FACT CHECK! Sola Scriptura vs the Papacy

In this article, I examine the Protestant theory of “Sola Scriptura” (the Bible-Alone Is My Sole Authority) and contrast it to the Catholic notion of the Magisterium as competing Rules of Faith from a historical context, and in particular focus on the consequences of assuming the Sola Scriptura theory which is a contributor to division. I also outline the Catholic understanding of papal primacy, authority, and infallibility as understood, defined, and developed from early Church councils as well as modern councils and catechisms. I then touch on how early Christianity understood the papacy in regards to authority, and then exegete Matthew 16:13-18 to examine what Scripture says in regards to the doctrine of Peter being the first Pope.

In the year 251 AD, St. Cyprian of Carthage, in his treatise *Unity of the Catholic Church*, wrote these words: “On him he builds the Church, and commands him to feed the sheep, and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair, and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were what Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, by which it is made clear that there is one Church and one chair… If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he be confident that he is in the Church?”

In 381 AD, St. Ambrose of Milan wrote, “Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church, no death is there, but life eternal.”

There are two primary points I wish to address with this article.

The first is: What is the official position of the Catholic Christian Church in regards to the doctrine of the Papacy? This is a very key point considering the plethora of misunderstandings and misconceptions regarding this chief doctrine. In order to properly articulate why Catholics believe what they do regarding this teaching, it is first very important to properly understand what the teaching actually is. In other words, we need to examine what does the Catholic Church herself believe and teach in regards to the doctrine of the papacy. Not what do Protestants assume or think the doctrine mistakenly is, but rather what is the actual doctrine itself.

The second point is: Why do Catholics believe this doctrine? Once we have a proper and correct understanding as to what the doctrine is, and what it is not, we then need to examine what are the sources contained in Divine Revelation, historical analysis, and theological exegesis which support the claims propagated by the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church founded and instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ. Where does Sacred Scripture, accepted by all orthodox Christians as the inspired and inerrant Word of God, explicitly and implicitly reveal this doctrine to us? What did the earliest Christians believe themselves, the members of the Body of Christ who were charged to perpetuate the witness and teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, those belonging to the primitive martyr Church who joyfully went to their deaths for the cause of their faith and convictions? And very importantly, did the Church, as revealed to us in the pages of the New Testament, and as displayed in the lived actions and witness of the early centuries, believe and act as if this doctrine was true?

Before elaborating on both these key points, I wish to first briefly discuss a point that is equally as vital, which is: Why is this doctrine so crucial and important?

In the Gospel of John, chapter 17, Jesus is praying to the Father in heaven, in the garden of Gethsemane, on the eve of his Passion. And in this inner dialogue between Father and Son, on the very night where Christ our Lord is preparing for his final moments and on the verge of culminating his entire purpose for coming to earth, what do we see Jesus doing? What do we hear him asking for with great insistency and urgency? We find him pleading to the Father that his followers, his disciples, would be one; that they would be so united that he would compare it to the unity shared between Father and Son in the Triune Godhead. We must ask, what is the nature and the essence of the unity shared between the Father and the Son? As every orthodox believer knows and professes, it is a unity not merely of mission and purpose, but most importantly a unity of substance.

The Father and the Son are of one mind and one heart and share one common vision and goal, and they also are one in being with each other. As the sacred doctrine of the Trinity professes, they are two Persons, but share the one same essence or nature or substance as Almighty God. Jesus prays that his followers would be one, just as he and the Father are one and the same. Using the comparison of the unity between himself with the Father, Jesus invokes the most powerful words possible to demonstrate just how important the unity of all believers must be. Were the Father and the Son united in love but disunited on truths of doctrine? The obvious answer is no. And yet, when one surveys the current landscape of modern day Protestantism, one tragically finds a fragmented and divisive religion. Thousands upon thousands of distinct and uniquely different denominations professing belief in the one true God, calling out on the name of the one and only Savior, and yet completely divided and splintered as to the very definition of the Gospel message, each one proclaiming to possess the certain truth, and yet having a different interpretation than the others. This is a devastating travesty. This is not the unity that Christ prayed for.

