^“16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?¹⁷ Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.¹⁸ A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.¹⁹ Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.²⁰ Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.”-Matt. 7:16-20

“25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. 26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.” – Luke 22:25–26

“Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.” – 2 Corinthians 1:24

“This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. ² A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; ³ Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; ⁴ One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;⁵ (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) ⁶ Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. ⁷ Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.⁸ Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; ⁹ Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. ¹⁰ And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.¹¹ Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.¹² Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.¹³ For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.” – 1 Timothy 3:1-13

Vicar of Christ (Latin: Vicarius Christi) is a title that emphasizes the pope’s role as Christ’s earthly representative in governing the Catholic Church.

The word antichrist doesn’t just mean “against Christ“, it means “in place of Christ.”

Pope Boniface VIII declared in Unam Sanctam (1302):

“We declare, pronounce, and define that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Source)

These blasphemous Papal proclamations oppose what Jesus told us in John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”

Pope Pius XII (A.D. 1939 – 1958) stated:

“By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of the Scriptures, and the depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation: She alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the source of truth.” (Source)

Pope Gregory XVI stated:

“It is not possible to worship God truly except in Her; all who are outside Her will not be saved.” (Source)

Pope Saint Pius X (A.D. 1903 – 1914) stated:

“It is our duty to recall to everyone great and small, as the Holy Pontiff Gregory did in ages past, the absolute necessity which is ours, to have recourse to this Church to effect our eternal salvation.” (Source)

Popes have historically declared that salvation is tied to the Roman Catholic Church:

Pope Francis said:

“You cannot find Jesus outside the Church.” (Source)

Pope Innocent III declared:

“With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved.” (Source)

“One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful outside which no one at all is saved…” (Source)

Pope Pius IX said:

“It must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved;” (Source)

Pope Clement VI said:

“No man outside obedience to the Pope of Rome can ultimately be saved. All who have raised themselves against the faith of the Roman Church, and died in final impenitence have been damned, and gone down to Hell.” (Source)

Pope Leo XII said:

“We profess that there is no salvation outside the Church… For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: ‘If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.’” (Source)

Pope Leo XIII stated:

“This is our last lesson to you; receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God’s commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church.” 

“He scatters and gathers not who gathers not with the Church and with Jesus Christ, and all who fight not jointly with Him and with the Church are in very truth contending against God.” (Source)

Pope Leo XIII said in Sapientiae Christianae:

“But the supreme teacher in the Church is the Roman Pontiff. Union of minds, therefore, requires, together with a perfect accord in the one faith, complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself.” (Source)

Pope Pius XII said:

“By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of the Scriptures, and the depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation: She alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the source of truth.” (Source)

Pope Eugene IV declared in Cantate Domino:

“[The most Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart `into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Source)

Pope John XXIII said in his coronation homily:

“Into this fold of Jesus Christ no man may enter unless he be led by the Sovereign Pontiff and only if they be united to him can men be saved…” (Source)

It’s worth noting that CCC 846 reads that “Outside the Church there is no salvation.” From the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), Constitution 1 (Firmiter credimus), it reads “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved…” From the Council of Florence (1442), Cantate Domino (Bull of Union with the Copts): “It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives…”

---

Pope Powers

Papal Authority in the Catholic Church

According to Canon 331 of the Code of Canon Law, the Pope, as Bishop of Rome and successor of Peter, possesses “supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.” This jurisdiction is also affirmed in Pastor Aeternus (First Vatican Council, 1870) and Lumen Gentium 22 (Second Vatican Council, 1964).

This power includes:

• Legislative authority: He alone can promulgate, amend, or abrogate universal ecclesiastical laws and determine the Church’s structural governance worldwide.
• Judicial authority: He is the supreme judge; his decisions are final and admit of no appeal to any higher human authority.
• Executive and administrative authority: He appoints, transfers, and removes bishops, cardinals, and heads of the Roman Curia. Bishops exercise ordinary power in their dioceses, but always in hierarchical communion with and under the Pope’s primacy (Canon 333 §1; Lumen Gentium 27).

Magisterial authority:

• The ordinary magisterium (encyclicals, apostolic letters, etc.) requires religious submission of intellect and will from the faithful (Canon 752; Lumen Gentium 25).
• Papal infallibility, defined in Pastor Aeternus, applies when the Pope speaks ex cathedra—as supreme pastor and teacher of all Christians—solemnly defining a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church. Such definitions are rare.

Unlike a purely honorary head, the Pope holds real jurisdictional primacy over every diocese and every Catholic.

Popes have historically exercised unilateral decisions by invoking papal supremacy.

Pius IX and the Immaculate Conception (1854)
In the apostolic constitution Ineffabilis Deus, Pius IX defined the dogma that Mary was conceived without original sin. He consulted the world’s bishops beforehand through the encyclical Ubi Primum (1849) but did not convene an ecumenical council; he promulgated the definition on his own authority.

