In this episode of Catholic Answers Live, Joe Heschmeyer sits down with Cy Kellett to tackle every major objection to the papacy in light of the newly announced Pope Leo XIV.

Transcript:

Occasionally, you might hear on this show because we answer questions about the Catholic faith. Someone call up with an objection about the papacy. You know, the papacy is not in the Bible, or popes are very rich. Jesus could not have intended this, that kind of thing. And so what we decided to do is a one day in which we would take every single objection to the papacy made by every human being who has ever lived. So we called them all 100 billion people. Now, that’s not exactly how we did it. We used the Internet, there was extensive use of the Internet to compile what are the objections to the papacy. And so we’re going to run through every single objection to the papacy. And who better to do that with than Joe Heschmeyer, who wrote the book? Pope Peter Joe Heschmeyer, thanks for being here with us to do this.

It is a joy to be here.

This is exciting, isn’t it? Let me start with this. I think it’s the most basic objection. I’m not sure, but I think it’s the most. It’s just not in the Bible. It’s not biblical. The papacy is not. That’s. You can. You just don’t. I mean, and I suppose there’s different ways I could say it. I could say, look, if Jesus wanted to establish a papacy, he would have used the word pope. He would have said, I want there to be a papacy. Do it this way.

Yeah. I think this gets at least two major things wrong and a lot of minor things wrong. The first major thing it gets wrong is the idea that everything important is going to be spelled out in the Bible. You’re not going to find the word Trinity. You won’t find the word Bible in the Bible used to describe the set of books. And you’ll find the word used to describe individual books, inspired or not. But you’re not going to, because the word Bible just means book. But you don’t have a Term for, like, the canon of Scripture as such, you know, these are important things. If you can’t get the Trinity in a single word from the Bible. But the concept is there. I don’t know. That seems like it should be a red flag. In my debate earlier this spring with James White, he made this argument, oh, you know, transubstantiation, you won’t find that in the Bible. And it’s like, yeah, of the books of the New Testament, only one of them, the Epistle to the Hebrews, ever explicitly says that Jesus is a priest. Explicitly. Right. Like the priesthood of Jesus is this incredibly important theme in the Epistle to the Hebrews and is implicit in the other books of the New Testament. But even though they showed Jesus in this high priestly role, even though that’s a really important part of Christianity, it wasn’t in those other 22 books. And there were early Christians who didn’t have Hebrews in their Bible. So the idea that every major doctrine is going to be spelled out for you in the Bible is absolutely unbiblical. You won’t find that doctrine, of course, spelled out in the Bible because it’s just not true.

Well, so when the person says it’s not in the Bible, I have to say, Joe, I feel a little bit of. Are you sure you want to make that argument? Because the next person down says, well, Jesus never claimed to be God.

Right, Exactly. There’s so many things. This is a terrible way of reading the Bible. This is just not like, biblically. Remember, before the break, I quoted St. Jerome, who said that the essence of scripture isn’t the letter, but the meaning. Like, the point isn’t whether you can. I’ll give another example. The word diakonos means deacon, but it also means, like, servant or steward. And so if you say in the Bible, okay, who is called a deacon? Well, you get a very strange list. Paul calls himself a deacon. Jesus is called the deacon. Phoebe is called the deaconess. And you know who’s not called the deacon? The original seven deacons mentioned in Acts 6. The word diaconoi is not actually used of the deacons. And it’s used for a bunch of people who we wouldn’t call deacons. And so using, you know, using the. Well, where is that word is just the worst way of trying to read your Bible. If this is how you’re reading your Bible, Catholic, Protestant, whatever you are, atheist. That’s not how the Bible is meant to be read. And this is a very shallow way of doing it. Now, don’t get me wrong, sometimes you can do a little word search. You know, you go onto Bible Gateway or some online Bible site, and you type in a word and you find some verses about it. And that can be fruitful sometimes, but you’re missing more than you’re finding most of the time. And if you’re just doing that way, you’re absolutely skimming the surface of Scripture. So that’s the first thing I’d say. Like, the first major problem with that objection is it doesn’t know how to read the Bible. The second major problem with the objection is it doesn’t understand the papacy, and in two ways. First, even the term Pope is more of a nickname than an actual title. So we’ll say Pope so and so. But Pope is just from Papa. You know, we’re calling him Father. If you look at the list of titles of the Roman Pontiff, the Bishop of Rome, the servant of the servants of God, a notable omission is Pope. It’s more shorthand than anything else. So a better question would be like, well, do we find one apostle who has an authority in relation to the other apostles? And of course we do, and it’s Peter. And you have to really grasp at straws to not see Peter there. And do we find bishops? Well, yes, we do. So the idea that there’s going to be a successor to the apostles, do we find that? Well, in Acts 1, we explicitly see Judas is replaced. And. And we know that the apostles in the original mission aren’t going to live forever. And so one of the things they’re doing is they’re building up bishops to carry on. Do we find one person having ultimate accountability in the church? Well, we do. In both the Old and the New Testament, you read Scripture and read it deeply. Don’t just do a word search and you’ll see time and time and time again, whether it’s Abraham and the patriarchs, whether it’s the judges, whether it’s the kings of Israel, whether it’s the high priest, whether it’s the apostles. There is always, even within a group of people called to lead, there’s always one person who God holds ultimately accountable for how things are going and will reward or punish them accordingly. And so the papacy is utterly biblical, understood in that way. Now, we can then get into much more of the fine grain details of which biblical passages point to Peter’s role. So maybe we can do that kind of as we move forward over the next hour and a half here. So I want to actually look at Matthew 16 many times when Catholics and Protestants debate Matthew 16, it’s on this line, I tell you, you are Peter Petros, and on this rock Petra, I will build my church. And many Protestants have been taught, oh, like Petros is a little pebble and Petra is like a really big rock. And that’s actually not true. You know, Martin Luther, in his commentary on this, suggests, well, all believers are called to be stones. And so we can all be called Peter. And it’s like, well, significantly, Jesus doesn’t name all of us Peter. He names one guy Peter and gives him an authority of office. And so the idea that each of us gets to be the Pope, each of us gets to be Peter, is this fiction that isn’t biblical. It is the opposite of what Jesus is actually doing here.

