Print This Bible Study
the contents of this page may take a few seconds to load . . . thank you for your patience...


A Catholic Question

Was Peter Really the First Pope?

By

Rick Michelena

Continental Airline Senior Pilot

www.bibleone.net

 


I want to examine a subject that I’ve discussed quite frequently with a fellow Continental Airlines pilot who continually tries to convince me that by abandoning the Catholic Church I have left the only true faith. He says proof of the Catholic Church's authority comes from the fact that Jesus made Peter the first Pope. 

I read from A Catechism for Adults, by William Cogan, 1975 ed., pp. 55, 56: "The Pope is the bishop of Rome and the Vicar of Christ on earth. He is the visible head of the whole Catholic Church. St. Peter was made Pope by Jesus Christ Himself. Did Peter's authority die with Peter?  No, it was handed down to a man named Linus, and after he died, it was handed down to another, and so on, during the past 2000 years.  Does Jesus require us to follow the Pope in matters of religion?  Yes, because obedience and loyalty to the Pope are among the chief requirements of the Lord's plan for unity in His church"

With that said, it is my sincere hope for you that in the following study God's Holy Spirit will reveal to you what the Bible actually says about this Catholic doctrine, because if it is true, we will surely find it in the Bible.  I have no personal ill-will toward the Catholic Church, but I do urge people to always seek the truth with an open mind.  Here is why?

 

Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves!  Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you—unless indeed you fail the test? 

(2 Corinthians 13:5, NAS)

Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so. 

(Acts 17:11, NAS)

When I have confronted devout Catholics like my fellow pilot and many others, what do
you think is the first thing they ask?  They ask me, "Why do you use the KJV of the Bible?"—as if the KJV is perverted or something.  So I will use for a portion of the lesson today, the text from the St. Joseph New Catholic Edition of the Holy Bible –Confraternity Edition.  This is officially recognized by the Catholic Church.  I hope you enjoy this because no one should ever be afraid to examine their beliefs according to what the Bible says.

Question 1:  Did Jesus establish the Office of Pope?  Obviously Peter could be Pope only if Jesus authorized the existence of that office. So let us consider what God's word actually says.

The office & qualifications of the Pope are nowhere mentioned in the Scriptures.  The Bible specifically names several offices in the church and describes the work and qualifications of those who hold that office. Here are the offices according to the Bible.

Apostles:  Ephesians 4:11; Matthew 10:2-4; Luke 6:13-16; Acts 1:21-26; 2 Corinthians 12:11, 12; Ephesians 3:3-5; Acts 10:39-41.

Elders or Bishops:  Philippians 1:1; Acts 14:23; Ephesians 4:11; 1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9; Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:1-3. 

Deacons:  Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:8-13; Acts 6:1-6.

The Bible contains several passages where the office of Pope ought to be mentioned, if in fact it actually existed.  Ephesians 4:11, 12 and 1 Corinthians 12:28 list various officers and workers in the church, but the office of Pope is never mentioned.  Why not?

Paul wrote several letters to and from Rome.  During these writings, Paul named many people there.  If Peter was actually Pope in Rome, surely Paul would have mentioned him.  But Paul never mentions Peter or anyone else as being the Church's Pope.

I want you to use a little common sense and logic here.  Who can imagine someone today writing official letters to or from the Church in Rome, listing the officers of the Catholic Church, giving all this information about the work and qualifications of lesser officers, but never once mentioning the Pope?  If the office of Pope was established by Jesus, why does the New Testament totally fail to mention it?

Question 2:  Who does the Bible say is really the head of the Church?  The Bible says that Jesus is the Head of the Church.  The Catholic Church teaches that the Pope is believed to be the head of the Church, but lets look at the following scripture as written from the Catholic Bible:

Jesus is head over all things to the church. (Ephesians 1:22) 

Here is the question. If the Catholic Bible says that Jesus is the Head of the Church, what's left for the Pope to be the head of?

A husband is head of his wife as Jesus is head of the church. (Ephesians 5:22)

But for a wife to submit to two husbands is adultery. (Romans 7:3)

So using this same biblical reasoning, for the Church to submit to two heads, let's say Jesus and the Pope, would that not be spiritual adultery?  Remember all this is coming from the Catholic Bible.

Christ has all authority in heaven and on earth. He is the one lawgiver. (Matthew 28:18)

I want you to know that the Catholic version of the Bible has changed the wording of certain scriptures.  However, despite this fact, we can still establish genuine biblical doctrine. Looking at what we just read, for an organized church to claim that the Pope may now issue religious laws, is to deny the unique power that only Jesus had.