Gregory VII and the Dictatus Papae (1075)
During the Investiture Controversy, Gregory VII recorded 27 assertions of papal power in the Dictatus Papae, including the claims that the pope alone could depose bishops or emperors and that no one could annul his sentences.

Innocent III and the Albigensian Crusade (1208)
Innocent III unilaterally called a crusade within Western Europe against the Cathars (Albigensians) in southern France, offering indulgences and appointing legates to oversee the campaign (papal letters of 1208 following the murder of legate Peter of Castelnau).

Paul VI and Humanae Vitae (1968)
Pope Paul VI issued the encyclical Humanae Vitae, which officially reaffirmed the Catholic Church’s ban on artificial birth control. He took this action despite the recommendations of a special Papal Commission on Population, Family, and Birth Control that he had appointed—which had voted by a majority to advise a relaxation of the teaching. Paul VI rejected the commission’s majority report and unilaterally upheld the traditional prohibition.

Pius XII and the Assumption of Mary (1950)
In the apostolic constitution Munificentissimus Deus, Pius XII defined the dogma that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven. He consulted the bishops via Deiparae Virginis Mariae (1946) but issued the formal definition by his own authority.

---

Addendum I

Biblically, Was Peter the First Pope?

In my experience engaging with Catholics, they rely heavily on Matthew 16:18–19 as the foundational charter for the papacy, arguing that Jesus explicitly appointed Peter as the visible head of the Church and conferred a unique authority that is passed down through apostolic succession to the modern popes. The passage reads:

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

The biblical text and the broader witness of Scripture will not support this reading. Even granting that Peter held a prominent leadership role among the apostles, elevating the passage into the charter for an institutional office of supreme, full, immediate, and universal jurisdiction stretches the historical, linguistic, and theological context far beyond what the New Testament allows—especially when the entire Bible relentlessly identifies God and Jesus Christ alone as the Rock.

The Biblical Emphasis: God and Christ Alone Are the Rock

The Catholic argument hinges on the words “thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.” Yet the consistent testimony of Scripture is that God Himself—and specifically Jesus Christ—is the Rock and the sole cornerstone.

Rock texts: Deuteronomy 32:4, 15, 18, 30–31; 2 Samuel 22:2, 3, 32, 47; Psalm 18:2, 31, 46; Psalm 62:2, 6–7; Isaiah 26:4; Isaiah 44:8.

Stone/Cornerstone texts: Psalm 118:22; Isaiah 28:16; Matthew 21:42; Acts 4:11; Romans 9:33; Ephesians 2:20; 1 Peter 2:4–8.

Paul states explicitly that “that Rock was Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:4). Ephesians 2:20 and 1 Peter 2:4–8 identify Jesus as the chief cornerstone on which the whole church is built, while describing believers as living stones built upon Him. Even if Peter is given a significant role, the New Testament never transfers the ultimate “Rock” title to him or to any successor. The foundation remains Christ alone.

In the Greek text of Matthew 16:18 we read: “thou art Peter [Πέτρος / Petros], and upon this rock [πέτρα / petra]…” Catholic interpreters treat the two words as essentially synonymous. The Greek Scriptures, inspired by the Holy Spirit, as we have them, employ different terms. Petros functions as a masculine proper name and can denote a stone; petra more naturally refers to bedrock or a massive rock formation. The shift in wording, combined with the overwhelming biblical pattern that reserves “Rock” for God and Christ, cautions against reading Peter himself as the unique, enduring foundation of the Church. The “rock” is most naturally understood as the content of Peter’s confession or Christ Himself.

Even granting the Catholic reading that Peter himself is the “rock,” the argument still does not reach the papacy without several additional premises that the text never states:

• Peter receives supreme jurisdiction over the other apostles.
• This jurisdiction is permanent.
• It is transferable to successors.
• Those successors are specifically the bishops of Rome.
• Those successors possess supreme, full, immediate, and universal jurisdiction over the entire Church.

Matthew 16 explicitly says none of those things.

Contextual Check: Peter’s Immediate Rebuke

Only a few verses later (Matthew 16:21–23), Peter rebukes Jesus concerning the cross, and Jesus replies: “Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me.” The episode demonstrates that Peter’s prominence did not make him incapable of serious error or correction. Matthew’s narrative itself immediately places Peter in a position of needing correction from Christ.

Other Apostles Given the Same Binding Authority

Catholics point to the “keys of the kingdom” and the power to “bind and loose” (Matthew 16:19) as evidence of exclusive papal supremacy. Yet in Matthew 18:18 Jesus grants the authority of binding and loosing to the disciples collectively. Although Peter alone receives the keys in Matthew 16, the New Testament subsequently gives the broader binding-and-loosing authority to the apostolic community. Thus the keys establish Peter’s distinctive role, but the passage does not establish that Peter possesses unilateral jurisdiction over the other apostles. In Matthew 19:28, He further promises that all twelve apostles will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel—portraying authority distributed across the apostolic college rather than concentrated in one supreme office.

