WHY DISMISS THE POPE'S CLAIM TO BE HEAD OF THE CHURCH?
In Catholicism, the pope gets great rank and power from claiming to be the divinely chosen replacement for Peter the apostle who Jesus made his vicar over the Church.
On the basis of spurious legends, the Catholic Church today says that Peter was
the head of the Church and went to Rome and became its bishop and decreed that
every bishop of Rome in future would be his successor and the head of the
Church. Peter was never bishop of Rome and may never have died there at all.
Even if the Church is right that he was bishop of Rome, it only guesses that he
intended that future bishops of Rome would be his successors and the head of the
Church.
Pope Damasus I in 382 made the Church take the idea that Jesus made the bishop
of Rome the successor of Peter on the basis of Matthew 16 where Jesus seemingly
declared Peter the rock on which he would build his Church seriously (page 238,
The Early Church). This indicates that the real start of the papacy was with
Damasus I. Nobody else had come up with such nonsense before - not even the
Church historians who would have had an interest in promoting Rome. He put
into motion plans for Rome to control the Church while discipline was looser
before and Rome was respected because of its unique theological competence which
made this easy (page 239, The Early Church). Damasus I was the first to claim
jurisdiction over the Church. The Church went along with it because it was
practical and had just suffered raging division over the controversy with
Arianism which denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. There is no reason to
believe that the Church as a whole agreed with Damasus I saying the promises in
Matthew 16 were applicable to him now as the successor of Peter. It is
interesting how when Jesus was able to found the Church on twelve apostles as if
he trusted them to be able to administer their duties without schism and
conflict why we are asked to believe Peter alone was the rock!! Paul
functionally was the bigger rock.
John chapter 21 reads almost as if the apostles knew a papacy could develop and
they wanted to forestall it. There Jesus asks Peter a few times if he
loves him and tells him to feed his sheep and tend his lambs.
He then told Peter he would be crucified in the future and asked him
to follow him. Then a tradition is spoken of where the
apostles themselves thought that Jesus said that the apostle he
loved would never die. Jesus corrects this false tradition.
Why is Jesus telling Peter to do things that he told the others to
do? There is a warning to be very careful not to force
interpretations on what Jesus says.
The apostle Paul declared that the Church was the body of Christ. He said that
all the parts of the body are necessary though they do different things so it
wouldn’t be any good if your entire body was an eye. He said the head of the
body was Christ. So Christ does the thinking for the Church. He speaks of the
Church members as being so close to Christ that they are as much members of his
body as the physical components of his body would be. This forbids thinking.
Some Catholics surmise that it means that since there is much disagreement about
what the Holy Spirit guides us to do today and about what Christ is saying when
Christ guides us that there must be an infallible visible head of the Church on
earth, the pope to sort out the truth from the fantasy with the help of God. But
most popes have not claimed that the only person in the Church with the right to
think is the pope so that argument cannot be correct. But if the pope is the
head of the Church then he should be the only thinker in the Church and should
not consult other thinkers. That no pope does this shows that if they are right
that the body of Christ doctrine requires a visible head on earth then Paul’s
mystical body Church doesn’t exist anymore. There is no true Church and no true
Christian religion only heresies that masquerade as Christianity. And it is all
because there is no proper head.
Paul said that Christ was the head thus he didn’t believe that a visible head
was necessary. You can’t have two heads doing the thinking for the Church. If
Jesus meant that Peter was the rock of the Church and therefore the faith in the
Catholic sense then Peter is the only thinker that counts in the Church. But
Jesus expressly denied that. Why would you go to a thinker to learn truth when
that thinker is not the rock of the faith?
Astonishingly, the Vatican even reads into the fact that Peter’s name appears
first in the list of the apostles in the Bible that he must have been the
autocrat of the Church. Peter has a leading role to play in some things – which
by no means proves that he was the leader of the Church - in the first chapters
of Acts but after that Paul takes centre stage. Unlike Peter, Paul is presented
as doing pretty much his own thing and did not consult them for every decision
even though it ended with him being misunderstood by James who urged him to
behave like a Jew (Acts 21). Paul acted more like a pope than Peter ever did.
Reasons for Hope maintains that since Peter spoke out and ended a debate in Acts
15 that he must have been head of the Church and infallible to boot! (page 144).
One can’t expect much better of a silly – or is it deceptive I should say? -
book that ignores the fact that James was said to have made the ruling about how
to be diplomatic towards Gentile converts and introduced it with, “I rule” (v19)
AFTER Peter spoke as if Peter needed ratification. Peter only said what he
thought but James’ statements were stronger and bore the stamp of authority. If
Acts 15 says that anybody was the ruler of the Church it was James. This book
admits that the medieval and modern style papacy with the reverence it demands
and the influence it commands did not exist in the early centuries of the Church
but says the basics were there at the back of the Church’s mind (page 144-5). I
could say that modern Mormonism existed in the early Church at the back of its
mind. The logic really makes the Church look ridiculous.
