On Wednesday, the 1st of July 2026, during a ritual-filled Mass, the Society of Saint Pius X, an international catholic organization, consecrated four new bishops. An estimated 15,500 adults and their children attended.
On Thursday, the Vatican responded by declaring that the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) had formally broken with the Roman Catholic Church, causing a schism. The bishops had been consecrated without the Pope's consent. The bishops of the SSPX and all 750 priests were excommunicated. They are no longer part of the Roman Catholic Church by the Pope’s decree, and their sacraments of confession and marriage are invalid. The Vatican warned the faithful to stop going to the society's Masses, declaring ‘those who adhere formally’ to the society are considered schismatic and excommunicated.[1]
According to Catholic theology, as I’ll show below, the members, priests and bishops are now not just outside ‘the church’; they are no longer safe in Christ.
Is this the case? For Protestant churches would cry out, ‘Not so! For safety and salvation is found in Jesus Christ, even outside the Roman Catholic Church.’ But perhaps they are wrong, and they, and all their members, also stand under judgement without Christ to protect them.
There are profound differences between the Roman Catholic Church and Protestant Churches. These differences are not just about church practices or about being more or less historical or traditional as a church. What is at stake are the answers to the most critical questions: ‘When is a Christian safe from judgement in Jesus Christ?’ And ‘How is that safety found?’
Taking my lead from Gavin Ortlund’s terrific book, What does it mean to be Protestant? I will engage with 3 questions to explore the differences between the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) and Protestant teaching. The questions are:
Does a person belong to the church and therefore belong to Jesus, or does someone belong to Jesus and therefore belong to his church?
Does the institution of the church have equal authority to Scripture, or is Scripture above the authority of the church?
How does Christ rule his church? Is it by the Pope or is it by other means?
I will be following what the RCC and Protestant churches formally teach from the creeds, catechisms and theologians, rather than what you might call ‘on the street belief’ of the average Protestant or Roman Catholic. I’ve included considerable quotes, links and footnotes as evidence of each position and to deepen our engagement with these critical questions. [2]
My goal isn’t to be argumentative but to show the very real differences. I hope this exploration will provide a great basis for many important conversations between Protestant and Catholic friends as they discuss what is taught, and what is true and where salvation is found.
To our first question:
1 Does a person belong to the church and therefore belong to Jesus, or does someone belong to Jesus and therefore belong to his church?
Roman Catholic Church’s understanding
It does seem a stark and shocking claim to make, that those outside of the Catholic Church are not in Christ and are not saved, even if this decree is made by the Pope towards an organization within the Catholic Church such as SSPX. And you may even ask if this is accurate understanding of Roman Catholic theology given that in Vatican II Christians belonging to other churches or communities were described as ‘separated brothers’.
As such we’ll start with Vatican II exploring this language and then go on to look at other teaching to see and understand what the Roman Catholic Church teaches.
It is in the Vatican II Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio (1964) that Christians belonging to non-Roman Catholic Churches are described ‘separated brothers’ (chapter 1, point 3). Correlating with this, there is very positive language towards Christians who don’t belong to the Catholic Church. For instance, referring to Christians outside the RCC, it ‘remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.’
This language is very positive and seems to indicate that Protestants (and others) may well be saved. However, two paragraphs later it says that those outside the Catholic Church ‘are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life.’[3]
Putting these two ideas together, assuming consistency in the decree, what is being taught is that those claiming Christ outside of the Catholic Church are Christians, they are brothers. But they are not savedbrothers (or sisters) for they are not quickened to newness of life.
When we look to other teaching in the Roman Catholic Church such as the Catholic Church Catechism, we can see clearly that salvation is only in the RCC.[4]
In Paragraph 846 the affirmation ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation’ is discussed. The last lines in this paragraph are sharp and clear, ’Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.’
Anyone who knows of Christ or his church but refuses to enter into and remain in the RCC through baptism will not be saved.
Put starkly, salvation depends only on a person’s relationship to the Roman Catholic Church.[5] Gavin Ortlund insightfully describes this as institutional exclusivism.[6] Salvation is found in the Roman Catholic institution alone.
And what defines this belonging? It isn’t mere assent in general to the Roman Catholic Church. Belonging is defined by submission to the Pope. In the year 1302, in the Papal Bull Unam Sanctum (a Bull is a public decree), Pope Boniface VIII restricted salvation to those in submission to the Pope in the last lines, ‘Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.’[7]
Since the Pope has the supreme authority of Christ and unites the church in himself being subject to the Pope is belonging to the church. And rejecting the Pope is to be outside the church. Consider the following 2 paragraphs from CCC which show the spiritual authority of the Pope according to current RCC theology.
