The Catholic doctrine of the Papacy is one of the cornerstones of the Roman Catholic church. Remove it, and the entire structure collapses. It is through the fallacy of the papacy that the Catholic church finds justification for extra-Biblical doctrines, the supremecy of tradition over Scripture, and the rejection of the true Gospel of grace. In fact, it is common that during a conversation with a Catholic, he or she will defend his/her position by referring to the papacy. Since Peter was the first pope (or so they say), that proves the Catholic church to be correct. Here, I'll look at the truth regarding the fabled papacy.

Peter's Confession

The famous scripture reference given to fallaciously support the idea of the papacy is found in Matthew 16:13-20:

  • Matthew 16:13 When Jesus came to the area of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 14 They answered, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus answered him, "You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven! 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven." 20 Then he instructed his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

Catholics are taught from a very early age to memorize these verses. According to the Catholic interpretation, they teach that Christ issued the papacy, which began with Peter--the foundation of the Church (again, according to Catholicism). However, there are many ways in which this false teaching may be refuted. Let's start with the verses themselves.

Little Rock, Big Rock

The Greek word for "Peter" is petros, which is a word masculine in gender, referring to a small stone. Petros comes from another word--petra--which is feminine in gender, referring to a huge rock (the kind used for the foundations of buildings). Now reread the key verse with the Greek words put in place of the English words for better understanding:

  • Matthew 16:18 And I tell you that you are Petros, and on this petra I will build my church...

The two words translated as "rock" in Matthew 16 are very different in meanings, and by examining them, we can come to a more correct understanding of what the verses say.

The Big Rock

With such a distinction between the two words, what was Christ referencing when He used the word petra? From context, it seems clear that Christ was referring to the fact that He is "the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16). This was also the position of the early Church, used against (as I will expand upon later) Calixtus I when he failed in trying to institute the papal office. Though the Catholic church claims to hold to tradition, this earliest tradition regarding the papacy is conveniently ignored.

Christ the Rock

Over and over again throughout both the Old and New Testament, the word "rock" refers to Christ. In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word cela is used, meaning "crag," which is a massive rock.

Paul, in 1 Corinthians 10:4, indicates that even the rock of the Jews was Christ:

  • 1 Corinthians 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they were all drinking from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.

To make it absolutely clear who the Rock of the Church is, read 1 Corinthians 3:11:

  • 1 Corinthians 3:11 For no one can lay any foundation other than what is being laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Binding and Loosing

  • Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven."

Catholics claim this authority of "binding and loosing" is given solely to popes. However, that authority was given to all of the apostles in Matthew 18:18, and indeed to all believers in Matthew 18:19-20:

  • Matthew 18:18 "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven. 19 Again, I tell you the truth, if two of you on earth agree about whatever you ask, my Father in heaven will do it for you. 20 For where two or three are assembled in my name, I am there among them."

Was Peter Greater?

If Peter were selected as the foundation of the Church and one of great authority and prominence, then we should expect to find Peter having a prominent role in the early Church. We should expect to find him making decisions, receiving great honors, and being abnormally influential in the goings-on of the Church. We should expect him to be set apart from the other apostles. If, however, Peter was not chosen by Christ to be the foundation of the Church, and was given no special position above the other apostles, we should expect to see that Peter is not given a prominent role in the Church. We should expect to find him sharing authority and requiring correction in some instances, among other things. Let's see which side the Bible supports.

  • Acts 8:14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them.

Here, Peter is being directed by the others to go to Samaria. Clearly, Peter is not seen among the apostles as having any special authority. In fact, the group consensus dictates what Peter should do, not the decision of Peter himself.

  • 1 Peter 5:1 So as your fellow elder and a witness of Christ's sufferings and as one who shares in the glory that will be revealed, I urge the elders among you: 2Give a shepherd's care to God's flock among you, exercising oversight not merely as a duty but willingly under God?s direction, not for shameful profit but eagerly. 3 And do not lord it over those entrusted to you, but be examples to the flock.

Peter refers to himself here merely as an elder, just as those he's addressing are elders. He then mentions that shepherding should be carried out not as lording over the people, but as being an example. This is far from the philosophy of the papacy.

  • Acts 23:3 Then Paul said to him, "God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Do you sit there judging me according to the law, and in violation of the law you order me to be struck?" 4 Those standing near him said, "Do you dare insult God's high priest?" 5 Paul replied, "I did not realize, brothers, that he was the high priest, for it is written, 'You must not speak evil about a ruler of your people.'"

In these verses, Paul unknowingly speaks against a high priest. When informed of who he was speaking to, Paul immediately repented. However, in Galatians 2:11-14, Paul openly criticizes Peter:

  • Galatians 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he had clearly done wrong. 12 Until certain people came from James, he had been eating with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself because he was afraid of those who were pro-circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also joined with him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray with them by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not behaving consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, "If you, although you are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you try to force the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

In Romans 16, Paul lists some 27 names of people to greeted and thanked, yet Peter's name is nowhere to be found. Surely, if Paul were the Bishop of Rome, his name would be listed here.

In Galatians 1:12, we read that Paul received the Gospel directly from Jesus Christ. Why was this the case with Paul, but not Peter--the supposed foundation of the Church?

In Matthew 20:20-28, the mother of two of the disciples asks Jesus that He grant her sons the right to sit one on His left and one on His right in His kingdom. He replies that this cannot happen, and when the other 10 apostles become upset with them, Christ refutes the idea of any of them Lording over others, saying, "It must not be this way among you!" (verse 26).

Church, I am Your Father...

The word "pope" comes from the Latin papa, meaning "father".

  • Matthew 23:9 And call no one your 'father' on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.

This verse clearly teaches us not to refer to anyone on earth "father" in a spiritual sense. How then can the Catholic church justify calling not only the pope but every Catholic priest "father"?