In that same prayer to the Father, Jesus specifically asked that the purpose for this unity among his followers was so that the world might believe that he was sent by the Father. This division now gives the world its strongest and most compelling reason to doubt the Gospel proclamation. It is an indisputable fact of the historical record that if a disciple of Christ living in the first one-thousand years of the Church tried looking in a Yellow Pages book or Googling a church to attend for worship, only one church would be accessible, and that is the Catholic Church. Granted, at any given point in history, there existed a multitude of heretical sects which denied chief tenets of orthodox belief, such as the Trinity or the Divinity of Christ, however if one searched for an orthodox church, they would search in vain to find anything outside of the Catholic Christian Church. After the year 1054 AD, there arose the first major split within Christianity, between the Catholic Church which traced itself back to Jesus and the Apostles, and what became known as the Eastern Orthodox Church. Even after this point in history, only two Churches existed for roughly the next 500 years. In the 16th century, Martin Luther, John Calvin, among others, revolted against the Catholic Church and ushered in the Protestant Revolution. By the time Luther was on his death bed, already several dozen distinctly new denominations had splintered and begun. It is said that on his death bed, Luther bemoaned the fact that he had caused the division of the Body of Christ.

One of the major dogmas emanating from the Reformation was the cry of Sola Scriptura, which is Latin for Bible Alone. It was a novel doctrine for its time, one which was unheard of since the inception of Christianity, and it argued for the written Word of God only as the sole infallible rule of faith and practice for Christians, excluding the view which dated back to Apostolic times, namely that Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition both equally constituted the Word of God, and were both guided and upheld and expounded upon and authentically interpreted by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, namely the Pope and bishops who were successors of Peter and the Apostles. The man-made tradition of Sola Scriptura made each individual believer a Pope unto themselves, at least in practice essentially. Now, every so called believer was freely permitted and encouraged to privately interpret the Bible and arrive to their own doctrinal conclusions apart from the witness of Sacred Tradition and the guidance of the Magisterium. This was the seed which allowed for the rise of division and scandal on a massive scale. It has rightly been termed “a blueprint for anarchy.”

In our current day, while numeric estimates differ, there are thousands of different and distinct and autonomous sects and denominations, each claiming to possess the correct interpretation of Sacred Scripture. An unintended consequence of this man-made theory is the development of even some sects which deny principle dogmas of the Christian faith in imitation of the ancient heresies, such as the Trinity and the Deity of Christ and the Personhood of the Holy Spirit, in favor of their own unique interpretation of Scripture grounded in a Bible-Alone framework, for example the Jehovah Witnesses and the Latter Day Saints. With the advent of Fundamentalism in the early 20th century, and the subsequent growth of non-denominationalism, again all based on the flawed assumption of the Sola Scriptura mandate, there is virtually no end in sight as to how Protestants seek to resolve this continued division, other than merely continuously debating Bible verse back and forth over central doctrines such as heaven and hell, predestination and free will, infant baptism and the necessity of baptism, the sacraments, true and proper worship, moral doctrines; in other words, the very essence of the Gospel message. The simple question, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?,” now carries with it a multitude of differing responses, depending on which church you are asking. And given the Sola Scriptura blueprint and model, if you are unable to find a denomination which agrees with your own interpretation, you can now just as easily splinter off and branch out and begin your own church as well.

This is most truly and sadly the current state of affairs, and it breaks the heart of Jesus, who prayed so fervently that those who professes to follow Him would be one, just as he and the Father were one, so that the joint witness would convince the world that he was sent by the Father. Examine early secular history in its own thoughts on the fledgling Christian movement, and you will see numerous statements of how much Christians loved one another and were so united in mission and purpose to bring Jesus to the world. Read secular spectators now, and you will read sarcastic observations of how fragmented we are, and that even we can not seem to make up our minds on what we believe. By this standard, Islam or even many Eastern traditions such as Buddhism are more appealing to modern civilization, in part due to the unity of love and purpose and belief they find in them. Some Protestants respond by saying we all agree on the essentials, and yet they all disagree as to what constitutes “the essentials.” And certainly the world has no clue what those alleged essentials are, considering how divided the Body of Christ currently is, ever since the Reformation, ever since the invention of the Bible-Alone theory, ever since the denial of the authority of the Papacy.