‘For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered’ (CCC 882)
‘The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, "supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls" (CD 2). (CCC 937)
Because the Pope has the office of Vicar of Christ, rejection of him is rejection of Christ. Thus, the Society of Saint Pius X, the bishops, priests and their many lay members were excommunicated when they acted in defiance of the Pope. And if RCC theology is correct, those hundreds of thousands of people are now outside of Christ.
The stakes could not be higher. As such, we’ll explore the Pope’s authority in the third part of this article with some more detail. For now, we’ll turn to the Protestant Church’s teaching on what it means to belong to the church.
Protestant Church’s understanding
Protestant churches also teach an exclusivism but one that is centered on Jesus. Trust (faith) in Jesus Christ means you belong to Jesus. And, because you belong to Jesus, you belong to his church. And if you don’t belong to Jesus, if you deny him, his salvation and his Lordship, then you cannot belong to his church.[8]
At first glance this might seem like a small difference. Does it really matter whether someone comes to the church to come to Jesus or comes to Jesus and then belongs to the church? Yes, it really matters for some doorways only open one way.
The priority and order of coming to Jesus to belong to the church is clear in the words of the Apostle Peter.
‘As you come to him (Jesus), a living stone …you yourselves, as living stones, a spiritual house, are being built to be a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.’ (1 Peter 2:4-6; it is helpful to compare these words to John 14:6).
The Apostle Peter does not direct people to himself as leader or pontiff of the church but to Jesus Christ. The order is significant. Peter does not say, ‘Come to the spiritual house or priesthood to belong to Jesus’ but, ‘Come to Jesus to be built into the church.’
Article 18 of 39 Articles of the Anglican Church, helpfully summarizes the Protestant understanding. The title is ‘of obtaining eternal salvation only by the Name of Christ.’
‘They also are to be had accursed that presume to say, That every man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that Law, and the light of Nature. For holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved. (italics mine)
Those that are saved then gather as the church. As per Article 19, Of the Church, ‘The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinances…’ The article finishes by listing churches that have erred.
The Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith in Chapter 14, point 2 declares ‘ [T]he principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.’ (italics mine).
It is hard to prove a negative, but as in the Westminster Confession of Faith and other Protestant Church Confessions of faith there is an absence of belonging to the church as the means of salvation. The churches are to teach the gospel for this is what saves and enables someone to belong to Christ.
If this is true, then the institution of the Roman Catholic Church or any Protestant church or any other institution does not determine who belongs to Jesus.
However, given the stakes of heaven or hell, salvation or damnation, it is worth looking at more of Peter’s teaching to see if the theology of the Protestant church’s is accurate.
Below are some highlights of the first chapter of 1 Peter.
It is through Jesus that a Christian has a living hope in the resurrection (1:3-4).
It is Jesus who is loved, believed in and rejoiced in (1:8-9).
It is the gospel of Jesus that the Old Testament prophets testified to by the Holy Spirit (1:11-12).
The Christians are to be sober-minded and set their hope on the grace that will be theirs when Jesus is revealed in his second coming (1:13).
Christians are redeemed ‘by the precious blood of Christ’ (1:19).
In summary, Peter teaches his readers that they must come to Jesus to receive mercy and belong to the people of God (1:17-21 & 2:9). Neither coming to Peter nor the church is sufficient for salvation.
The priority and order of coming to Jesus to be saved and to belong to his church is consistent across the New Testament. It can be seen explicitly where Jesus invites his listeners to come to him (Matthew 11). And implicitly, in the passages where Jesus alone is the gate, the shepherd, the vine, the one who offers forgiveness, and the one in whom forgiveness is found ( Luke 14:26, John 6:35, 10:1-12, 14:6, Mark 2:6, Mark 8:34-38).
Crucially, Jesus never teaches, ‘Go to the church’ or ‘Come to me, through the Church.’ You cannot find these words in the New Testament.
But here we need to deal with a consideration. As the RCC points out, Jesus charges the Apostle Peter in John 21 to ‘feed my sheep’. These words are used to assert the Pope’s authority over the Church. The claim is that Apostle Peter, as the first Pope, is being appointed as the primary authority and source of truth for the church.