Peter’s Special Role Does Not Establish Papal Succession

Catholic apologists also appeal to two other key passages to argue that Peter received a unique pastoral commission over the whole Church.

“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.” (Luke 22:31–32)

The Catholic argument is that Jesus addresses Peter individually, prays specifically for him, and commands him to strengthen the other apostles, thereby establishing a unique pastoral role that corresponds to later papal supremacy.

The passage certainly establishes a special responsibility for Peter. But it does not say that Peter is head of the Church, that the other apostles are subject to him, that his authority will be inherited by Roman bishops, or that he will possess infallible doctrinal authority. Notably, Jesus says “when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.” Peter himself is going to fail and require restoration. The very terminology places Peter among the brethren. A special responsibility to strengthen the brethren after failure is not the same as supreme, full, immediate, and universal jurisdiction.

Jesus three times commissions Peter: “Feed my lambs… Feed my sheep… Feed my sheep.” (John 21:15–17)

Catholic apologists argue that this threefold commission establishes Peter as the supreme shepherd over the entire Church.

John 21 unquestionably gives Peter a special pastoral commission. But the text does not say “Peter, you are now supreme bishop over all Christians,” nor does it say “This office shall be transmitted to the bishops of Rome.” The issue is not whether Peter has a universal pastoral responsibility; the issue is whether the passage establishes a permanent juridical office whose successors possess supreme, immediate, and universal jurisdiction. Jesus remains the chief Shepherd. Peter himself later writes:

“The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder… Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof… And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.” (1 Peter 5:1–4)

Peter describes himself as a fellow elder and points to Christ as the chief Shepherd. Other elders are also commanded to shepherd the flock. A special commission to feed Christ’s sheep does not equal a permanent, transferable office of universal jurisdiction.

The Missing Link: Where Is Petrine Succession Established?

Even granting that Peter received a unique apostolic commission, Scripture never states that this commission would be transmitted to a successor, that the successor would be the Bishop of Rome, or that such a successor would possess supreme, full, immediate, and universal jurisdiction over the entire Church.

The New Testament provides evidence for continuing ministry and succession of teaching (Acts 1; 2 Timothy 2:2; Titus 1:5), but it does not establish a unique Petrine succession in which the Bishop of Rome inherits Peter’s authority as universal head of the Church. The logical chain required by the Catholic claim is:

Peter → unique authority → permanent office → successor → Roman successor → universal jurisdiction

Matthew 16, Luke 22, and John 21 establish none of the links after Peter’s unique commission.

Peter Does Not Act Like a Pope in the Early Church Nor is He Treated as Such

If Christ appointed Peter as the Church’s universal ruler with supreme jurisdiction, we should expect the earliest Christian writings to provide at least some clear evidence of Peter exercising that kind of authority. They do not.

At the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, after considerable debate, Peter speaks and recounts how God had already opened the door to the Gentiles through his ministry. Paul and Barnabas then give their testimony. Yet it is James who formulates the judgment that follows. In Acts 15:19 he declares, “Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God.” The subsequent decree is issued collectively by “the apostles and elders,” and the letter describes the decision as one reached by the assembled leadership “with one accord” (Acts 15:22–25). Whatever prominence Peter enjoyed, the narrative does not portray him as exercising unilateral jurisdiction over the council or issuing a decree binding the Church by his own authority.

In Galatians 2:11–14, Paul openly confronts Peter “to his face” because Peter’s withdrawal from table fellowship with Gentile believers compromised the truth of the gospel. The episode demonstrates that Peter was not treated as an unchallengeable superior whose decisions stood beyond apostolic correction. This is difficult to reconcile with the claim that Peter possessed the kind of supreme, immediate, and unilateral jurisdiction over the other apostles that was later attributed to the Roman pontiff.

Paul’s listing of the “pillars” of the Jerusalem church points in the same direction. In Galatians 2:9 he writes, “And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me…” The order places James ahead of Peter (Cephas). Given the context of a meeting in Jerusalem, this ordering most naturally reflects James’s recognized seniority and executive leadership in that church.

Taken together, these texts present a consistent pattern of shared leadership, collective deliberation, and open correction rather than a single apostle exercising supreme, unilateral jurisdiction over the whole Church.

Peter’s Own Writings Refuse Supremacy and Point to Christ as the Rock

In his letters, Peter never claims a unique monarchical office. As stated earlier, he refers to himself simply as a “fellow elder” (1 Peter 5:1). More decisively, he applies the foundational cornerstone language to Christ while describing believers, including himself, as living stones built into God’s spiritual house (1 Peter 2:4–8) and points believers to Christ as the chief Shepherd. The apostle whom Catholics call the rock reserves that title for Jesus alone.

