The Papacy

The following presentation is a production of Alpha and Omega Ministries, Inc. 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, Inc.

is prohibited. 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 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 principle, that God is the rock of the

Old Testament. Now the Hebrew word for rock in the Old Testament is sur,

S -U -R. 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 B .C., before Christ. There's also

Midrashes back in the 5th century B .C., but we also have Jewish rabbinical commentaries which will be 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 on which I can build and establish the world.

Therefore He called Abraham a rock, as it is said in 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

InterVarsity Press, the new Bible commentary. Abraham is spoken of as the rock from which you are hewn.

In 1 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.

In 1 Corinthians 10 .3 and 4, we're told that Jesus Christ is the rock.

The famous scripture that we're about ready to look at is Matthew 16 .13 -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 16 .17, may today be considered beyond question. This is shown by the quite

Semitic linguistic characters of the section. The parallelisms 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 times 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,

Pappius in 130 say that Matthew is written in the Aramaic. Here's what he says, of Matthew he has to say,

Matthew compiled the sayings in the Aramaic language and everyone translated them as well as he could. Irenaeus in 180,

Origen in 244 say the same thing, Eusebius in 325, Epiphanius in 373,

Jerome in 390. Every one of the different church fathers believe that Matthew is written in the

Aramaic. Now even the Ebionites, which was a first century sect that only believed in one gospel, and that was the book of Matthew, they agree that Matthew was written in the

Hebrew and 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, 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 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, P -E -T -R -A, and upon this

Petra, P -E -T -R -A, I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. If you were to look at your

Greek 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, P -E -T -R -O -S, 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 O -S 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 O -S ending, okay? As a non -Catholic and being very anti -Catholic at one time, one of the things that I used to use against 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, L -I -T -H -O -S, but he doesn't use that word.

Now, one of the things 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, 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 Caesarea Philippi, 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 could be no church.

Peter was the first to confess this faith and has become the head of the theologians, to use an expression in 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 Kittel's Theological Dictionary says, but what does

Jesus mean 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 parallelisms of thou art rock and on this rock

I will build shows 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 16, 18, this is the interpreter's bible, the most natural interpretation of Matthew 16, 18 is that of the

Roman Catholic tradition, the rock is Peter, the word play and 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 Meyer, as a pastor you would be studying, he is very conservative, the end of the historical method says, with all due respect to the reformers, we must admit that the promise of Matthew 16, 18 is directed to Peter and not to a

Peter 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 on which the church was to be built was

Peter. D .A. Carson from Trinity Evangelical says, although it is true that Petros and Petra can mean stone and rock respectively in 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 and on this Kepha, since the word was used both for a name and for a rock, the

Beshidah written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses.

The Greek makes the distinction between Petros 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 Ritterbos, Knox Chamlin down at Reform Seminary, Blomberg at Denver Seminary, David Hill out of Sheffield, David Guthrie out of London Bible College, Albert Barnes, Presbyterian Conservative, Anglicans, R .T.

France, every person that is James Sheldon out of Oral Roberts University from the

Pentecostal side, the Abbotton 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 is 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. Where does this language come from?

And I think this is the key thing, where is Jesus drawing from when he is talking about Matthew 16, 18?

The backdrop that Jesus is speaking was at Caesarea Philippi and it is a massive rock, 500 feet long, 200 feet tall and there were pagan temples being built.

That is how we get the word Caesarea Philippi, Philip the Tetrarch dedicated the temple to Caesar Augustus.

But where does this language that Jesus is talking about in here, where is he drawing from?

And here is what they are 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 are saying. Isaiah 22, 15, undoubtedly lies behind this. Keys of the symbol of authority and Roland DeVoe rightly sees this.

The same authority is 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.

F. What about the keys of the kingdom? The keys of the royal and noble establishment were entrusted to the chief steward or major donor.

He carried them on his 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. InterVarsity Press says that, Oscar Coleman says that, the majority of Protestant scholars are saying that.

But let me give you the backdrop of 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 according to Erdman's it's somewhere 740 to 680.

Solomon's temple is being set up in the year 931. Ahasuer is the first person in 1st

King 4 .6 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 Moroni. And under Prime Minister Moroni we have a lot of different ministers.

The Minister of Transportation, the 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 22 .15

is this. Shebna is the head of the master's palace. 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 Shebna 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 will it 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 to say whatever he opens shall be shut. Whatever he shuts shall be opened.

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 heaven.

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 in verse 23 it says that this authority, this office is going to be transferred down to off springs and off chutes.

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 2 Samuel 7, 14 -16, Psalms 132.

