What Does the Bible Say About the Pope and the Papacy?
Short answer
The Bible never uses the word "pope" and never explicitly names an office of a single supreme, infallible leader over the whole church. Catholic teaching builds the papacy from Matthew 16:18-19, where Jesus gives Peter "the keys of the kingdom," combined with the historical claim that Peter became bishop of Rome and passed his authority down through unbroken apostolic succession. Protestant and Orthodox readers generally agree Peter held a leading, visible role among the apostles but do not read Matthew 16 as establishing an office of papal primacy that later bishops of Rome inherited.
Few questions divide Christian traditions as sharply as the authority of the pope. The disagreement goes deeper than church politics; it comes down to how Matthew 16:18-19 should be understood.
Scripture never uses the word "pope" or explicitly lays out a papal office, which is exactly why both sides rely on inference rather than a single, unambiguous verse. What follows is the Catholic case for the papacy from Scripture, the main Protestant and Orthodox responses, and what each side believes God has provided instead to keep the church anchored to truth.
The verse the papacy rests on: Matthew 16:18-19
Jesus tells Peter, "you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church... I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 16:18-19). Catholic teaching reads this as Christ personally founding an office.
On this reading, Peter becomes the first in a line of leaders holding binding spiritual authority over the whole church, later called papal primacy. Add the tradition that Peter became the first bishop of Rome, and you get the foundation for apostolic succession: the belief that Peter's authority passed to each subsequent bishop of Rome in an unbroken chain reaching the current pope.
How Protestants and the Orthodox read the same verse
Most Protestant and Orthodox scholars agree Peter held real, visible leadership among the apostles. It shows in his prominent role at Pentecost (Acts 2) and the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:1-23).
Where they part with Catholic teaching is the leap from "Peter had a leading role" to "an office of supreme authority passed permanently to future bishops of Rome." Galatians 2:11-14 shows Paul publicly correcting Peter, which sits uneasily with a reading of Peter as infallible even in that period. And 1 Peter 5:1-5 has Peter calling himself a "fellow elder" among other elders, not claiming authority over them.
Where does apostolic succession come from historically?
Apostolic succession is the belief that authority passed from the apostles to the bishops they ordained, and from those bishops to the next generation, continuing in an unbroken line to today. The doctrine developed gradually. Its later prominence for the bishop of Rome specifically grew after Emperor Constantine's conversion and patronage in the fourth century elevated Rome's political and ecclesial standing.
Protestant scholars generally read this as a real historical development of church governance, not a direct New Testament command. No verse instructs the apostles to establish an unbroken chain of successors with binding teaching authority.
What do Protestants and the Orthodox say guides the church instead?
Protestant and Orthodox traditions both point to a different combination for how God keeps the church anchored to truth. Three things, not one office: Scripture itself, described as "God-breathed" and sufficient for teaching, correction, and training (2 Timothy 3:16-17); the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit guiding believers into truth (John 16:12-14); and the shared teaching authority of the wider body of elders and the historic church (Ephesians 4:11-16). Orthodox churches add the authority of ecumenical councils and the consensus of the ancient patriarchates, a structure closer to shared leadership than a single supreme office. This is largely why the Great Schism of 1054 happened.
The Eastern and Western churches split over the scope of Rome's authority, among other disputes, with the East affirming Rome's historic honor while rejecting its claim to supreme jurisdiction over the other patriarchates. Both traditions see this shared, conciliar structure as sufficient. Neither sees it as a gap still needing a pope to fill it.
How far does papal infallibility reach?
Even inside Catholic teaching, papal infallibility is a narrower claim than it is popularly assumed to be. The First Vatican Council formally defined it in 1870. The definition applies only when the pope speaks "ex cathedra", literally "from the chair," formally invoking his full apostolic authority to define a matter of faith or morals for the whole church.
That threshold has been met only a small handful of times. It does not cover a pope's private opinions, his homilies, interviews, or even most of his ordinary teaching documents. Catholic theology itself draws that line.
A pope can be, and Catholic history records several who were, personally sinful, mistaken on non-doctrinal matters, or later criticized by the church for prudential decisions, without any of that touching the specific, narrow claim Vatican I actually made. Even the timing is worth noting: the doctrine circulated as a theological opinion for centuries before the council made it formal dogma in 1870. That history is part of why Catholic scholars describe it as a precise, bounded claim, not the sweeping personal authority popular imagination often assigns to the office.
This distinction matters for a Protestant or Orthodox reader too. The strongest version of the disagreement is not "does the pope get everything right" but the narrower, older question of whether Christ established a permanent office of that kind at all.
Where this leaves you if you are wrestling with it
This is a genuine, centuries-old disagreement. Both sides take Scripture seriously here, not just one. If you were raised in one tradition and are now studying another's reasoning, that kind of careful comparison is itself a form of seeking God's truth rather than a threat to it (Proverbs 2:1-5). Whichever tradition you land in, the questions worth praying through are practical ones.
Who do you trust to teach you Scripture faithfully? How do you hold your own convictions with humility toward Christians who read the same texts and reach a different conclusion? A priest or pastor from the tradition you are studying can walk through the reasoning with you directly, and can point you to the specific texts their own tradition leans on most heavily so you are working from primary sources rather than a summary of a summary.
Key Bible verses
- "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church... I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." — Matthew 16:18-19
- Paul recounts publicly opposing Peter "because he stood condemned" over his conduct toward Gentile believers. — Galatians 2:11-14
- Peter identifies himself as "a fellow elder" and instructs elders to shepherd the flock together, not lord it over others. — 1 Peter 5:1-5
- "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." — 2 Timothy 3:16-17
Frequently asked questions
Was Peter the first pope?
Catholic teaching holds that Peter became the first bishop of Rome and the first pope. Protestant and Orthodox scholars generally accept Peter had a leading role among the apostles but do not read the New Testament as establishing an office of papal primacy that passed to later bishops of Rome.
Does the Bible use the word "pope"?
No. The word "pope" and a formally defined papal office do not appear in Scripture. The doctrine is built by combining Matthew 16:18-19 with the historical tradition that Peter became bishop of Rome.
Is apostolic succession biblical?
Catholic and Orthodox traditions both affirm some form of apostolic succession, though they define its authority differently. Most Protestant scholars read it as a real historical development in church governance rather than a directly commanded New Testament doctrine.
Do Orthodox Christians accept the pope's authority?
No. Eastern Orthodox churches honor the bishop of Rome as first among equals in ancient rank but do not accept papal primacy over the whole church, favoring instead the shared authority of ecumenical councils and the ancient patriarchates.
Does the pope's infallibility mean he cannot be wrong about anything?
No, even within Catholic teaching. Vatican I in 1870 limited infallibility to formal ex cathedra declarations on faith or morals, a threshold met only rarely. Catholic history records popes who were personally sinful or mistaken on other matters without that touching this narrow, specific claim.