Appealing to Isaiah 22

The passage in Isaiah describes God removing a corrupt royal official named Shebna from his high post in the Davidic kingdom and replacing him with a loyal official named Eliakim:

“21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. 22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.”

Catholic apologists map this ancient royal office directly onto Jesus and Peter in the New Testament:

• Jesus as the King (the Son of David): In the New Testament, Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment of the Davidic King.
• The King’s Household: The earthly Church is viewed as the “house of David” or the royal household of God.
• The Chief Steward (“the one who is over the house”): In ancient Israelite royal courts, the King had a chief steward who managed the royal household. This official held the key of the house of David and possessed authority to open and shut.
• Peter as the Successor: When Jesus says to Peter in Matthew 16:19 that He will give him the keys of the kingdom of heaven, Catholics argue that Matthew deliberately echoes the key imagery of Isaiah 22:22. Therefore, Jesus is appointing Peter as the chief steward of His newly established kingdom—acting as the visible head of the Church during Christ’s bodily absence following the Ascension. Because Isaiah 22 depicts the key-bearing office as transferable, Catholics argue that the analogy supports a continuing Petrine office passed down to Peter’s successors (the popes).

Is this really the case?

1. The Direct Fulfillment Points to Jesus
In Revelation 3:7, the exact imagery of Isaiah 22:22 is explicitly claimed by Jesus Himself:

“These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth.”

Revelation 3:7 establishes that the ultimate holder of the Davidic key is Christ Himself. It therefore establishes Christ’s supreme authority. It does not by itself exclude Christ from delegating subordinate authority to Peter. The question is whether the New Testament identifies Peter as the perpetual Davidic steward whose office is inherited by Roman bishops. It does not.

2. No New Testament Evidence of Succession
Even granting the Isaiah 22 allusion, Matthew 16 never says that Peter’s key-bearing authority will be transmitted to a series of successors, much less identifies those successors as Roman bishops. Throughout the Book of Acts and the Epistles, there is zero mention of Peter holding such an office, nor is there any instruction on how future popes are to inherit “the keys.”

Jesus Explicitly Rejected Domineering Hierarchy

Jesus repeatedly prohibited His disciples from adopting the dominating structures of worldly kingdoms, demanding a posture of servant-heartedness.

In Matthew 23, Jesus warns:

“8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.”

Jesus condemns the prideful exaltation and domineering use of religious authority that can accompany hierarchical offices. The foundational concept of the papacy relies on a vertical hierarchy in which one bishop holds supreme, full, immediate, and universal jurisdiction over a global brotherhood. Yet Jesus explicitly commands His followers not to elevate themselves over one another (“all ye are brethren”) and condemns the exact structural mindset that produces such an office.

Mark 10:42-45 is even clearer:

“42 But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. 43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: 44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. 45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.”

Jesus draws a stark, unmistakable line between the kingdoms of this world—which operate through centralized, top-down power, chains of command, and sovereign rulers (“lordship over them”)—and His own movement. If Jesus had just appointed Peter as an absolute monarch with supreme jurisdiction, He would be setting up the exact Greco-Roman political pyramid He explicitly forbids (“not be among you”).

On the night before His crucifixion, Jesus performs an unforgettable object lesson. Instead of establishing a throne or naming a viceroy, He strips off His outer garment, kneels, and washes the disciples’ feet, including Peter’s. John 13:12–16 reads:

“12 So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you? 13 Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. 14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet. 15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you. 16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.”

The ethos of Christ’s kingdom is radically inverted. Authority in the New Testament community is expressed through mutual submission and humble service, not through jurisdictional supremacy or imperial pomp. A system in which one bishop possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal jurisdiction, and under defined conditions exercises an infallible teaching authority, sits in deep tension with the servant-model Jesus physically embodied and commanded the apostles to replicate.

Closing

Matthew 16:18–19 grants Peter a real and prominent role: the first to confess Jesus as the Christ, the recipient of the keys, and a foundational apostle. Yet nothing in the New Testament transforms that role into a unique, transferable office of supreme, full, immediate, and universal jurisdiction vested in the bishop of Rome.

More decisively, Jesus Himself repeatedly rejected the model of domineering hierarchical power. He condemned status-seeking and exaltation (Matthew 23:8–12). He contrasted the lordship of Gentile rulers with the inverted order of His kingdom (Mark 10:42–45). On the night before His death, He did not appoint a viceroy; He knelt and washed His disciples’ feet, commanding them to do likewise (John 13:12–16).

