Bertuzzi's Bizarre Rebuttal

Cameron Bertuzzi from Capturing Christianity recently posted a counter to Jerry Walls' argument against the papacy. I'd like to comment on it. Here is the post:

"One of, in not the, strongest arguments against the papacy comes from history. Dr. Jerry Walls has argued that four key historical sources (Ignatius of Antioch, Hermas, Clement of Rome, and Justin Martyr) don't mention a monarchical bishop residing in Rome.

Some Catholic Apologists respond to this objection by claiming that it amounts to an argument from silence--a kind of fallacious way of reasoning about history. Just because a historical source doesn't mention a particular event doesn't mean the event didn't happen. The problem with this response is that there are some conditions under which arguments from silence are perfectly acceptable. Namely, when we'd expect the authors in question to mention the data. And that seems precisely to be the case in the case of the previously mentioned sources. So the argument from silence response won't do.

Interestingly, a young PhD candidate, Joseph Blado, has argued that the proper response to the Wallsian argument is "skeptical papalism." He summarizes this view as follows: "I don’t think we are in the epistemic position to know from a historical standpoint if there was a special bishop in Rome who possessed such an ontological Papal status, and if early Church writers would write about it." In support of this thesis he argues, "The significance of being ‘the successor of Peter’ is completely obscure to the first century individual." In other words, the doctrine of the papacy is actually a pretty complex doctrine that we wouldn't expect to find explicitly explicated by any early source. He further argues that there are many potential historical documents, beyond the four that Walls draws on, that might point in the opposite direction. We're not in a position to know with much confidence that the documents we do have are representative of the documents there are. In the end, Blado concludes that, "One should conclude that it’s epistemically inscrutable to know from a historical standpoint if any individual in the first century Rome possessed such an authority, and if any individuals would be inclined to record anything about such a person. Hence, one should look to other sources to infer the truth value of the Papal doctrine."

What are your thoughts on this "skeptical papalism" approach to the historical argument against the papacy?"

Well, Cameron, I think it fails. It shows a few misunderstandings.

The problem here is the importance of the papacy to Catholicism. Indeed, it is central to the catholic faith. It appears Blado - and Cameron, by proxy - misunderstand the argument from silence. An argument from silence is valid when we would expect a topic to appear somewhere and it doesn't. I will use the assumption of Mary, another catholic doctrine, as a foil to highlight what I mean. The assumptions of Elijah, Enoch and Moses are discussed in early Christian literature (cf. 1 Clem. 9:3; Against Heresies 5:5, for example). Why not Mary? These sections of the writings would be the perfect opportunity to bring up the assumption of Mary, instead, we find silence on the matter. 

Blado's comment that being a successor to Peter would be "obscure to a first century reader," is, in my estimation, absurd. It would have not been obscure to a first-century Christian, given the fact that the papacy is the central doctrine of their faith! Also, it would be important to keep in mind that we are talking about "the rock" (Matthew 16:17-19) that Christ builds his church upon! Lest anyone be confused, I don't think that this verse implies anything like a papacy, I am responding to Catholics on their own grounds.