This present-day division and fragmentation, historically originating with the Protestant invention of the Sola Scriptura theory, can not be tolerated or overlooked by sincere and genuine individuals who seek to serve the Lord Jesus Christ through loving and serving the world around them, in action and in word. We ought not underscore the major contribution to the present day division on the doctrinal level, namely the rejection of the doctrine of the Papacy and the promotion of the Bible-Alone theory in its place, which essentially turns every pastor and every individual believer into a Pope themselves, even if this requires new denominations to be formed based on private interpretations of Scripture to the exclusion of Scripture’s rightful place within its historical and ecclesiastical context.

I would simply plead with every Protestant to give a sincere and honest reading of St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, and ask yourself this question: “Is division something extolled and promoted and blessed by Jesus and the Apostles?” Was this the intention? Read 1 Corinthians 1:10–13 and 11:17–18, in conduction with Ephesians 4:3–6. With an open heart to the will of God, hear these admonitions from one of the pillars of the New Testament Church: “I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. Some… have informed me that there are quarrels among you. One of you says, ‘I follow Paul,’ another, ‘I follow Apollos’; another, ‘I follow Cephas’; still another, ‘I follow Christ.’ Is Christ divided?… I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you… Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all.” One might observe today, some say they are of Luther; others, of Calvin; others, of their pastor; others, of their own ptivate thoughts. We can not tolerate division. Protestants must repent and return to the unity of the Catholic Church. My contention is that a rejection of the doctrine of the Papacy in lieu of Sola Scriptura, which turns each believer into a Pope for themselves, precisely results in the sin of division, whether unintended or not. It is simply the historical observed reality.

Hear the words of the early Church father St. John Chrysostom, in his homilies on 1st Corinthians, composed in the 4th century:

“*That ye may all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions [schisms] among you*. The emphatic force of the word schism, I mean the name itself, was a sufficient accusation. For it was not that they had become many parts, each entire within itself, but rather the One [Body which originally existed] had perished. For had they been entire Churches, there might be many of them; but if they were divisions, then that first One had gone. For that which is entire within itself not only does not become many by division into many parts, but even the original One is lost. Such is the nature of divisions… In the next place, because he had sharply dealt with them by using the word schism, he again softens and soothes them, saying, *That ye may be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment*. That is; *since he had said, That ye may all speak the same thing; do not suppose*, he adds, *that I said concord should be only in words; I seek for that harmony which is of the mind*… For this reason he says it is necessary to agree both in mind and in judgment. For it was not from any difference in faith that the schisms arose, but from the division of their judgment through human contentiousness… *Is Christ divided*. What he says comes to this: *You have cut in pieces Christ, and distributed His body*. Here is anger! Here is chiding! Here are words full of indignation!”

The Reformation may seem necessary to those who follow its novelties, but at what cost in the long run? Whatever one’s personal opinion of the necessity for the Reformation, my contention is that inventing a tradition-of-men known as Sola Scriptura was not the right, nor prudent, course of action for the Reformers to take, especially considering our Lord’s strict prohibitions and warnings in regards to man-made traditions, as reflected in Mark 7:7–13 and Matthew 15:3–9.

The primitive martyr Church believed that the papacy was instituted as the visible source of unity for Christians, in line with current teachings emanating from the First Vatican Council of 1870, the Second Vatican Council of the past century, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the encyclicals and exhortations of the Popes throughout the 20th century and today, as will be demonstrated in this article. However, for right now, it will suffice to hear the words of another ancient Father, himself also a martyr for the cause of the faith, who was briefly quoted at the beginning of this article, St. Cyprian of Carthage, writing in the 3rd century in his masterful treatise *On the Unity of the Catholic Church*: “He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, “He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathers not with me scatters.” (Matthew 12:30) He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathers elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ… And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? He who does not hold this unity does not hold God’s law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation… He cannot possess the garment of Christ who parts and divides the Church of Christ… Do you think that you can stand and live if you withdraw from the Church, building for yourself other homes and a different dwelling?”