A system centered on a Supreme Pontiff who claims ordinary, immediate, and universal jurisdiction over every Christian stands in deep tension with the servant ethos Jesus both taught and enacted. The New Testament presents authority among the apostles as collegial, corrective, and cruciform—not monarchical.

The Rock remains God.
The Rock remains Christ.
And the defining hierarchy Jesus gave His Church was not the hierarchy of the throne, but the hierarchy of the towel and the basin.

---

Addendum II

There Is No Clear Early Historical Evidence That Peter Was the First Pope

What is striking is that no surviving first- or second-century Christian source clearly identifies Peter as the first monarchical bishop of Rome in the later papal sense. This does not mean Peter was unimportant to Rome. On the contrary, the early sources strongly associate Peter and Paul with the Roman church. The issue is more specific: the earliest evidence distinguishes the apostles Peter and Paul from the subsequent succession of Roman bishops, beginning with Linus, while the monarchical episcopal structure at Rome appears to have developed only later in the second century.

What the sources actually say (up to ~200 AD)

• No New Testament text ever calls Peter the bishop of Rome (or of any city). The New Testament provides no explicit evidence that Peter held the office of bishop of Rome, much less that he was the first in a line of Roman bishops possessing universal jurisdiction.
• 1 Clement (Ch. 5, c. 96), written from Rome, mentions Peter’s martyrdom but does not call him bishop of Rome or place him in an episcopal succession list. The letter is written in the name of the Roman church rather than by a single Roman bishop exercising jurisdiction.
• Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110) expresses extraordinary regard for the Roman church and associates Peter and Paul with it, but never calls Peter its bishop or describes him as the first in a succession of Roman bishops.
• Irenaeus of Lyons (Against Heresies 3.3.2–3, c. 180) is the earliest detailed witness. He writes that the church in Rome was “founded and organized… by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul.” Then he continues: “The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate.” In Irenaeus’s presentation, Peter and Paul are the apostolic founders, while Linus is the first person explicitly named in the subsequent succession of Roman bishops. He does not call Peter the first bishop.
• Tertullian (Prescription Against Heretics 32, c. 200) says the Roman church claimed that Clement was ordained by Peter as bishop. This provides evidence of an early tradition that Peter had a role in appointing Clement, but it still does not say that Peter was the first monarchical bishop of Rome. It also differs from Irenaeus’s succession account, in which Linus, followed by Anacletus, precedes Clement. Thus the early evidence is not even uniform about the precise succession.

The surviving evidence supports the following historical observations

• Peter was present and martyred in Rome.
• He was regarded very early as a (or the) leading founding figure of the Roman church.
• The precise title and concept “Peter was the first Bishop of Rome” in the later monarchical sense is not attested in the surviving literature of the first 200 years. The earliest lists treat him as the apostolic founder, with the formal episcopal succession beginning afterward (usually with Linus).

Historians confirm the point

The following is from a Catholic historian, Eamon Duffy:

“Neither Peter nor Paul founded the Church at Rome, for there were Christians in the city before either of the Apostles set foot there. Nor can we assume, as Irenaeus did, that the Apostles established there a succession of bishops to carry on their work in the city, for all the indications are that there was no single bishop of Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the Apostles.” (Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes, p. 2)

Another Catholic historian, Robert Eno, wrote:

“So in that technical but nevertheless very important sense, Peter was not the first bishop of Rome. The little known Linus holds that honor.” (Robert Eno, The Rise of the Papacy, p. 16.)

Brown and Meier stated:

“anachronistic and simplistic to think of the historical St. Peter functioning as a later pope.” (Raymond E. Brown and John P. Meier, Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity, p. 131, footnote 275)

“All of this can be explained if we recognize that the threefold order of single-bishop, with subordinate presbyters and deacons, was not in place at Rome at the end of the first century; rather the twofold order of presbyter-bishops and deacons, attested a decade before in I Peter 5:1-5, was still operative. Indeed, the signal failure of Ignatius (ca. 110) to mention the single-bishop in his letter to the Romans (a very prominent theme in his other letters), and the usage of Hermas, which speaks of plural presbyters (Vis. 2.4.2) and bishops (Sim. 9.27.2), make it likely that the single-bishop structure did not come to Rome till ca. 140-150.” (Ibid., p. 163)

“No single-bishop is mentioned at Rome, probably because the church still had the twofold structure of presbyter-bishops and deacons.” (Ibid., p. 202)

Peter Lampe stated:

“The fractionation in Rome favored a collegial presbyterial system of governance and prevented for a long time, until the second half of the second century, the development of a monarchical episcopacy in the city.” (Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries, p. 397)

“Before the second half of the second century there was in Rome no monarchical episcopacy for the circles mutually bound in fellowship.” (Ibid., 397)

