Puffs of Smoke

Pope Francis has died. This is not news anymore, but it is something as of yet undiscussed at Trying to Walk. By this time, everyone (who is paying attention) knows that a new pope has been elected, and will be known as Pope Leo XIV, although his name is actually Robert Prevost, from Chicago. This has all taken place amidst a great deal of ballyhoo. There is a way in which I understand this, and there is a way in which I don’t.

The way in which I do understand is that there are 1.5 billion Catholics in the world, making it easily the largest and therefore the most influential organization in Christendom. (I use the term Christendom to mean everyone who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and the organizations to which they belong due to that belief, regardless of whatever other beliefs they may hold.) Additionally, it is a fact that most media people, and most anyone who is only superficially connected to Christianity makes no distinction between the word Catholic and the word Christian.

We need two points of clarity. The word “catholic” means comprehensive, or universal, and it is in that sense that it became the name of this church. There was a time when there was only the one church that represented all of Christendom, so it was, indeed, universal. But now there have been many “Christian” churches for hundreds of years, so to call this one church the “universal,” or Catholic Church is actually a misnomer. The way to avoid this problem is to assume that the word “Catholic” preceding the word “Church” has no intrinsic meaning and serves only to name an organization.

The second necessary point of clarity is that there is absolutely no place to find any primary information about Christianity, or a Christian church other than the Bible. (See “How do You Know,” Trying to Walk article, 8/7/2024.) This is easily verified by simply asking, “What if the Bible never existed?” Then no one would ever have heard of Jesus Christ, or Christianity. Hence, no other information on the subject would have been written.

This brings us to the sense in which I do not understand all the ballyhoo, which is that there is simply no mention in the Bible of the organization we know of today as the Roman Catholic Church. There is no mention in the Bible of an organization with the traditions and practices that are dear to the Catholic Church. Indeed, there is no mention in the Bible of a pope, or “the papacy.”

Catholic doctrine states that the papacy is a line of popes following Peter who was the first pope. Inherent in this concept is the idea that Peter went to Rome and became the leader of the first century church from that location. This concept is secular, not Biblical. It is not reasonable, if you believe in God of the Bible, to suppose that God left out such an important item in providing us information regarding the organizational framework and mission of the church. The Bible makes no mention of Peter being in Rome, nor does it make mention of Peter being “the” leader of the church. This idea comes from man, not from God.

In fact, the apostles, the leaders of the early church, were apparently centered in Jerusalem. Paul came to Jerusalem (Acts 15:4) to have the elders and apostles (vs 6) resolve a problem. Peter does take the floor to recount his work with the house of Cornelius (vs 7), but it is James who presides over the decision making process of the meeting (vs 13) that results in a written letter resolving the issue (vs 23). Jerusalem is not Rome, and Peter had no authority over James. As is true in the rest of the Bible, there is no hint of a pope, nor of a papal line.

Matthew 16:15-18 is cited by Catholics as Jesus giving to Peter the authority of pope over the church. It reads, “ [Jesus] said to them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ Simon Peter answered and said, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus answered and said to 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 also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Peter makes the statement that Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus compliments Peter on speaking the truth and adds that what Peter just said is a fact that comes from God in Heaven and not from man. Jesus responds in kind by telling Peter who he is, “you are Peter.” Jesus then makes these two salient statements: “on this rock I will build my church,” and “I will give unto you [Peter] the keys of the kingdom.” What ensues is a battle between common sense and wishcasting.

The Catholic Church takes the position that the first statement means that Peter is the rock upon which Jesus’ church is built. From Genesis 3:15 to Malachi there are more than 300 prophetic statements of Jesus’ coming in the Old Testament while God’s people waited for thousands of years. When Jesus arrived He began teaching with authority and drawing crowds. He made the ultimate sacrifice on the cross to save man from his sins. None of this was about Peter.

It was not Peter that was the rock upon which Christ’s church was built. It was the statement Peter made. The church was built on the rock (solid foundation) that Jesus Christ was the Son of the living God. Jesus Christ, the Son of God lived a perfect life without sin. He was worthy of paying the redemptive price for the souls of mankind. Peter was a flawed man who had weaknesses and was burdened with the guilt of sin, not worthy of, nor able to pay the price for anyone‘s sin, not even his own. Which foundation do you want your eternal soul to depend on, flawed Peter, or the perfect Son of God?

It is also the position of the Catholic Church that the second statement (I will give you the keys of the kingdom) means that Peter has been given authority to develop the organizational framework and mission of the church. There are Biblical reasons why this is not sensible.

Peter was an impulsive character. He often impulsively said or did the wrong thing. He began to sink in stormy water after first jumping in to walk to Jesus (Matt. 14:30.) He was rebuked by Jesus (Matt. 16:23.) He drew his sword against Malchus (John 18:10.) He withdrew from Gentile Christians when Jews arrived (Gal. 2:12.) There are other examples.

At no point in the Bible narrative was Peter leading or developing anything. It was necessary at every instant that Peter (and the others as well) were led by the Holy Spirit in their words and deeds. He was under the power of the Holy Spirit when he preached the inspired sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2.) He was directed by the Holy Spirit to accept Gentiles into the fellowship, go to the house of Cornelius, and in the words that he spoke to Cornelius’ household (Acts 10.) Peter spoke no truth nor offered any guidance of his own, but rather was given words to speak and write, and guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth, as were all of the apostles (John 16:13.)

But we are concerning ourselves with ancillary matters. While it is true that Peter was not in his own right the type of person to whom the guidance of a fledgling operation should be granted, this is not what Jesus meant in the statement about the keys of the kingdom.

What does a person do with keys? Do you draw up the bylaws and mission statement of an organization with keys? No, you do not. What you do with keys is you unlock locks, you open doors.

In Acts 2, Peter uses his figurative keys to unlock the doors to the kingdom, the church, and invite people to come in. The sermon Peter preached was the first gospel sermon ever preached. Even when Jesus spoke the “Sermon on the Mount’” He was a Jew, His hearers were Jews, and there was no attempt to convert, or change, them from being Jews to anything else, e.g. Christians.

There had been no such sermon ever preached before Peter in Acts 2. There were others later, notably Stephen in Acts 7, and Paul in Athens in Acts 17. But Peter, the man given the keys, was the one who unlocked the door and for the first time invited people inside, to become members of the church that Jesus said He would build in Matthew 16:18.

Throughout his time with Christ, Peter was often impulsively stepping forward to speak out, sometimes not even understanding what he was talking about (see the transfiguration, Matt. 17:4.) How fitting to give him the keys, to have him speak up, inspired by the Holy Spirit to guide his thoughts, and invite the crowd to repent and be baptized and wash away their sins, calling upon the name of the Lord so they could be added to the church.

As for “binding” and “loosing” in verse 19, the better translation is “what you bind on earth is that which is bound in heaven, and what you loose on earth is that which is loosed in heaven.” This is consistent with the tense of the Greek verbs used, and rather than giving authority to Peter to “set up the church” and heaven will follow your lead, it shows Peter, and the other apostles, only allowed to do what is acceptable in heaven.

We have not discussed here any traditions or practices of the Catholic Church other than the papacy. It is a critical issue, and one which has no basis in the Bible. I know Catholics who are very good people in their manner of life. But that does not make Catholic doctrine Biblical. Anyone who desires to follow God and please Him must ensure that their belief system comes from the Bible, the only source God has given us for knowing and following His will.