"After Jesus established His Church and gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, Peter’s chair became the new seat of authority under the New Covenant. This is why, when the Pope officially speaks on a matter of faith and morals with the intention of proclaiming a universal doctrine for the Church (which is rare), we say He is speaking “ex cathedra” (from the “chair”). Jesus’ use of the “chair of Moses” certainly shows a continuum of authority as the New Covenant replaced the Old." (https://www.scripturecatholic.com/qa-seat-moses/)
Moses' seat was a symbolic expression of teaching the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Hebrew Bible. This role encompassed not only religious instruction but also extended significantly into the realm of civil law (Exodus 18:13-27). The seat of Moses represented the authority and responsibility to apply the Law of God as the standard of judgment among the Jews. Moses acted as the judge, and the priesthood functioned within a theocratic framework, upholding the divine laws given by God to His people through Moses. These leaders did not create new laws but rather interpreted and enforced the laws that were already established. They could only teach and judge within the confines of what the Law dictated.
If the chair of Moses were a prophetic anticipation of papal authority conferred by Christ to Peter, an important question arises: why were multiple individuals able to exercise this authority simultaneously, rather than having a singular ruler preside over everyone?
The New Testament never directly associates a "chair of Peter" with the seat of Moses, nor does it reference Peter as having apostolic successors in the same authoritative vein. Even if there were historical evidence supporting a tradition of successors from Moses' seat—which we currently lack—it does not logically follow that there is a direct connection to the succession of Roman bishops. Moreover, the Jewish people did not attribute any charism of teaching infallibility to their leaders. The Gospels clearly depict the scribes and Pharisees as often promulgating doctrinal errors. Jesus Christ Himself referred to them as "blind guides" and accused them of teaching human commandments as if they were divine doctrines (Matthew 15:1-9; 23:16).
While Jesus instructed His followers to observe and obey the teachings of Moses and the Prophets as conveyed by the scribes and Pharisees, He was equally clear that they should not emulate their moral and doctrinal errors (Matthew 23:3). The religious leaders of that time were known for their outward displays of piety, but their hearts were far from God. Their primary motivation was often public flattery and recognition, and they received their rewards on earth rather than seeking God's approval. This passage serves as a stern warning against pride and hypocrisy.
There are notable negative parallels between the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus' time and certain practices within the modern Church of Rome. Roman Catholic apologists often appeal to a traceable lineage to validate their arguments, yet Jesus and John the Baptist rejected the scribes and Pharisees who made similar claims (Matthew 3:7-9; John 8:36-45). The Church of Rome asserts the possession of divine oral tradition, a claim that Christ strongly rebuked when made by the religious leaders of His day (Matthew 15:1-9; Mark 7:7-13). Additionally, Roman Catholic officials frequently adopt religious titles of honor, despite Christ's explicit disapproval of such practices (Matthew 23:8-12). Just as Jesus faced questions about His authority to perform miracles (Luke 20:2), modern Roman Catholic apologists challenge the authority of those who interpret Scripture differently.
While Jesus instructed His followers to observe and obey the teachings of Moses and the Prophets as conveyed by the scribes and Pharisees, He was equally clear that they should not emulate their moral and doctrinal errors (Matthew 23:3). The religious leaders of that time were known for their outward displays of piety, but their hearts were far from God. Their primary motivation was often public flattery and recognition, and they received their rewards on earth rather than seeking God's approval. This passage serves as a stern warning against pride and hypocrisy.
There are notable negative parallels between the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus' time and certain practices within the modern Church of Rome. Roman Catholic apologists often appeal to a traceable lineage to validate their arguments, yet Jesus and John the Baptist rejected the scribes and Pharisees who made similar claims (Matthew 3:7-9; John 8:36-45). The Church of Rome asserts the possession of divine oral tradition, a claim that Christ strongly rebuked when made by the religious leaders of His day (Matthew 15:1-9; Mark 7:7-13). Additionally, Roman Catholic officials frequently adopt religious titles of honor, despite Christ's explicit disapproval of such practices (Matthew 23:8-12). Just as Jesus faced questions about His authority to perform miracles (Luke 20:2), modern Roman Catholic apologists challenge the authority of those who interpret Scripture differently.