Scripture, on its own, separated from its historical and ecclesiastical context, is similar to a fish removed from an aquarium. In its natural environment, it flows beautifully. Apart from it, it withers and dies in the hands of men. Scripture alone is unclear on a variety of important issues. Dr. Robert Sungenis explains it like this: “But what if life confronts him with something that Scripture does not cover, and if he does not have the answer, how does he know if he is glorifying God? For example, note the following issues: contraception, abortion, artificial insemination, test-tube fertilization, genetic engineering, surrogate motherhood, sterilization, masturbation, sex education, eugenics, cloning, equal rights for women, capitalism and the use of wealth, the use of alcohol and mind-altering drugs, usury, cremation, psychology, resistance to tyranny, labor strikes, war, slavery, or church-state relations, and many others like these… Scripture does not address many of these topics, and even to those that it does address, its answer is often unclear. If, indeed, our belief about them is wrong, does such a belief glorify God? And what if God has given answers to these questions through the teaching office of the Church but we have refused, because of believing that the Bible is our “only authority,” to obey those teachings? Are we glorifying God? Even if Scripture addresses some of these issues “implicitly,” who has the authority to make explicit and specific doctrine of them? Are we to believe that God left us with the task of glorifying him through the agency of best guesses and sanctimonious opinions?.. Is not God truly glorified when his people have answers to all the crucial questions of faith and morals so they can live lives that, without doubt, please him?” (*Not By Scripture Alone*, pgs. 214–215)

The purpose of this article is not to issue a full-blown in-depth critique of the theory of Sola Scriptura, nor necessarily to uphold the biblical and historical doctrine of Sacred Scripture side-by-side with Sacred Tradition constituting the Word of God, as entire articles could be developed and elaborated on both such topics. However, for purposes of this article, it is important to note how a rejection of papal authority, an authority Catholics contend was implemented by Jesus beginning with Peter, can lead to unfortunate consequences in regards to global missionary work and the unity of the Church as prayed for by Jesus and explicitly called for by St. Paul. This backdrop to the issue is a necessary preface to the topic at hand, which is explaining the What and the Why of the Catholic doctrine of Peter and his successors in the Papacy. Christianity stood united under the tripod of authority instituted by Christ, namely, Scripture and Tradition as guided by the Magisterium. The advent of Sola Scriptura contributed to a gradual and unending breakdown of this unity from the perpsective of the world. The whole purpose for the office of the papacy was to protect against this breakdown. Reject the papacy, and you are bound to wallow in division, and scatter sheep in every different direction. Cling to the papacy, and you uphold the unity of the Body during times of doctrinal turmoil and confusion.

Stephen K. Ray makes the following observation: “The need for a real unity and a visible leadership did not cease with the Ascension of Christ, nor did it end with the death of Peter and the apostles. Shepherds are needed to ensure doctrinal purity, unification, and leadership… There has always been a visible head of God’s covenant people. Christ never intended his people to be divided into fragmented little groups, each with its self-appointed pastor, conflicted in teachings and competing for sheep. This is the end result of sheep who reject a visible shepherd. Jesus wishes His Church be one… perfected in unity.” (*Upon This Rock*)

The papacy dates back historically all the way to St. Peter in an unbroken line of succession; this is, quite simply, a matter of historical fact. The present-day Bishop of Rome goes back successively to St. Peter himself, just as the present-day United States President can be traced back to George Washington. *The Handbook of Christian Denominations*, composed by two Protestant historians, notes that the Catholic Church alone can trace itself back to Peter and the Apostles. The Encyclopedia Britannica says the exact same thing. The way she can trace herself back is through the apostolic succession of the bishop of Rome which originated with St. Peter and carries on to this day. Peter was the first bishop of Rome, succeeded by Linus, then Anacletus, then Clement I, then Evaristus, and so on and so on until the present day, who as of this writing is Francis. By the way, both Linus and Clement are mentioned in Sacred Scripture (2 Timothy 4:19–22, Philippians 4:3). St. Irenaeus, St. Augustine, Tertullian, and Eusebius are among some of the primitive early Church Fathers who give lists of the succession of the bishops of Rome in their day.

