The Papacy

The following presentation is a production of Alpha and Omega Ministries Incorporated and is protected by copyright laws of the United States and its international treaties. Copying or distribution of this production without the expressed written permission of Alpha and Omega Ministries Incorporated is prohibited.

Opening Claims for the Papacy and the Rock of Abraham

I'd like to welcome you tonight. I want to thank Robert Zins and James White for coming here. I Believe that What we're going to be doing tonight, we'll be looking at the biblical evidence on the papacy and we believe that That the Catholic position on the papacy is true.

And that's what we're going to be trying to prove tonight that Peter has a role in the church today. We believe that Revelation ceases the deposit ceases at the time of Christ. So it's not as if we pulled this doctrine out 1700 1800 years later and Created a doctrine.

We believe that it originates with Jesus Christ and his words to Peter in Genesis 17 5. Abram's name is changed to Abraham. In Genesis 32 28 Jacob's name is changed to Israel. Whenever God changes the name of someone many times their purpose Function their mission will change.

Both Catholics and Protestants agree with this one print principle that God is the rock of the Old Testament. Now the Hebrew word for rock in the Old Testament is sir sur. This can be seen in Psalms 18 1 and 2.

Psalms 18 31 and 32. Isaiah 30 29. Many Different scriptures show this principle that God is the rock of the Old Testament. Both Protestants and Catholics would agree on that principle. But in Isaiah 51 1 and 2 it says look to the rock look to Abraham so to the Jewish mind Abraham is made the rock here.

It doesn't take anything away from Christ or God being the rock. The Jewish rabbinical commentaries at least the ones that I've gone through and I've gone through I've never seen one that does not Talk about Abraham being made the rock here would say this.

When God looked on Abraham who was to appear he said behold I have found a rock on which I can build and base the world. Therefore he called Abraham a rock. The important thing about this is these are the Midrash like the Qualcutts and they're back in the 12th century BC before Christ.

There's also Midrash is back in the 5th century BC, but we also have Jewish rabbinical commentaries. Which will keep commenting on the 2nd century after Jesus Christ. So the Jews looked at this scripture Isaiah 51 1 and 2 as being before Christ and also after Christ.

David Stern a Messianic Jew from Fuller Theological Seminary says this. When the Holy One wanted to create the world. He passed over the generations on Enoch in the flood, but when he saw Abraham was to arise he said behold I found a rock in which I can build and establish the world.

Therefore he called Abraham a rock as it is said and as Isaiah 51 1 and 2 now the majority of Protestant scholars Protestant commentaries and I've gone through about 50 of them are saying the same thing about this scripture.

This is the inner varsity press the new Bible commentary Abraham is spoken of as the rock from which you are hewn. In 1st Corinthians 3 11 Jesus Christ is the foundation. In Ephesians 2 19 and 20 Jesus Christ is the cornerstone, but he's going to build the church on the Apostles and the prophets.

It doesn't take away from Christ being the foundation. In Revelation 21 14 it says that they're going to build the foundation on the 12 Apostles. The people during Christ's time did not see it taking away from Christ being the foundation.

And in 1st Corinthians 10 3 4 we're told that Jesus Christ is the rock the famous scripture. They were about ready to Look at is Matthew 16 13 through 19. Now there's two different ways to look at this scripture.

As far as what languages they were written in the first part that I will be dealing with. And I believe it to be the correct way is the Aramaic way. But here is Oscar Coleman, and he says the great antiquity and the Palestinian origin of the section Matthew 1617 may today be considered beyond question.

This is shown by the quite Semitic Linguistic characters of the section the paralysms of the two statements your rock and upon this rock I will build shows that the second rock refers to nothing different than the first.

This is more clearly expressed in the Aramaic where the Kepha occurs both time than it is in the Greek. Thus here in the name and the thing are exactly identical. Whenever you look at the patristic evidence of what Matthew was written in the first century all of the different writers Papias in 130.

Say that Matthew's written in the in the Aramaic. Here's what he says of Matthew. He has to say Matthew compiled the Saints in the Aramaic language and everyone translated them as well as he could. Irenaeus in 180 origin in 244 say the same thing.

Eusebius in 325 Epiphanius and 373 Jerome and 390. Every one of the different church Fathers believe that Matthew is written in the Aramaic now even the Ebionites, which was the first century sect. That only believed in one gospel and that was their book of Matthew.

