In this episode, Trent continues his discussion of the papacy with the Protestant YouTube channel “Gospel Simplicity.”
Welcome to the Council of Trent podcast, a production of Catholic answers.
Trent Horn:
Thanks for stopping by the Council of Trent podcast. Today is part two of my interview with Austin Suggs, or I should say Austin’s interview with me on the papacy. So we’ve been able to explore a lot of great aspects of the papacy in the previous part of this episode. In today’s part, I will go deeper into the topic, its historical basis, and then answer a rather eclectic set of questions from Austin’s followers. In fact, they sent 300 questions for me to answer, and I don’t answer all 300 in this episode, but he does pick what he thought were some of the best questions, and we go over that. So I think you’ll find this really enjoyable. If you haven’t already listened to it, go back to yesterday’s episode, episode from two days ago, the previous episode, if you haven’t heard it already, otherwise I think you’ll really enjoy the conclusion of my conversation with Austin Suggs on the papacy.
Austin Suggs:
I recently had a Protestant historian on who said, because the Catholic church has a certain institutional primacy over Protestantism, his viewpoint was we shouldn’t be Protestants unless we find good reason not to be Catholic, which is just interesting to hear from a Protestant. But in any case, I want to break down a little more. So you started to say we don’t need to see explicitly that, “Hey, Peter is the first Pope in whatever book of the Bible.”
It doesn’t need to be spelled out there and it’s not. But how much of the modern papacy do we need to see in Peter? And again, this comes up in that wall’s argument as well. But is there a room for a development because I think, at least as a Protestant looking on from the outside, if you will, what I see in, say, Clement or someone, seems pretty far from what I see in Gregory or going down the line of this more temporal power in all of these things. What exactly do we need to see in Peter and the early Pope’s to say, “Papacy sounds like an original thing?”
Trent Horn:
Well, I think that what we see in scripture, that unique authority is given to one of the apostles, that the apostles were not treated as having equal authority amongst each other, and then appealing as a group on issues, or even appealing that amongst them to decide as a majority together that as if they all simply had equal voices. So I think the fact that one of the members of the apostolic college was given unique authority over others. And even to be given particular protections or charisms when it comes to teaching. That’s why I think for me, I didn’t know if I was going to get to this. Well, I was going to jump to this a little bit later, but I might as well bring it up now.
When we look at Luke chapter 22 verses 24 through 34, to me, I find this to be very powerful evidence for what we talk about with the modern papacy, seeing it in incipient form in scripture, amongst the apostles. So when you look here, what people miss sometimes, Austin, is that in most modern Bibles, there is a header that separates the last two verses from this discussion and you lose the context. So in Luke 22, 24 through 29, there’s a dispute among the apostles about who is the greatest among them. So you would think, “Oh, well, this leads us right here.” We’re talking about, is there an apostle who has authority over others? And some Protestants will read this as saying, “Oh, well, Jesus, didn’t say Peter. And that’s that.”
But if you know Jesus, when he teaches, he never puts things just point blank to people. He leaves them away to enter more deeply into the mystery. Because they were saying, “Who among them is the greatest?” And he says to them, “The Kings of the Gentiles exercise Lordship and authority, but not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leaders as one who serves.” So he doesn’t deny there’s a greatest among them. Rather what he says is, you guys with your authority, you’re not going to be like the Gentile Kings. You’re not going to Lord it over people.
So he says, “Rather, you’re going to serve others.” And what’s interesting, you go back to first Peter chapter five. Sorry, the beginning of Peter’s first letter in scripture, he tells people to clothe themselves with humility. He speaks with humility in his own letter and is important, and he calls himself a fellow presbyter or a fellow elder. So he says to them, “You have continued with my trials, my father, as my father appointed a kingdom for me, so do I appoint that you may eat or drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the 12 tribes of Israel.”