Why is this unbroken line of succession so important? Because whichever church can trace itself back to the church talked about by Jesus and the Apostles in the New Testament, then that church alone is the full inheritor and custodian of all the promises made to it by Jesus. It is said of this church:

– “The gates of hell can not prevail against it”

– “Whoever listens to you, listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me”

– “I will send you the Spirit of truth, and he will guide you into all truth”

– “I will be with you always, even to the end of the world”

– “The Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name, he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you”

– “Whoever fails to listen to the church will be treated as a tax collector and a heathen”

– “You should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth”

Only one church is able to historically trace itself back to Jesus and the Apostles, through its line of succession in the bishops, most distinctly the Bishop of Rome, and that is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Some Christians attempt to get around this by arguing that the primitive Church was Catholic, however it fell into apostasy at some point in time in the early centuries. They will attempt to use passages from Scripture, such as Acts 20:29–30 and 2 Peter 2:1–2, to support their claims. However, even going by the standard of “Scripture interprets Scripture,” passages used to support belief in a massive apostasy can not be used to override or contradict passages where Jesus clearly states the authority he delegates to his Church to speak and teach in his name. Rather, the passages speaking of an apostasy must be suitably harmonized with those which speak of the authority of Christ’s Church. In other words, one can not rightly interpret Scripture to mean, “Jesus will begin a church which is protected from the hates of hell, but then within so many years, the gates of hell will prevail through an apostasy which will destruct that same church.” Rather, upon surveying all of Scripture, one ought to conclude, “Jesus started a church which the gates of hell can not prevail against, and there are warnings of people falling away into apostasy, therefore we should stick closely to the Church since hell can not prevail against it.” Apostasies have come and gone since the very beginning, each time occurring through the invention of a heretical doctrine. One might even argue that the Reformation produced a huge apostasy with Catholic Christians flocking to a theory which had never existed in the faith before: Sola Scriptura. We must cling to the authority established by Jesus in order to avoid apostasy when it strikes.

Catholics believe Jesus fulfilled the kingdom of the Old Covenant by instituting the New Covenant kingdom. The Church is built on the foundation stones of the Apostles, and among this foundation, Peter is given a primacy over the others. The word Magisterium means teacher and ruler, and Catholics believe the Magisterium is composed of the successors to Peter and the Apostles, which are the Pope and the bishops in union with him. The teaching of the supremacy of the Pope in matters of faith and morals, and the indestructibility and infallibility of the papal office, was instituted from the very beginning. It was planted in seed form by Jesus himself, and gradually grew and developed throughout the history of the Church. When Christians ask, “Where is the term *pope* found in the Bible?,” Catholics have no problem saying it is not there, nor are the terms *Trinity* or *Incarnation* or *Hypostatic Union*, and yet orthodox Christians all believe in these doctrines. Thus, it suffices to argue that the concept or idea of the papacy is present in Sacred Scripture as well as Sacred Tradition.

In his normal office as Pope, the Bishop of Rome exercises an authority in leading and guiding and teaching the faithful of the universal Church. On some certain occasions, where heretical ideas crop up, the Pope has the authority from God to teach infallibly in order to root out the heretical belief from the true correct doctrine, and to preserve unity among the faithful. The belief in the Pope’s infallibility applies to certain specific criteria in officially pronouncing a doctrine to be believed as dogma by the faithful. It is not a guarantee of moral perfection in the man himself, even though many Popes have lived holy lives and been canonized as saints. The Pope has no guarantee of impeccability, meaning he is not sinless. Just as David was called by God to reign as king and to write the book of Psalms and yet committed murder and adultery, so too Catholics believe the Pope can be used by God to direct the flock and to pronounce on doctrine, yet not be personally sinless.

The Baltimore Catechism explains the doctrine of the Papacy in this way: “When our Lord wished to establish His Church He came from heaven; and when about to return to heaven appointed St. Peter to take his place upon earth and to rule the Church as directed. You see, therefore, that our Lord, though not on earth, is still the real head and owner of the Church, and whatever his agent or vicar — that is, our Holy Father, the Pope — does in the Church, he does it with the authority of our Lord Himself… The bishops of the world are subject to the Pope, just as the other Apostles were subject to St. Peter, who was appointed their chief, by our Lord Himself.. Christ founded the Church to teach, govern, sanctify, and save all men.” It is recognized that, ultimately, Jesus always reigns as head of the Church, however in his physical absence, he has appointed Peter and his successors to visibly teach and govern and sanctify with the authority of Christ himself. The Bishop of Rome, as successor to St. Peter, has full authority even over all bishops, an authority given to him by Jesus and maintained by the work of the Holy Spirit.