They agree that Matthew was written in the Hebrew in the Aramaic tongue in every other language except for the Greek. Which we're going to be looking at for example in the Syriac language the Hebrew language the Armenian language the Arabic language the Ethiopic language and the Persian language they have one word for each time.

They're talking about rock. So for example it from a Catholic standpoint. Here's how we would see it thou art Kepha rock and upon this Kepha rock I will build my church and the gates of hell. Hades will not prevail against it in all those other languages.

It's the same word both times. We see the correct translation coming down from Kepha would be thou art Petra Petra and upon this Petra Petra. I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.

If you were to look at your Greek in your linear what you would see is that the second Petra remains the same. But the first Petra changes and what it says is thou art Petros Petros and upon this Petra I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.

What are Protestant scholars saying. Why is the a ending changing to the OS ending. Petra is a feminine noun. Peter's name is masculine and in order for that to synchronize they have to change the a ending to the OS ending.

Okay. But as a as a non-catholic and being very anti-catholic at one time one of the things that I used to use against not Catholics was well thou art Peter was a little pebble and upon this rock Jesus I will build my church, but if Jesus wanted to use that word. He would have said thou art lithos li th OS.

But he doesn't use that work word. Now one of the things that that Bob is going to be touching on he is going to be touching on the Greek Aspect of this but one of the things that as I was studying And I was looking at Protestant commentaries at looking at this passage I began to see that I couldn't take the position that I'd been holding for about 15 years and as a pastor, okay Protestant commentaries Orthodox commentaries all of these I had looked over at 75 of them and the majority of those commentaries 99 .9 of those commentaries were saying that Peter was the rock here.

John meyendorff says the words of Jesus. He's an orthodox scholar on the roads to the Cesar. I flip I on this rock I will build my church are bound to the confession of Peter. The church exists in history because man believes in Christ the Son of God.

Without this faith there can be no church. Peter was the first to confess this faith and has become the head of the theologians to use an expression of the office. On June 29th He has received the messianic title of the rock a title which in biblical language belongs to the Messiah himself.

Gerald Kittles theological dictionary says. But what does Jesus many when he says on this rock? I will build my church. The idea of the reformers that he is referring to the faith of Peter is quite Inconceivable in view of the probably different setting of the story for there is no difference here to the faith of Peter.

Rather the paralysms of thou art rock and on this rock I will build chose that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter to whom he has given the name rock.

He appoints Peter the impulsive enthusiastic But not persevering man in the circle to be the foundation of his ecclesia the church to this extent. Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.

I remember going into the Evangelical bookstore in San Diego, and I said, please give me your best commentary on Matthew 1618. This is the interpreters Bible. The most natural interpretation of Matthew 1618 is that of the Roman Catholic tradition?

The rock is Peter. The word play in the whole structure of the passage Demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus declaration about Peter as verse 16 was Peter's declaration about Jesus. William Hendrickson the great reformed scholar says this the meaning is this you are Peter that is rock and upon this rock that is On you Peter.

I will build my church our Lord speaking Aramaic. Probably said and I say to you you are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my church. Jesus then is promising to Peter that he is going to build his church on him.

I accept this view. Gerhard Meyermeyer a. As a pastor you would you would be studying? He's a very conservative the end of the historical method says with all due respect to the reformers. We must admit that the promise of Matthew 1618 is directed to Peter and not to appear like faith.

The Lutheran Catholic dialogue says on that level precisely because the Aramaic identity of Kepha Kepha. There can be no doubt that the rock in which the church was to be built was Peter. The a Carson from Trinity Evangelical says although it is true that Petrus and Petra can mean stone and rock.

Respectively an earlier Greek the distinction is largely confined to poetry moreover. The underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable and the most probable Kepha was used in both clauses. You are Kepha on this Kepha since the word was used both for a name and for a rock the Beshidda written in Syriac language.

Cognate with Aramaic makes no distinctions between the words and the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between Petrus and Petra. Simply because it is trying to preserve the pun and in Greek the feminine Petra could not very well serve the masculine person.

I could go on and on Herman Ritter boss Knox Chamberlain down a reformed seminary. Blomberg at Denver Seminary. David Hill at a Sheffield. David Guthrie at a London Bible College. Albert Barnes Presbyterian conservative Anglicans.

RT France. Every person that is James Sheldon out of Oral Roberts University from the Pentecostal side the Abbot in press the Methodist Publishing arm has David Boren From the Church of Christ writing the commentary on Matthew 16 in the New Bible commentary.