However, when we consider what the Apostle Peter taught many years later, in his letter, 1 Peter, we see a different picture. He never points to himself as the source of authority or salvation, but always to Jesus. We also saw from our brief outline of 1 Peter 1 his understanding of what it means for him to feed Jesus’ sheep: he teaches his readers about Jesus and the salvation found in him. Every chapter of 1 Peter has the same pattern.
For the question we’ve considered, the stakes could not be higher: salvation is at stake. And the answers given to how this salvation is obtained are in direct opposition to each other. In one, you must belong to and remain under the RCC to belong to Jesus and be saved. In the other, you must belong to Jesus to be saved and be part of his church. If the second is true, there is hope for those who are part of the Society of Saint Pius X and the many who are not part of the Roman Catholic Church.
We turn to our second question.
2 Does the institution of the church have equal authority to Scripture, or is Scripture above the authority of the church?
In simpler terms, the question is this: Does the Pope & the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church have equal authority to Scripture?
As above, we’ll start with the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.
Roman Catholic Church’s understanding
In the Catholic Catechism, the Scriptures are understood to be the Word of God with their own authority, and the church’s role is to serve the Scriptures. ‘Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant’ (CCC 86). The Magisterium of the Church is defined as the Pope and the bishops in communion with him (CCC 100). Throughout the Catechism, the Word of God is held in high regard.
However, 2 teachings undermine the authority of the written Word of God.
It is taught that the living tradition of the church is equal in authority to the written Word of God. CCC 113(2) states that Scriptures must be read within ‘the living Tradition of the whole Church.’ And ‘Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word.’
The effect of this teaching is significant. It diminishes the written Scriptures, locating the authority in the ‘Church’s heart’ which is tradition. And so, the institution of the church, expressed in its traditions, is on par with or even above Scripture in authority, for the Scriptures must be ‘read within the living Tradition’ (italics mine).
Even more significant, the Catechism teaches that the Church as an institution is the correct and final interpreter of Scripture. Paragraph 119:
‘For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God.’
Or consider also the wording of CCC 85 and 100, and especially the word solely in CCC 100. [9]
The effect of this is that the Pope and the Bishops are in authority over the Scriptures. If someone decides the authentic interpretation, are they not speaking for the Scriptures and in authority over them?
This is the consistent and historic position of the Roman Catholic Church since the Council of Trent. In the Fourth Session (1546 AD) the RCC decreed:
‘Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall, – in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, – wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, – whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures’ [10]
Despite many positive sections about the Word of God and their necessity and priority, the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church is that its Magisterium (the Pope and Bishops) interpret the Scriptures with ultimate authority resting in the Pope. The outcome of this in real terms is that the teachers of the Church are above the authority of the Scriptures, for they decide how it is to be understood. Is this what Jesus intended?
Protestant Church’s understanding
Protestant Churches, in contrast, teach that the Scriptures are the final authority in matters of the Christian faith. This has been the historic position of Protestant Churches. Consider Article 6 of the historic 39 Articles of the Anglican Church (1562)
Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the holy Scripture, we do understand those Canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.
This understanding corresponds with the teaching of many early church fathers.[11] One of the clearest statements in this regard is from Augustine. The Donatists relied on the teaching of Cyprian (a bishop) to justify their theology and practice. Augustine responds placing the Scriptures above the teaching of all bishops and even councils.
‘But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth, either by the discourse of someone who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them’[12]
Augustine argues: Scripture cannot be corrected. Bishops can be corrected. Local councils can be corrected. Even general councils may later clarify earlier councils. Thus, Scripture possesses a unique authority. [13]
Before going further, one clarification is important. Though Protestant Churches claim the Scriptures are the final authority in matters of the Christian faith, they are not saying these are the only authorities. Church tradition, councils, teaching of the church fathers and the reformers, reason and experience and various creeds and confessions are also part of various aspects of knowledge and authority within the Protestant church.
For instance, Presbyterian Church ministers make a solemn declaration that they will personally accept the doctrines that are taught in the Westminster Confession of Faith (with various clarifications).[14] While Anglican Priests, in Australia, must assent to the doctrines of the 39 Articles of the Anglican Church. However, in both cases, the doctrinal position of these churches is that the Word of God is above these other authorities.[15]
This principle of all teachings and practices being subject to the Scriptures enables Protestant Churches to be constantly brought back to the New Testament model of the church.
This idea drove the Reformation. Reformation churches (and later Protestant churches) were not aiming to start a new church in the 16th Century. The reformers intended to bring the church back to the teaching of the Bible to renew the church. It was a reformation and not a rebirth.
This brings us to our final question: how does Christ rule his church?
