Who is the Pope?

The Pope, recognized as the head of the Roman Catholic Church, is a figure surrounded by tradition and reverence. Alongside him are the ‘Cardinals,’ who serve as his top advisors, overseeing the administrative matters, while Archbishops,  Bishops, and Priests manage the church’s  day-to-day operations.

The Pope has full supreme power over the Church on matters of doctrine and practice, and its members must diligently follow whatever he says.

He is also called the “Vicar” of Christ, meaning he serves as a substitute or agent of Christ on earth (a role stolen from the Holy Spirit – John 14:26). This designation, originating from the Latin word “vicarius,” which means “instead of” However, it is erroneous to call the Pope the “Vicar of Christ” because it implies that he has the same power and authority that Christ has over the Church. This designation, carries a profound theological implication, suggesting a stewardship over Christ’s flock until His return which is a role performed by the Holy Spirit as outlined in John 14:26.

The famous preacher Charles Spurgeon had some harsh but true words to say about men who hold the Pope’s position;

“A man who deludes other people by degrees comes to delude himself. The deluder first makes dupes out of others and then becomes a dupe to himself. I should not wonder but what the Pope really believes that he is infallible and that he ought to be saluted as ‘His Holiness.’ It must have taken him a good time to arrive at that eminence of self-deception. But he’s got to it, I dare say, by now, and everyone who kisses his toe confirms him in this insane idea. When everybody else believes a flattering falsehood concerning you, you come at last to believe it yourself. Or at least to think it may be so.

The Pharisees, being continually called the ‘Learned Rabbi,’ ‘Father,’ the ‘Holy Scribe,’ the ‘Devout and Pious Doctor,’ the ‘Sanctified Teacher,’ believed the flattering compliments. They used very grand phrases in those days, and doctors of divinity were very common – almost as common as they are now. And the crowd of doctors and rabbis helped to keep each other in countenance by repeating one another’s fine names till they believed they meant something.

“Christ did not redeem His church with His blood so the Pope could come in and steal the glory. He never came from heaven to Earth. He never poured out his very heart that he might purchase his people, that a pour 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 His church.”

Pastor John MacArthur, in his sermon titled “The Pope and the Papacy”, said the following concerning the idolatry of the Pope;

“J. C. Ryle was right when he said it’s a huge, organized, idolatry. A man wearing a gold crown, triple decked, with jewels worth millions? A cardinal’s garb that costs tens of thousands of dollars? Peter said, “Silver and gold have I none.” Paul said, “I coveted no man’s gold, no man’s silver, no man’s clothing.”

The Pope is surrounded by a dazzling display of arrogant overindulgence. It is theater; it is nothing more than theater, to give the illusion of God, the illusion of transcendence, the illusion of spirituality. It is a pompous display of wealth. It is a lavish indulgence in ridiculous buildings, ridiculous robes, crowns, thrones, to cover and mask a sinful system like the whitewashed tombs that Jesus referred to. There was never such a thing as a papal coronation before the tenth century. And now the world has gone berserk over this as if it was true religion.”

Jesus, in all His teachings and instructions, never established the papacy as a hierarchical authority for the church. In fact, He instructed the apostles not to govern the church in this manner.

Matthew 20:25-26 (NKJV)
But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant.

Leaders who assumed high positions of authority were often criticized by Jesus. Yet today, within the Roman Catholic Church, there is an enormous structure of monsignors, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and a pope ruling over the lay people.

As the scriptures repeatedly warn, we should not trust in the teachings of men but rather in God and His word (Jeremiah 17:5-7 / Psalm 118:8 / Psalm 49:13-14).

Speaking Ex-cathedra

The doctrine of ‘ex cathedra’ plays a pivotal role in the theological framework of the Roman Catholic Church, denoting the Pope’s capacity to define doctrines concerning faith and morals ‘infallibly’ when speaking from the ‘Seat’ of supreme apostolic authority.

The term ‘ex cathedra,’ translating to ‘from the Chair,’ signifies the Pope’s authority to make definitive statements on doctrinal issues. When the Pope speaks ‘ex cathedra,’ it is understood within the Catholic tradition that he communicates with the divine guidance, echoing the will of God and thus declaring absolute truths.

Simply put, Catholics believe that the Pope is in direct communication with God. Or in other words, any time the Pope speaks ‘ex-cathedra,’ he is basically saying, “This is the word of God, and therefore it is the absolute truth.”

The idea that a mere man could have such authority to claim to be the head of the church is absurd. Attributing such infallibility to a human figure blurs the lines between human authority and divine will. The root of this issue lies in the misinterpreting or overextending the scope of human authority within the Church.

Furthermore, it is arrogant for any man to claim that he has the authority that only God has. This type of prideful arrogance leads him (the Pope) to believe he can interpret Scripture however he wants which can often lead to interpretations that reflect individual perspectives rather than a collective, ecclesiastical understanding.