And they admit that Peter's the rock. Now Bob will be filling us in on the Greek aspect of the rock. I have showed the Aramaic Aspect and Because we only have a Greek original we have to deal with the Aramaic text and Bob will be filling in on that.

The Keys of the Kingdom and Isaiah 22

Where does this language come from and I think this is the key thing. Where is Jesus drawing from when he's talking about Matthew 16 18? The backdrop that Jesus is speaking was at Caesarea Philippi, and it's a massive rock 500 feet long 200 feet tall and there were there are pagan temples being built.

That's how we get the word Philip the Caesarea Philippi. Philip the tetrarch with a dedicated a temple to Caesar Augustus. But where does this language to Jesus talking about in here? Where is he drawing from and here's what they're saying?

This is in the anchor Bible and most Protestant scholars are way ahead of Catholic scholars on this issue. But this is what they're saying. Isaiah 22 15 undoubtedly lies behind this. Keys of the symbol of authority and Roland of old rightly sees this the same authority is that visited?

Vested in the vizier the master of the house the Chamberlain of the royal household in ancient Israel Eliakim is described as having the same authority in Isaiah and Jotham as regent is also described as over the household.

FF Bruce and what about the keys of the kingdom. The keys of the royal and noble establishment were entrusted in. To the chief steward or major domer he carried them on the shoulder in earlier times and there they served as a badge of authority entrusted to him.

About 700 BC an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man named Eliakim. Isaiah 22 22 inner varsity press says that Oscar Coleman says that the majority of Protestant scholars are saying that but let me give you the backdrop what is about ready to happen.

David's kingdom is set up somewhere between the year 1010 and 990 according to Erdman's when we see this passage being in Isaiah. It's according to Erdman's. It's somewhere 740 to 680. Solomon's temple is being set up in the year 931.

A high shower is the first first person and first king for six that will talk about this chief steward role an Analogy so you can see this would be we have the Queen of England under the Queen of England.

We have the Prime Minister Mulroney and under Prime Minister Mulroney we have a lot of different ministers the Minister of Transportation Minister of Commerce and all these different ministers are answering to the Prime Minister.

But ultimately the Prime Minister has to answer to the Queen. So what is taking place in Isaiah? 2215 is this Shabna is the head of the master's palace it goes. We don't know why but God's gotten pretty mad at him and he says this in verse 19 I will depose you of your office.

So it's the office that Shabna has and What the person that's going to take that place he says in that day I will summon my servant Eliakim son of Hilkiah and with that office will go a sash of authority and we know that that authority where we'll be coming down through it will be coming down through the house of Judah and it will be recognized because Eliakim has the key to the house of David and then it goes on and To say whatever he opened shall be shut whatever he shut shall be open in Jewish rabbinical language.

What that means is this whatever Eliakim in this earth? Declares to be moral and doctrinal teachings. Jewish rabbinical laws Jewish interpretation on different things are going to be declared bound. Sealed in the heavens whatever he says is shut out here on earth are not going to be declared are not going to be sealed are not going to be bound in the heavens and Then it in verse 23 It says that this this authority this office is going to be transferred down to offsprings and offshoots.

But then something drastic is going to happen. Remember the destruction of Jerusalem happens in 586 and 587. God had formed a covenant with his people in 2nd Samuel 7 14 through 16 Psalms 132 and the Jewish people the temple has been destroyed.

There's no longer anyone holding this office in the keys and they're wondering what happened God. What have we done wrong? So what Protestant scholars are saying is this King Hezekiah? Was the king during the time of Isaiah and that's a foreshadowing of Jesus being the king in the New Testament.

The role that Shebna and Eliakim are playing in the Old Testament is the role that Peter will play in the New Testament. That's what the majority of scholars are saying in the Protestant realms. Blomberg will affirm that from Denver sending a reformed Baptist many different Protestant theologians are showing that.

But if you can't see it that way, let's go another way about it in Revelation 1 17 and 18. It says I I am the Alpha the Omega at the beginning of the end. I hold the keys to Hades. So Jesus holds the keys in Revelation 3 7.

It says to the Church of Philadelphia. To the one that is holy to the one that is true that holds the key to the house of David. Whatever he opened shall be shut whatever he shut shall be open. So Jesus whatever he declares to be moral and doctrinal teachings and also Jewish rabbinical laws and all those different type of laws.

It's a very general thing. Argumenting sealed bound in heaven's forever and ever but what does Jesus do with the keys before he leaves this earth? Jesus Always holds the keys because he's outside of time.

