Why do we have the pope?

Introduction

I see it absurd to adhere to the belief that God does not guide the Body of Christ. Rather, he leaves interpretation up to individuals. This claim shows such infidelity to the Head (the Son), the Father, and especially, the Spirit, who has been guiding the Body since the beginning of its institution.

§. I

The Lord Jesus has said:

Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.

[Mt. xii. 25]

Are we not God’s house? Are we not members of God’s kingdom? We are both His house (Heb. iii. 6) and His kingdom (Mk. i. 15). How can we stand if we are divided? We cannot, therefore, God must have set up some way in order for us not to be divided. He has been kind and has set up a way for unification. 

§. II

Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell in unity.

[Ps. cxxxiii. 1 (cxxxii. 1 in Vulgate)]

Unity is good, that is why it is “pleasant.” If it is good, God is pleased by it, for God loves good, for He is good (Mk. x. 18). God gives those who are His things that are good (e.g. the Holy Spirit), therefore, He offers us unity.

§. III

There is a need for a person given authority to guide the Body:

And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

[Acts 8:30-31]

An angel commands Philip to go to the place of the eunuch (Acts viii. 26-27). Philip was given this authority, and this authority given in order to shepherd the eunuch. The eunuch did not understand on his own, this is why he needed Philip, who is the one with the authority. No member of the Body can understand by interpreting on his own (Gen. xl. 8), the Spirit alone interprets (II Pet. i. 20). Therefore, only the one given divine authority can be the one whom the Spirit uses to interpret. If it were all members of the body, all would be in unity, but this is not so. Therefore, there must be this authoritative person. Recognize how Philip, and not the Spirit on His own, guided the eunuch. The eunuch was taught by the Spirit through Philip. The Spirit uses a person to teach and to shepherd. We ought not to depend on ourselves, the eunuchs, rather, we ought to depend on the Philips.

§. IV

And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

[Mt. xvi. 17-18]

 
The excuse that petros is a small rock and petra is a large rock is no more than an eisegetical bias.

 
Two protestant scholars write:

 
The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name. 

[Donald A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Zondervan, 1984, volume 8, page 368] 

 
There is no difference of meaning, I acknowledge, between the two Greek words Π?τρος (Peter) and π?τρα, (petra, a stone or rock,)

[John Calvin’s Commentary on Matthew ch. xvi]

 
God would not change Simon’s name for such an insignificant reason. A name change made by God has never been insignificant. There has been Abraham, Sarah, and Israel. Abraham, the father of multitudes; Sarah, the ruler; Israel, the one who struggles with God; and finally, Peter, the small rock? Does this not seem absurd or at the least, strange? There is the father of faith, the mother of faith, the father of God’s people, and finally, the shepherd of God’s people, the Peter. It is not in any way fit to call Peter, “small rock.” Moreover, this is just foolish. How can the large Church have the foundation of a small rock? The Church needs a great rock. God being wise, built His Church one (Mt. vii. 24-25).