There is a book that tells of a man who is infallible and has all authority. What if I told you this man is the representative of God on Earth, demands submission from all people and governments, that his name alone is to be spoken in churches, and that princes should kiss his feet? What if I told you this man is the King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Chief Shepherd, and the only one who can reveal God’s will?
What if I told you that the book is NOT the Bible, and the man to whom it refers is NOT Jesus Christ?
In fact, I’m referring to three books: the Dictatus Papae (Dictates of the Pope, Gregory VII), the Prompta Bibliotheca, and the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church (Pt. 1, Sec. 2, Ch. 3, Art. 9, Para. 4, Div. 889-892). All three sources refer to the same man—the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church.
If you have even a cursory knowledge of the Bible, then you know that the descriptions and titles named are bestowed solely upon one individual in Scripture—Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Jesus is the man who committed no sin, not the Pope: He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth (1 Pet. 2:22). For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin (Heb. 4:15). You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin (1 Jn. 3:5).
Jesus is the Man with all authority in Heaven and Earth, not the Pope. “All authority has been given to Me in Heaven and on Earth” (Matt. 28:18). Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father (Col. 3:17). Jesus is the one who must approve my every thought, word, and deed, not the Pope.
Jesus is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His nature, not the Pope (Heb. 1:3). Jesus is the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, not the Pope (Heb. 3:1). The Pope is neither an apostle nor high priest, not even close. God appointed Christ as head of His house, not the Pope (Heb. 3:2).
Jesus has the right to demand submission and will ultimately receive it, not the Pope. God highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Phil. 2:10-11). It is His Name that should be spoken in the churches, for salvation is found in His Name alone (Acts. 4:12). He is the King of kings and Lord of lords (Rev. 19:16). He is the Chief Shepherd (1 Pet. 5:4). He is the One who has revealed the Father’s will: No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him (Jn. 1:18). In these last days, God has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things (Heb. 1:2).
No one, not even the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, has the right to seize the title and role of Christ for himself. Jesus is the head of the church, and the Bible makes no distinction between a “visible” or “invisible” headship. God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills everything in every way (Eph. 1:22-23).
Christ did not take this honor for Himself and exalt Himself: No one takes this honor for himself, but only when called by God, just as Aaron was. So also Christ did not exalt Himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by Him who said to Him, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”; as He says also in another place, “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek” (Heb. 5:4-6).
This, my friends, for starters, is why I am not a Catholic, nor will I ever be. There’s a host of other reasons, but they will not fit on this paper. It’s not because I have any animosity toward the Catholic Church, but because I believe its leader is a false god preaching false doctrine. When a man claims for himself the authority that is Christ’s alone, he might be Roman but he cannot be holy.
Popes of the past might argue they did not seize their position, but inherited it by “apostolic succession.” As Benedict XVI explains, “Just as at the beginning of the condition of [being an] apostle there is a call and a sending by the Risen One, likewise the subsequent call and invitation to others takes place, with the strength of the Spirit, by the power of one already constituted in the apostolic ministry” (Address in Vatican City, May 10, 2006).
The Pope relies heavily on the writings of men like Irenaeus who said, “By this order and succession the Tradition has come to us that was initiated by the Apostles. And this shows fully that the one and only vivifying faith that comes from the Apostles has been kept and transmitted in the Church until today" (Against Heresies, III, 3.3: PG 7,851).
Here’s the problem: the Bible says nothing about apostolic succession. When Irenaeus says apostolic succession “was initiated by the Apostles,” notice there is no Scripture to substantiate this. Some may appeal to 1 Tim. 3:1-7 or Ti. 1:5-9, but those texts speak of elders (bishops) in every city who shepherd the flock that is among them (cf. 1 Pet. 5:2), not a single individual declaring himself to be the head of the church.
How does the Pope conclude that he is the sole head of a vast hierarchical system from those passages? He can’t. He must rely solely on the writings, thoughts, and authority of other men like Clement I (another Pope), Hegesippus, Irenaeus (cited above), Tertullian, Jerome, Augustine, and many others.
Anyone with respect for the authority of Scripture will immediately see the problem with saying apostolic succession is “verified in virtue of communion with that of the Church of Rome,” and this “is therefore the criterion of permanence of each one of the Churches” (Pope Benedict XVI, Address in Vatican City, May 10, 2006).
What? Because “apostolic succession” has been approved by other men in the Catholic Church, this makes it permanent? We’re in trouble when we begin to say things like, “Apostolic successors approve apostolic succession, thus apostolic succession is approved by apostolic successors, therefore it’s valid.” That’s not reasoning from the Scriptures (cf. Acts 17:11). That’s not even plain, old reasoning. That’s vesting authority in self. The church is the pillar and support of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15), not a legislative body to originate “truth.”
The fact is we must “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints” (Jude 1:3). I want to give special emphasis to the “once for all” aspect of the faith. The faith does not need updates or revisions or amendments or any other modification by “apostolic successors.”
The role of the apostles in the first century was critical and foundational as Paul says: “So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone” (Eph. 2:19-20). The foundation has been laid and Christ is the cornerstone. The church is built on “the foundation of the apostles and prophets,” not “the foundation of the apostles and their successors.” There is simply no biblical authority for apostolic succession, a pope, or the Catholic Church. In our time, God speaks to us through His Son, Jesus Christ (Heb. 1:1-2). Jesus Christ is head of His church (Eph. 1:22-23). Christ is the sole mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5). The name of Jesus is the only name by which we can be saved (Acts 4:12). We cannot reject Christ’s words and be guiltless (John 12:48). Have you obeyed the Gospel of Christ? Open your Bible and investigate this for yourself. Might I suggest starting with these passages? (Jn. 8:24; Rom. 10:9-10; Acts 2:37-38)
댓글