Reasons to Reject the Claims of the Papacy

With the recent naming and forthcoming installation of a new pope (American cardinal Robert Prevost), the papacy  (i.e., the authoritative office of the pope) has once again become a topic of cultural conversation. But what exactly is the papacy? Who is the pope? The most recent Catechism of the Catholic Church describes the Pope in these terms...

"...the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.” (Section 882)

The pope is not simply a Christian leader. According to Roman Catholics, he is "pastor of the entire Church... [having] full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church". The surprising extent of this claim should drive us to ask, was such a role really instituted by Jesus himself? Or was it a feature of the New Testament church? If the answer is "no" to both of these questions, then where did the papacy come from? 

Though almost two-thousand years of papal history is littered with strange and confusing stories of both the virtuous and vice-loving (even of rival claims from multiple, simultaneous popes), and even though the Roman Catholic church's teaching about this office has morphed over the centuries, here are two fundamental truths that remain sufficiently clear:

The origins of the papacy do not come from anything in God-given Scripture. This is apparent from two observations about the New Testament's witness (especially critical since the New Testament contains the oldest records we possess of Christian belief and practice):

Roman Catholic teaching argues that the foundation of the papacy was laid with the Apostle Peter, to whom (and about whom) Jesus declared, "And I tell you, you are Peter [a name meaning 'rock'], and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18). Is this where Jesus gave (or at least promised to give) Peter "full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church"? No. The book of Acts helps us understand in what sense Peter was a "rock". Undoubtedly, the same Peter who gave faithful witness to Jesus as the Christ in Matthew 16:16, was chosen by Jesus to give that same testimony to both Jews (Acts 2:14-20) and Gentiles (Acts 10:34-43) on those foundational occasions when the Holy Spirit was poured out on each group. But didn't Jesus also give Peter "the keys of the kingdom" in verse 19 of Matthew 16? Yes. But two chapters later, the power of these keys is described as belonging to all believers as well (Matthew 18:18). And in light of the rest of the New Testament, it's clear that Peter's privileged position did not place him over the other apostles, or make him "pastor of the entire church". For example, though he is a key part of the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 (vs. 6-11), it is James (the half brother of Jesus) who issues an official judgment on the matter (vs. 19-20), followed by directives from "the apostles and the elders, with the whole church" (v. 22). In Galatians 2:11-14 we even read about a time when the Apostle Paul needed to rebuke and correct Peter, who had been sadly influenced by certain Jewish Christians who continued to separate themselves from Gentiles, even Gentile believers. Apart from the authority of an apostle, Peter himself never claimed any unique authority, describing himself to local church elders simply as "a fellow elder", who like the men he addressed, was called to "shepherd the flock of God... exercising oversight", waiting for that day when the only "chief Shepherd" returns, Jesus Christ (1 Peter 5:1-4).

In his brief but excellent book on the papacy, writer Leonardo De Chirico states clearly, 

It is impossible to establish from the Bible alone any idea that fairly resembles the Papacy as advocated by Roman Catholicism... the witness of Scripture does not fit the role, the office, and the power that is attributed to the Roman Pope. Trying to square biblical teaching with the reality of the Papacy is more of an [after-the-fact] theological attempt, than something that springs from Scripture. ("A Christian's Pocket Guide to the Papacy", pp. 27-28)

The second observation that is helpful on this question relates to the leadership that is described and prescribed by the New Testament. For centuries, popes have claimed the title "bishop of Rome," an office purported to be given by succession and established by Peter himself. The biblical difficulty with such a claim is two-fold. First, the term bishop is a misleading Old English translation of the New Testament title overseer. The term "overseer" was simply another title for a local church elder (compare 1 Timothy 3:1-7 with Titus 1:5-9), since as we heard earlier from Peter himself, such elders are called to "exercis[e] oversight" among God's people (1 Peter 5:2) The idea of a bishop was a later development, in which a man was designated as an overseer over other overseers; that is, as a leader over many churches in a particular region. This office may have developed to fill a void left by the apostles, and/or simply for practical, administrative reasons. But again, it isn't a role prescribed by the New Testament. So who was intended to carry the torch given to the Apostles? While the biblical record gives no indication that the office of apostle would continue, it is clear about the fact that local church leaders were entrusted with the mission Jesus himself gave his first followers (Matthew 28:16-20). The Apostle Paul demonstrated this when he appointed elders in the cities where he proclaimed Christ (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5), and then passionately charged those leaders to continue his work (Acts 20:17-36). As he later wrote to his associate-in-training Timothy, "what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also." (2 Timothy 2:2) So genuine, biblical succession means leaders like these (also called pastors or shepherds--Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2) caring for God's people in local churches, faithfully equipping each to be witnesses for Jesus, and helping raise up new leaders who will faithfully carry the work forward.

