I recently watched an interesting discussion between Kris Vallotton, a senior leader at Bethel Church in Redding, California and a young female student enrolled on the church’s School of Supernatural Ministry.
What was interesting about this exchange was that the student was a Roman Catholic. Jessica Bond happily announced that Pope Francis was her pastor, and this prompted Vallotton to share his story of when he met the Pope.
Vallotton said that he was part of a group of 40 charismatics that had been invited to the Vatican to meet the Pope. He recalled how Pope Francis told them about the time that he was baptised in the Spirit. This prompted Jessica to say how much she loves the Pope.
When Vallotton met the Pope back in 2016, he posted about the event on his social media. He said this: ‘I had the privilege of meeting Pope Francis today with some other pastors. He is really a great man; I love him a ton!’
I am pretty sure that if social media existed at the time of Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, and Knox their response to Vallotton would have caused him to immediately unfriend them.
Should we love the Pope and respect him as a great man?
What is the Papacy?
The Papacy is the office and jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, more commonly known as the Pope. The word Pope derives from the Latin ‘papa’ and the Greek ‘pappas’ which means ‘father’.
Roman Catholicism derives its authority from Scripture, Tradition and the Pope when he speaks ex-cathedra (literally from the chair) as he teaches authoritatively as the successor of the first Pope, Saint Peter.
It is therefore incumbent upon everyone claiming to be Roman Catholic to follow the leading and dictates of the one they call papa.
But from where did the notion of a papacy originate. Can it be found in Scripture?
Catholic Reasoning
The Roman Catholic Church argues that there is biblical support for the Papacy, and it offers as its key supporting verses Matthew 16:18-19.
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Catholics believe that these verses show Jesus commissioning Peter as the pre-eminent, supreme head of the visible Church. They contend that the Church then is built upon Peter, the one who Jesus called the ‘rock’.
In these verses we find Jesus giving to Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, giving him the power to bind and loose on earth and in heaven. Taken at face value, they appear to offer a compelling case for the Papacy.
They go further in claiming that these verses also clearly express the idea of ‘indefectibility’. This means that the Church founded by Jesus and built upon Peter will always preserve the true teaching of Jesus, which was passed on the Apostles.
The implications of this, if true, are enormous. It then follows that all the Roman Church teaches whether explicitly (dogma) or implicitly (doctrine) is to be adhered to by the faithful as if coming from God Himself.
If this is true, then the Protestant Reformers were not only wrong, but devilish – contending against God. In seeking reform, Luther, Calvin, and the rest, were working against Jesus and the Church He established. They were then rightly pronounced as anathema by the Council of Trent.[1]
What did the Protestant Reformers believe regarding the Papacy? They did not deny that Peter had some leadership amongst the original twelve, but they did not believe that Peter was given an authoritative office that was to continue beyond his death. Such was their belief that the Papal office was not of God that they considered it not as many Christians do today, as a secondary, unimportant issue, for the Reformers this was a hill to die on.
Protestant Response
"There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalts himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God."[2]
How did the Reformers understand Matthew 16:18-19? Well, firstly they opened the context in which these verses appear.
Matthew 16:13-20
Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.
From the context, the Reformers believed that the rock that Jesus said He would build His church upon was not Peter himself, but rather upon Peter’s confession of faith.
Peter declared Jesus to be ‘the Christ, the Son of the living God’ and it was this confession, given to him by the Father, upon which Jesus would build His church. But, if the Reformers were right about this, what were they to make of verse 19, which has Jesus handing over the keys of the kingdom to Peter? Didn’t Jesus give him the authority to bind and loose? What does that mean?
These are very important questions, so in my next post, we will look more closely at how the Reformers understood these verses and why they believed that the Papacy can nowhere be found in Scripture.
[1] The Council of Trent was held between 1545 and 1563 in Trent, now in northern Italy, was the 19th ecumenical council of the Catholic Church. Prompted by the Protestant Reformation at the time, it has been described as the embodiment of the Counter-Reformation.
[2] The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646)
Comments