So the apostles sit on thrones. One of them is the greatest. And then in verses 31 through 34, this is where usually there’s a header that disrupts the flow. But then if we read that in the context, Jesus tells Peter, or he says, “Simon, Simon, Satan, demanded to have you all that he might sift you all like wheat.” He’s using the plural you. “But I have prayed for you,” singular in the Greek for Peter, “that your faith may not fail, and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”
So for me, I see very powerful evidence going back to the New Testament of seeing this idea that Peter has unique leadership authority and also a spiritual protection that is designed to provide support and protection for his brother apostles. And so for me, we then see that unfold as the church understands the Office of the Successors of the Apostles, the Office of the Bishop and the Bishop of Rome.
Oh, one more thing, I guess, when it comes to the modern papacy and the ancient one. I remember once reading a Protestant apologist, who was saying, we see Pope Francis in the Pope mobile and people are waving their arms and they’re shouting at him and he’s driving through St. Peter’s square, and he said, “I couldn’t imagine St. Peter being like this in the first century. We make the Pope out to be someone like this. I couldn’t imagine seeing this in the first century.” But if you read in the book of Acts, it says that when Peter walked down the street, people would line up on the street just to have his shadow fall upon them. So they would be healed. And the author of Luke never says this was a superstition or rejects this idea.
It’s not condemned. It’s a passing detail to show … I mean, I don’t even know anybody who tries to get Pope Francis’ shadow to heal them today. But this idea that detail reminds me of that, wow, there were people who wanted to see Peter when he came by just like people want to do the same with the Pope today, even more so. So I’m sympathetic to the concern, like, well, is the modern papacy like the first century papacy? I just think we should extend that to other things like the first century view of scripture, view of the church, a view of the incarnation of the Trinity and allow the doctrines to develop over time.
Austin Suggs:
So would it be fair to summarize that? And I don’t want to mis-summarize it, so please let me know if this is incorrect. But that we don’t need to see a full fledged doctrine of the papacy in the first century. We need to see that Peter and his successors have some type of unique authority. And then we can allow that Newman seed developing into a more full fledged doctrine. Is that too minimalistic?
Trent Horn:
Well, there’s different ways to go about understanding the development of doctrine on this issue, but I would just compare it to any other doctrine that we believe. I mean, what was it, the sixth or seventh century, centuries after the time of Christ, the church was defining doctrines like the Manasseh Light heresy. The idea that it was declared a heresy that Christ has only one will. That if you go to, I’m sure, Moody Bible Institute and others, when you’d go do your Christology class, you’ll go through the different Christological heresies. And one of the later ones is monothelitism, the idea is we’ll know of Christ has a fully human and fully divine nature, then he needs to have a fully human will and a fully divine will to under …
But however, I would say, we pronounce that as heretical to deny it. It’s an important part of Christology and Christology developer. When you read the Counsel of Chalcedon and it’s discussion of Christ, human and divine natures, you don’t see any similar discussion like that in the New Testament. But you important affirmations that Christ is called Theos. He is called God. He has a unique relationship with God, unlike any other prophet. And so I would say the same thing, we would occur with the understanding of the doctrine of the church, the doctrine of the papacy, that we see that amongst the apostles, Peter has unique leadership authority over the rest of the church. He’s given special protection to lead the church. And the number three would be what he has given is an office. All the apostles are given an office, but especially Peter to endure until Christ comes again.
In Acts 1:20, after Judas commits suicide, the apostles cast lots to select his replacement and they quote the Psalms and they say, they quote the Septuagint version of the Psalms, the Greek Old Testament. And they say, “Let another his office take,” which in Greek is, let another take his episkopen or [episkobit 00:09:55]. Literally, I think in the King’s English in Victorian English it will be translated, Acts 120, “Let another his bishopric take.” So an understanding that Peter has this authority, he has the charism to protect him from teaching error, and to strengthen his brethren, and that this is bound up within an office, an office that is meant to endure until Christ coming.
Austin Suggs:
Well, that segues perfectly into where I was planning to go. And that’s really helpful. And because where I’m at right now, in my course of studying this, which has been exciting, intimidating, and all the things on top of writing plenty of other theology papers. But for me right now, as I look at the historical evidence and the biblical evidence, we see that, like I said, the apostles certainly had a certain authority. And it seems that Peter is singled out as having some type of leadership role among them. And now even when I read some Orthodox scholars on this to get their perspective, it varies, but some would be willing to concede, yeah, that Peter had a certain primacy there.
