Traditionally, if you were not part of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), Catholics considered you unsaved. Therefore, if you were removed (excommunicated), it was thought to be equivalent to damnation. This somewhat changed with Vatican II, but that is another matter. On the other side of the debate, Christians believe that there are many dangerous false doctrines and evil practices in Roman Catholicism, so either way, it is important to know whether the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church. Whether you submit to the Pope could change your eternal destination.

Apostolic Succession

The authority of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) is based on the idea of apostolic succession—that is, the Pope and the RCC in general claim to have originally been handed authority by the apostles, and that authority has been passed down. Every priest is considered to have the authority of an apostle.

Remember, the apostles' authority was confirmed by miracles, as was the case for many of the prophets and Jesus. 2 Corinthians 12:12 calls them the signs of an apostle. Where are the miracles confirming the authority of the Pope? They are conspicuously absent. Without the signs, why believe that they have such authority? Furthermore, the apostles were witnesses of Christ. Can any of the priests today make such a claim?

Scriptural Evidence

The main piece of evidence cited for the authority of the Pope is the scripture where Jesus tells Peter, "and on this rock, I will build my church." It is said that here, Peter was given his title and authority, and this is official doctrine of the RCC.

"We therefore teach and declare that, according to the testimony of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God was immediately and directly promised and given to Blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord.

"For it was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said, 'You shall be called Cephas' (John 1:42), that the Lord, after the confession made by him, saying, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God', addressed these solemn words: 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father, who is in heaven. And I say to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall release on earth shall be released, even in heaven.' (Mt 16:16-19)."

Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, Pastor aeternus, Vatican I

Similarly, it is said among Catholics that the phrase, "whatever you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven" applies to RCC authorities.

Now if Peter were really in charge, why did the apostles dispute about who would be the greatest after Christ had said the words above? The Catholic position is that he was clearly and immediately made Pope right then, so why did the apostles still argue about who would be greater?

The second scripture that is often used is John 21:15-17, where Jesus tells Peter to "feed my sheep" after his resurrection. This makes Peter the chief shepherd, according to Catholics. It must then be asked: why did Peter call Christ the chief shepherd, and not himself? He also referred to elders as his fellow shepherds (2 Peter 1:1–5). This does not prove that Peter did not have a leading role as a shepherd, but all the Catholics have to go on here is that he is called a shepherd, so neither side has made their case with this scripture.

Some other verses are cited, but they do not make the Catholic case any better. I now wish to focus on more evidence against his authority.

In Acts 15:1–23, it is James who appears to be in charge, not Peter.

In Galatians 2:9, Paul says that James, Cephas and John seemed to be pillars. First, Peter is not given special distinction. He is not even mentioned first. Secondly, he says that all three seemed to be pillars, as though there was no clear doctrine about the matter which he was aware of. How could it slip by the apostles to mention that they have a chief?

In Matthew 18:15–18, all of Jesus's disciples are told the same thing Peter was. That is, “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Peter was certainly a favored apostle, but so was John. He was given special authority and special roles, but there is no evidence he was given anything like the papacy.

Historical Evidence

Where is the evidence that the great authority of Peter mentioned above was passed down? According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the official view is that the apostles "must have known." How inconvenient that they never wrote it down.

"According to other theologians the proposition in question is part of the deposit of faith itself. In this case the Apostles must have known the law determining the succession to the Bishop of Rome, not merely on human testimony, but also by Divine revelation, and they must have taught it as a revealed truth to their disciples. It is this view which is commonly adopted. The definition of the Vatican to the effect that the successor of St. Peter is ever to be found in the Roman pontiff is almost universally held to be a truth revealed by the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and by them transmitted to the Church."

Catholic Encyclopedia, The Pope

As for the official position that the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 has the support of the Church Fathers and was always the accepted understanding, that does not seem to be the case. In a survey of Church Fathers, William Webster found that the majority of Church Fathers disagreed with the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 (The Church of Rome at the Bar of History). He has also written an article showing the contrasts between the famous Church Fathers' actual views of the implications of the passage and Roman Catholic ideas.

There is evidence that the early Roman church was in fact ruled by multiple elders, rather than a head bishop like the pope. Take this passage from the Shepherd of Hermas, a book written in Rome in the second century, as an example:

"Therefore, you will write two little books and send one to Clement and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the foreign cities, because that is his duty. Grapte shall instruct the widows and orphans. But you shall read it to this city along with the elders who preside over the Church."

Shepherd of Hermas, Chapter 8, by Hermas

Clement is meant to have been a Pope, yet not he alone, but elders reside over the church. Again, later that century or in the third century, Hippolytus wrote that there was a bishop of the church named Victor, rather than Victor, the bishop.

"But after a time, there being in that place other martyrs, Marcia, a concubine of Commodus, who was a God-loving female, and desirous of performing some good work, invited into her presence the blessed Victor, who was at that time a bishop of the Church"

Refutation of All Heresies, Book IX, Chapter 7, by Hippolytus

It is also the case that some of the earlier Church Fathers did not acknowledge or rejected the idea of the primacy of one bishop over all. In fact, one of the decrees of the Council of Nicaea is that certain bishops will rule over their own areas:

"The Bishop of Alexandria shall have jurisdiction over Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis. As also the Roman bishop over those subject to Rome. So, too, the Bishop of Antioch and the rest over those who are under them. If any be a bishop contrary to the judgment of the Metropolitan, let him be no bishop."

The First Council of Nicaea

And from another council:

"For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there."

The Seventh Council of Carthage under Cyprian

You or I could spend years reading all the source material, but sufficient to say that the evidence Catholics present as incredible proof all comes from hundreds of years after the apostles, and often does not support their statements anywhere near as well as they act. I have found that historical accounts that are not specifically focused on the Catholic Church are very telling and present the Cardinals and Popes as they often were—greedy power-grabbers with very human agendas.

Suggestions

Jesus told us that we will know prophets by their works, and the leadership of the RCC often claims to have had their doctrine approved by divine revelation or the guidance of the Holy Spirit, making them prophets. Well then, are Catholic authorities known for being holy in their conduct or the opposite? Should you believe the words of a Pope who was a great sinner because Roman doctrine is that even if he is acting wickedly, his office carries authority?

Submission to the Pope means agreement with many traditions and beliefs that cannot be found in the Bible by a plain reading. If we non-Catholics are correct, you could be committing idolatry and other sins which Jesus himself said will keep a person from the Kingdom of Heaven. It would be wise to require extraordinary evidence to prove that Rome's authority exists then, and upon looking at the evidence, it simply is not strong. Ask yourself, do you really want to cast your lot in for eternity with this group, putting your total trust in where you will end up on their interpretations rather than in Jesus directly?

Resources

📜 Articles

• The Myth of Papal Primacy by Jason Sylvester
• Was Saint Peter the First Pope? by Got Questions