“Victor (c. 189–199) was the first who, after faint-hearted attempts by Eleutherus (c. 175–189), Soter (c. 166–175), and Anicetus (c. 155–166), energetically stepped forward as monarchical bishop and (at times, only because he was incited from the outside) attempted to place the different groups in the city under his supervision or, where that was not possible, to draw a line by means of excommunication.” (Ibid., 397)

“A plurality of presbyters leads Roman Christianity. This Christianity, conscious of spiritual fellowship with the city, is summed up under the concept ‘ecclesia,’ but that changes nothing in regard to the plurality of those presiding over it.” (Ibid., 398)

Philip Schaff wrote:

“The Roman tradition of a twenty or twenty-five years’ episcopate of Peter in Rome is unquestionably a colossal chronological mistake.” (Philip Schaff, History Of The Christian Church, Vol. I, p. 252)

Bart Ehrman wrote on his blog:

“In some circles, Peter is best known as the first bishop of Rome, the first pope. In the period I’m interested in… there is little evidence to support this view. On the contrary, several authors indicate that Peter was not the first leader of the church there and certainly not its first bishop.” (Source)

Three distinct claims must be kept separate

1. Peter was an apostle associated with Rome.
2. Peter was the first monarchical bishop of Rome.
3. Peter was the first pope in the later sense of possessing universal ordinary and immediate jurisdiction over the entire Church.

The evidence strongly supports #1. It does not clearly establish #2, and it provides no basis for #3.

None of this denies the early and substantial association of Peter with Rome. The evidence for that association is strong. The narrower question is whether Peter should historically be identified with the first monarchical Roman bishop in the later papal sense. On that question, the earliest evidence is considerably less straightforward.

Conclusion

The historical evidence therefore supports a distinction that is often blurred in later discussions. Peter was an apostolic founder associated with the church at Rome, and his martyrdom and memory gave Rome enormous apostolic prestige. But the surviving evidence does not clearly identify Peter as the first monarchical bishop of Rome in the later papal sense. Irenaeus places Linus at the beginning of the episcopal succession, Tertullian preserves a somewhat different tradition connecting Peter with Clement, and evidence from Rome itself indicates that a monarchical episcopal structure emerged only gradually during the second century. Consequently, the historical claim that Peter simply occupied the later papal office as the first Roman pope cannot be read straightforwardly back into the first century.

---

Addendum III

No Historical Evidence of Universal Jurisdictional Supremacy

Not only is there an absence of evidence that Peter was the first Pope, but there is no clear evidence before c. 200 of a universally recognized Roman bishop possessing the kind of immediate and universal jurisdiction over all churches later defined in Roman Catholic doctrine.

High honor, apostolic prestige, and doctrinal reliability—yes. Universal jurisdictional supremacy over all churches—no.

1. The New Testament and earliest sources are silent on any such supremacy

No New Testament text identifies the bishop of Rome as Peter’s exclusive successor with universal power over every local church.

The Apostolic Fathers (roughly 70–150 AD) continue this pattern:

• 1 Clement (c. 96 AD) is a letter from the church of Rome urging the Corinthian church to reinstate deposed elders. It speaks with an authoritative tone and appeals to apostolic tradition. It demonstrates that the Roman church exercised significant moral and ecclesial influence beyond its immediate locality. However, it does not explicitly ground that intervention in a divinely instituted jurisdiction of the Roman bishop over Corinth, Petrine succession, or a universal papal office. The letter is written in the name of the Roman church, not by the Roman bishop as an individual exercising papal jurisdiction. Corinth’s acceptance of the advice does not prove universal jurisdiction.
• Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107–110 AD) writes to the Roman church with high praise, describing it as the church that “presides in the place of the region of the Romans,” and asks them not to hinder his martyrdom. He never acknowledges Roman jurisdictional authority over Antioch or any other church. In his other letters, he repeatedly stresses the authority of the local bishop: “Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop.” Ignatius’s ecclesiology is intensely episcopal, but the bishop he repeatedly discusses is the bishop of the local church.
• Polycarp, Papias, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas do not provide positive evidence for a Roman bishop exercising universal jurisdiction over the churches.

If universal jurisdictional supremacy had already been a universally recognized divine institution, we would reasonably expect clearer evidence of that claim in the surviving second-century sources. Instead, the evidence shows Roman prestige and intervention without an unambiguous articulation of universal juridical supremacy.

2. Common “proof texts” do not establish universal jurisdiction before ~200 AD

Matthew 16:18 and the “keys”
Even granting that Peter is the rock and receives the keys, the text itself does not say that this authority is transmitted exclusively through the bishops of Rome, nor that it includes universal jurisdiction over every local church. Three separate propositions must be established:

1. Peter has a unique role.
2. Peter’s authority is transmitted to successors.
3. Peter’s unique successors are specifically the bishops of Rome, possessing universal jurisdiction.