History of the Papacy

In the above scritural refutation of the papal office, it was made abundantly clear that not Peter nor anyone else was given special authority over the Church, and that Christ alone is its foundation. However, many Catholics will still cling to their misinterpretation of one or two obscure verses to justify their beliefs. So, setting scripture aside, we'll use the history of the papacy to refute it.

It wasn't until 200 years after Christ's ascension that one of Rome's hundreds of bishops--Calixtus I--tried using Matthew 16:18 to suggest that Peter was the foundation of the Church, and appointed Bishop of Rome. The Bishop of Carthage (Tertullian) referred to Calixtus as a "usurper". Among the others who denied the false reading of Matthew 16:18 are Jerome, Augustine, Cyril, Chrysostom, Hilary, Ambrose, Gregory the Nyssa, Basil, and Leo the Great. Calixtus failed at his attempt to institute the papacy over 200 years after Christ's ascension, yet the Catholic church still insists that they can trace the papacy all the way back to Peter.

Again, it's interesting to see which traditions the Catholic church holds to and which ones it discards. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, you'll find many quotes from Tertullian, yet those refuting Calixtus' claims are conveniently absent. As are the anti-papal views of the many others listed in the above paragraph.

Even in the beginning of the 5th century, Augustine (Bishop of Hippo at this time) spoke out against the papacy, insisting that Christ Himself was the foundation for the Church. His views were shared by almost all the churches at that time.

Stephen I, Bishop of Rome from 253 to 257, tried to establish grounds for the papacy, as well. He cited the "pseudo-Clementine Letters and Homilies", which supposedly included a letter written from Peter to James, where Peter said that he had appointed Clement as the next Bishop of Rome. However, Linus and Cletus were said to have been the first and second popes after Peter respectively (according to Eusebius church historian), and so Stephen's efforts failed.

The Council of Nicea convened in the 4th century, when there was no pope. Though Constantine called together the council, he is not part of the papal lineage. Still, he took for himself the title Pontifex Maximus, meaning "Highest Priest." This is strange when one considers that Sylvester was Bishop of Rome at the time, yet he was not given this title nor was he considered a pope, nor was he even in attendance in 325 when the council was held. After this, as late as 387, Siricius tried just as Claxitus and Stephen to take over the church, but he, too, failed.

In the Council of Carthage in 412, the attendees wrote to the Bishop of Rome, instructing him not to listen to appeals from other deacons or bishops in Africa, and also forbidding him to send messengers to the African churches. At a later synod in Melvie, it was decided that any African churches who sent appeals or requested settlements of disputes outside of Africa would be excommunicated. Augustine--the secretary at this council--agreed with the decision.

Halfway through the 5th century, Leo the Great (Bishop of Rome from 440-461), finally kicked things off when he assumed the title of "Primate of All Bishops." By this time, the Roman empire had been split, and Leo was given the approval of Valentinian III, the emporer of Western split. Leo was not approved by God, but by a human ruler of a broken empire.

Leo held on for a while, but when he declared that anyone who denied his absolute authority of the church would be condemned to hell, the Council of Chalcedon refused to support him, and so there was still no pope.

It was in the late 6th century that we see the first pope--Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome, supposedly 64th in the papal line. However, Gregory opposed the very position the Catholic church claims he held. He wrote to the Bishop of Antioch, calling the title of "Universal Bishop" "profane, superstitious, haughty, and invented by the first apostate." In a letter to Maurice, he said, "I confidently affirm that who so calls himself, or desires to be called Universal Priest, (Pontifex Maximus), in his pride goes before anti-Christ.... St. Peter is not called Universal Apostle.... Far from Christian hearts be that blasphemous name."

Boniface III had Emporer Phocas give him the title of Universal Bishopof the church, but the Eastern churches refused to submit to him, and so his authority was only over the Western churches. It is clear that the claims of the Roman Catholic church to be able to trace the papacy from Peter to present times are completely false.

Many forgeries and falsifications were created in order to support the doctrine of the papacy. The pseudo-Isidorean Decretals allegedly included letters from popes who were around, well, before popes were around. Perhaps the most important of all the writings included in the Decretals was the Donation of Constantine. It was used by the Catholic church for 600 years as support for the papacy. What's interesting about this is that, while the Roman Catholic church claims to trace the papacy back to Peter, it is this document which was used from the 9th to the 15th century as the granting of authority to the Bishops of Rome over all the church.

In 1054, Leo IX tried to use the document to claim control over all the eastern churches as well, but the patriach of Constantinople decided he didn't like that idea, and so the split between the Western churches and the Eastern Orthodox churches became permanent.

Lorenzo Valla showed in 1440 that the Donation of Constantine was a deliberate forgery, yet the Roman Catholic church had already secured its papal rule and authority over the churches.

So, there you have it. The papacy--the supposed ruling head of the Church of the one true God of all creation--is founded on forged documents by greedy men with a thirst for power.

Infallibility

It is a necessary and present doctrine of the Catholic church that the pope is infallible.

The Roman Pontiff... enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith - he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals... This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 891

The Catholic church actually also claims that all Catholic leaders are infallible:

The pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church' s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 890

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.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 2051

From Pastor Aeternus, chapter 4, the criteria for the pope's infallibility are that the Roman Pontiff:

  • speaks ex cathedra, or in the position of his papal office

  • defines

  • that a doctrine concerning faith or morals

  • must be held by the whole church

This declaration of infallibility, however, is not found anywhere in scripture. It is inferred upon men by other fallible, sinful men. If the infallible pope teaches something that contradicts the Word of God, who is correct? God or the pope? Where did fallible men get their authority to declare other men infallible? What if two popes say contradictary things? Which of the two infallible men has made a mistake?