The Bible plainly states that Jesus is Head of the Church. He is the one Lord, in the one body which is called "the Church." There cannot be two Lords any more than there could be two Gods.  Aside from what Paul said or did not say, so lets see what Peter himself has written:

To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ's sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed:  Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; 3 not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. (1 Peter 5:1-3, NIV)

If Peter was really the Pope at that time, he would have addressed himself as the Pope. What did he say?  He says he was a fellow elder. He also closes by saying that you are forbidden to be the Lord over any church body.

Matthew 16:13-18 is the passage most often used by Catholics to prove Peter is the foundation of the Church.  But this passages if studied, proves that Jesus Christ, not Peter nor the Pope, is the foundation of the Church.  Matthew 16 actually confirms this biblical truth:

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He began asking His disciples, saying, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets." He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." (Matthew 16:13-16, NAS)

The context of vss.13-16 is not discussing who Peter is, nor what his position is, but who Jesus is and what His position is. The passage does not exalt Peter; it exalts Jesus.  Look at this closely; Jesus does not confess Peter, but Peter confesses Jesus as the Christ.  Let's continue:

And Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it.” (Matthew 16:17, 18, NAS)

The verse is not saying that Peter is the rock.  It says you are Peter, and upon this rock, I will build my Church.  What is the rock on which the Church is built?  Is it on Peter or Christ?  Jesus often compared Himself to inanimate objects like:  a temple, a door, a vine, and bread.  Here He compares Himself to a rock, a name which was often used to explain His Deity in the Old Testament.

For Thou art my rock and my fortress; for Thy name's sake Thou wilt lead me and guide me. (Psalm 31:3, NAS)

The foundation of the Church is not Peter.  It is to the truth that Peter had just confessed only moments before, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (vs. 16).  This biblical doctrine is confirmed throughout the Bible by many other Scriptures.  To say Peter is the foundation, or the rock of our faith, would be the same as putting a man in the place of Deity!

Did you ever realize that the lives of Peter and of the Popes make them entirely unfit to be the foundation of Christ’s church.  Consider now some great sins in the life of Peter. We don't have to look far.  Let’s continue reading the same passage we were in:

Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ. From that time Jesus Christ began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day.  And Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, "God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You." But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's." (Matthew 16:20-23, NAS)

Immediately after talking about the foundation of the Church, which was Christ, Jesus warned the apostles not to tell anyone who He was.  Jesus then began to reveal His upcoming death and resurrection.  Jesus is essentially saying," Boy's the plan of Salvation is almost complete."

See what Peter essentially said, "No way Lord, I won't let this happen to you!" Did Peter ever stop to realize that without Jesus’ death on the cross there is no salvation for man?  It was then that Christ rebuked Peter saying: “Get behind me, Satan, you're a stumbling block to me.” Jesus even gave the reason, that Peter placed his own interest above God's will.

Consider these other sins in Peter’s life:  Peter denied Jesus 3 times, even with curses and swearing (Matthew 26:69-75).  Jesus rebuked Peter's lack of faith (Matthew 14:22-31).  Peter was hypocritical and disobeyed the gospel (Galatians 2:11).

Now consider these sins in the lives of some of history's Catholic Popes. The following facts have been obtained from an apologetic's website.

*5 Popes admitted to having illegitimate children (remember, Popes are not supposed to marry).

* 6 Popes were illegitimate sons of priests (priests are not supposed to marry, either), including two Popes who were sons of other Popes!

* 4 Popes were excommunicated as heretics by other Popes, including one who was ex-communicated twice!

Who can honestly believe that Christ's Church is founded on an office occupied by men such as these?  Imagine Jesus' church supposedly going through long periods of time with these types of leaders.  How much better to accept the plain Bible teaching that the Church is founded on the perfect and sinless Divine Son of God!  One should ask himself the following question, “Did Peter ever act like a Pope?”  Since there is no evidence that the office of Pope existed in the early Church, obviously Peter nor anyone else could hold that office.  But let's confirm our conclusions by looking at Bible teachings specifically about Peter, to see if he ever acted like a Pope.

In the first place Peter had no authority above the other apostles.  However, the Catholic Church believes that St. Peter was the chief apostle and by Christ's appointment Peter was exercising the supreme power of governing Christ’s Church.  The Vatican Council says:  “If anyone says that Christ the Lord did not constitute the Blessed Peter prince of all the apostles and head of the whole church militant ... let him be anathema." 