And so the two questions that remain and you just hit one of them for me is, okay, so we have Peter as somehow, whether a leader of the apostles, or just first among, whatever term we get at there, which I know they’re significant, but in my head right now, for me-
Trent Horn:
It’s the Orthodox. Yeah, sure. The Orthodox will say that Peter and his successors, they use the term, he is a first among equals. He has a primacy of honor, but not necessarily a primacy of authority.
Austin Suggs:
Right. Which can be a lot to sift through. And for me, I think I’m still just kind of distinguishing between how you would determine between the two and what that would take. But at the place where I’m at with Peter in a significant role among this significant group of people, to understate it, the question becomes, okay, first is this transferable? So you’ve got Peter there, he has it, but then does Peter’s successor have it, which I think you started to get into there with the passage in Acts 120, I believe it was. And then, what authority does that end up entailing? Because I mean, I’m currently still a Protestant, I feel like I can affirm Peter has this high role, but does it get you all the way to the papacy? And is that a natural progression?
Because like we said, you don’t necessarily have to see it all. And I think that’s fair. I want to affirm all of Chalcedon and I’m not going to make the New Testament say one substance. I’m not going to look for that there. But is what we have today, is that just the natural outflow or when we get all the way to, what is it, 1870 with Vatican one and papal infallibility, has it taken this hard turn? I know that was a lot, but does that all make sense there?
Trent Horn:
No, I think that makes sense. And that’s why I think it’s important that when we are discussing this, especially from the Protestant perspective. I really think we do have to include the Orthodox perspective into this as another viable one. And almost as like a stepping stone to the Catholic perspective, because if you don’t believe in apostolic succession in general, the claims of the papacy are much harder to wrap your head around. I think someone who is Orthodox would have an easier time accepting and understanding of the successor of the Bishop of Rome, having unique authority because I mean, he’s already least used to the idea of bishops and patriarchs having authority going back to the apostles.
But if you’re a Protestant who believes that the apostles’ authority died out with them, and the only authority that has been left with us since their deaths at the end of the first century were their inspired writings, then it would be much harder to wrap your head around the papacy, much less that apostolic succession. So I think that’s important first is to get the foundation of apostolic succession, that when we look in the New Testament, we do not see Jesus and the apostles speaking about the enduring authority for Christians being a set of writings.
Jesus never wrote anything … Well, he wrote in the dirt at the stoning of the woman caught in adultery, he wrote in the sand. But we have no description of him writing a letter or a book, for example. Jesus never commanded anyone to write any of his words down prior to his ascension into Heaven. When you see in the time of the apostles, there’s no hint of a collection of sacred writings being the authority for the church after the apostolic age. Rather, what we read during the apostolic age would be the apostles teaching and leading, and then them appointing successors.
So one thing I think that’s interesting is the letter of the Hebrews says to submit to your elders. It talks about submitting to one’s elders, but who do I submit to? You look out there, there’s all these churches you could go to. What pastor do I submit to? I think for many Protestants it’s well, I submit to a pastor who’s faithful to the word of God. And the pastor who’s faithful the word of God is the pastor who agrees with my theological framework, basically. But I would say that when you look in the New Testament, becoming a pastor or an elder or Bishop, no one takes it upon their own initiative to do it. It’s like today among Protestants like, “Well, do I want to be a pastor? Okay, well, I’m going to go to seminary and then I’m going to see if I can get a job at a church as an associate pastor and see if I’m called to this.”
The Holy spirit leads you, but it’s kind of a self initiative. But in the New Testament, it seems clear to me that those who are pastors in the church, who will be the successors of the apostles, they’re chosen by the apostles. It’s not people who take the authority upon themselves. Not even in the Old Testament, someone who could just say, “I am a prophet because I was moved by God.” Rather, the elders and bishops, it appears that they have to have hands laid upon them. And that’s why Paul says to Timothy, “Don’t lay hands on someone too hastily.” He puts a lot of prescriptions around this.
