In this clip, Cy Kellett welcomes Joe Heschmeyer to discuss the controversial understanding of the papacy as defined by Vatican I. Joe dives into the historical claims surrounding St. Peter and the implications for modern Catholicism. Don’t miss this engaging conversation that challenges traditional views!
Transcript:
Caller: So I would say the primary reason I’m not Catholic is because I don’t think that the Vatican one understanding of the papacy is coherent with what the apostles would have understood and what the church fathers taught.
Joe Heschmeyer: That’s a very clear, very strong argument. I’m going to tell you, Alex, I think that’s the best argument against Catholicism in this sense. If the church is right about the papacy, everybody should be Catholic. And if the church is wrong about the papacy, nobody should be Catholic. Like, that’s the real make or break kind of issue. But in your view, Alex, when do you see the papacy arising?
Caller: When do. Well, the Vatican.
Caller: Who’s the first pope? Yeah, who’s the first pope?
Caller: Well, and again, that’s going to depend on how we define it, because, again, I’m not convinced of the Vatican I understanding. I am convinced of the first among equals. So I would definitely say it would have been. It would have been Peter. And going with what Shazinski says, I think that Rome had a primacy because of its political position and the fact that Peter and Paul both died in that city. And so for me, a first among equals is not a problem. I think that after Vatican one, there is a substantial departure from that, though.
Joe Heschmeyer: Okay. Yeah, I think that makes sense. Do you. Do you give the. What they call the primacy of honor that the Eastern theologians speak of? Okay. Yeah. So the original understanding of primacy of honor doesn’t just mean honor in the way we use the term today. It meant, like, authority, that honor was a synonym for authority. And it was a recognition not of, like, dignity, but in much more maybe, I guess, the way sort of, that we use it with judges when we say, your honor, it’s a respect for an office, is a respect for a certain position. And so a primacy of honor in this sense, in the earliest sense, actually meant that the bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter, had a unique authority that nobody else had. But I’d rather just focus on the biblical stuff. If you’re good with that. I would start with Luke 22. I know Catholics like to start with Matthew 16, and I love Matthew 16. But in Luke 22, at the last Supper, the apostles are arguing about which of them is the greatest. And rather than discourage this, Jesus tells them what Christian greatness consists of, that he holds up himself as the model and says that true greatness is to serve. And so he lays out what we, you know, we call servant leadership today. And then he affirms the apostolic nature of the Church and says that you 12 will be you were with me in my trials, you’ll have thrones judging the 12 tribes. And then he singles out in the very next verse, one of the 12 and says, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you. That’s you all, or you, you plural, that he might sift you all like wheat. But then he switches from the plural to the singular and says, but I’ve prayed for you that your faith may not fail, and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren. In other words, he’s just said servant leadership is what Christian leadership and authority looks like, and that the apostles have this and will always have this in the Church, even into heaven. They’ll always have this kind of servant leadership authority. And then he says to one of them that he’s got this servant leadership authority even in relation to the other 11 with the line, strengthen your brethren. That in the face of demonic assault on the entire apostolic foundation of the Church and demonic assault on all 12, Jesus singularly prays for one of them, Simon Peter, and. And strengthens his faith so he can strengthen that of the rest. That, I think is everything you need to hold to the Catholic claim in terms of Peter having a unique and special role and one that predates anything about, like, Roman political importance or anything like that, that there’s something in the role of Peter and then continues on with his successors. What do you think of that idea, Alex? Does that. Does that jive does.
Caller: I don’t think that’s a good or bad argument. I think it’s just a good argument for the safety of the Church. I mean, because it includes the other apostles and it includes Peter himself. And, yeah, we can talk about the fact that Peter is the head, but it is the certainty that just like what Jesus says in Matthew 16, the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. And so for me, that passage, though, we could argue, yeah, you know, what it talks about. We could emphasize the importance of Peter in that, but it doesn’t get me to that Vatican I position that I’m concerned about.
Joe Heschmeyer: I’m concerned, in agreement, something particularly within the Vatican I definition. Like what specifically about the Vatican I understanding of the papacy? Because it seems like Peter’s not just one among equals here. He seems to be giving a unique authority. So is there something more that Vatican I offers that you say? I don’t see that part.
Caller: I would just say on the unique authority. Paul was given a unique authority to preach to the Gentiles. So a unique authority. A unique authority does not entail being the head of The Church.