Additionally the absolute sense of authority can result in extreme pride that may overshadow the humility and servitude exemplified by Christ.

More importantly, the claim that the Pope is a substitute to Christ is an attack on the sufficiency of the sacred scriptures and an abandonment of the message that Christ alone is the way of salvation.

Contradictory messages of the Pope

Apart from the fact that no human being on earth is by definition ‘infallible’, the “supposed” substitute of Christ (the Popes) has made numerous contradictory statements throughout History.

Here are a few examples;

On the topic of Salvation only through the Catholic Church.

Pope Eugene IV, made stringent declaration about the necessity of belonging to the Catholic Church for salvation.“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes in prophecies and teaches that none of those who are not within the Catholic Church, not only pagans but Jews heretics, schematics can ever partake or be partakers of eternal life. Unless at the end of their lives, they enter the Catholic Church.”

But the latest edition of the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church says this in paragraph 841 regarding the Church’s relation with the muslims – “The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

As we can see here the statements made by both these Popes are in clear contradiction of one another. How did things evolve over time? Why did God suddenly change his mind? Also, why would God approve of Pope John Paul II’s belief that Christians and Muslims share a ‘common’ spiritual bond and even kiss the Quran?

Some may argue that mistakes could happen, but errors in fundamental beliefs should never be considered lightly.

On ‘Joan of Ark’.

Pope Euguene the 4th had declared Joan of Ark to be a witch, but later Pope Benedict XV declared her a saint.

On Pope Formoses

In the ninth century, during the Cadaver Synod, Pope Steven the VI brought out a former Pope Formoses on trial (after he died) by having his corpse dug up from the grave and placing it on the throne. When the Pope found him guilty of heresy, he had his bright robes ripped from his rotting flesh, his fingers hacked off, and his body dragged through the streets and dumped into the Tiber river. Pope Steven VI, driven by political and ecclesiastical motives, found Formosus guilty of perjury and violating church canons.

What would motivate one Pope to do this to another Pope’s body? However, things only get worse from here. The second successor of Pope Steven, Pop Theodore II, nullified the   Cadaver Synod’s decrees, reversing the decision and reinstating Formoses’ back in Saint Peter’s Basilica with full honors. However, the controversy didn’t end there. Subsequently, Pope, Sergius III, reaffirmed the conviction of Formosus and states that Pope Steven was right in his judgement.

Here we have multiple Popes acting in contradiction to each other over a single decision. Why was there so much confusion?Doesn’t the pope hear directly from God?

Next we will look at some of the statements the Popes have made concerning the distribution of scripture.

Controversial statements about the distribution of the Bible.

• In 1800-1823, Pope Pius VII denounced the Bible Society and expressed shock at the circulation of the Scriptures. Why would any prominent minister of Christ be shocked by the circulation of the Bible? The reason is that Rome has always attempted to keep the Bible from men.
• Furthermore, Pius VII said, “It is evidence from experience, that the Holy Scriptures, when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have, through the temerity of men, produced more harm than benefit.” Now, why would anyone claim that the scriptures would cause more harm than good? Particularly if you are the Head of the Church, which is supposed to be ruled by the Bible.
• Pope Leo XII called the Protestant Bible the “Gospel of the Devil” in an encyclical letter of 1824. Can it really be that bad? In fact, all 66 books of the “Protestant Bible” are also included in the Catholic Bible.
• Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846) condemned the publication, distribution, reading, and possession of Holy Scriptures in common languages. Does owning a bible really violate the Christian faith to the point that a rally was necessary to prevent the spread of the Bible?
• Pope Leo XII, condemned the Bible Societies and admitted that the distribution of Scripture has “long been condemned by the holy chair.” Again it is certainly strange that the highest authority of the Church condemns the distribution of the Bible. 

As Christians, we believe that the great commission is to spread the gospel to the lost, so these statements about the spread of the Bible are contradictory.

The Roman Catholic Church has tried to limit the spread of bibles, but God’s word cannot be stopped and is still today the most widely distributed book.

Is the Pope a successor from Peter?

Matthew 16:18 (NKJV)
And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

According to the Catholic Church, Jesus made Peter the first Pope when He gave him the ‘keys’ to the Church and condemns those who oppose their view.

“If anyone says that he, the blessed apostle Peter, was not constituted by Christ our Lord prince of all the apostles and visible head of the church militant, or that he (Peter) directly and immediately received from our Lord Jesus Christ the primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction, let him be anathema.”
(Vatican Council 1823 from The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott, Page 279)

The Roman Church’s claims that Peter was the first Pope, however, can be disproved by just a little historical study and a proper understanding of the verse’s context.

Peter’s name in Greek is Petros, which means “a piece of rock.” The word translated as “rock” is petra, which means “a rock.”

A verse earlier, Peter affirmed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (v. 16), who is the rock on which the Church is built (1 Cor. 3:11).

So Peter, by his faith and confession of Jesus as the savior and son of God, became a piece of the rock.

