As an Anglo-Catholic, I am quite accustomed to being tagged with the moniker “Catholic without a pope”. While it is certainly true in one sense, there is an underlying assumption that the papacy is of the essence of catholicity and the rejection of the papal office is somehow a deficiency of Anglicanism in this regard. At the heart of this issue is what does it mean to be catholic and can there be a “reformed catholicism”? We can argue about Mary, purgatory, ad infinitum but no question is more at the heart of the issue than that of the papacy. If what Rome claims for its see is true, then all the other questions fall into place simply because Rome says so. If what Rome says is not true, then while the papacy may be an instrument of unity, this unity could maintain error as well as truth. What then does the evidence say?
The first question we must ask is what is the source of the evidence. Do we only consider Holy Scripture or must we also look at the traditition of the early Church as well. While Anglicans generally hold to a form of sola scriptura, it is not the same in practice as that of most Evangelical Protestants. The patristic tradition is a revered source within Anglicanism but is not recognized as an infalible source - a distinction that is reserved for Holy Scripture.

Catholics, of course, will insist their tradition is to be held as infalible as well. Besides the aforementioned distinction between an honored and an infalible source, Anglicans would also point out that some of what the Catholic Church considers part of their tradition is not of apostolic or even patristic vintage but medieval and later additions - including their doctrine of the papacy.

First, in order to critique the Catholic claims for the papacy, I must at least define to some degree exactly what those claims are. It does no good to debunk a theory of the papacy that the Catholic Church does not endorse. The claims for the papacy can be summarized in the following five points:

1. Jesus intended the Church to have a defined visible structure that includes the threefold ministry of apostles/bishops, presbyters/priests, and deacons.

2. Among the original men receiving the apostolic ministry, St. Peter was singled out as having a special function (jurisdictional leadership) and charism (infalibility in matters of faith and morals).

3. St. Peter carried out this special ministry first in Jerusalem, then Antioch, and finally Rome (where he was executed under the persecution of Nero)

4. This special ministry was intended to be carried on throughout the age of the Church.

5. This special ministry has been carried on exclusively within the office of the Bishop of Rome.

Now certainly Catholics may object that the five points above are not all there is to the role of the papacy and I would not contest that point. However, they cannot deny the five points above are much of what there is about the role of the papacy. Furthermore, the points above are the most contested between Catholics and other Christians and to resolve them is to resolve much of the dispute.

Having summarized the Roman claims, it would also do no good to interpret the above claims in the most unflattering manner possible. The doctrine of papal infalibility does not imply everything the pope says is right. It does not cover statements made before assuming the office of Bishop of Rome. It does not cover statements not pertaining to matters of faith and morals. It does not cover “off the cuff” remarks or even extemporaneous speaking on a particular topic on the faith. It only covers statements that are knowingly promulgated by the pope as the exercise of his teaching authority as head of the Church. Furthermore, it is seen not as a power given to the pope whereby he knows all theological matters but as a matter of the Holy Spirit leading the Church to truth by protecting the Bishop of Rome from promulgating error.

Where then would Anglicans disagree? Unlike many Protestants, Anglicans have never agreed upon the visible/invisible Church distinction whereby the invisible Church is the “real” Church. The Church is declared in Scripture to be the “Body of Christ” and throughout the Holy Scriptures, God’s unfolding plan maintains a corporeal dimension. The New Testament does not end this as the mystery of the Incarnation involves a real pregnancy, Calvary involved real nails and wood, and the Resurrection was not of a phantom but of a real body. So also the Church baptizes with water and teaches that Christ becomes present to us in bread and wine. The Lord did not discard His body after the Ascension and He will return fully God and fully man.

We also do not question the threefold ministry of bishops, presbyters, and deacons. There may be questions as to the exact manner as to how this ministry developed and the necessary roles reserved for each, but the Reformation in England saw no reason to discard the historical polity of the Church. Anglicans would also have no issue with the assertion that St. Peter had a special role in the early Church. Yet while we would agree there is ample evidence of his leadership in the early days of the Church, we would contend the claim for universal jurisdiction reserved to him alone finds little support. As far as the further claim that this was passed on through the episcopate at Rome, we can only see this as a later addition to the faith in the West and never confessed by the universal Church.

As for the question of infalibility, we have no issue that St. Peter delivered a message infalibly on at least two occasions - the writing of I Peter and II Peter. The reason for this is the belief that this was done under the direction of the Holy Spirit. Also, those times recorded in Holy Scripture where he was speaking under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit - such as his witness at Pentecost - can also be said to be infalible. Yet this was not restricted to St. Peter. The other apostles and New Testament writers would also have had the same charism. And again, the idea that this special role was transferred down in an unbroken succession fromt that time seems fanciful at best.

The next few parts of this essay will examine the five assertions listed above against the actual evidence left to us in the Holy Scriptures - focusing on the passages most often used by Catholic apologists in support of the papal claims. I will then turn to the witness of the early Church with those writings of the Fathers used by Catholic apologists receiving special attention. By the end of the essay, I hope to have give ample reason why the office of the papacy as defined in Catholic dogma must stand as an assertion without convincing support. One may choose to accept the belief as a matter of faith, but it is not provable as a matter of history.

In the next part of this essay, I will examine Christ’s declaration of St. Peter as the Rock and His conferring the keys to the kingdom. This is certainly the most important passage in defense of the papal claims and its examination will hopefully give food for thought for both sides.