3 How does Christ rule his church, by the Pope or by other means?
Protestant Church’s understanding
Protestant Church’s teach that Christ rules his church through his word, for Scripture alone is a final and infallible authority. As brilliantly outlined by Ortlund [16], this is because of the
Nature of Scripture (what it is)
Scripture’s role among God’s people (what it does)
The nature of Scripture is that it is unique in being the Word of God. Consider 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Commenting on the word inspired, scholar John Stott says this:
‘Inspiration’ is doubtless a convenient term to use, but ‘spiration’ or even ‘expiration’ would convey the meaning of the Greek adjective more accurately. Spirit … originates in God’s mind and was communicated from God’s mouth by God’s breath or Spirit. It is therefore rightly termed ‘the Word of God,’ for God spoke it (cited in Ortlund, page 76).
Thus, a sermon may be the Word of God, but words of Scripture are the very words of God, breathed out by God. As the Apostle Peter says, ‘For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:21). Scripture is divine speech.[17]
Coming to the second issue, the role of Scripture. From 2 Timothy 3, quoted above, we can see that Scripture is to be in authority over God’s people. It is the Word of God that teaches, rebukes, corrects, and trains the ‘man of God’. Only when the teacher of God’s word is under God’s word can he faithfully preach and teach God’s truth (2 Timothy 4:1 cf 1 Timothy 4:16, James 3:1, Titus 1:9). And that truth that must be preached is God’s word,. Paul commands Timothy, ‘Preach the Word’.
Jesus understood Scripture as God’s divine speech with God’s authority. This can be seen in Jesus’ argument with the religious leaders in Matthew 19. Jesus refers to the written text of Genesis as the direct speech of God to the leaders (‘he also said’ verse 5). Though the words of Genesis 1 were written thousands of years before Jesus’ time on earth, they are God speaking to Jesus’ generation (and our generation). That is why the Sadducees were in error.
This discussion between Jesus and the Sadducees also reveals the role of the Scriptures. They were given as the word of God to rule over God’s people. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus rebukes, corrects and teaches the religious leaders, his disciples and the people using the written words of the Old Testament. In Matthew 23, Jesus launches a blistering attack on the religious leaders for they refuse to accept the authority of the Scriptures for themselves. And they overturn the Scriptures with their traditions (Matthew 23 cf Matthew 15:1-9).[18] For Jesus, the Scriptures are true and must be heeded (Matthew 5:17-19, John 10:34-35, Luke 24:25-27; 44-45).
The idea that God rules his people by his word is found across the entire Bible. At the start God speaks to Adam, telling him how he is to live in the garden and what he must not do (Genesis 2:16-17). When Adam & Eve fail, God speaks in judgement. When God guides the Patriarchs, he does it by making promises and covenants. And when Israel is created as a nation through the Exodus, God speaks his covenant commandments so his nation will know how to live under his loving rule. Yes, Moses was there but as a messenger. When Moses recounts the events 40 years later in Deuteronomy, he says, ‘Then the LORD spoke to you from the fire. You kept hearing the sound of the words, but didn’t see a form; there was only a voice’ (Deuteronomy 4:12).
Later, when God’s people go astray, he sends prophets to speak God’s words to them, with the famous ‘Thus, says the LORD.’ In these words, we see again that the LORD rules directly through his word. The prophets are messengers only, not rulers. And this is true even of the Kings of Israel. They were to write a copy of Deuteronomy for themselves, and they were to read from it all the days of their life so that they ‘may learn to fear the LORD his God, to observe all the words of this instruction, and to do these statutes.’ (Deuteronomy 17:18)
This rule of God by his Word and his Spirit is direct and current. In the book of Revelation, Jesus walks among his churches by the power of the Spirit. He sees all, knows all, and speaks words of love, rebuke and encouragement to each as needed. The powerful picture of Jesus walking among his churches (though he is ascended) shows his direct rule. And when he speaks, it is by the power of the Holy Spirit. ‘Let anyone who has ears to hear listen to what the Spirit says to the churches.’ This refrain is repeated for each of the churches (2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22). Not only does Jesus rule by his words. His judgement will come by his words, ‘the sword of his mouth’ (2:16 cf 1:16).
This is why when you search the Scriptures in the New Testament you cannot find a description of a position that represents the Pope, with ongoing authority over the church. Jesus alone is the head of the church (Colossians 1:18, Ephesians 4:15). Instead, you find descriptions of ‘elders’, overseers, and pastors and deacons (Titus 1:5-9, 1 Timothy 3:1-13, 1 Peter 5:1-5). These people lead, but they are not the rulers of the church. Their shepherding is done by bringing God’s word to people and by living under it themselves (2 Timothy 2:1-2, 3:16, 4:1-2).