In the same way, every believer becomes a piece of the rock in the sense that they become part of the foundation on which the Church is built, which is Jesus Christ Himself (Eph. 2:20-22).

What is the relevance of the “keys” to the kingdom? Simply put, it is the gospel. Peter opened heaven by preaching the gospel first to the Jews (Acts 2:14) and then to the Gentiles (Acts 15:7,14). A person’s sin can only be loosed and his/her salvation obtained through faith in the gospel. As believers, we all possess the same “keys”, the good news of Jesus Christ that can open heaven’s gates for the unredeemed.

Additionally, the Roman Catholic claim of Peter as the Pope is historically inaccurate. There is no evidence that Peter was the first pope of the Roman Church. As a matter of fact, no definitive evidence exists that he was ever in Rome, nor that he ever pastored a church in the city.

It can also be seen from Paul’s letter (Romans 16) to the christian churches in Rome in A.D. 56, which contained no reference to Peter or the Church Peter pastored. Despite greeting many people in Rome, how does he somehow overlook Peter?

Moreover, when Paul was imprisoned in Rome (A.D. 60 to 62), he wrote four letters to those who had come to visit him. Even in these letters, he doesn’t mention Peter. If Peter were in Rome, why wouldn’t he visit Paul? And why would Paul exclude mentioning him in the letters?

The answer is because Peter was not in Rome; in fact, he was never called to minister to Gentiles (Galatians 2:7-8); he was called to minister to Jews.

In Romans 15:20, Paul says, “I aspired to preach the gospel, not where Christ already was named.” If Peter had planted a church in Rome, Paul’s statement would be false. Why would Paul even attempt to establish a church there if Peter was already a bishop of Rome?

Another interesting point is the role of the “head of the Jerusalem Church.” If Peter was truly the first Pope and the supreme leader of the Church, why wasn’t he appointed as the head of the Jerusalem Church—the very first Christian community? Instead, this position was given to James, the brother of Jesus (Acts 15:13; Galatians 2:9). If Peter was not even considered the leader of the Jerusalem Church, how could he have been the leader of the entire Christian Church? This contradiction casts serious doubt on the Roman Catholic claim that Peter was given unique authority over all the apostles and the early church.

From what we can see, history and scripture do not prove Peter was the first Pope as Roman Catholics claim. .

Now, we don’t want to undermine Peter as well. According to New Testament scriptures, Peter was an important Apostle and leader who took on the role of spokesperson for the disciples. However, he wasn’t someone we would call “Holy Father” (like popes today) since scriptures describe Him as weak, sinful, cowardly and unfaithful.

Like all of us, he struggled and made mistakes. But what is noteworthy is that when he confessed and believed in Christ, he was entrusted to be a workman for God’s kingdom.

The Roman Church attempts to trace the lineage of papal successors back to Peter. However, the concept of the papacy as it is understood today did not fully develop until several centuries later, with the papacy’s role and authority becoming more formally established around the time of Pope Gregory I in the late 6th century.

In addition, even the Roman Church’s claim of a divine succession of Popes is not entirely correct (the idea that God has always had his representative in the Church). There were actually periods of time when there was no Pope in Rome at all: 304 to 308, 638 to 640, 1085 and 1086, 1241 to 1243, 1269 to 1271, 1292 to 1294, 1314 to 1316, 1415 to 1417.

People can often get bogged down in need of a successor or a leader to rule and tell them what to do. However, we don’t need to look too far for Peter’s true successors. As a matter of fact, true successors are those who have built their faith upon the same Christ that Peter believed, who teach the same doctrine, and demonstrate the same lifestyle he did.

Was Peter an infallible Pope?

Roman Catholics believe the popes are infallible, meaning they are exempt from committing errors. Given that the Roman Catholics regard Peter was the first pope, questions arise as to whether he embodied this infallibility.

In the Epistle to the Galatians Paul recounts an incident where he openly rebuked Peter.

Galatians 2:11-13 (NKJV)
Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I (Paul) withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed (for being hypocritical);  for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.

Two important facts can be derived from the verses above.

(1).  Peter’s actions, which led to Paul’s rebuke, were rooted in fear of criticism and manifested in behavior that contradicted the inclusive message of the Gospel. By withdrawing from the Gentile believers, Peter implied that Jewish customs were still necessary for full acceptance into Christianity, thereby undermining the Gospel’s message of salvation by grace through faith alone, without the need for adherence to the Jewish Law (Galatians 2:16; 3:28). This incident illustrates Peter’s susceptibility to error and his moral fallibility, challenging the notion of his infallibility.

(2).  Paul’s willingness to confront Peter indicates an understanding of equality and accountability among the Apostles. If Peter held an infallible papal office, Paul’s confrontation would undermine the established hierarchical structure and the very concept of infallibility.

Peter in the Bible is a figure of great significance and spiritual authority, yet one who is also relatable in his humanity and fallibility.