So it seems to me that when I look at the New Testament, it seems very clear that scripture is not the sole authority. There’s an apostolic authority to lead people. It did not die out with the apostles. And so the only thing the Bible talks about how it’s transmitted is by the laying on of hands to others, to anoint priests and bishops in other areas. So for me, that helps me see, okay, apostolic succession, that would make sense that they wouldn’t leave us as orphans. This is the person will carry on that leadership, that we see very clear. But, Austin, I would say if you’re looking at a good early testimony to this kind of succession, the letters of Saint Ignatius of Antioch are very clear to me in that regard. St. Ignatius tells his listeners where the Bishop is, that is the Catholic Church. He says, “Follow the Bishop as Jesus Christ follows the father.” He even says that a church, St. Ignatius says, “You’re not a real church, unless you have bishops priests and deacons.”
So to me, it’s like the early church saw, “Okay, we see the succession. So once I have that, then we want to see, okay, but did Peter’s authority,” maybe even if the apostles gave their authority as successors, why would Peter’s authority, in particular, go particularly to a successor? And I would look at that both in the biblical evidence and historical evidence, biblically, when Peter is given the keys to the kingdom, I would say that that is an illusion to Isaiah 22:22. When Jesus says, “What you bind, no one shall lose. What is loosed, no one shall bind.”
In Isaiah 22:22, it talks about how the prime minister of the Kingdom of Israel, who served under the King, it said to this prime minister, “I give you the key of the house of David. He shall open and none shall shut. He shall shut and none shall open.” So what I see here in Matthew 16, and that later church fathers recognize, is that Peter’s role as the Pope, we can almost call him the prime minister of the Church of God. It was kind of like you had an in Israel, you had God is the King, there was the King of Israel like David, and then you had a prime minister or [Vizier 00:18:14] that oversaw the kingdom on behalf of the King.
So I would say that in the New Testament, we have Jesus Christ is our King, and the Pope serves as a prime minister, Vizier, that oversees the Kingdom on his behalf. And so I would see that both in the biblical evidence. And then the historical evidence, when you go to Ignatius of Antioch. And when we may talk about this a little later when we talk about history. Ignatius seems very clear. I know what the Orthodox say about Rome having a primacy of honor, but in his letter to the Roman church, he’s just so clear that the Roman church is unparalleled to any other church. He says to them, “You preside in love over the other churches.” That’d be in about 110 AD.
So he says the Roman church presides in love, and that word presides in his letter to the Magnesians, Ignatius of Antioch uses the word only to mean an official leadership capacity. So I guess, sorry for the mouthful of an answer, but that for me, gives me pretty solid evidence for a Petrine primacy and its transmission through an office of something like the papacy.
Austin Suggs:
That’s all really helpful. And it’s interesting. I believe I was reading in John Meyendorff and he was bringing up that idea of presiding in love. So the one thing I want to, I guess, nail down before we go to a couple of questions from patrons, who we’ll wrap up with that and just have to thank them so much for their support. But I think a sticking point for me, as a Protestant, is all the way to papal infallibility. You’ve got, I mean, even this high view of Peter, I feel comfortable with, but is that a stretch, I guess, is really the reservation to me that that feels like it might go … I guess the thing is, it feels like it’s going a little far. And how would you respond to something like that?
Trent Horn:
Sure. And what I would say is, I would look at it, I would compare it to other senses of infallibility to not make it seem as alien of a concept, and then look at the biblical and the historical evidence. So to compare it, I would say, “Well, what is the doctrine of papal infallibility?” It teaches that when the Pope, when he teaches under specific conditions, he is protected by the Holy Spirit from binding the church to error. He could still be a sinner, a grave sinner. We’ve had some whoppers in church history. He could even speak theological error if he’s not intending for this to be a formal pronouncement for the whole church. So it’s under these limited conditions he’s protected.
And I would say there are parallels to this kind of infallibility. First, I would say Protestants believe in this, the general idea that, as Catholics, we believe in the Census Fidelium, that the faithful as a whole will not fall away from the faith, that the Holy spirit protects the Census Fidelium, the faithful as a whole, will adhere to the church. It doesn’t mean there won’t be large numbers of people that fall away, but the church as a whole will be protected by the Holy Spirit.
