This is a question addressed at the gotQuestions site. It is the central question to be asked and answered – What dies scripture have to say about the issue? Below is the answer that was presented and that seems to have been very objective and really address the issue directly from scripture. I believe all the links work and will take you to the referenced scripture or reference cited. Search the scriptures and please discuss!
Answer: The Roman Catholic Church’s teaching about the Pope (“pope” means “father”) is built upon and involves the following Roman Catholic teachings:
1) Christ made Peter the leader of the apostles and of the church (Matthew 16:18-19). In giving Peter the “keys of the kingdom,” Christ not only made him leader, but also made him infallible when he acted or spoke as Christ’s representative on earth (speaking from the seat of authority, or “ex cathedra”). This ability to act on behalf of the church in an infallible way when speaking “ex cathedra” was passed on to Peter’s successors, thus giving the Church an infallible guide on earth. The purpose of the papacy is to lead the Church unerringly.
2) Peter later became the first Bishop of Rome. As Bishop of Rome, he exercised authority over all other bishops and church leaders. The teaching that the Bishop of Rome is above all other bishops in authority is referred to as the “primacy” of the Roman Bishop.
3) Peter passed on his apostolic authority to the next Bishop of Rome, along with the other apostles who passed on their apostolic authority to the bishops that they ordained. These new bishops, in turn, passed on that apostolic authority to those bishops that they later ordained, and so on. This “passing on of apostolic authority” is referred to as “apostolic succession.”
4) Based upon the Roman Catholic claim of an unbroken chain of Roman bishops, they teach that the Roman Catholic Church is the true church, and that all churches that do not accept the primacy of the Pope have broken away from them, the original and one true church.
Having briefly reviewed some of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the papacy, the question is whether those teachings are in agreement with Scripture. The Roman Catholic Church sees the Papacy and the infallible teaching authority of “mother Church” as being necessary to guide the Church, and use that as logical reasoning for God’s provision of it. But in examining Scripture, you find the following:
1) While Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behind Matthew 16:18-19), the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, nowhere declares that he was in authority over the other apostles or over the Church (see Acts 15:1-23; Galatians 2:1-14; 1 Peter 5:1-5). Nor is it ever taught that the Bishop of Rome was to have primacy over the Church. Rather, there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to Rome, found in 1 Peter 5:13. Primarily upon this, and the historical rise of the influence of the Bishop of Rome (due to the support of Constantine and the Roman emperors who followed him), comes the Roman Catholic Church teaching of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. However, Scripture shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20), and that the “loosing and binding” authority attributed to him was likewise shared by the local churches, not just their church leaders (see Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10-11).
2) Nowhere does Scripture state that in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (apostolic succession). Apostolic succession is “read into” those verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine (2 Timothy 2:2; 4:2-5; Titus 1:5; 2:1; 2:15; 1 Timothy 5:19-22). What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from among church leaders and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture, which alone is cited in the Bible as infallible. The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture. Paul, in talking to the church leaders in the large city of Ephesus, makes note of coming false teachers, and to fight against such error does NOT commend them to “the apostles and those who would carry on their authority,” but rather he commends them to “God and to the word of His grace…” (Acts 20:28-32).
Again, the Bible teaches that it is Scripture that is to be used as measuring stick to determine truth from error. In Galatians 1:8-9, Paul states that it is not WHO teaches but WHAT is being taught that is to be used to determine truth from error. While the Roman Catholic Church continues to pronounce a curse to hell “anathema” upon those who would reject the authority of the Pope, Scripture reserves that curse for those who would teach a different gospel (Galatians 1:8-9).
3) While the Roman Catholic Church sees apostolic succession as logically necessary in order for God to unerringly guide the Church, Scripture states that God has provided for His church through:
(a) Infallible Scripture, (Acts 20:32; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Matthew 5:18; John 10:35; Acts 17:10-12; Isaiah 8:20; 40:8; etc.) Note: Peter speaks of Paul’s writings in the same category as other Scripture (2 Peter 3:16),
(b) Christ’s unending high-priesthood in heaven (Hebrews 7:22-28),
(c) The provision of the Holy Spirit who guided the apostles into truth after Christ’s death (John 16:12-14), who gifts believers for the work of the ministry, including teaching (Romans 12:3-8; Ephesians 4:11-16), and who uses the written word as His chief tool (Hebrews 4:12; Ephesians 6:17).
While there have been good (humanly speaking) and moral men who have served as Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, including Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, the Roman Catholic Church teaching about the office of the Pope should be rejected because it is not “in continuity” with the teachings of the original church, that related to us in the New Testament. This comparison of any church’s teaching is essential, lest we miss the New Testament’s teaching concerning the gospel, and not only miss eternal life in heaven ourselves, but unwittingly lead others down the wrong path (Galatians 1:8-9).
Recommended Resource: The Gospel According to Rome: Comparing Bible pope, Bible papacy and The Word of God by James McCarthy.
The Battle Cry 
Superb article and one which is clear, objective and honest. Peter was never the “Bishop of Rome” but died there at the hands of the romans. Rome became the seat of the church years later, even after Constantine. Since Constantine established Constantinople as the “New Rome” and the church there was considered the center.
LikeLike
Rev Johnnene,
Thank you for your comment concernng the article’s objectivity. It is a concern. It seemed to have been written without an agenda, which is sometimes rare.
LikeLike
I feel like I have been in class the last couple of days…it’s been wonderful!!! Thank you for this Dan 🙂
LikeLike
This was perhaps the most concise yet objective treatment of the papacy I have found lately.
