about scripture, Christ’s headship, and the priesthood of all believers.
While Catholics find the basis for the papacy in inferences about biblical passages on Peter’s prominence and assertions of later church fathers, Protestants confine their doctrine to what is definitively prescribed in scripture. And scripture alone does not prescribe the doctrine of the papacy or unambiguously establish the Bishop of Rome as Christ’s vicar with supreme power over the universal church.