And I think Protestants would agree with that as well, that the elect, those who are going to Heaven, they will not fall away. They have this protection. Then moving to the bishops, we would say, “Well, if you believe in apostolic succession,” so if you’re Orthodox, I think you would say that the bishops as a whole, now you might get a nutty Bishop here or there. I think the Orthodox would agree, however, that the bishops and patriarchs as a whole are protected by the Holy Spirit from leading the church into error. Though, that becomes unwieldy because without a central figure to unite them, it’s very difficult for all of them to teach in unison. That’s why it’s been very, very difficult for the Orthodox churches to hold a Pan Orthodox council without a single patriarch being able to unite all of them.
So I think that if you see also in scripture, I mean, if someone says, “Well, how could a Pope be infallible?” I might ask a Protestant, “Do you believe that Peter, when he wrote first and second Peter, was protected from writing error in those letters?” Well, yeah, sure. Of course. Because most Protestants believe in biblical inerrancy. Okay, so what Catholics would say is that Peter, if you were ever to make any other similar pronouncement, would be protected from error and his successors, who would make any similar pronouncement have that protection. So I’m building a bridge however to show that it’s not alien. And then if I did the biblical evidence looking back at Luke 24 to 34, as I mentioned earlier.
And then also the historical evidence, especially in the early church, I would just say to our Orthodox brothers and sisters, when you look at, and I think some of your questions actually deal with this, I won’t go into it with too fine detail. They really speak about Rome, the Roman Sea, the successor of Peter as having a special kind of charism or protection that they don’t say about other apostolic seas like Jerusalem or Constantinople.
It seems that the early church understood that Saint Cyprian said that Rome was the seat of unity, and there was something special about this sea that safeguarded the unity and protected it from error. So I guess I would compare the doctrine to show it’s not alien to our understanding of other senses of infallibility, and then look at the biblical and the historical evidence.
Austin Suggs:
Awesome. Thank you. And that really is just about the first question that I had on the list there. And so I want to say, first of all, thank you so much for going through all of this outline. This has been very helpful for me, and I have greatly enjoyed it. And I promised at the beginning to some people, when I first made this announcement that we would have a time of Q and A, and I had over 300 questions submitted. So you can imagine we’re only getting to a few. Yeah, they were excited, to say the least. And I will also say a special shout out to everyone who commented as well. Hey Austin, I would love to ask Trent questions, but more than anything, I want you to get your questions answered. So the support has been really great from so many of them.
But first question comes from Amanda, one of my patrons, and she said she would love to have some information on how best to charitably discuss and refute Orthodox claims against papal infallibility. Specifically the claim that is a new invention and not part of historic Christianity.
Now I know you were just talking about that, so if there’s anything you might add to that, or if you would just reference what you just said.
Trent Horn:
Yeah. So I’d reference what I previously said, looking at the early historical record. And first I would say that when we were discussing with the Orthodox about papal infallibility, papal primacy, it goes both ways. It’s kind of like when I said with Protestantism, it shouldn’t start as a default. And then if Catholicism’s claims don’t bear out, then you’re justified in remaining with, as a Protestant. I would say when we’re comparing the claims of orthodoxy to Catholicism to say, “All right, where is the positive evidence for the claim that the Orthodox make, which would be that Peter might have a primacy of honor, but not a primacy of authority?” For example, where do we see in the early church this affirmation that all of the successors of the apostles are equal in authority?
Now there are claims that they’re certainly equal in their authority as bishops. So it’s not the case that the bishops are merely extensions of the Pope. And so they’re essentially his puppets. They are all equally bishops. It’s kind of like what the Supreme Court. All the nine justices, provided it stays nine. We’ll see what happens here in the future. The justices are all equally justices. They’re all equal Supreme Court justices, but one of them, in this case, Justice Roberts, is recognized as a Chief Justice. And so that’s like an analogy that they all equally hold this office, but one has responsibilities that the others do not. And so I would just go to the historical record and show that.
And so, as I referenced my reply, you have people like Saint Cyprian who talked about heretics, who bear letters from profane persons to the throne of Peter, the chief church, where priestly unity takes its source, and not to consider these were the Romans whose faith was praised and the preaching of the apostle to whom this Roman church faithlessness could have no access. It’s about the third century. In 517, Pope Hormisdas, he said that in the apostolic [inaudible 00:26:28] in the sixth century, in the Apostolic Sea, the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished. In the Apostolic Sea or the Sea of Rome.
