Is it a grave matter to consider the Pope to have no authority over oneself, or is this just a typical stance if we try to learn as disciples primarily of Jesus, the apostles, and their teachings found in scripture?
Not everyone is subject to the pope, and in the current global context, this is especially apparent. While there may have been periods in history—particularly within the bounds of Christendom—when papal authority extended more broadly due to the intertwining of empire and Church, that era has passed. The idea of a singular, global Christian authority under the pope no longer reflects the reality of a fractured Christian landscape composed of various communions, each with their own governance and theological frameworks.
The argument for universal papal authority often hinges on the special status of Peter. Yet, even this is contested. While Peter certainly held a prominent role among the apostles, Scripture also presents a complex relationship between Peter and the other apostles—most notably Paul. In Galatians, Paul recounts how he publicly opposed Peter “to his face” because Peter was “clearly in the wrong” (Galatians 2:11). Paul’s assertion of divine commissioning independent of human authority, and his boldness in correcting Peter, undermines the notion of a singular, unchallengeable human head over all disciples. It also affirms that even those held in high regard can fall out of step with the gospel.
The Nicene era adds another layer to the debate. The decisions made at and after the Council of Nicaea were aimed at establishing orthodoxy, particularly regarding the nature of the Son in relation to the Father. Yet, it is well documented that earlier expressions of Christian faith—such as those of subordinationist theologians—were later labeled heretical. One might argue that this process constituted a kind of schism, as the church aligned itself with newly codified definitions and excommunicated those who maintained views once considered acceptable. 1 Corinthians 15, for example, portrays the Son ultimately subjecting Himself to the Father “so that God may be all in all,” a verse that subordinationist traditions cite in support of their theology. If such views were in keeping with early apostolic teaching, then the Church’s later departure from them could be interpreted as a break with the original deposit of faith.
From this angle, the idea of Peter’s authority passing down unbroken to the bishops of Rome becomes tenuous. If the successors failed to remain within the apostolic teaching—as John warns in 2 John 9, “Anyone who goes ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God”—then their claim to succession could be undermined. The authority of any church leader, including the pope, is only valid insofar as they remain faithful to the teachings of Christ and His apostles. A conceptual authority derived from Peter does not override the responsibility to uphold truth, nor does it grant automatic legitimacy to institutional decisions that depart from apostolic doctrine.
Thus, the question of papal authority is not simply a matter of institutional continuity, but of fidelity to the gospel. And where that fidelity is in doubt, so too is the legitimacy of the authority claimed.