Can I interrupt you at that point? Because in defense of Martin Luther, there is a complexity here because there is this double level of priesthood in the church. There is this double level of kingship in the church, of sovereignty. So that Catholics don’t deny that you are called to be a stable rock upon which Jesus can build. We don’t deny the priestly function of every single Christian. Do you see what I’m saying, Joe?

Oh, yeah, yeah, absolutely. We could even say a threefold structure. Because, of course, in one sense, Christ alone is high priest. Christ alone possesses the priesthood in the fullest, simplest way. And so likewise, if we say, like, well, who are the stones? Well, in one sense it’s just going to be Jesus. In one sense, Peter is being called in this unique way. In one sense, it’s all of us. And Peter even points to the other two answers we could reasonably give here. In First Peter 2, he says about Jesus, come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men, but in God’s sight, chosen and precious. And like living stones, be yourselves built into a spiritual house. So who is the stone? Well, in one sense it’s Peter. In one sense it’s Jesus. In one sense, it’s all of us. The Bible supports all of those answers, but in different ways. In the same way, like, you know, what is. Who is your father? Well, in one sense, God alone, you know, call no man Father. But in another sense, you have, you know, spiritual fathers. St. Paul speaks very explicitly. You have one father through the Gospel and talking about himself. And he talks in Romans 4 about how Abraham is our Father not in the flesh, but our Father in faith. And so having spiritual fathers in that sense is totally fine. And not just totally fine is the biblical teaching. And then every father should be the spiritual Father of his family. It’s not enough for you to be the biological father. So we can talk about a whole series of fathers. We can talk about a whole series of stones. And all of this we say, okay, well, if you mean this, then just Jesus. Or if you mean this, you know, like the body of Christ, you mean Jesus’s historic body that walks the earth? Do you mean the way his body is present in the Eucharist? Do you mean the way the Church is the body of Christ? Do you mean the way that each of us become bodies of Christ by our incorporation into Christ in baptism? There can be many different ways of answering the question. Using one of those answers to contradict the other ones is bad exegesis.

Yeah, okay. Very, very helpful.

All right, so do you want to talk maybe about Luke 22? Because I know one of the other objections is, well, when the apostles are arguing about who’s the greatest, why don’t they all just know it’s Peter? I mean, I don’t know if you’ve heard that objection or not, but you’ll hear that, right? And the funny thing is, he clearly shows it’s Peter, but you have to actually read the passage. So it’s for context. It’s the Last Supper. And the apostles are, of course, debating which of them is the greatest, which.

Is what you do at the Last Supper. I mean, you’re in Jerusalem. The Lord is very grand.

It’s not like Jesus isn’t giving you some really important teachings during this time.

So what you do is you go, which one of us do you think is the greatest? Like, who do you think is top dog among us? Yes, go, apostles.