So if the office of the pope did not come from Jesus or the Apostles, where did it come from? Based on the historical evidence, it's reasonable to conclude that...

The origins of the papacy come from a number of things in man-centered history. The writings of church leaders in the first several centuries of the Christian faith attest to their deep respect for the Church at Rome. Some, like Irenaeus, believed the church there was founded by the Apostles Peter and Paul ("Against Heresies" 3:3:2). While both men may have been martyred there, there is no evidence either established that faith community. But as a church in the Empire's capital city, one established early in Christian history (cf. Aquila and Priscilla appear to be Jewish Christians from Rome in Acts 18:2), it isn't surprising that leaders in Rome had significant influence within the rapidly-expanding Christian world. As De Chirico writes, 

The Papacy would have never emerged if there was no Empire forming the political and cultural milieu of the life of the early church. The slow process that led to the formation of the Papacy depended on the importance of Rome as the capital city of the Empire and the power it exercised in the ancient world. The ideology of the 'Roma aeterna' (eternal Rome) crept into the church and influenced the way that Christians thought about the role of the church of Rome, seeing an analogy with the role of the city in the affairs of the Empire. (ibid., pp. 30-31)

But several cities in the Roman world were viewed similarly. These included Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria (and later, Constantinople). As the Wikipedia entry on this topic explains it,

As Christianity expanded throughout the Roman Empire, concentrations of believers were increasingly found in urban centers. Bishops in these cities came to hold preeminence in the province where their diocese was located, especially if the city was the provincial capital. Over time, some bishops attained authority beyond their province, becoming recognized as ['first among equals']... By the 4th century, cities such as Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch had extended their ecclesiastical authority beyond a single province. ("Patriarchate", Wikipedia)

Of these 'sees' (i.e., seats), only Rome was located in the West. Along with its unique position in the Empire's capital, its geographical location led to the development of a distinctly 'Imperial' or Latin way of doing things (as opposed to the Greek-speaking east of the Empire). When the Empire's capital was moved to Constantinople (formerly Byzantium) in 330 AD, the "resulting power vacuum [in Rome] enabled the pope both to see his position as one of power, not just influence, and to seize wide-ranging power... Indeed, as early as the 380s, Pope Damasus had argued that the papacy possessed authority superior to that of any other patriarachal see." (Fairbairn, "The Global Church", pp. 276-277) But as Roman Catholic priest and theologian Yves Congar explained, "The East never accepted the regular jurisdiction of Rome, nor did it submit to the judgment of Western bishops. Its appeals to Rome for help were not connected with a recognition of the principle of Roman jurisdiction but were based on the view that Rome had the same truth, the same good." ("Diversity and Communion", pp. 26-27) This is clear from a variety of ancient sources, including Basil of Caesarea (329-379 AD) who rejected papal meddling in Antioch, writing "I shall never consent to give in, merely because somebody is very much elated at receiving a letter from men [i.e., from Damasus, bishop of Rome]. Even if it had come down from heaven itself, but he does not agree with the sound doctrine of the faith, I cannot look upon him as in communion with the saints." (Letter 214, To Count Terentius). Even before this, Cyprian (d. 258 AD), who had great respect for the Roman bishop as a 'first among equals', rejected the idea of papal primacy, writing for the the Synod of Carthage in 256 AD, "Neither does any one of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another."

As the centuries progressed, the growing rift between West and East (along with the Islamic conquests of the 7th and 8th centuries) led the Roman Church deeper into bizarre claims about its authority, not only over other churches, but also over political matters. This is not necessarily surprising given the long-standing Imperial influence on the church in that ancient city. As De Chirico summarizes,

The imperial pattern was the influential blueprint that shaped the Papal institution from the 4th and 5th centuries onwards. What began as a position of leadership in the church became a position of power that resembled the secular paradigm of authority The 'papalizing' reading of the biblical texts on Peter was a later attempt to justify the imperial papacy biblically and theologically, yet the papacy is more a child of Imperial than biblical categories as its long history up to the 16th century Reformation clearly demonstrates. (ibid., p. 46)

More than a billion Christians today rightly reject the claims of the papacy, not because various popes have nothing to teach us, but because such claims do not align with sacred Scripture or the beliefs of the early Church. There is only one "pastor of the entire Church", the "Chief Shepherd" Jesus Christ (1 Peter 5:4). He alone "has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church". Why? Because He alone is our one "high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens." (Hebrews 7:26) Every follower of Jesus, and every pastoral leader, can take great comfort from the fact that He never needs to be replaced, but always lives to guide his people.