And then I would say, and I cover this more at length in my book, to Amanda, take a look at the positive evidence for papal infallibility, and then you would look at the negative evidence of supposedly instances of papal fallibility, which in those cases, they don’t satisfy the definition of infallibility being exercised. And I speak about those examples at length in my book, The Case for Catholicism, which I’d recommend if people want a follow-up on, especially on papal infallibility.
Austin Suggs:
Awesome. And I’ll be sure to leave a link to that in the description. The next question that I had, and I had this several times. And I’ll be honest, actually, I had to Google what this is. I wasn’t sure what they were talking about at first, but now I do, I think. But Jacob, a patron asked, “What would the conclave look like during COVID?”
Trent Horn:
Sure. So the conclave is a tradition that began in the 13th century of locking the card … The College of Cardinals was founded in the 11th century. And so putting the Cardinals, these particular elevated clerics in the church, locking them within some part of the Vatican to dispute amongst each other and to vote amongst each other, who should be the next successor of the Bishop of Rome. In the very early church, the successor of the Bishop of Rome was selected by the local clergy in the church of Rome. But then later in the middle ages, this task was delegated so it would have more universal understanding to the College of Cardinals.
And so in the 13th century, it was proposed to keep them … The problem was in the middle ages the church and state are pretty bound together. And so you have instances, the Lay Investiture Controversy, as it’s called, where princes and Kings saying, “I want this person to be Bishop.” And so then the Archbishop or the Pope selects this person. Now it’s still valid. It’s valid if they lay hands on this person. It’s just, the choice has been made by a civil authority.
So to prevent civil authorities from meddling in the election of the Pope, the Cardinals were locked conclave, Latin, without the key. And so they’re locked up and they have to decide, and they can’t come out until they decide. And that’s where we get the tradition of they burn the smoke, and if you get the white smoke, habemus papam, we have a Pope. So that’s how the conclave works.
So what would it look like suppose Francis were to die or to resign from the papacy as Pope Benedict did, and we still have COVID 19 or a similar pandemic, how would the conclave work? Well, there have been times in church history where there were times of emergency that prevented people from meeting to delegate a successor. These are called periods of interregnum. Now there’s always an interregnum. There’s always a period when one Pope dies, usually. Minor cases, resigns. But dies before the new Pope is elected. There’s always a period without a Pope. But there’ve been cases in church history where it’s gone on for years.
During the Diocletian persecution in the early church, Christians couldn’t meet so they could meet to elect a Pope, so we didn’t have a Pope for several years. So there could be, in the case of a global pandemic or disaster, you may have a longer period of interregnum, until the disaster is averted. Although, I would say with a pandemic like this, if the Cardinals could meet for a conclave, we have technology now, they would just be tested for COVID, and once they’re all tested and they’re all together, if they’re all negative and they’re together … I think what you might end up doing, honestly, you could test them, but even to be sure you could quarantine them for 10 days and then put them into the conclave. And if they’re all just together with each other, then it actually wouldn’t be that dangerous for them to meet. Though, they might do social distancing and things like that. But I don’t think if we had to have a conclave here during COVID, this disease would prevent that from happening.
Austin Suggs:
Thank you. Well, the last question that I had from a patron, it was from William and he said, “I’d love to know how the papacy in the early church is different from how it is now, or in other words, how it developed over church history and why it had to do so. I think we covered that pretty thoroughly. Any quick words you want to say on that?
Trent Horn:
I think we’ve covered a lot about how it’s changed over time, and there’s always better understandings of how the office of the papacy is exercised. Pope Saint John Paul II, wrote an encyclical called Ut Unum Sint. And in there, he offered various prescriptions for how the papacy could act with its authority, not in an autocratic way, not in a way that … There had been previous times in church history, where you look at the great schism between the Orthodox and Catholics, and there were people on both sides that acted imprudently, not allowing people in the East to retain their particular traditions, or making a fuss about how everybody has to celebrate the Eucharist a particular way with leavened or unleavened bread.