If you ever start arguing in church with your family, then at least you have precedent. There’s a venerable Christian tradition of doing this. And so Jesus tells them that they’re not to be like the kings of the Gentiles. Now, this is going to be another important way that the objector has misunderstood the papacy, that they’re expecting that. You know, as Jesus says, the kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, meaning the people in their service. But he says, it’s not to be among you. You’re to be as a servant. And he gives himself as an example. He says, I am among you as one who serves. And of course, when you couple this with the image in John of Jesus washing their feet, you have a clear image that, yes, there is authority in the Church, yes, there is greatness, but it’s not going to look like pagan greatness. And so people Saying, oh, why doesn’t Peter look like one of the pagan overlords? Because that’s their understanding of the papacy. It’s like, well, because that’s not the Christian model of the papacy. But let’s see, what is the Christian model? Because you might say, aha. Therefore, nobody’s to be in any kind of leadership context at all. But not so the next words out of Jesus mouth, this is now Luke 22:28. Are you are those who have continued with me in my trials. As my father appointed a kingdom for me, so do I appoint for you that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel. So there is hierarchy, there is authority. But just as you know, if I said, tell me about the family and the Christian conception, you would say, okay, well, children aren’t just to be, you know, the slaves of their parents. Rather, parents often feel like the situation is the other way around. They’re constantly serving their children. And you say, oh, okay, so there’s no authority. You say, oh, no, no, no, there is authority. But it’s an authority of love and of service where I’m to lead and guide my children while serving them and pouring myself out for them. That’s the model in the family, and that is the model in the family of God. The Church and the apostles are clearly in a position of authority. They’re sitting on thrones. They are judging the 12 tribes of Israel. This idea that, like the kingly imagery of the Pope is some medieval invention. Read your Bible. It’s right there. Jesus is the king of kings. And granted his crown is a crown of thorns, but it is a. It is a true authority that he has and a true authority that he shares with the apostles. And then now that’s all 12, right? That’s the apostles writ large. In the very next verse. We’re now at verse 31, he says to one of them, simon Peter, Simon Simon, behold, Satan has demanded to have you. Now here, it’s you, plural, it’s you all. It’s yin, you guys. Satan has demanded to have you guys that he might sift you guys like wheat. And then he switches from the plural. To the singular. He doesn’t say, but I’ve stopped him because I’m God, and I’m just putting a stop to that. He doesn’t even say, as the Son of God, I’ve prayed for the 12 of you. He says, but I have prayed for you. And it is you. Singular, it is you, Simon Peter, nobody else that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brethren. The terrifying thing that’s just happened here is having just told all 12 that leadership is servant leadership and that all of them are called to be servant leaders to the whole church. In the face of a demonic assault. Jesus remedy is to say, and Simon Peter, you’re to be the servant of the servants of God, you are to serve those serving the rest, and you’re to strengthen your brethren in the face of actual attacks from the enemy. And he knows as he’s saying this that Peter’s about to deny him three times. He knows as he’s saying this, that Peter is manifestly unqualified for this role. And yet Jesus calls him anyway.

Look, the Bible never says Peter was a bishop in Rome. There’s nothing that says Peter went to rome, right?

So first Peter 5:13, speaking of the church in Rome, says, she who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greeting, and so does my son Mark. Now understand, this is all non literal language. Mark is not Peter’s biological son, it’s his spiritual son, the, you know, the evangelist Mark, who. One of the reasons we trust his recounting is he’s gotten his witness of the Gospel from Peter, this is his translator and so on. But more importantly for our purposes, when he speaks of the church at Babylon, he doesn’t mean the ancient city that doesn’t exist anymore in the first century. He very clearly is referring to the city of Rome. And this is actually quite funny because many of the fiercest critics of the Catholic Church will claim, oh, the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon mentioned in Revelation, because don’t you know, the early Christians used Babylon as a shorthand for Rome. And sure enough, they did do that. And that’s more evidence that Peter was in Rome. Now obviously there’s a difference between the city of Rome, the Roman Empire, and the Roman Catholic Church, AKA the Catholic Church. And conflating all of those by calling them all Rome is pretty basic as just what’s called a category error. It would be like accusing the apostles of being the Sanhedrin because they’re both in Jerusalem. Like, well, obviously just don’t call them Jerusalem. You know, that’s, that’s not helpful. So notably, Peter doesn’t refer to the Church as Rome or even as Babylon, but she who is at Rome or she who’s at Babylon. Excuse me. So like the church of Rome, the church in Rome is the way that we’re accustomed to speaking of the Church, because we’re not just a city and we’re not just an empire in a worldly sense. This is a kingdom of God that is on earth. So even though people get that wrong, you have that very clear clue in 1 Peter 5. You also have a ton of early Christians who talk about, you know, for example, Irenaeus and several others who talk about the apostles having, you know, Peter and Paul having gone to Rome and being martyred there. And then if all of that isn’t enough, and the fact you don’t have anybody in the early church claiming, oh yeah, Peter spoke to us over here in the ancient ruined city of Babylon. No, this is clearly about Rome and Roman history points to this. If all of that wasn’t enough, you also have the bones of Peter that have been reliably dated to the first century and seem to actually be Peter’s bones that have been preserved and venerated by Christians for 2000 years. So all of that together, I think cumulatively I can’t imagine a plausible case that Peter doesn’t go to Rome. And the only people who deny this seem to be people desperate not to accept what history proves about the papacy. And so they’ll just not give you any ground at all, even if it means denying the most obvious things in the world.