And the Jewish people, the temple has been destroyed, there is no longer anyone holding this office and the keys and they are 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 is 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 is what the majority of scholars are saying in the

Protestant realms. Blomberg will affirm that, from Denver Seminary, Reformed Baptists, 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 am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and 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 opens shall be shut, whatever he shuts shall be opened.

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, argument sealed, bound in Heavens forever and ever.

But what does Jesus do with the keys before He leaves this earth? Jesus always holds the keys because He is 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, soi is the

Greek word, S -O -I, and whatever you, singular Peter, bind on this earth 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 Heavens.

Whatever he declares not to be bound as far as moral and doctrinal teachings, it's not going to be bound, sealed, ratified in Heavens.

So Peter has this role. Now when we go to Matthew 18 -15 -18, we see there is a disciplinary in the church.

If somebody has 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 need to bring it to the church.

And if they don't listen to the church, they will be treated as a pagan and a tax collector. But then it goes on,

He is talking to all the apostles here and He says, whatever you, plural, H -U -M -I -N, bind on this earth shall be bound in Heaven, ratified, sealed in Heavens, whatever you declare 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 Heavens.

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 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 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 who 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 shutteth and no one can open.

The words are modeled on Isaiah 22, 22, express supreme authority. To hold the key is to have the absolute right which can be contested by none, to bind and to loose and Jewish legal terminology are equivalent to forbid and allow, to declare forbidden and declare allowed.

Now the next scripture that Catholics use is this. Jesus Christ in John 10 is the shepherd, but what

He does in John 21, 15 -17, He says, feed my lambs, feed my sheep, feed my sheep.

The one thing to notice here is there's three different words for feed. The first one is boskain and what that means is that Peter is to give spiritual nourishment to all the lambs, to the people of God.

The next word in that sequence is poimenane and what that means 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 poimenane means this.

You can see it in Matthew 2, 6, Revelation 12, 5, Revelation 19, 15,

Revelation 2, 27. In 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 Peter has this role over all the other shepherds and we would see this as a distinction between the laity and the clergy.

But then the third time he comes back again and he says, feed my sheep and the word is boskain and Peter is to give spiritual nourishment 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 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. In Luke 22, 28 -32, what it says is that they are arguing who is going to be the greatest in the kingdom of God and then he is speaking just to the 12 apostles and here is what he says,

You are going to be able to eat and sup with me and you are going to sit on the 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel.

The apostles have this role, they are going to 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 is in the plural, he has desired to have all you apostles, that he might sift 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 have done wrong, singular again, confirm your brethren, that is in the singular, so we have two plurals, four singulars.

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, the council of Acts, Acts 15, here is what we see taking place, there is much discussion going on, there is much arguing, there is theological discussion 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,

Sagao, 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

Sagao again, there is another silence and we are going to show tonight that that Sagao, 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 the church would let in and this would continue throughout the church for 2000 years, then what happens is this,

James gets up and he says, Simeon has declared, the word there is exegesito, 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 egokrino, so what he is doing, and then he set down four different conditions, known as the

Noachite 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 are putting on the

Gentile believers coming in so they wouldn't scandalize the Jews, the farther that you go out from the

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 is 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 is alright to eat meat, as long as it is not sacrificed to idols, 10 years later, between 58, the year 58, the council was in 48,

Paul is going against completely something different than what James had set up, it is a pastoral decision that is coming down, and it can be replaced at any time, and with Paul it was replaced in 10 years, the only thing that is authoritative that comes down to the council is the dogmatic decree that you

Christians and Catholics hold to today, that Gentiles can be let into the church, there is a scripture, this doesn't pertain to Peter, but it pertains, it is in Jude 1 .11,

and what it says is this, it is woe unto them, for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily up into the air of Balaam for a reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Korah, what is that referring to?

It is referring to Numbers 16, 1 -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 warning the people of God in the New Testament, about a hierarchy, if you are coming against the hierarchy, you are coming against God, the point that I am trying to say is this, there is many other scriptures, and my time is about ready to end, but Bob is going to cover a lot of those different things, what we have done today is this, we are 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 is founded on Peter, because He has made the rock, that He has the keys, and I can be sure that His faith will never fail, because it is

Jesus that is going to guarantee the church, in Matthew 23, 1 -3 it says, the

Pharisees and the Sadducees sit in Moses' seat, therefore you must obey them, where is

Moses' seat in the Old Testament, it is not there, the word there is cathedra, you must obey them, the person that is sitting in that seat, but then it goes on to say, but if we have a pope that is not living up according to that lifestyle, we are not to live like that pope, but we are to obey the person that sits in Moses' seat, and there is only one person that can sit in that seat, and this is a first century finding, it is archeological finding in Delios, that we have

Moses' seat, and it can only fit one person, so when we are saying that the pope speaks ex cathedra on moral and doctrinal decisions, it is because he has been given the divine right by Christ to be able to do that, and that 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. So, 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, for 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 VI issued these questions to the Catholicon 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 are 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 Pontiffs 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.