The papacy is not authorised by the Bible so it is a later man-made institution.
The Bible would not omit such an important doctrine. Jesus said he wanted his
Church to be one and leaving it out of the Bible would mean he wanted the
opposite for its absence from scripture has caused many bitter schisms and
errors. Rome has never infallibly decreed that any of the texts used to prove
Peter a pope really succeed. But since she decreed that Peter was a pope, I feel
that it is correct to say that she infallibly put that interpretation on at
least one of them, the Matthew one being the most likely candidate, indirectly.
How can I be sure? For we can’t have a Bible that neglects to tell us about the
supreme authority and tradition is too easily disputed for it to be any help.
Rome needs this to be said in the Bible for such a foundational doctrine has to
be traced back to the apostles' very doorstep. But it is not in the Bible so
Rome is not infallible.
If Peter was the head of the early Church he didn’t need to be the Vicar of
Christ in the Romish sense nor did he need infallibility for the Roman Pontiff
is not claimed to be infallible all the time.
If Peter was a pope he might have been the only true pope and there was never
meant to be another. Catholics may argue that if the early Church needed a pope
the modern Church needs one as much if not more therefore the office must have
been meant to have been continued. But it is arrogance to say we know what God’s
plans are (Romans 11:33, 34). The early Church had different needs to the modern
Church. It needed to start off but the modern Church is here for good –
unfortunately!
If Peter had been the head of the Church or even its figurehead then one would
expect Paul to have written that we have one earthly head as well as one Lord,
one faith and one baptism (Ephesians 4:5,6). In those times of bitter
theological turbulence Paul needed an earthly head marking out the religious
body in possession of the true theology but did not point to one for there was
none.
Since the Church regards itself as the body of Christ with Christ as the head
and Christians the body parts which is in accordance with Paul’s doctrine of the
Church, it is illegitimate to call any man the head of the Church. It would be
different if the doctrine of the Church did not teach that the Church was the
body of Christ. Jesus said that Christians must serve and not be served so there
can be no head of the Church – but there can be a servant who makes all the
final decisions for the sake of peace. The appropriation of the papacy of the
title of head of the Church is totally blasphemous and is the pope taking the
place of Christ. It forces the Church not to be the body of Christ but the body
of the pope. In that case, it cannot be the Church of Jesus Christ.
The pope alleged functions as a marker for the true Church. If Catholicism is
not the true Church it is our duty to throw out the rubbish and set up a
reformed one. The Catholic Church is inebriated with error therefore the papacy
is a hoax for it does not mark a true Church. Some hold that Jesus did not
directly found the papacy but founded the Church and set in motion plans for its
evolution. That is one way around the problem of there being no papacy in the
early Church. The true Catholic cannot accept it for an infallible Church needs
no pope. When Jesus is able to have an infallible Church that functioned without
a clear marker what does he need the pope for now? The papacy would definitely
be an addition to Christian dogma and therefore heretical and a mark of apostasy
in the Church.
Even when you follow Catholic interpretations of what Jesus said, you see no
reason to hold that Jesus promised that the papacy would never depart from the
faith. He might allow enough popes so that his teaching might be solidified but
it is possible that the current popes are fakes and we should follow the
teachings of the older ones. Jesus would not be a failure if this was the case.
There is no reason to think that Peter was the head of the Church or a pope.
There is no reason to imagine that Jesus created the papacy.
If Jesus commanded baptism and communion in the Bible he never said that only
ordained clergy could do them. There were overseers in the early Church, and
presbyters and bishops were on the same level and the two terms were
interchangeable. They were not treated like a superior caste and there is
nothing that says they had to be set apart by the laying on of hands. Jesus said
that there are to be no leaders in his community, and those who wished to guide
must be the humblest and lowest of all. Hebrews 7:24 says that Jesus’ priesthood
was unchangeable and uses a Greek word for that that also means untransferable.
There are no priests in the New Testament Church only Jesus. The verse tells us
that Christ holds his priesthood without altering anything BECAUSE HE LIVES
FOREVER. So no other priests are needed for Jesus lives forever and can do it
all himself. How could the Bible authorise the institution of the papacy when it
doesn’t even speak of clergy? Jesus picked on the Jewish clergy to the exclusion
of others implying that he didn’t like clergy.
CONCLUSION
The papacy is a late development in the Church and is not supernatural in
origin. It is not supported by the Bible and is a blight on the world with many
of its evil policies. To argue that the Catholic Church is the true Church
because it is led by Peter’s successor is simplistic. Yet it is the kind of
thinking that the Catholic Church deceptively fosters in the naïve.