But what he does he delegates the keys to Peter it says going back to Matthew 16 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom. It's in the date of singular soy is the Greek word SLI and whatever you Singular Peter bind on this year shall be bound in heaven.

Whatever you singular again shall be loosed in heaven. So whatever Peter declares to be moral and doctrinal teachings on this earth are going to be bound. Sealed ratified in heaven's whatever he declares not to be bound as far as moral and doctrinal teachings.

It's not going to be bound sealed ratified in heaven's. So Peter has this role now when we go to Matthew 18 15 through 18 we see. There there's a disciplinary in the church. If somebody's done something wrong one person goes to that person and says you've done something wrong repent.

The next step is to bring two and three brothers if that doesn't work the next authority it says you to bring it to the church and If they're not if they don't least listen to the church, they're being treated as a pagan and a tax collector.

But then it goes on. He's talking to all the Apostles here. He says whatever you plural human h-u-m-i-n buying on their search shall be bound in heaven. Ratified sealed in heaven's. Whatever you declared not to be moral and doctrinal teachings down here on earth are not going to be bound are Not going to be sealed are not going to be ratified in heaven's, but what's the difference between?

The other apostles and Peter. What does Peter have that the other apostles don't have? He has the keys. The important thing to notice here is this. Just as it in David's kingdom had been set up for 400 years.

Those keys had been coming down for 400 years through a dynastic succession. Peter gets the keys and for us to say that those keys will not follow. With the next person after after Peter's role what Catholics would say that that goes along with?

Apostolic succession that those keys would continue on for 2 ,000 years and that Christ had preserved his church from that. This is the international critical commentary. He holds the key would have power within it power to admit power to exclude in Revelation 3 this power is held by Christ himself.

He that has the key of David that opens and none can shut and that shut it then no one can open. The words are modeled on the Isaiah 22 22 expressed supreme authority to hold the key is to have the absolute right which can be contested by none to bind in the loose and Jewish legal terminology are equivalent to forbid and allow to declare forbidden and declare allowed.

John 21, Luke 22, Acts 15, and the Chair of Moses

Now this next scripture that Catholics use is this. Jesus Christ is In in John 10 is the shepherd, but what he does in John 21 15 through 17 He says feed my lambs feed my sheep feed my sheep. The one thing to notice here is there's three different words.

Okay for feed the first one is Boscane and what that means is that Peter is to give spiritual nourishment to all the lambs to the people of God. Okay, the next word in that sequence is poymanane. And what that means is is that Peter is to be the ruler or the governor or the leader?

Over all the other shepherds. I mean we can see this 40 of the time in the New Testament when this is brought up this point of Poymanane means this you can see it in Matthew 2 6 Revelation 12 5 Revelation 19 15 Revelation 2 27.

Fact Revelation 2 27 says this. He will rule them with an iron scepter. He will dash them to pieces like pottery. So the point being is that Peters has this role over all the other shepherds. And we would see this is a distinction between the laity and the clergy.

But then the third time he comes back again He says feed my sheep and the word is boscane and Peter is to give spiritual nourishment to the to the shepherds themselves the bishops. Oscar Coleman says this we still must consider the wording of the Commission as it is formulated in John 21 16 Feed my sheep.

It has rightly been pointed out that the Damascus document Discovered in 1910 which in connection with the recent manuscript discoveries in Palestine take on particular report importance speak of the leader of the fellowship of the shepherd of the flock his duty is to proclaim the word explain the scriptures and exercise community discipline.

The next scripture and Bob will be covering that more in detail on that John 21. But the next scripture the Catholics use is this we see in Matthew 19 28. It says those that have followed Jesus will be sitting on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel and Luke 22 28 to 32 what it says is that they're arguing who's going to be the greatest in the kingdom of God and Then he's speaking just to the 12 apostles and here's what he says.

You're going to be able to eat and sup with me and you're gonna sit on the 12 thrones. Judging the 12 tribes of Israel the apostles have this role. They're gonna be doing something for the kingdom, but then he turns to Simon and he says this Simon Simon Satan has desired to have you that's in the plural.

He's desired to have all you apostles that he might sip you in the plural again. But then his wording changes, but I have prayed for you Simon singular that your faith singular May not fail and when you have turned aside when the clock goes three times you admit that you're you've done wrong singular again confirm your brethren.

That's in the singular. So we have two plurals four singular now many people would say that Peter had this role and then when he dies it leaves us, but let's take the first Council at the Council of Acts and Acts 15.