But notice what God says about who is to leader of a body of believers:

And by referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit. (Ephesians 3:4, 5, NAS)

Why would apostles need guidance from a Pope if they were guided directly by the Spirit of God?  Paul expressly stated that his teaching was not based on anything learned from man but on direct revelation from Jesus Christ.  Some claim that Jesus, in Matthew 16:19, gave exclusively to Peter the power to bind and loose, but Matthew 18:18 shows that other apostles also had the same power.  All apostles had power to forgive or retain sins, but only as guided by the Holy Spirit.

No apostle could originate laws.  They could only reveal the laws God made.  They did this by revealing and preaching the gospel.  If men obeyed the gospel and received Christ as Lord and Savior, their sins were forgiven; if not, their sins were retained.  This is the accurate meaning of this passage.  Remember that it is the gospel or the "keys" of authority by which apostles opened the door for men to enter into salvation.  There is no doubt that Peter was the first to preach to Jews (Acts 2) and to Gentiles (Acts 10), but all apostles had the same authority to preach the gospel.

No passage anywhere says that the other apostles submitted to Peter's authority.  If Peter had authority over all the others apostles, Paul would have been behind him, but Paul clearly denies this. There is no proof that Peter had authority over the other apostles.  God is no respecter of men or persons (Acts 10:34).  So if our God is described in the Bible as immutable or never changing, don't you think He would have had all the rules in place for what He wanted in His leaders?  What I am saying is that Peter did not fit the pattern of any modern popes.

In the second place Peter was a married man and modern Popes are not permitted to marry.  In Matthew 8:14 Jesus healed the mother of Peter's wife.  Peter, also known as
Cephas, continued to have a wife after the church began.

The footnote in the St. Joseph New Catholic Edition of the Bible adds, "There is no question of a right to marry.  The apostles had that right...." This expressly included Peter. So my question is, if it was okay for the first Pope, why was it not okay for the other Popes?  God doesn't change; man does!

The Catholic Church also has an answer for this. The St. Joseph New Catholic Edition says: "...priestly celibacy as a law is of later ecclesiastical institution."  In other words, Peter and all first-century bishops had the right to be married.  The law against such marriages was made by the Catholic Church after the Bible was complete.  However, as I read that I realized these guys are just like the Mormons, adding doctrine after Jesus said in the final book of the Bible, not to add or take away from the writings of this book (Rev 22:18).  The Bible says that marriage is honorable for all people.  That includes apostles and all church officials. To teach that certain people may not marry is a doctrine of apostasy. The Catholic doctrine of celibacy would eliminate from serving as Pope the man they say was their first Pope!  The doctrine of celibacy is expressly stated in the Scriptures to be heresy and something that would be taught in the latter days.

Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. (1 Timothy 4:2, 3, KJV)

Let's see now, no marrying and definitely no meat on Friday's.  I think God's Word as written by the Apostle Paul has nailed these false doctrines right on the head.  I hope you will realize that Peter had many qualities that proved he was more Christian than he was Catholic. 

And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.  But Peter took him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself also am a man.” (Acts 10:25, 26, KJV)

Reading this brought to mind the differences of modern day Popes and Peter.  The Apostle Peter refused to allow men to bow and honor him religiously, but just watch the Popes today.  They not only accept this, but they also encourage it.  Peter forbade Cornelius to worship him or to bow before him.  Peter's reasoning was that he was a man.  Aren't modern Popes men too?  Why should modern Popes accept what Peter so strongly refused?  The Bible never allows anyone to bow to any man as an act of honor, only God is worthy of our praise and worship!

Now look at something that will really stir up a can of worms.  Matthew 23:9 expressly forbids calling any man "father" as a title of religious honor. Yet the word "Pope" originally meant "Father" (Catholic Dictionary, p. 667).  Think about it.  Today’s modern popes and priests wear the very same title that Jesus emphatically condemned!

And do not call anyone on earth “father,” for you have one Father, and He is in heaven. (Matthew 23:9, NIV)

The Bible clearly identifies the works, titles and positions in the Church of Jesus Christ: apostles, bishops, etc.  If the office of Pope is really the foundation of the Church, why don't we have clear Scriptural evidence for it?

Here is what is really surprising.  If the Catholic Church wanted to prove anyone was the Pope, a better case could be made to prove Paul was the first Pope.  Both Christians and Catholics deny that Paul was ever a Pope, but if we use the same kind of reasoning that is used to "prove" Peter to be Pope, we could make a much better case that Paul was actually Pope.  Here's why:

* Paul was not married (1 Corinthians 7).

