The Case FOR the Papacy w/ Joe Heschmeyer

In this livestream, I'm joined by Joe Heschmeyer to discuss his case for the papacy. Why is the papacy so important? Well, if it's true, then Catholicism is true. If it's false, then Catholicism is false. It's one of Catholicism's most distinctive doctrines.

---------------------------- FREE STUFF ----------------------------

-------------------------------- GIVING --------------------------------

Special thanks to all our supporters for your continued support! You don't have to give anything, yet you do. THANK YOU!

---------------------------------- SOCIAL ----------------------------------

--------------------------------- MY GEAR ----------------------------------

I get a lot of questions about what gear I use, so here's a list of everything I have for streaming and recording. The links below are affiliate (thank you for clicking on them!).

--------------------------------- CONTACT ---------------------------------

#Apologetics #CapturingChristianity #ExistenceofGod

[namapalsu]

20:40 Cameron mentions Jimmy Akin's writing. He also seems to be aware of Hechmeyer previous debate/interview.

Cameron is doing his homework on the papacy. May the Holy Spirit guides him.

[frerfresh]

I was raised Baptist but am praying for the confidence and strength to message my parish about starting RCIA classes. I've been going to mass for a while just observing and studying on the sidelines, and your channel, Cameron, has been a huge help in my discernment! Please take Joe up on the opportunity to ruffle Baptists' feathers haha. He's a great speaker and easy to understand. Didn't know how he was gonna turn it around after being held to task regarding 1 Peter 2:4-8 Awesome. Thanks for your content!!

[brendansheehan]

Joe is the man. And that is the whole comment.

[daniellennox]

1:06:26 “We should strive to outdo one another in charity… it’s easy to be right about theology and go to hell”

[Jonathan_]

I look forward to reading his book "Pope Peter" to get a better overall view of all the arguments he uses to come to the papacy.

[RJ-bqmr]

Love Joe. Representing us well here. As a Catholic raised in the Protestant Deep South I sense we have a similar faith formation.

[eskercurve]

I applaud Cameron's efforts at spreading knowledge among Protestants in an intellectual way. I would have run out of patience, looking at the comments here. Thank you!

[thomasjorge]

Excellent take on the Constitutional Analogy!

[Mike-ehqo]

When God was King of Israel, Israel had no human king. When Israel rejected God as King, Israel was given a human king. A central ruler like a king is only needed, when God has been rejected as king.

[Stormlight]

"The New Testament doesn't create the Church, the Church creates the New Testament."

[jonathanstensberg]

1 Peter 2:4-8 oozes Catholicism. It is obviously building upon the rock analogy, not recapitulating the rock analogy. The author is stating that we (Christians) are rocks consitituting the Church, built upon the foundation rocks of the apostles, built upon the Rock of Peter, built upon the Cornerstone of Chirst. If you remove any part of the foundation, the whole thing collapses (hence apostolic and papal succession!) but together in unity it builds up into a great edifice--a living temple for God. That's just Catholicism.

[billyg]

I think his initial point is something protestants do need to consider. The NT writers and the early church fathers didn't just write things for their own sake. Paul wrote letters usually addressing particular problems, whether issues with members in churches or doctrinal disputes. The same applies to the early church. Peter tells wives to continue to commit to their non-Christian husbands in response to questions about that. Paul explains the deadly seriousness of partaking in the lords supper in an unworthy manner in response to hearing of divisions among members. They don't just say these things. Even Jesus often declared things only after being challenged, or the disciples specifically asking.

The fact that the Papacy is not explicit in the NT isn't as strong a claim as some would think. If it wasn't really in dispute or challenged, it wouldn't be something that would be explicitly mentioned. So the fact that it isn't as explicit as you'd think something so serious would be is not as strong of a point as it's made out to be.

[Matt_M]

Brilliant from Joe! His book, Pope Peter, is a wonderful book! It goes into much more depth and detail about the Papacy being there from the very beginning and continues to this present day to serve as the vicar of Christ, the servant of the servants of God, in the one true Church that Jesus Christ founded - The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Thank you Cameron and Joe. God Bless.

[soteriology]

Why I believe the papacy aspect in Roman Catholicism is false.