Joe Heschmeyer: No, I agree with you that unique authority doesn’t entail being the head of the Church. I think that’s a misreading of Galatians one to say Paul’s given a unique authority when he calls himself an apostle to the Gentiles. He’s not saying Peter’s not allowed to preach to Gentiles. That goes contrary to Paul’s entire message. And then Peter is the first to preach to the Gentiles. But I do think you’re right that someone can have a unique role in the Church, and that doesn’t mean they’re the head. My point was that Peter’s unique role is to be the servant leader of the other servant leaders. And that’s why I’m saying he seems to be given a unique headship.
Caller: Yeah, and I would agree with that. I just don’t think it gets to the Vatican one position, because I think when you get to Vatican I, you have a pope that cannot err. And I think Pope Honorius is a great example of a pope that certainly did err. And I would not say that he was a heretic and that his failures were a proof that the Church collapsed. But any bishop can err, and it is through the Holy Spirit working through other bishops that they are brought back. And so that’s what I would say about Luke 22 is that Paul is that Peter had a specific mission to restore the other apostles and Christ restored him. But that doesn’t. That’s not, that’s not. That to me, that’s not a proof or a disproof for the papacy. That to me is a proof that, that he had a specific role in task.
Joe Heschmeyer: I see, I see. That makes sense. When we’re talking about infallibility. I want to agree with you that just like Pop. Honorius, just like, you know, St. Peter in Galatians 2, you know, this whole encounter in Antioch that St. Paul recounts, popes can and do, err. Papal infallibility, despite its name, doesn’t actually mean the Pope can’t err or that there’s no role bishops may have in drawing the Pope back if, if he makes a mistake. And I, I think you’re absolutely right with that. And I think we see that even in the modern world where, you know, Pope Francis says something, other bishops may speak up and say, you need to clarify this, or what do you mean by that? Or, you know, and we see popes even today speaking out. All of that’s totally compatible with Vatican I’s understanding of papal infallibility that understanding is just that when the Pope defines a doctrine, that definition is infallible. Not that the Pope himself, like in everything he says and does, does that distinction help? Does that make sense? Because nothing in Vatican I is contrary to the possibility of Honorius deciding something wrongly in the course of his pontificate.
Caller: That distinction helps. I definitely do appreciate that. I think you still have an issue though with can a Pope determine a church council or is it the Church council that determines what’s doctrine? Because I know that we’ve had Church councils that Popes did not preside over and did not say were de facto part of the faith. And I’m thinking It was the 6th or 7th Ecumenical Council that the Pope did not preside over and had nothing to say about. And it was only later that he said, yeah, this is right. But the Church never said, oh thank goodness, because the Pope has said that this is acceptable and part of the doctrine. We can get along with ourselves. Because the Orthodox have been getting along just fine. And I put that in air quotes just fine as they’re having their own issues, but they’ve gotten along just fine for the last thousand years.
Joe Heschmeyer: Yeah, I think that you’re right to have the air quotes quotes there. The Orthodox actually have some confusion about how many councils there are. And the source of that confusion is that they have no principle by which to determine which is and isn’t a valid council. So the instances I would point you to there are two. The so called Second Council of Ephesus, which is better known as the Robber Council, and then the Council of chalcedon. So in 449 the Second Council of Ephesus is convened and it is heretical, but it has all of the auspices of being a true ecumenical council, except that the Papal Legate just says one word, contradictator, where he just, he rebukes the entire council and goes home and the Pope declares it a robber council, not a true council. And neither the east nor the west accepts it today. But the only reason that anyone can really point to is that Pope Leo doesn’t accept it. And instead the Council of Chalcedon in 451, which is orthodox, which is the basic, like Chalcedonian Christianity is something that Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants are all united on. That’s something that the Pope has a huge role in. When what’s called the Tome of Leo, and there they read that this letter that the Pope has written and say that the Apostle Peter has spoken through Leo, that. And so there’s very much this role that. Not that the Pope has to make every decision at the Council, of course not. But rather that if the Pope says X isn’t a valid council, it’s not a valid council in either the east or the West. And that’s very hard to explain away historically, except by reference to this unique authority that the Bishop of Rome has always had.
Caller: Alex, we’re gonna leave it there. I think.
Caller: If you’d like it, I’d love to send you a copy of Joe’s book, Pope Peter Defending the Church’s Most Distinctive Doctrine in a Time of Crisis. If you’d like it, just hang on the line. Edgar will get your information and we’ll send it to Kansas.