Even if #1 is granted, #2 and #3 do not automatically follow. Early writers who comment on the passage (Tertullian, Origen, and later Cyprian) do not uniformly interpret it as granting the Roman bishop universal power.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3.2 (c. 180 AD)
This is the strongest early text often cited in favor of Roman primacy. Irenaeus lists the succession of Roman bishops and states that every church must agree with Rome “on account of its more excellent origin / preeminent authority” (propter potiorem principalitatem), because of its apostolic foundation by Peter and Paul and its reliable preservation of the apostolic tradition.

The exact force of the Latin phrase potiorem principalitatem is debated among scholars. Some render it more strongly as “preeminent authority” or “superior leadership,” while others understand it primarily in terms of Rome’s superior apostolic origin or its practical advantage as a widely known and orthodox center. Because the original Greek is lost, the precise nuance remains uncertain.

Even if one adopts the stronger reading, the passage still falls short of the later doctrine of immediate and universal jurisdiction. Irenaeus is arguing that Rome’s apostolic foundation and consistent orthodoxy make it a reliable standard against Gnostic novelty. He does not describe the bishop of Rome as possessing juridical authority to govern every local church by divine right, nor does he present Rome as a universal court of appeal whose decisions bind all other bishops. The text supports a special prestige and doctrinal reliability for the Roman church; it does not articulate the fully developed claim of universal papal jurisdiction.

Victor of Rome and the Quartodeciman controversy (c. 190–195 AD)
Victor attempted to excommunicate the Asian churches over the date of Easter. This episode is sometimes presented as an exercise of supremacy. In reality, it demonstrates the absence of accepted universal jurisdiction:

• The Asian churches (led by Polycrates of Ephesus) simply refused, citing their own apostolic tradition from John.
• Irenaeus and others rebuked Victor for his severity and urged peace.
• A claim rejected by the very churches it targets, and criticized by contemporaries, is evidence of an attempt, not of an established and recognized supremacy.

Polycrates of Ephesus’ letter to Victor (Eusebius, Church History 5.24.2–8):

“We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep… Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles… and… John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord… All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel… And I also, Polycrates… am not frightened by those who threaten us; for those greater than I have said: ‘We ought to obey God rather than men’ [Acts 5:29].”

Victor’s response (Eusebius, HE 5.24.9):

“Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.”

Reaction of other bishops, including Irenaeus (Eusebius, HE 5.24.10–17):

“But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor. Among them was Irenæus… fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom…”

Irenaeus further notes that diversity in the fast and the day had long existed, that earlier Roman bishops had remained in peace with those who observed the 14th, and that the disagreement did not destroy the unity of faith.

The episode shows that Rome was beginning to exercise or claim a broader authority, but that authority was not universally accepted as binding. Roman directives were not universally treated as binding simply by virtue of coming from the bishop of Rome.

Hegesippus (c. 110–180 AD)

Some Roman Catholic apologists and sources appeal to Hegesippus (c. 110–180 AD) for evidence to say that Peter was the first pope or that Rome had authority over every church.

Hegesippus’s writings survive only in fragments quoted by Eusebius of Caesarea (Church History 4.22). The key passage is roughly:

“And when I had come to Rome I remained there until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.”

He reports that he found the same orthodox doctrine everywhere he traveled (including Corinth and Rome) and that he compiled a list of the succession of bishops in Rome up to Anicetus (mid-2nd century).

But he does not explicitly call Peter the “first pope,” claim universal jurisdiction for the bishop of Rome, or say that every church must submit to Rome.

3. Positive evidence points the other way

Churches outside Rome operated with clear local and regional authority. Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Ephesus, and the Asian churches settled their own affairs, ordained their own bishops, and maintained their own liturgical and disciplinary customs. When disputes arose, they often appealed to synods or multiple apostolic churches, not solely to Rome as the final court.

The churches of Asia Minor addressed in Revelation 2–3 operated within their own local ecclesial structures and were not presented as being governed by a Roman bishop. This becomes particularly significant when, roughly a century later, the Asian churches resisted Victor of Rome’s attempt to exclude them over the Easter controversy and appealed instead to their own apostolic tradition. The episode is difficult to reconcile with the claim that universal Roman jurisdiction was already a universally recognized institution.

The First Council of Nicaea (325), Canon 6, explicitly preserves existing regional customs and jurisdictions:

“Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.”

Canon 6 is consistent with a model of major regional sees exercising jurisdiction within defined territories and does not describe the Roman bishop as possessing immediate jurisdiction over every church. Canon 7 grants Jerusalem honor while preserving the metropolitan rights of Caesarea. This reflects pre-existing multi-provincial authority for Alexandria and Antioch parallel to Rome’s authority over its own sphere—not universal jurisdiction.