Some of the earliest councils of the Church make explicit statements in regards to papal authority. In the earliest centuries, the Church was unable to hold councils due to rampant Christian persecution. However, once the persecutions ceased and Christianity was allowed to exist openly and outwardly, the bishops were able to finally meet in authoritative councils to hammer out doctrinal issues, creeds, and heresies of the day. One thing we see in these early councils is, while dealing with specific Christological and Trinitarian doctrines, there are statements being made about Peter’s role in the Church through his successors.

The Council of Sardica, in the year 342AD, one of many councils of the era dealing with the Arian heresy, noted: “But if in any province a bishop has a matter of dispute against his brother bishop, one of the two shall not call in bishop from another province as judge… In order that the question may be reopened, let us honor the memory of St. Peter the apostle, and let those who tried the case write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, and if he judges that the case should be retried, let it be done.” Very early on in Church history, we see papal authority assumed right from the acts of early councils. In regards to disciplinary and doctrinal disputes between fellow bishops, we see the successor to St. Peter as possessing the sole authority to issue a binding decision that the bishops must adhere to.

The Council of Ephesus was called in 431AD, and issued this statement from the papal legate: “There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ… who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed Pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place.” In 451AD, the Council of Chalcedon, which dealt with the divine and human natures of Jesus Christ, concluded with this proclamation: “This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the apostles.”

The 16th century Reformation forced the Church to convene the Council of Trent, in response to the heretical claims being made by the Reformers. One of the fruits of the council was the issuing a universal catechism to instruct the faithful on key points of doctrine. On its section dealing with the paapacy, it stated: “The Church has but one ruler and one governor, the invisible one, Christ… the visible one, the Pope, who, as legitimate successor of Peter, the prince of the Apostles, fills the Apostolic chair. It is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers that this visible head is necessary to establish and preserve unity in the Church… A visible church requires a visible head; therefore the Savior appointed Peter head and pastor of all the faithful… He willed the very same power of ruling and governing the entire Church to descend to Peter’s successors.”

The First Vatican Council of 1870 was called specifically to deal with the issue of the extent and nature of papal primacy and authority. It is the Council by which the doctrine of papal infallibility was dogmatically defined as binding for the universal Church. They taught, “The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks *ex cathedra*, that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wishes that His church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith or morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.”

Roughly a century later, the Second Vatican Council noted, “The Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and the whole company of the faithful… In the Church of Christ the Roman Pontiff, as the successor to Peter, to whom Christ entrusted the care of his sheep and lambs, has been granted by God supreme, full, immediate and universal power in the care of souls. As pastor of all the faithful his mission is to promote the common good of the universal Church and the particular good of all the churches.”

The 1994 Catechism notes the following points in regards to the doctrine of the papacy: “When Christ instituted the Twelve, he constituted them in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them… The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the ‘rock’ of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock… 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.”

There are four primary Bible passages to examine to demonstrate the Scriptural evidence for the Catholic doctrine of the papacy. They are:

– Matthew 16:13–19

– John 21:15–17

– Luke 22:31–32

– Acts 15:1–28

For this article, we will examine the first one. Here is the first passage in full:

When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:13–19)

Let me break down the key features of this passage to demonstrate how this conversation between Jesus and Peter explicitly teaches the doctrine of the papacy. First, we note that only Simon is given the direct revelation from God in this instance to know the true identity of Jesus. While he asks all the apostles who people say he is and who they personally think he is, only Simon speaks up on behalf of the Twelve, and Jesus sees this as being a sign from the Father himself. He remarks that Simon did not learn this from human sources or reasoning or even from careful exegesis of the prophetic Hebrew Scriptures. Rather, he was given this revelation directly from heaven, and exclaims it outwardly for the Twelve to hear. This is where we begin to see Simon (soon to be permanently renamed Peter) in his role as the voice, or spokesman, of the Twelve. From this point on, we see him gradually emerge as the chief representative of the Apostles. We see this in passages such as Matthew 19:27, Luke 12:41, John 6:69, Luke 9:32, Mark 16:17, and Acts 2:37. A key passage in this regard is also Matthew 10:1–4, where Peter is listed first above the other Apostles, and Judas is listed last (which is the Scriptural theme as also seen in Mark 3:16–19, Luke 6:14–16, and Acts 1:13). The Greek word for “first” used in the Matthew 10 list is *protos*, which literally is translated as “first in rank” or “first in office.”