LikeLike
Good morning. I would like to link to this when time permits as many do not understand how this situation came about. The pope generates a colossal following wherever he goes and yet he is claiming to occupy a position that’s not based on scripture.
Have a blessed day in Jesus.
timbob
LikeLike
You have a blessed one yourself, I thought the subject well presented in this article. I located it while engaged in a discussion about Sola Scruptura at Deb’s blog (http://1godsgal.wordpress.com/).
LikeLike
Born4Battle,
Hey brother. Although we may disagree with the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, I still consider you my brother in Christ, and not my enemy. We are both on a path to know and love God more. Thanks for the invite to this post.
Just so I can understand your position better, do you believe that the Apostles placed people in charge of the Church? Do you believe in Bishops and positions of that nature?
Thanks and God Bless…
LikeLike
Born4Battle,
Also, I must be an idiot, but I cannot find your RSS feed for comments here, so forgive me if I cannot respond to your comments in a timely manner.
LikeLike
You can go to “Blog Info” in the upper right and subscribe to the blog if you like. I have not added an RSS Widget.
In Paul’s letters there is evidence that he set in place leader in the churches he established. There also is provision for elders and deacons. There is an excellent article here that lays out what was established in the New Testament church.
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=421
LikeLike
Bishops and positions?
LikeLike
Born4Battle,
Yeah…I am able to subscribe to the blog, but usually there is a way to subscribe to comments as well. This way when people respond to the comments they will get notified. I will try to check back when I can.
In Paul’s letters there is evidence that he set in place leader in the churches he established. There also is provision for elders and deacons.
I agree with you. In the New Testament church, there were leaders, namely Bishops, Priests (presbyters) and Deacons.
The Pope is a Bishop, as far as his role is concerned. He is the Bishop of Rome.
What is the role of the Bishops in the Early Church? What is the role of any of the leaders in the Early / New Testament Churches?
Jason,
I am confused by your question. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with Bishops and positions in the New Testament Church?
God Bless…
LikeLike
Carlus,
Your answer helped. I had no idea what you thought you were talking about.
Let me just go over a little, some of which you chose to not post at your site:
Acts 20 has episkopas and presbutyros used, at least contextually, interchangably.
Acts 20:17 Now from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called the elders (presbuteros) of the church to come to him.”
in speaking to these men he said,
Acts 20:28 “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers (episkopas, bishop), to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
In order to make a Roman distinction between the two, you need to be able to demonstrate that Paul misspoke.
As well, presbutyros is not translated as priest, as far as I know, in any english translations, even your own. That doesn’t fit OT usage. heirus and archiereus are translated and applied as priest.
There is no “priest” in New Testament ecclesiology, apart from, of course, Christ, and Peter’s quoting of Isaiah 61, which Jesus quoted in the synagogue.
LikeLike
Elders and deacons are specified in the NT with the elder/overseer (the meaning of ‘bishop)being translated directly as ‘bishop’ in the KJV (1 Tim:1-2). The greek word is ‘episkopos’.
Specific roles for elders are not spelled out in detail in the NT, but qualifications are.
Most of what a ‘bishop’ is in the Catholic church concerning roles/duties/authority I believe to have been developed via the dudes in Rome. Jason can fix me if I am wrong. Maybe he wanted you to be more specific?
Sometimes your questions seem to be ‘leading’ to a specific point you want to make.
LikeLike
Of course we disagree on some of the finer points, but the important thing is that you and I recognize that there were actually leaders of the Early Church in the New Testament. The question that I was asking is because I have met people from churches who interview and elect their pastors…almost like a bottom up approach as oppose to a top down.
So you do understand that there are such things as Bishops in the New Testament and the Early Church. These bishops were ordained by the Apostles themselves. Did that end or does that still continue today?
As far as leading, you already know that I am Catholic. So I of course believe that it continues today. Regarding the Supremacy of the role of the Bishop of Rome, this is one of the reasons why the First Schism occurred between the Roman / Latin Catholic Church and the Eastern Rite. But even they still believe in episcopal nature of the Christian church. Which seems to be supported in Scripture. So when do you guys believe that it ended? When was the episcopal nature of the Church no longer necessary?
Jason,
Sorry for the confusion.
There is no “priest” in New Testament ecclesiology, apart from, of course, Christ, and Peter’s quoting of Isaiah 61, which Jesus quoted in the synagogue.
There would seem to be three roles, especially evident in St. Paul’s letter to Timothy.
Bishop – 1 Tim 3:1-7
Deacon – 1 Tim 3:8-13
Elders – 1 Tim 5:7-20
Dan,
Most of what a ‘bishop’ is in the Catholic church concerning roles/duties/authority I believe to have been developed via the dudes in Rome.
What part?
LikeLike
The question that I was asking is because I have met people from churches who interview and elect their pastors…almost like a bottom up approach as oppose to a top down.
And yet others, unmentioned, have existing elder boards choose the elders who are added, whether in matters of teaching and preaching or not.
There would seem to be three roles, especially evident in St. Paul’s letter to Timothy
I guess maybe you missed what I wrote. Paul asked for the presbuteroi at Ephesus and then, while speaking to them, called them episkopoi. Now all the presbuteroi don’t have to have been episkopoi but certainly some of them were, as is clear in Acts 20.
Based on Acts 20, your assertion of three roles is an unfounded imposition on 1 Timothy.
So…
But even they still believe in episcopal nature of the Christian church. Which seems to be supported in Scripture
begs the question, what do you mean by “episcopal”?
LikeLike