Some Catholics use Matthew 23:1-3 as evidence that Catholicism is true. They argue that 1). the seat of Moses is proof that authoritative traditions do exist outside of scripture, and that 2). Moses' seat has transferred to the Pope, who now speaks "ex cathedra" (from the chair). Is this argument valid? Does Matthew 23:1-3 prove the existence of an authoritative tradition, and is this verse transferable beyond the Pharisees? The answer to both questions is no.
First, Moses' seat is not necessarily a tradition. You could interpret it that way, and as we'll see in a moment it doesn't even matter if you do, but you don't need to. This interpretation never occurred to me, personally, and while I'm sure there are plenty of Christians who struggle with it, the only real way to interpret it in a Catholic light is if you've previously been exposed to Catholicism. I always saw this verse as just "hey, these guys are literally the teachers of the law, so they know what they're talking about. Listen to them." Thus, I always saw it as obeying the Pharisees in the same way as we obey modern pastors.
But even if we assume Moses' seat was a reference to some tradition, Catholics tend to misunderstand the point of Sola Scriptura. It's not that the Bible alone is true, and literally everything that isn't in the Bible is false. Rather, it's the the Bible is the sole and sufficient authority, and everything else is secondary at best. Christians can, and very often do respect tradition, we simply do not exalt it in the way Catholics do. If there was a tradition about Moses' seat that Jesus found to be good, that really wouldn't matter. Especially considering that became Biblical the moment Matthew wrote it.
What's more is that, as previously noted, this verse applies to the Pharisees. Jesus never said "The Pope sits in Peter's seat, therefore whatever he tells you to observe, that observe". The ironic thing is that Catholics themselves usually do not like to be compared to the Pharisees. It is no secret that a lot of the Catholic religion does actually mimic the religion of the Pharisees, right down to calling the priests "Father" (Matthew 23:9). Yet, when this is pointed out, Catholics usually get upset. And for good reason, because in almost every instance, the ways Catholics mimic the Pharisees are the things Jesus scolded the Pharisees for.
But in this instance, Catholics do want to be compared to the Pharisees, because they want the authority they think comes with it. So, let's roll with that for a short while. I'm nothing if not generous.
As it turns out, this causes more problems for Catholics than they'd like. For sure, if the Catholic Church was the modern equivalent of the Pharisaic sect, that would give them some authority, but let's be honest here, Jesus was far more critical of the Pharisees than He was submissive to them. For example, let's go to Matthew 15 and Mark 7. In both chapters, we have an account of one of Jesus' dealings with the Pharisees. Specifically, the Pharisees criticised Jesus because His disciples "transgressed the tradition of the elders" (Matthew 15:2) by not washing their hands before eating.
Now, the first thing to note is that this isn't even a bad thing. Why shouldn't we wash our hands before eating? Where have your hands been today? Perhaps you've changed a dirty nappy, cleaned a guinea pig cage, stroked your dog etc. Maybe you've even got such a mundane job in an office. Look up how dirty your keyboard might be. Fancy eating any of that? So no, washing your hands before eating isn't a bad thing, and honestly I'd recommend it.
[Post publication note: This article was initially written for God Squad Apologetics, before the Covid-19 pandemic.]
But Jesus' response is still not something the Pharisees wanted to hear. "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition." (Mark 7:9). "you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition." (Matthew 15:6b). So, not all tradition is bad, that's for sure. But not all tradition is good either. This is important, because it disarms just about every Catholic assault on Sola Scriptura. But it's also important because it not only gives us a standard for distinguishing between good and bad tradition, but it also firmly establishes tradition as second to scripture.
The Pharisees were a very traditional sect. They had the scriptures, but they elevated their traditions to be equal to, and even above them. The Catholic Church makes the exact same mistake today. Not only does it exalt tradition to the level of scripture, but it even casts scripture aside when tradition opposes it. I've even seen Catholics insult the scriptures, and some of them even claim that the Church gives the scriptures their authority rather than the other way around. Word of God, or word of man, which would you choose?