What about this? Peter and Paul founded the church in Rome. The Bible says Peter and Paul are the founders of the church in Rome.

Yeah, I mean, Paul is clear. He’s not the personal founder of the church. He says this to the Romans. You know, he makes the point that normally he only goes to churches that he’s founded. Rome is an exception and he is explicit about that. But also, yeah, he is considered a kind of co founder of Rome, not in the sense of literally starting it, but he does help build it up in the early days. And so, you know, the Catholic Church celebrates the feast of Peter and Paul together and very often both in the early church. Again, look at Irenaeus as mentioned and look at later mentions as well. You speak of Peter and Paul together and this is very beautiful in the sense of Roman history as well, because the city of Rome, at least in legend, was built up by the twins Remus and Romulus. And you know, it’s named after one of them. That’s why it’s not called Ream. But it’s, you know.

Well, it didn’t work out for him in the legend. Remus. It didn’t really work out for him. Well, I mean, I guess in that sense it didn’t work out for Peter or Paul either, because they were martyred in the city of Rome. Okay, but what about this? That Paul rebukes Peter. So if, like this is not showing respect for Peter as if he’s some towering figure. Paul is bossy towards Peter.

Yeah, he’s not really bossy towards him. He rebukes him to his face and talks about how he rebukes him to his face and says it in a way that is actually quite revealing. He actually said, I withstood him to or I opposed him to his face. This is Galatians 2, verse 11. That when Peter. So okay, a little bit of backstory here for those who don’t know the biblical context. Remember, Peter is the one who opens the doors of salvation to the Gentiles, even though they’re not circumcised, even though they’re not following the Mosaic Law. He has them baptized beginning with Cornelius and those with him in Acts 10. In Acts 11, he defends this. People like Paul are eagerly preaching this Gospel. And in Acts 15, it’s challenged. And then you have the Council of Jerusalem in which Peter gets up, there’s a big hubbub, and then Peter gets up and the crowd falls silent. And then James offers his opinion, citing to Peter. And then, okay, the council is done and they side with the apostles, namely James and Peter here. But Peter had all done this in his individual capacity. But then you get to this later event that happens in Antioch where Peter is eating with a mix of Jewish and Gentile Christians. And he doesn’t eat with the Gentile ones. He eats at a segregated table of Jewish Christians only. And so he hasn’t said anything heretical there. But his conduct is scandalous because it’s treating the Gentiles like second class Christians or treating them like they’re not fully Christian, like they’re still impure because they’re not following the Mosaic Law. So even though he hasn’t taught heresy, he hasn’t said anything false, people are going to be scandalized and confused by his actions. And so Paul rightly rebukes him for that. Like we want to say, both Peter is able to give things that are inerrant and even inspired. And Protestants will typically agree with this, that first and Second Peter are divinely inspired. Peter, when he writes those things, can be trusted completely, but also when he’s preaching, for instance, on Pentecost, that the Holy Spirit is working through him and he’s at the very minimum protected from error. But even more than that, he’s actually given the words to say in Some sense we want to say that’s true. And he’s still capable of individually sinning. And likewise with modern popes, they are divinely protected from error in certain contexts and are still capable of sinning, still capable of scandalizing people by their behavior. And they may still need to have fraternal and filial correction in the sense of people saying, hey, that’s not a good way to lead and govern. Those two things are completely compatible.
You know, it strikes me that I don’t understand the model of papacy you have in your mind where the Pope is immune from any critique. That’s not the Catholic position. And if you read not just Catholics online right now talking about the Pope or recent popes, but Catholics throughout the ages, look at how many popes Dante has in hell. In Dante’s Inferno, Catholics love to criticize the Pope. It’s not a rebuke or a disproof of the papacy that another part of the Church had some harsh things to say about the Pope. I would actually point you to the language in Galatians 2:11, which I started to allude to earlier when Cephas came to Antioch. That’s Peter. I opposed him to his face because he stood condemned for before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles, but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. So notice he doesn’t accuse him of actually being like a heretic, but just basically being a coward that he knows better. And then he says, and with him, the rest of the Jews acted insincerely, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their insincerity. Now you say, well, why doesn’t he rebuke Barnabas, his friend? Why doesn’t he rebuke this guy who’s like Paul’s own companion? Well, he rebukes Peter because he’s the leader. You don’t say, I opposed him to his face unless it’s someone that is actually impressive. You oppose them to their face. Like, I stood up to the great Psychelle. I told him on air, such and such. That tells people who don’t know who Psychellate is, he must be somebody important if it’s a big deal that you stood up to him.

That’s why nobody ever says that.

We’Re just afraid to stand up to you. That’s awesome.Read more on Catholic.com