Can we first agree on two basic principles?
First, if the Catholic Church is right that Jesus Christ established the papacy, then every Christian should seek full communion with the Catholic Church. We would not be free to reject an authority that Christ Himself established.
Second, if the papacy is an invention built upon a false interpretation of Scripture and history, then no one should submit to it as a divinely established office. Catholicism makes the papacy an essential part of the Church’s visible constitution. If that central claim is false, then Catholicism’s claim to be the Church founded by Christ would be gravely undermined.
This is not about defending a denomination, preserving a family tradition, or winning an argument. It is about truth.
If Catholic unity is built upon a lie, we should not participate in that lie. But if Christ truly established the Petrine office, rejecting it would mean rejecting part of the structure Christ gave His Church.
Christ Willed His Church to Be One
At the Last Supper, Jesus prayed:
“That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.”
—John 17:21, Douay-Rheims
The unity Christ prayed for cannot be merely an invisible idea existing in the hearts of believers. It is a unity that the world is supposed to be able to recognize, so that “the world may believe.”
John 17 does not, by itself, prove the papacy. It does, however, establish that Christ desired a real, visible and enduring unity among His followers.
The question is therefore: Did Christ provide a visible means for maintaining that unity?
To answer that, we should look at what Jesus actually did with Peter and the Apostles during His earthly ministry.
Christ Established Real Authority Among the Apostles
During the Last Supper, the Apostles disputed about which of them should be considered the greatest:
“And there was also a strife amongst them, which of them should seem to be the greater.”
—Luke 22:24
Jesus did not respond by saying that there would be no authority, leadership or hierarchy among them. Instead, He explained how Christian authority must differ from worldly domination:
“He that is the greater among you, let him become as the younger: and he that is the leader, as he that serveth.”
—Luke 22:26
Christ did not abolish leadership. He transformed leadership into service.
He then said to the Apostles:
“I dispose to you, as my Father hath disposed to me, a kingdom; that you may eat and drink at my table, in my kingdom: and may sit upon thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”
—Luke 22:29–30
Authority descends from the Father to the Son and, through the Son, to the Apostles. The Church is therefore not merely a voluntary association of independent believers. It possesses an authority established and transmitted by Christ.
Then Jesus turns specifically to Peter.
Satan Attacks All the Apostles, but Christ Prays Specifically for Peter
Jesus says:
“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 thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.”
—Luke 22:31–32
There is an important distinction in the original language.
When Jesus says that Satan has demanded to sift “you,” the word is plural. Satan intends to attack all the Apostles.
But when Jesus says, “I have prayed for thee,” the word is singular. Christ prays specifically for Peter.
All of the Apostles are attacked, but Peter receives a particular prayer and a particular responsibility:
“Confirm thy brethren.”
Peter is not told merely to recover from his own failure. Once he has turned back, he must strengthen the others.
This does not mean that Peter is personally incapable of sin. In fact, Jesus immediately predicts Peter’s threefold denial:
“Peter, I say to thee, the cock shall not crow this day, till thou thrice deniest that thou knowest me.”
—Luke 22:34
Peter is weak. He will deny Christ three times. Yet Christ gives this weak man the responsibility of strengthening his brethren.
That is important for understanding the papacy. The Petrine office does not depend upon the personal perfection of the man holding it. Peter’s authority came from Christ’s choice, Christ’s commission and Christ’s prayer—not from Peter’s natural strength.
The Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility has never meant that a pope cannot sin, make poor decisions or behave cowardly. It means that, under specific conditions, Christ protects the Church from being definitively bound to error in matters of faith and morals.
Peter could fail morally without the promises of Christ failing.
See the First Vatican Council, Pastor Aeternus, chapter 4, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 891.
Peter’s Threefold Denial Is Answered by a Threefold Commission
After the Resurrection, Jesus questions Peter three times:
“Simon, son of John, lovest thou me?”
—John 21:15–17
Peter had denied Christ three times. Christ now gives Peter the opportunity to profess his love three times.
After each profession, Jesus gives Peter a pastoral command:
“Feed my lambs.”
“Feed my lambs.”
“Feed my sheep.”
Christ is the supreme Shepherd. The flock belongs to Him. Yet Christ entrusts the care of His flock in a particular way to Peter.
Jesus does not merely tell Peter to care for one local community or for one portion of the flock. He entrusts His lambs and sheep to Peter’s pastoral care.