The word of God isn’t just guidance for the church. It is life or death, salvation or judgement. That is why the Apostle Paul states that if even an angel delivers a different message than the gospel originally given by him, the angel is to be cursed! Rejecting the gospel of Jesus Christ, the word about Jesus Christ, is rejecting Jesus Christ, with eternal consequences. Jesus saves by his word, and he rules by his word.
Roman Catholic Church’s understanding
The Roman Catholic Church’s understanding is that the rule of the church lies within the church by its teaching. In particular, the ‘ex cathedra statement from popes, some ecumenical councils, teaching of the ordinary and universal church.’
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra.[19] This is significant, for it means the teaching of an individual is binding on the whole Roman Catholic Church. CCC 882 and 937 quoted above make this clear, for the Pope exercises his authority supremely and unhindered. The basis for this rule is the passage in which Peter is given the keys to the kingdom, which we’ll discuss below. But for now, it is worth noting that theology of the RCC has an individual ultimately deciding the meaning of Scripture. This is, ironically, the very charge the RCC brings against the Protestant churches: without the church, Scripture is subject to the whims of an individual’s understanding.
Regarding the Pope’s infallibility, this is a relatively recent doctrine. It first arose during the Council of Trent (16th Century) but only became the official teaching in at the First Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution, Pastor Aeternus (Session 4, 18 July 1870).[20] The definition appears at the end of Chapter 4 under the heading, ‘On the Infallible Teaching Authority of the Roman Pontiff.’
The key passage at the very end of Session 4 declares.
‘We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.’[21]
This is the current teaching of the RCC.
‘The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful—who confirms his brethren in the faith—he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. ... Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable...’ (Dogmatic Constitution On The Church Lumen Gentium 25, 1964)
The teaching of the Pope is both infallible and irreformable, and his teaching rules the church.
Some of the great problems with this theology is revealed by the current situation with SSPX.
‘The society claims to be a bulwark of the Catholic faith; it also dismisses the pope’s authority as the final interpreter of that Faith. “This is not a trivial issue, Chapp said.[22] Staying in union with the vicar of Christ is a central defining feature of what it means to be Catholic. [23]
The Pope as the final and ultimate authority of Christ on earth (according to RCC theology) opens many difficult questions. What if the Pope errs from the Scriptures? What if Popes disagree with each other (and they have)? What if the Pope teaches something that contradicts Jesus, is he wrong? Can he be corrected? And are all those who reject the Pope’s authority, like SSPX, outside of salvation and destined for hell?
To explore this further, we need to consider the Apostle Peter’s authority. It is a key plank in RCC theology.
What about Peter’s authority?
We’ve touched on Peter’s teaching above. But it is important to consider his own understanding of his authority. When we examine his teaching in Acts, 1 Peter and 2 Peter, we see that Peter never claims a title or position of rule over the church. Rather, when he describes his role, he calls himself a ‘fellow elder’ with the other elders and an under shepherd, under Jesus Christ (1 Peter 5:1,5). Yes, Peter is unique for he witnessed the suffering of Christ. This is what makes him an Apostle (Acts 1:21-22). But nowhere does he claim to rule the church. [24]
The Roman Catholic Church’s claim for Peter’s authority as the first Pope significantly depends on Peter being given the keys to the kingdom (Matthew 16:18). Many have written on this important passage, and the discussions can be found online. For this article, I will focus on two issues.
Just two chapters later in Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus says,
Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven. Again, truly I tell you, if two of you on earth agree about any matter that you pray for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, I am there among them. (Matthew 20:18-20).
The first sentence is almost a word-for-word account of what Jesus said to Peter. But here Jesus directs it not just to the Apostles (the first disciples), but Jesus declares this reality to his church, those gathered in his name (v17). Whatever authority Peter was given when he named Jesus the Christ is an authority that is given to the whole church only 2 chapters later. It seems to me it is very difficult to hold that Peter has ultimate authority over the church by his place in the church when the same authority is given to the church as a gathering of ordinary believers in Matthew 20.
Second, in the unfolding narrative of Matthew’s gospel we can see how the Apostles and first disciples were meant to exercise this authority. Jesus commanded them to teach his words and call people to obey him in the Great Commission.
‘Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.’ (Matthew 28:19-20).