Whereas now in the church, we understand, no, we can have a diversity. We can have, like in my church, we receive the Eucharist through leavened bread. In the West, it’s usually unleaven. And that’s fine. You had harsh excommunications and rhetoric between the East and the West, between the Pope in the West and the Eastern patriarchs. Post John Paul II, in Ut Unum Sint, spoke about how the officer of the papacy can be exercised in a way so it’s not viewed as autocratic in the sense, but more a collegial. And as I said in the previous answer, things have changed in how the office is exercised or passed on. Whereas in the early church, it was basically the Roman clergy got together and voted on who would be the successor. But then it was tasked with the College of Cardinals later on in the 11th century.
Austin Suggs:
So, well, thank you so much, Trent. I have absolutely enjoyed this. I so appreciate your time. I know you’re a busy man and just had another child in the middle of moving and all of your work with Catholic Answers. So thank you so much for doing this. I want to just give you a second.
Trent Horn:
I know we don’t have time for all the questions, but I’m willing to take the very next question because I know it’s on people’s minds all the time and that’s the question-
Austin Suggs:
I just want to respect your time. So you take the time you want.
Trent Horn:
No, you’re great, because actually I do have another interview right after this. I double booked myself. But this is the question. What do we do about bad Popes? Past and present. Because I know many people, the papacy is a stumbling block. What if the Pope … A bad Pope can have many different meanings. You could have a mediocre Pope that’s just not great at carrying out the job. Some of the Popes in church history have done … They had mistresses. One of them dug up his old predecessor and put them on trial, his corpse. One of them, Benedict IX, sold the papacy to somebody and then got it back later.
What do we do about bad popes? We pray for them. We pray for them. We pray for priests, because if God is going to attack the Catholic faith, he’s going to attack those who give us access to the sacraments. We pray for them, just like we pray for all of our brothers and sisters in Christ. But the existence of some Popes who have failed in their duties should not dispel belief in the papacy, that the papacy is not guaranteed the Pope will be perfect or impeccable. In fact, the existence of bad Popes, for me, is an argument for Catholicism, because even when you had some of these Popes who were wildly promiscuous and sinful, even the really sinful Popes, they didn’t articulate heresy. Some of them were some of the best defenders of the church against heresy in spite of their bad, personal or private behavior.
So I think that’s what we would have to keep in mind. And a good book I would recommend on this point is by my friend, Rod Bennett, he wrote a book called Bad Shepherds: How the faithful thrived in church history under bad leadership. And so I think that we should pray for the Pope, pray for the bishops, but not let it deter us from investigating the claims of the Catholic faith.
Austin Suggs:
Awesome. Thank you so much. Trent, I’m glad you brought that up because I know a lot of people were curious about that. If you want to just real quick, let everyone know where they can find you. And if you want to let them know who your favorite Pope is too, which is on there, feel free to do that.
Trent Horn:
Sure. The last question. You can find me at trenthorn.com. I have a podcast, the Counsel of Trent, C-O-U-N-S-E-L, available on iTunes and Google play. I don’t have a favorite Pope because that’s like having my favorite person. I don’t even have a favorite Saint. But a Pope I found really interesting, I’d love to study more, is Pope Pius XII. His pontificate was from 1939 to 1958, and he was just a really smart, eclectic individual. His encyclicals covered the Bible in the modern age, evolution, he dogmatically defined the assumption of Mary. He was slandered by the Soviet Union after his death as being complicit with the Nazis, even though he saved countless Jews during the Holocaust. He would speak and write on … He gave thousands of written and oral addresses. If you look up here, Pope Pius XII beekeeping, he gave an address to a group of beekeepers once and he made a comparison about how bees act and how we should act within the body of Christ. So he was a really cool, eclectic individual. I’d love to study more Pope Pius XII. But check me out at trenthorn.com and trenthornpodcast.com.
Austin Suggs:
Awesome. Thank you so much, Trent.
Trent Horn:
Thank you, Austin.
If you liked today’s episode, become a premium subscriber at our Patreon page and get access to member only content. For more information, visit trenthornpodcast.com.