So, with all that in mind, let's do what Catholics who use this argument don't often do: read on. Not surprisingly, Matthew 23 does not end at the first half of verse 3. Therefore, let's look at the other half of verse 3. "but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do." The hypocrisy of the Pharisees is well known. They enjoyed the perception of piety, but pious they were not. They were religious because of the benefits it brought. Respect, authority, power, these were things the Pharisees hungered for, to the point where they would literally fast just so that people could see they were fasting (Matthew 6:16-17). So, the first problem with transferring this verse to Catholicism is that it would imply Catholic leaders are frauds. The Pharisees used their religion for selfish reasons, so now the Catholic leaders do the same. I'm not going to argue that this is necessarily true, but if you really want to claim Matthew 23 is transferable to Catholic leadership, I'm certainly not going to argue against it either.
Jesus continues in verse 4: "For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders". Is this not a perfect description of the Catholic Church? If nothing else, what's scarier than the doctrine of conditional security? The idea that you cannot know, at any given moment, what your eternal fate will be? In Catholic theology, there are two categories of sin: Mortal and venial. If you die with an unresolved venial sin, that's time in purgatory that your surviving Catholic friends and family will have to pay to get you through. If you die with an unresolved mortal sin, that's a one way ticket to Hell. Now, to be sure, a Christian should always strive for holiness, but not out of fear. Rather, out of love. You do not have to work for God's grace (by definition, as Romans 11:6 shows), because it has already been earned for you. Good works are not burdensome! (1 John 5:3). They're a pleasure. They're what we're saved for, not what we're saved by. But for a Catholic, the time between one confession and the next ought to be terrifying. Even if they don't think they've committed a mortal sin, which is very ambiguously defined, they've almost certainly committed a venial sin (not to mention the constant sin that 1 John 1:8 says all Christians suffer from), so purgatory is a strong possibility.
And that's just one heavy, hard to bear burden Catholics have to suffer. The unnecessary fear that salvation can be lost, or that it can be postponed by a mythical realm. But the Catholic Church is known for their heavy burdens. When I used to run Path Treader Ministries, I found a Catholic meme in which figuring out obligations was likened to solving a chemistry equation (which I related to Colossians 2:16-17, proving that the very concept of obligations is unBiblical, as does Romans 14). Point being, heaping these heavy burdens upon men's shoulders certainly is a trait of the Catholic Church, so even if Catholics do want to appeal to Matthew 23, they're welcome to accept the whole passage, including this part.
I could continue through Matthew 23, but really it just covers a lot more of what I've said above about the hypocrisy of the very people whom Jesus had just told His disciples to listen to. I could throw in the bit about how verse 9 tells Christians to call no one Father, as that title belongs to God, which is violated by the Catholic Church, but that is just a side note for today.
A final point before I close. Even if Matthew 23 could be transferred to the Catholic Church, the evidence suggests that it is not only limited, but that it also has an expiration date. The New Testament assumes that Christians will be offensive to the Pharisees. Not only are there several warnings that Christians will be beaten in the synagogues, but John 16:2 also says that Christians will eventually be put out of the synagogues, even to the point where men who kill us will think they are doing a service to God.
This, again, applies very strongly to the Catholic Church. Catholicism has a very strong history of persecuting "heretics", many of whom weren't heretical at all, but simply opposed Catholic tyranny and dogma. The example I usually cite is William Tyndale, who was burned at the stake by the Catholic Church. His crime? He dared to attempt to translate the Bible so that "the boy that driveth the plow" could know the scriptures better than a Catholic Bishop. This was outlawed by the Council of Toulouse in 1229 (canon 14).
So what are Christians to do when they are excommunicated from their synagogue or church? Acts 5:29, 40-41 gives us that answer very clearly: Obey God rather than men, and when you get persecuted and cast out, rejoice. You stood up for the Gospel, and as a result, you suffered, but that only means you were counted worthy to suffer. You don't have to obey anyone that tells you to disobey God. Not the Jews, not the Church, not even the government. If it means you lose your very life, you can disobey the Catholic Church in order to obey God.