The second major feature noticeable in this passage is the name change from Simon to Peter. Whenever God changes a person’s name in Sacred Scripture, it always signifies a substantial change of mission and duty. A key example of this is found in Genesis 17, where Abram (which means “father”) has his name changed to Abraham (“father of a multitude”). Here we see Jesus, who is God in the flesh, changing Simon’s name to Peter, *Petros* in Greek, *Kepha* in Aramaic which is the language Matthew wrote his Gospel in. Both terms mean “rock.” Peter is being named the Rock of the New Covenant Church. This is, essentially, the original papal title. From this point on, biblical authors will frequently address him as Cephas, which is the Greek transliteration of Kepha, recognizing his new title and status in the the Church of Jesus Christ. Just as Abraham received a name change, so Peter receives one. Peter is the New Abraham of the New Covenant. As Abraham became a father of a multitude, so Peter will go from being a mere fisherman to being the chief fisher of men. As Abraham is recognized as the Rock of the Old Covenant (Isaiah 51:1–2), so Peter is the Rock of the New Covenant.

Some have tried to argue that *petros* means “tiny pebble” in Greek, but this is not accurate. It simply means “rock.” Jesus could have used the term *lithos* which does mean “tiny pebble,” but he chose not to. Moreover, the Aramaic *kepha* makes it abundantly clear as it can only mean “rock.” Suffice to say that the vast majority of Catholic and Protestant scholars now agree almost universally that the rock on which the Church is built is obviously Peter, especially considering the Greek translation which would literally read, “You are Peter, and upon this very rock, I will build my Church.” Arguments that the “rock” spoken of by Jesus are Jesus Himself (since Scripture says God is the Rock) ignore the grammatical structure of the words as they are used by Jesus himself, since Jesus did not say, “You are Peter, but on this rock…” As well, while God is called the Rock all through the Scriptures, this does not prevent Abraham from also being called a Rock from Isaiah. God has no problem sharing this title or authority with men whom he chooses and designates. Others try to argue that the “rock” is not Peter himself, but rather his confession of faith. Catholics have no problem with this, for we do not separate Peter the person from his faith. They are one and the same in this passage. The early Church also saw this connection, between Peter the man and Peter’s faith, and no one in at least the first 3 centuries of Church history ever tried making a case for the rock being anything other than Peter or his faith.

The third point is Jesus’ statement that the gates of Hades will not be able to overcome his Church. Whether one interprets Hades as “death” or “hell,” either way it offers key insights into the Catholic understanding of the passage. The powers or gates of death can not overcome this Church built upon Peter the Rock, which shows us the indestructibility of Christ’s Church. It can never die, for death itself can not overcome it. Thus, the argument that the Church fell into major apostasy and defected from truth is utterly refuted, for it effectively turns Jesus into a liar. While apostasies come and go, this Church will ultimately overcome them all, with Peter the Rock and the Apostles as the foundation stones ensuring the Church will not fall into apostasy. The gates of hell will not be able to prevail. Thus, the very power of hell can not conquer this firm foundation built upon the Apostles, with Peter as the head. This is the basis for clinging to the Magisterium, which is the Pope in union with the Bishops, most especially during times of doctrinal confusion and upheaval, because of the promise and the prophecy given by our Lord that the powers of Satan can not, and will never, defeat his Church. This is also the basis for discerning orthodox doctrine versus traditions of men. The only Church that can historically trace itself back to Peter and the Apostles is the Catholic Church, and thus we must remain within the house built by Jesus. While Catholicism considers all Christians to be separated brothers and sisters, with various elements of truth that binds us together, the fullness of truth subsists within the Church instituted by Jesus, and so we plead for all disciples of Christ, wherever they may be, to reunite to this House, since it was established by Jesus. The criteria for determining truth is not left to our debates over biblical interpretation, but rather ought to be identifying the one Church that Jesus founded, with Peter and his successors as the Rock.