Cyprian of Carthage (mid-3rd century) highly honors Peter and Rome, yet still insists that every bishop is a successor of Peter in his own church and resists Roman overreach. In Treatise 1, Ch. 5, he writes:

“The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole” (Episcopatus unus est, cuius a singulis in solidum pars tenetur).

Cyprian held a strongly collegial view of the episcopate. All bishops share equally in the one episcopate; none is a “bishop of bishops.” He wrote:

“It remains, that upon this same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no man, nor rejecting any one from the right of communion, if he should think differently from us. 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)

Cyprian’s ecclesiology clearly gives every bishop substantial authority in his own church and rejects the concept of one bishop functioning as “bishop of bishops.” Whatever special significance he attributed to Rome, this is difficult to square with the later Vatican conception of the pope possessing immediate and universal jurisdiction over every bishop and local church.

4. Historical reality of development

Rome’s prestige was real and early. Its bishops were often consulted and its orthodoxy valued. What developed over subsequent centuries was the increasingly explicit articulation of Roman primacy in juridical and universal terms. By the late fourth and fifth centuries (Damasus, Siricius, Leo), the language of universal jurisdiction became explicit.

Projecting that later development back onto the period before 200 AD is anachronistic. The sources of the first two centuries simply do not contain it.

Catholic historian Klaus Schatz wrote:

Nevertheless, concrete claims of a primacy over the whole Church cannot be inferred from this conviction. If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no.

(Papal Primacy From Its Origins To The Present, p. 3)

James F. McCue was a Catholic theologian and historian of the early Church, best known for his scholarly work on the historical development of papal primacy. He wrote:

It will be the very limited aim of the first portion of the present paper to review the evidence customarily adduced for the existence and recognition of a Roman primacy in the second century. My contention here will be that this evidence will not support the view which I have just outlined. Indeed, it will be argued that the second century does not recognize a Roman primacy in any theologically meaningful sense of the phrase.

(“The Roman Primacy in the Second Century and the Problem of the Development of Dogma,” Theological Studies 25 [1964]: 161)

On Irenaeus specifically:

There thus seems to be nothing in Irenaeus to warrant the conclusion that he recognized in the Roman Church a unique authority or a unique role in the Church… Irenaeus is important for his testimony to the Petrine and Pauline foundation of the Roman Church. But he does not take us any closer than this to a doctrine of Roman primacy.

(Ibid., p. 179)

Francis A. Sullivan, S.J. (1922 – 2019) was an American Jesuit priest and one of the leading Catholic theologians of the post-Vatican II era. He wrote:

Scholars differ on details, such as how soon the Church of Rome was led by a single bishop, but hardly any doubt that the Church of Rome was still led by a group of presbyters for at least a part of the second century.

(From Apostles to Bishops, p. viii)

If Rome itself was still transitioning from a presbyteral structure to a single-bishop structure during the second century, this complicates attempts to project the fully developed later papal office backward into the earliest period.

Key Distinctions

Primacy ≠ Universal Jurisdiction
The historical evidence allows us to concede that Rome possessed:

• exceptional prestige
• apostolic foundations associated with Peter and Paul
• doctrinal reputation
• wealth and influence
• the ability to intervene in disputes

The question is what kind of primacy it possessed. A primacy of honor, influence, apostolic prestige, or doctrinal reliability is not automatically equivalent to the later doctrine of immediate and universal papal jurisdiction.

Intervention ≠ Jurisdiction
A church can exercise influence beyond its local territory without possessing universal jurisdiction over every other church. An influential bishop can admonish another bishop, issue a theological judgment, or intervene in a dispute without necessarily possessing juridical authority to command that bishop by divine right.

Cumulative Picture

• c. 96 — Clement: Rome exercises significant influence beyond itself, but no explicit universal jurisdiction.
• c. 107–110 — Ignatius: Rome receives extraordinary praise, but no explicit universal jurisdiction of its bishop.
• c. 180 — Irenaeus: Rome has exceptional apostolic prestige and doctrinal importance, but the exact nature of its principalitas does not clearly equal later papal jurisdiction.
• c. 190s — Victor: A Roman bishop attempts to impose a decision outside Rome, but the targeted churches resist and other bishops rebuke him.
• c. 250s — Cyprian: The universal episcopate is described collegially, and Cyprian rejects the idea of a “bishop of bishops.”
• 325 — Nicaea: Major episcopal sees are described in terms of established regional jurisdictional structures rather than a universal Roman jurisdiction.

In short: High honor, apostolic prestige, and doctrinal reliability—yes. Universal jurisdictional supremacy over all churches—no. The evidence for the latter is absent; the counter-evidence of silence, local and regional authority, and rejected claims is present. The fully developed doctrine of the pope’s immediate and universal jurisdiction is not clearly attested as an established and universally recognized institution in the earliest centuries; its explicit juridical formulation becomes increasingly evident over the subsequent development of the Roman primacy.