Jesus gave this commission because he had all authority in heaven and earth given to him by the Father (Matthew 28:18). As such, it must rule understanding the ‘keys to the kingdom’ as either a different type of authority or one exercised in a different way, other than teaching Jesus’ teaching.
Returning to our main question, ‘How does Christ rule his church, by the Pope or by other means?’ Jesus’ commissioning points us again to the Protestant claim that Jesus rules his church by his word. Thus, a follower of Christ must be under Christ’s teaching to be his disciple. And if this is right, does the Pope have the right to declare someone a schismatic and outside the church and so outside of salvation?
Conclusion
Jesus said that he alone is the way to the Father (John 14:6) and he ruled out any other path or way to the Father. Eternal life is at stake: heaven or hell, salvation or condemnation. Only those who have Christ will be saved.
This means that the questions we’ve explored are of eternal significance. I hope you can have many, many fruitful discussions as a Catholics and Protestants in your search for the truth.
May God strengthen you by his Spirit as you engage with these questions. And may God be with the bishops, priests and members of the Society of Saint Pius X. May they find Christ.
References
1. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/vatican-excommunicates-schismatic-bishops-and-priests-and-warns-their-followers
2. Throughout this article, I will use Catholic Church or RCC to refer to the Roman Catholic Church.
4. Catechism of the Catholic Church will be referenced with CCC. The Catechism of the Catholic Church can be found online. The version being referred to is the English Translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church for the United States of America © 1997. An easily searchable version is here: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/catechism/index.cfm
5. Paragraph 847 at first glance seems to offer another way of being saved. However, the people in view in this paragraph are only those who could not have heard of Christ or his church. If someone has heard of Christ or his church the only way to be saved is to enter and remain in the RCC.
6. Page 21 What does it mean to be Protestant? Gavin Ortlund
7. See also, Bull of Union with Copts from 1442, the 11th Session of the Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence, 1431-49 A.D. “It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives.’
8. The Jesus being discussed here is not an arbitrary Jesus. In all that follows, we’re discussing Jesus as he is revealed and taught in the Scriptures. He is the one to be believed in, trusted in and followed.
9. ‘The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.’ (CCC 85)
‘The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.’ (CCC 100)
10. Source: https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/trent/fourth-session.htm
11. See https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6a66b9750fe08191b55c3eec01f952d4.
12. On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Chapter 3, paragraph 4 https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/14082.htm?
13. In the interests of transparency, this simple summary and its implications arose from a ChatGPT search on early church fathers’ statements. See also Ortlund, page 96
14. See page 70 of The Presbyterian Church Of Australia Constitution,Procedure And Practice (Sept 2023)
15. A good example of the role of other authorities in Protestant churches, while being subject to the Word of God, is can be found in Articles 20 and 21 of the 39 Articles of the Anglican Church. Articles link
For an excellent discussion of Sola Scripture see Ortlund page 72-75).
16. Pages 76 to 80.
17. Scripture as the words of God: Romans 3:2, Acts 7:38, Psalm 149:19, Hebrews 4:12; Luke 11:28.
18. Note also Mark 7:1-13 where Jesus says the religious leaders, by their traditions, ‘nullify the word of God.’ This reveals an important truth to consider: religious traditions can be so wrong they effectively cancel the living word of God.
19. Gavin Ortlund, succinctly shows 4 problems with the idea that the Church in its teaching offices is infallible. 1. There is no precedent in the Old Testament that any entity was infallible in its authority; 2. There is no ground or instance in the New Testament of the church being infallible. (If anything, the opposite is revealed in Galatians, Acts 20, and 2 Timothy, Revelation 2&3) 3. Post-apostolic infallibility is unknown to the early church. 4. When post-apostolic authority does arise, it creates more confusion than clarity (pages 83-85).
20. See the Session here. https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum20.htm
21. If you would like to explore the historic position of the Roman Catholic Church regarding Papal Infallibility, see Gavin Ortlund pages 109-115. He argues it is not present in the first millennium of church history and explores the difficulties of this idea.
22. Larry Chapp, former theology professor at DeSales University, cited in Atlantic article below.
23. The Catholic Church’s New Schism. Accessed August 4, 2026. https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/2026/08/catholic-church-sspx-schism/688166/
24. In Acts 15, Peter is present as having significant influence and authority, but not final. It is James who seems to make the final decision. And, yet, in this decision Jame’s quotes Scripture to explain his position. James sees the Scriptures as authoritative, not himself. See also 2 Peter 1:19-21 for Peter’s understanding of the primacy of Scripture as God’s Word by the work of the Holy Spirit.