The fourth point is the handing of the keys to Peter. While Jesus gives the commission to all the Apostles to bind and loose in Matthew 18, only Peter singularly is given the promise to receive the keys of the kingdom. And in this passage, only Peter singularly is given the charge to bind and loose, showing the distinction Jesus makes between Peter individually and the Apostles in union with Peter collectively. This teaching still stands today, as the Pope individually can bind and loose because he holds the keys as the successor to St. Peter, and the Pope in union with the Bishops can bind and loose since they are successors to Peter and the Apostles. While God ultimately always holds the keys in heaven, as demonstrated in Revelation 3:7 of Jesus, here he designates this authority to Peter, to act and teach and guide on his behalf visibly to the world. So we see a sharing of this authority, of the keys, between God and Peter.

The final point is the binding and loosing that is assigned to Peter personally and singularly in this passage, which is a power that Jesus then extends to all the Apostles in Matthew 18:15–20. However, Peter receives it alone in this passage, and he is the only Apostle to receive it in conjunction with the promise to receive the keys of the kingdom, which belong to God alone but are then designated to Peter. The Jewish audience to whom Matthew was writing would have immediately understood what this language of binding and loosing was indicating, and this understanding belonged to the early Church as well. Binding and loosing are rabbinical terms which refer specifically to teaching and instituting doctrinal laws on faith and morals and worship. In using this language, Jesus is teaching that his Church is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant kingdom. This is most clearly brought out when reading Isaiah 22:15–22.

Isaiah 22:15–22 is a passage in which God is deposing an Old Covenant Prime Minister and replacing him with a new one. This is extremely important for understanding what Jesus is doing with Peter in Matthew 16. The Old Covenant kingdom had a king, and underneath the king was the office of Prime Minister, who worked in collaboration with the Cabinet, and yet who exercised a unique authoritative office in the physical absence of the king. So, for example, if the king ever went off to war, the Prime Minister would act and rule in his place, and exercised the exact same authority as the king himself. In Isaiah 22, we read the following: “I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.”

The connection between Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16 screams to us to understand what Jesus is doing with Peter and the Apostles. He is appointing Peter as the Prime Minister of the New Covenant kingdom, this fulfilling the Old. In the physical absence of the King of Kings, the Prime Minister is to administer with his same authority in regards to administration, worship, and doctrine. The early Church clearly saw this connection, and Matthew’s Jewish audience knew exactly what was being said. An important element to this is to understand that the office of Prime Minister is just that: an office. This implies papal and apostolic succession, for when one member dies, another must be called to take his place, just as we see occurring in Acts 1 when Peter appoints a successor for Judas who had committed suicide. We also see in the Isaiah 22 passage that the Prime Minister is to be a “father figure,” which is precisely where the term “Pope” developed, for the term itself means “papa” or “father.”

Also, take note of the deeper teaching underlying Jesus’ comments to Peter. Catholicism teaches the doctrine of papal infallibility, which means in certain circumstances, the Pope can define a doctrine on faith or morals without any possibility for error, whatsoever. The bishops, in union with him, also exercise this authority due to this power being granted to them collectively in Matthew 18. Thus, the Nicene Creed, for example, is an infallible statement. So, too, are the dogmas of Mary’s Immaculate Conception and her bodily Assumption into heaven. So, too, is the canon (or table of contents) of the Old and New Testament in Sacred Scripture. Why is this the belief and faith held by Catholics? It is rooted in this power granted to bind and loose. Scripture teaches clearly that God can not lie (Numbers 23:19, Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18). Whatever Peter binds or looses must be bound or loosed in heaven. So Peter and his successors can not bind a lie, otherwise it would be contradicting the words of Jesus himself. Thus, the doctrine of papal infallibility is established with this promise and prophecy given by Jesus to Peter, and to his successors in the office as well.

Among the early Fathers who referenced Peter as the rock of Matthew 16 within the primitive generations of the Church, we find affirmation from Tatian the Syrian (170AD), Tertullian (200), Origen (249), St. Cyprian (251), St. Optatus (367), St. Ambrose (379), St. Jerome (393), and St. Augustine (400), among others.