Peter was an apostle to the Jews, not Gentiles (Galatians 2:7)
Peter was one of the 12 to judge the 12 tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:28-30) (Why would he abandon them and take off to Rome?
Peter spoke Aramaic and Hebrew, not the languages of Rome, which was Greek and Latin (Acts 4:13)
Peter was assigned to feed the sheep of Israel, to the day he died (John 21) (Why would he abandon them and take off to Rome?)
Peter was a fisherman, who had a boat which was instrumental for their gathering in their final days (John 21:3).
Peter was in Babylon, Egypt, and Mark was in Alexandria, Egypt, (1 Peter 5:13)
Peter was writing from or near Jerusalem at the time he wrote 1 Peter 1:1, for the temple was in Jerusalem, not Rome. If Peter was in Rome at the time he wrote 1 Peter 1:1, then this would make him a part of the scattered. He was writing to Jewish Christians in those 5 churches, who were scattered from Jerusalem, who had to leave for their gathering.
They would have left to greet Mark for their gathering (1 Peter 5:13) then continued by boat to Peter, who was 100 miles south. Do you see the water channels leading/funnels to Babylon, Egypt? The logistics were already taken care of by God. If “Babylon” was referring to Rome, that would be a logistical nightmare.
Peter would then escort them for their gathering, to Petra. Petra has a history of flooding, and we see the earth split southwest of Petra, which indicates revelation 12 has been fulfilled. The 1260 days was from April 11, AD70 to September 22, AD73.
If you are going to make this about a pope being in Rome, ask yourself, does this fit the biblical narrative? Where do you see the earth split near Rome indicating where their gathering took place (this place also has to have a history of flooding)?

Eusebius did a major rewriting of history, to define an "orthodox" view of the relationship between church and state for Constantine. He has fooled billions of people. I go over this in my channel.

[ninjason]

After listening to both Gavins case and Joes case im left wanting from Joe's arguments. It really feels like he appeals to assumptions from the evidence rather than the evidence itself. My biggest issue with the papacy, and any other leadership role, is the danger of corruption that a singular position of power can be. There's a reason why the only form of government that can rule society perfectly is the Kingdom of God because our King, Jesus, IS God who is infallable. To give that ability/attribute to a human other than Jesus feels like it can become ripe for corruption.

[ricobonifacio]

Why is Cameron the whole time he was listening, have a look like he was waiting for his turn in a rap battle? haha

[seanrodrigues]

Joe just blows this one out of the water. Awesome!

[hallboy]

In the first argument Joe brings up, he says we shouldn't expect the NT to be mentioning the Papacy because the Church created the NT, not the other way around. In this way, it is dis-analogous to the Constitution's mentioning of the Presidency (and not mentioning governors).

But that argument seems to fall short when you ask the question, "Does the NT lay out requirements for/details about other church offices?" If following Joe's argument, you would expect the answer would be no. Why would the NT spell any of that out, when the Church already existed?

And yet we find, in the NT, an astonishing amount of detail surrounding other Church offices, namely elder and deacon (obviously in the two passages cited by Gavin, but also in various references throughout the whole NT). Therefore, I think Protestants are totally valid in saying, "If the Papacy was present in the early Church, we would surely expect to see it mentioned in the NT and early Christian literature- other Church offices are!" So Gavin's objection still stands. The NT isn't creating the Church like how the Constitution created the USA, but the NT certainly seems riddled with implicit and explicit references to the Church structure. The absence of the Papacy amidst all those references is still glaring.

[mortensimonsen]

One possible argument for Peter being the rock: He was given the name Cephas. There is really not much need to translate the name, but still, it was. I propose that all other Apostle's names are transliterated (although Andrew might be an exception - it is unknown what the original Hebrew name was according to my googling) from Hebrew into Greek.

If I am right about this, then it needs an explanation. Why *translate* from Cephas to Petros? It would have been simpler to *transliterate* (give a Greek sound to a Hebrew name). The reason is quite obvious - because in this case, the name has a meaning which is important to convey in Greek. I haven't seen this argument made by anyone - maybe because it's not a foolproof argument. Any thoughts?

[colinbrown]

Not finding this convincing. The best source we have on the government of the early church is the New Testament itself. There is simply no reference in Acts or any of the epistles to Peter as the supreme apostle, the others having the duty to obey him as their superior. I just don't see it anywhere. Matthew 16, John 10, John 21, Luke 22, none of these prove either the absolute supremacy of Peter, succession of office, infallibility, Peter as the vicar of Christ on earth... It just isn't there. You do not have to believe the New Testament created the church to recognize its primacy in considering the government of the church. Historically, the Pope didn't call any of the seven ecumenical councils. Papal infallibility wasn't even defined until Vatican I in the 19th century. I am just not seeing it.