There's what we see taking place. There's much discussion going on. There's much arguing. There's going to the theological discussions and Peter gets up and he says that the Gentiles should be let in and He has this vision from Cornelius back in Acts 10.

Then what it says and the multitude became silent. Saga oh. And then it goes on in verse 13. It says Paul and Barnabas start telling about why the Gentiles should be let in and confirming what Peter had done.

But right after that it says the word Saga. Oh again. There's another silence and we're going to show tonight that that's the gahoe. The second silence refers to Paul and Barnabas and the first silence refers to Peter.

So it was the authoritative thing that the Gentiles should be let in this was a dogmatic thing. That would be that the church would let in and this would continue throughout the church for 2 ,000 years.

Then what happens is this James gets up and he says Simeon has declared. The word there is Exegguto the same word that came from John 1 18 when it says the father has declared the son and. Then Simeon gets up and gives a couple scriptures and then he says I give my voice I give my opinion the word there is a go Krino.

So what he is doing he's and and then he set down four different conditions known as the Noah kite laws out of Genesis and one of those conditions is that you couldn't have anything to do with blood eat it and.

Then we see in verse 29 It said it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us the church. That we would live with these four different conditions that we're putting on the Gentile believers. Coming in so they wouldn't scandalize the Jews the farther that you'd go out from a Jewish community.

These four different conditions did not Pertain to it. James is the bishop of Jerusalem. But when he writes the letter in verse 22 He says I write this letter in the name of all the Apostles and all the elders.

He's not trying to usurp Peter's position. In fact Paul in 1st Corinthians 8 and 1st Corinthians 10 says that as soon as He says it's all right to eat meat. As long as it's not sacrifice titles. 10 years later between 58 and the year 58.

The council was in 48. Paul's going against completely something different than what James had set up. It's a pastoral decision that's coming down and it can be replaced at any time and with Paul. It was replaced in 10 years the only thing that's authoritative that comes down to the council is the dogmatic decree that you Christians and Catholics hold to the day the Gentiles can be let into the church in.

There's a scripture. This doesn't pertain to Peter, but it pertains. It's in Jude 111. And what it says is this is Woe unto them for they have gone in the way of Cain and ran greedily up in the air of Balaam for a reward and perished in the gainsaying of Korah.

What is that referring to? It's referring to numbers 16 1 through 3 it was about the congregation of the people they were trying to usurp the position of the hierarchy and What did God do in the Old Testament when they tried to do that?

He smote them in Numbers 16 32. Why would he be you why would he be warning the people of God in the New Testament? About a hierarchy if you're coming against the hierarchy you're coming against God. The point that I'm trying to say is this there's many other scriptures and my time is about ready to end.

But Bob's gonna cover a lot of those different things. What we've done today is this we're trying to show that Jesus Christ is not a liar. That when he says the gates of hell will not prevail against the church that's founded on Peter.

Because he's made the rock that he has the keys and I can be sure that his faith will never fail because it's Jesus. That's going to guarantee the church in Matthew 23 1 through 3. It says the Pharisees and the Sadducees sit in Moses's seat.

Therefore you must obey them. Where is Moses's seat in the Old Testament? It's not there. The word there is cathedra. You must obey them the person that's sitting in that seat but then it goes on to say but if we have a pope that's not living up according to that to that Lifestyle we're not to live like that Pope.

But we're to obey the person that sits in Moses's seat and there's only one person that can sit in that seat. This is a first century finding. It's archaeological finding in Delios that we have Moses's seat and it can only fit one person.

So when we're saying that the Pope speaks ex cathedra on moral and doctrinal decisions it's because he's been given the divine right by Christ to be able to do that and Then I must obey them because Christ is morally binding them not to a written tradition.

But to an oral tradition that the Jews knew to be true.

Rebuttal: Rome's Claims About Peter, Clement, and the Councils

My pleasure to be here this evening with my esteemed colleague and my Worthy opponents and the issue before us this evening is one of great importance To each of you in the audience and each of you who will view this video in the future.

But we have presented before us an issue of deep and great importance whether or not the Pope in the Roman Catholic religion in Rome is the Vicar of Christ on earth so designated by our Lord Jesus Christ.

Now on September 20th 1351 Clement the sixth issued these questions to the Catholic con of the Armenians in a letter of examination of their beliefs Concerning the Roman Pontiff in these questions We find an apt description of what the Roman Catholic religion means When it speaks of Peter Being the Vicar of Christ on earth.

Let us suppose these questions were asked of you in the audience. What would be your response? What do you really believe about the Roman Pontiff? Indeed, what does the Catholic religion teach about the Roman Pontiff?

