Was Jesus A Catholic?

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. — Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (1302)

“And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

What if I told you there is a book that describes one man as the “Vicar of Christ” and “pastor of the universal Church on earth,” possessing “supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power” in the church?

What if I told you that, under certain conditions, this same man is said to possess infallibility when defining matters of faith and morals?

An older document goes further: princes are to kiss his feet, and his name alone is to be spoken in the churches.

What if I told you that the book I’m referring to is NOT the Bible, and the man to whom it refers is NOT Jesus Christ?

In fact, I’m referring to three books: the Dictates of the Pope, Gregory VII (props. 9–10), the Prompta Bibliotheca, and the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church (Pt. 1, Sec. 2, Ch. 3, Art. 9, paras. 889-892).

All three sources refer to the same man—the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church.

Current Catholic law says:

“The bishop of the Roman Church...is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church.”
— Code of Canon Law, can. 331.

Rome insists the Pope is not God. Alrighty. Then why does Rome keep assigning him what belongs to God?

The church already has a Head, High Priest, Shepherd, Lord, and King.

Didn't Jesus say, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth” (Matt. 28:18)?

All authority. Not most. All. So what exactly was left for Rome to hand out? Where does a Pontiff fit into that verse? I guess they thought Jesus needed help.

God bestowed upon Jesus the authority to direct and judge what Christians believe, teach, and practice (Col. 3:17), calling Him “the Apostle and High Priest of our confession” (Heb. 3:1). Folks can hand out titles to men all they like, but that ain’t the same as proving God gave them such authority (Heb. 3:2).

Jesus is the only One who has the right to demand universal submission:

“...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).

Yet Catholic literature sounds like this:

“It seems that Pope John Paul II now presides over the universal Church from his place upon Christ’s cross.” — Bishop Patrick Dunn, quoted in ZENIT, Sept. 20, 2004.

His place upon whose cross? Yikes. How do people say such things with a straight face?

Have they not read, “Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Cor. 1:13)?

So the pattern continues. Scripture gives exclusive roles and functions to Christ. Men who ought to know better have the audacity to reassign them.

Does it not seem strange to you that the apostles somehow forgot to mention Christ’s future Roman deputy in the entire New Testament? How they overlooked such an important office is beyond me!

Rome can call the Pope the “visible head,” “Vicar of Christ,” or “Supreme Pontiff.” Scripture only names one Head that I can read about. How many heads does one body need?

“…in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world” (Heb. 1:2).

"He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything" (Col. 1:18).

“And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all” (Eph. 1:22–23).

How many different times does God need to say, "Jesus is the Head of the church" before we accept it?

What passage divides that headship into a heavenly Head and an earthly office?

Such question seem to have no effect on target.

Pope John Paul II himself wrote:

“Have no fear when people call me the ‘Vicar of Christ,’ when they say to me ‘Holy Father,’ or ‘Your Holiness,’ or use titles similar to these, which seem even inimical to the Gospel.” 
 — John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope.

Holy smoke. One would think “inimical to the Gospel” might be a clue. JPII apparently feels no shame in usurping that role too.

Jesus said: “Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ.” (Matt. 23:9–10).

Call me crazy, but it's hard to misconstrue those words. Yet John Paul’s answer was that such expressions (like calling a priest "father") “have evolved out of a long tradition, becoming part of common usage.”

Ah. Tradition. Well then, in that case, problem solved! I guess what Jesus said doesn't matter then.

Christ did not seize His own high-priestly honor for Himself. Hebrews says He was appointed by God (Heb. 5:4–6). Let the weight of that sit for a moment. Does it give you a new appreciation (disgust) for men making the same claim?

So where is the divine appointment for the Roman Pontiff?

Yes, I know, Rome answers: apostolic succession. Fine. Scripture?

In the absence of Bible authority, Catholics appeal to men such as Irenaeus, who wrote:

“In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical Tradition from the Apostles and the preaching of the truth have come down to us” — Against Heresies III.3.3.

Irenaeus says succession came from the apostles. Excellent. Which apostle said so?

Benedict XVI likewise argued that apostolic succession, verified through communion with the Church of Rome, is the criterion by which churches remain in the apostolic faith. Whew. What a mouthful.

Okay. For the sake of argument, suppose we grant a historical succession of bishops.

What does that prove? Showing that one bishop followed another does not prove that the later bishop inherited every authority of an apostle.

And it certainly does not prove that one bishop in one city inherited authority over every Christian and every church on earth.

Where does succession become supremacy?


Where does a succession of bishops become one universal bishop?


Where does historical continuity become infallibility?


Where does Peter say his unique office will pass to the bishop of Rome?


Where does Paul tell the church that a future bishop will govern every other church?

Where does any apostle say one man will possess “supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power” over church of Christ?

We're not talkin' about minor details here. Their whole claim hinges on these questions.

Catholic Canon Law simply asserts the conclusion:

“The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter...and to be transmitted to his successors...possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church.” — Code of Canon Law, can. 331.

Read that carefully.

The very thing Rome needs to prove is built into the statement.

Peter’s role continues. It passes to successors. Those successors are the bishops of Rome. And that office carries universal authority.

Where did the apostles say that?

Acts 1 records Matthias taking Judas’s place. It does not establish a perpetual monarchy head-quartered in Rome.

Paul told Timothy to entrust truth to faithful men who could teach others also (2 Tim. 2:2). He did not tell Timothy that one bishop would eventually become supreme pastor over all.

Titus appointed elders in every city (Ti. 1:5). Peter told elders to shepherd the flock “among you” (1 Pet. 5:2). None of those passages produce a universal overseer.

How do can we start with elders in every city and somehow arrive at one bishop over the world? Is it fair to say someone may have been playing fast and loose with Scripture? Or even flat out ignoring it?

The office appears only after Rome supplies what the text does not.

The same problem appears with infallibility.

Catholic law says:

“By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when...he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held” — Code of Canon Law, can. 749 §1.

Where is that office in the New Testament? 
 Where does Peter say his successors will speak infallibly?
 Where does an apostle tell the church to wait for a future Roman bishop to define doctrine without error?

The claim is enormous.
 The biblical evidence should be equally enormous.
 It isn’t.

The church is “the pillar and support of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). A pillar supports the Truth. It does not manufacture it.

The faith was “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). “Once for all” does not mean “until Rome issues an update.”

Paul said Christians are: “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone” (Eph. 2:20).

The foundation has been laid. Christ is the cornerstone. Foundations have a peculiar habit of being laid once.

The church is built upon the apostles and prophets—not the apostles, their successors, their successors’ successors, and eventually an infallible monarch in Rome.

There is simply no New Testament authority for a Roman Pontiff possessing universal jurisdiction over Christ’s church.

Christ is Head (Eph. 1:22–23).
 Christ is High Priest (Heb. 3:1).
 Christ is Chief Shepherd (1 Pet. 5:4). 
Christ is the sole Mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5).
 Christ possesses the saving Name (Acts 4:12).

Rome says submission to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation.

Scripture says salvation is found in Christ alone. Nothing has changed.

Christ did not ascend to Heaven and leave His throne vacant for a papacy to fill.

And no “apostolic successor” inherited it.

So before asking whether you were raised Catholic, whether your parents were Catholic, whether Rome has taught these things for centuries, or whether millions of people believe them, there is a much more important question:

Was Jesus a Catholic?