Peter’s sin is forgiven, but his commission remains. Once again, the authority of the office rests upon Christ, not upon the personal sinlessness of Peter.
Peter Receives the Keys of the Kingdom
Earlier in Christ’s ministry, Jesus said:
“Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
—Matthew 16:18
Jesus then tells Peter:
“I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”
—Matthew 16:19
Christ speaks directly and singularly to Peter.
The keys are especially significant because they recall the office of the royal steward in the kingdom of David:
“And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open.”
—Isaiah 22:22
The Davidic king could appoint a chief steward who governed the royal household under the king’s authority. The steward was not the king, but he acted with the king’s delegated authority.
Jesus is the Son of David and the eternal King. Peter is not made a replacement for Christ. He is given the keys and made a steward under Christ.
The other Apostles also receive the power of binding and loosing in Matthew 18:18. Catholic teaching does not deny their real authority. But Peter alone is individually called the rock and personally given the keys.
This is the Catholic structure: Peter possesses a unique role within the Apostolic college, not apart from it or in opposition to it.
See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 552–553 and 880–882.
The Apostolic Offices Were Intended to Continue
The authority Christ gave the Apostles did not simply disappear when an Apostle died.
After Judas abandoned his place, Peter said:
“His bishopric let another take.”
—Acts 1:20
The Apostles then selected Matthias to take Judas’s place:
“And he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”
—Acts 1:26
The man was gone, but the office remained and was filled by a successor.
Saint Paul later instructed Timothy:
“The things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also.”
—2 Timothy 2:2
Here we see multiple generations of transmission: Paul, Timothy, faithful men and those whom those men would teach.
Saint Clement of Rome also explains that the Apostles appointed bishops and deacons and made provisions for approved men to succeed them after their deaths.
See First Clement 42 and 44.
Written near the end of the first century, Clement’s letter also shows the Church of Rome intervening in a serious dispute within the Church at Corinth. Whatever later questions remain concerning the full scope of papal authority, the idea that Roman concern for other churches was invented many centuries later does not fit the earliest Christian evidence.
A Sinful Peter Does Not Disprove the Office
The presence of sinful Catholics, sinful bishops or even sinful popes does not disprove the Church’s divine constitution.
Jesus Himself warned that His visible kingdom would contain both good and bad members until the final judgment:
“The kingdom of heaven is like to a net cast into the sea, and gathering together of all kind of fishes.”
—Matthew 13:47
The Church is holy because Christ is holy, because her sacraments come from Him and because her teaching leads people toward holiness. Yet she contains sinners who constantly require repentance and purification.
See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 823 and 827.
Peter’s weakness is therefore not an embarrassment that destroys the Catholic argument. It is part of the argument.
Christ knew that Peter would fall. Christ prayed for him, restored him and commanded him to strengthen his brethren and feed His flock.
The office was never based upon the claim that Peter—or every one of his successors—would always be a morally impressive man.
The Basic Papal Argument
The case can be summarized as follows:
Christ intended His Church to possess visible unity.
Christ established a real governing and teaching authority among the Apostles.
Within the Apostolic body, Christ gave Peter a unique role: Peter is called the rock, receives the keys, receives Christ’s special prayer, is commanded to strengthen his brethren and is commissioned to feed Christ’s flock.
The Apostles understood their offices as capable of being transmitted to successors.
The earliest Christians, including Clement of Rome, testify to this succession and to Rome’s concern for the order of churches beyond its own local boundaries.
Therefore, the papacy is not something Catholics simply invented during the Middle Ages. Its essential structure is already present in the words and actions of Christ and in the life of the earliest Church.
Further historical study is needed to demonstrate every aspect of later papal doctrine, including Peter’s ministry and martyrdom at Rome and the succession of the bishops of Rome. But the biblical foundation is already visible.
Christ is the true head of the Church. The pope is not a rival to Christ. He is a servant and steward whose authority exists only under Christ and for the unity of Christ’s flock.
So the final question is not, “Do I like every pope?” Peter himself could be cowardly and sinful.
The real question is:
Did Jesus Christ establish Peter and his successors as a visible principle of unity for His Church?
If the answer is no, then Catholic claims concerning the papacy should be rejected.
But if the answer is yes, then fidelity to Christ requires us to take the Catholic Church’s claim seriously, because we cannot truthfully say that we follow Christ while knowingly rejecting the structure Christ established for His Church.