Can you disagree with this teaching and still be considered a Roman Catholic? Indeed can you in light of Roman Catholic dogma on this issue? Disagree, that is not be obedient to the alleged Vicar of Christ on earth and still be considered a Christian.

Here then are the questions we ask whether you believe that no man outside the faith of this church and Outside of the obedience of the Pope of Rome can finally be saved. We ask whether you have believed Believe or are prepared to believe that blessed Peter received complete power of jurisdiction over all faithful Christians from our Lord Jesus Christ and That every power of jurisdiction was completely subject to the authority and power Which blessed Peter received from our Lord Jesus Christ himself?

Over whomsoever our believers in Christ in all parts of the world and That no apostle or any other one whosoever Received that very complete power over all Christians except Peter alone. We ask Whether you have believed and have held or are prepared to believe and to hold that all the Roman Pontiff's Who succeeding blessed Peter will succeed in the same?

Plenitude in the jurisdiction of power Over the complete and universal body of the militant church, which blessed Peter himself received from our Lord Jesus Christ. Now in these citations, which I have read to you we find these words over and over again complete power of jurisdiction every power of jurisdiction completely Subject to the authority and power given to Peter over and over again complete universal power and authority power and authority.

The teaching of the Roman Catholic religion is that Our Lord Jesus Christ gave unto Peter every jurisdiction of power as fitting the head of the Church of Christ in the Council of Florence held under the authority of Pope Eugenius meeting in 1438 we have this striking appraisal of the role of Peter.

We likewise define that the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff Hold the primacy throughout the entire world and that the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of Blessed Peter the chief of the Apostles and the true Vicar of Christ and that he is head of the entire church and the father and teacher of all Christians and that full power was given to him in Blessed Peter by our Lord Jesus Christ to feed rule and govern the Universal Church Just as is contained in the acts of the ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons, etc Etc.

There can be no missing the point here. The Roman Catholic religion teaches that the Pope at Rome Has the authority power dominion and jurisdiction? allegedly given to Peter in the first century. Not much has changed today.

The modern Catholic religion has confirmed this dogma in the writings of Vatican II and In the new catechism of the Roman Catholic religion. The Catholic catechism quoting from Lumen Gentium dogmatic Constitution of the church in paragraph 22 has this to say.

The Lord made Simon alone whom he named Peter the rock of his church. He gave him the keys of his church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock the office of binding and loosening. Which was given to Peter was also assigned to the College of Apostles United to its head this pastoral office of Peter and the other Apostles belongs to the church's very foundation.

And is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope for the Roman Pontiff. By reason of his office as vicar of Christ and as pastor of the entire church has full supreme Universal power over the whole church a power which he can always exercise unhindered.

I Do not want anyone in this audience to go away with a misunderstanding of what the Roman Catholic religion thinks of their Pope. In summary Peter is said to be the teacher of all Christians the head of the whole church.

The root of the unity of the church we read these words from Pius the ninth. Therefore the Catholic Church alone is conspicuous and perfect in the unity of the whole world and of all natures. Particularly in that unity whose beginning root and unfailing origin are that supreme?

Authority and higher Principality of blessed Peter the prince of the Apostles and his successors in the Roman chair the Roman Catholic religion is so bold in their dogma as to say that to be subject to Peter and his successors is necessary for salvation.

If you disagree with this dogma that I have just read you run the risk Of being outside the orbit of salvation itself and do not qualify for the hallways of heaven. Listen to the words of these two Romish popes and Vatican one.

Furthermore, we declare say define and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman pontiff Boniface the eighth and whoever rises To reproach him cannot be an inhabitant of the heavenly regions.

Boniface the first or 18 if anyone then says that it is not from the institution of Christ the Lord himself or by divine right that the blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the Universal Church or that the Roman pontiff is Not the successor of blessed Peter in the same primacy.

Let him be a Nephima let him be accursed Vatican one dogmatic constitution on the church. And finally this is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and Salvation there you have it.

By Rome's own testimony I Stand here condemned. I am anathema ties. I Have no hope of the halls of heaven unless I repent of my position unless I consider the Language of these councils to be accurate in their fullness report of the primacy of the papacy I stand condemned before you.

Now the question in light of these claims for Peter being the vicar of Christ on earth We naturally must ask the question. Is there any biblical support and foundation? We are concerned in The first portion of this debate to determine if the Bible supports Rome in its claim that Peter was given absolute authority over the church.