* Acts talks about Paul more than about Peter.

* Paul rebuked Peter (Galatians 2:11-14); Peter never rebuked Paul.

* Paul cared for all the churches (2 Corinthians 11:28).

* Paul was not behind any other apostle (2 Corinthians 11:5; 12:11).  Peter never made such a claim for himself.

* Paul wrote 3/4 of the New Testament books.  Peter wrote only two.

* Peter cited Paul's letters as authority (2 Peter 3:15, 16); Paul never cited Peter's letters as authority.

* Scripture records Paul being in Rome, but never Peter being there.

Now, despite all these facts, if we can properly conclude that Paul was not a Pope, then surely we can see that the evidence offered for Peter as Pope is equally unconvincing.

The Catholic Church tries to prove it is the true Church by tracing a succession of Popes back to Peter.  It is claimed that Peter and all his papal successors are the head of the Church.  However, if we have shown that Christ’s Church had no office of Pope, nor did
Peter serve as Pope; and further more, Catholic books admit there were times when no one knows who really was Pope, so how can they now know the real succession?

At one time in history, two Popes got ticked off at each other and they each excommunicated the other.  There is no valid historical succession for the linage of Catholic Popes.  But let us confirm this conclusion by considering other Bible teaching specifically regarding the issue of succession.

There is no Scriptural proof that the powers of the apostles were handed down.  Surely such a major doctrine must be taught in the Bible, but where is it?  Those who believe this must prove it, but they can't.  There are many today who claim to be apostles of Christ.  They are wrong.  The biblical definition of an apostle is that they had to be an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ.

Peter and all the apostles were eyewitnesses.  Paul was an eyewitness too (1 Corinthians 9).  Serving as an eyewitness was part of the calling of an apostle.  Have all the Popes seen Christ?  If they have, then Paul was not the last and was not exceptional.  If the Popes have not seen Christ resurrected, then they do not have the qualifications required to be called apostles!

Apostles did miracles to confirm their apostleship.  Peter and other apostles bestowed miraculous gifts by laying their hands on others.  This is the only sense in which apostles passed power on to others.  But those who received gifts in this way, such as Philip, did not become apostles and could not, in turn, pass the power on to others.  Only Paul and the original apostles had this power (Acts 8:5-18).  Therefore, apostles could impart spiritual gifts, but they had no successors who could do likewise, and nothing else about their position was imparted to others.  Apostles lived on the earth for only one generation!

Do modern Popes impart miraculous powers to others?  No they don't!  Do you recall a while back where Pope John Paul II failed at an exorcism?  Did you realize that demons don't recognize those who are not in Christ?  I do believe in demons and demon possession.  They are biblical facts.  It is also a fact that had this family wanted a demon removed, they could have done it themselves, if anyone of them was “born again” and only believed!  Some devout Catholics have argued since this failed-exorcism, that these powers are not essential to the office of Pope. But let's take a look at what Jesus said:

And these signs shall follow them that believe; in my name shall they cast out devils / . . . .

(Mark 16:17, KJV)

If Pope John Paul can't pull off one exorcism, what makes Catholic followers even believe that he is saved, let alone an authentic successors of the apostles?

The Catholic Church claims that the succession of Popes is a chain that connects the modern Church to the first-century Church.  However, Popes were unknown in the Bible. Peter was not a Pope, and modern Popes have none of the essential qualifications of the apostles they are supposed to succeed.  It is even admitted that there are times at which no one knows who was Pope.   Furthermore, the men who selected the Popes were unknown in the Bible and in history for centuries after the Church began.  The modern means of selecting Popes was not determined until a millennium after the Church began!
The whole "chain" is missing!  And this is the evidence used to prove that the Catholic Church is the true church!

Very simply stated, the Scriptures can be understood by all who study diligently with an open mind (2 Timothy 3:16, 17; Mark 7:14; Acts 17:11; 1 Corinthians 14:33; Ephesians 3:3-5).  God now preserves the Scriptures for all generations (1 Peter 1:22-25; 2 John 2; 2 Peter 1:12-15; 3:1).  People displease God when they follow teachings that differ from the gospel (Galatians. 1:8, 9; 2 John 9-11).

The apostles' work on earth was completed in the first century and was recorded in the Bible, just as the work of Jesus was completed.  We do not need successors to the apostles living on earth today for the same reasons that we do not need successors to Jesus living on earth today.  The work of the apostles is now accomplished by the Scriptures.