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. 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 IX. 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 I. 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 8th, and whoever rises to reproach him cannot be an inhabitant of the heavenly regions,

Boniface the 1st, 418. 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 anathema, let him be accursed.

Vatican I, dogmatic constitution on the church. And finally, this is the doctrine of Catholicism 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 anathematized. 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.

Does the Bible indeed support the contentions of the Catholic religion when it comes to Peter?

We wish to be as noble minded as the Bereans to examine the scriptures as to whether these things are so.

Will a fair reading of the scriptures yield to the Romish claim of Petrine primacy as defined by the aforementioned popes and councils?

We ask, where is the biblical proof from the Bible offered up by Romanists for their conclusions that Peter received complete power of jurisdiction over all believers in all parts of the world, and no other except Peter alone received this very complete power?

That all Roman pontiffs will succeed the same plenitude of jurisdiction of power.

That all future Roman pontiffs who are vicars of Christ have received immediately from Christ this power in the highest degree over the complete and universal church.

That Peter had full, supreme, universal, whole, church power over all other apostles and was chief apostle, true vicar of Christ, and head of the entire church.

We ask for the biblical data. Let us review then the portrayal of Peter given to us in the

Word of God. Simon, brother of Andrew, son of Jonah, is presented to us in scripture as one of the first disciples called by the

Lord to follow him. Early on in his relationship with Jesus, Simon was given the name Peter, Petros in Greek, Cephas in Aramaic, Peter, Petros, and Kepha all mean stone or rock.

And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, you are Simon, the son of Ioannis.

You shall be called Cephas, which translated means Peter. Paul refers to Peter as Cephas in 1

Corinthians 1 .2. In fact, Paul refers to Peter as Cephas in circumstances that convey just the opposite meaning of the modern papal designations.

For we find that some at Corinth were holding men in high esteem, and Paul reports this to the

Corinthians, now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas, and I am of Christ.

There is no other name where guilt and their sin was holding a man in high esteem, rather than holding

Christ in highest esteem. Again in 1 Corinthians 9 .5, Paul brings up Cephas as an illustration of apostles having the right to bring along believing wives.

Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the

Lord and Cephas? In Galatians 2 .9, the pillars of the church,

James, Cephas, and John, triumvirate, three not one, give to Paul and Barnabas the right hand to fellowship in acceptance of their call to the

Gentiles. And recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James, Cephas, and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand to fellowship that we might go to the

Gentiles and they to the circumcised. And we note early on that Paul had to oppose

Peter to his face for Peter's hypocrisy, but when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he stood condemned.

But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas, in the presence of all, and I noted that the rest of the

Jews had joined him, Cephas, in his hypocrisy.

Aside from these well -known references in the epistles of Paul, Peter is best known for the following.

He's among the inner group, Peter, John, and James in Luke 8 .51, the raising to life of the daughter of the synagogue official.

In Luke 9 .28, it is Peter, John, and James at the transfiguration.

In Matthew 26 .37, they are together again at the Garden of Gethsemane. Peter is the impetuous one in the scriptures, walking on water in Matthew 14 .28,

but drawing the sword in defense of our Lord in John 18 .10.

He affirms Jesus in Matthew 16 .29, that he is 1616, thou art the Christ, the

Son of the living God. But later on in the same chapter, Matthew reports that Peter rebukes

Jesus. May God forbid it, Lord, that you should do this. He denies our

Lord Jesus Christ. In Luke 22 .60, we read these words from Peter, Man, I do not know what you are talking about, in reference to the accusation that he was with our

Lord on the night of his betrayal. We find Peter going fishing, going back to his old profession, having thought the entire scenario of the

Savior was finished. Or in John 21 .3, we read, I go fishing.

And then we find him being restored at the end of John 21 .10, to my sheep. We find him writing two letters to the

Jewish diaspora, 1 and 2 Peter. But in all of the New Testament data, there is not a shred of evidence for Peter being a

Pope. There is not a shred of evidence for the office of Pope, anywhere in all of scripture.

What we do find, are fallible human beings. Peter was a sinner saved by the grace of God, and called to be one of the original men to confess

Christ, and proclaim Him in the world. God worked marvelously through Peter.

Paul, and the other men whom he chose, to spread this gospel. Peter was special, but Peter was no

Pope. In fact, we now need to turn our attention to the fallibility of Peter.

After receiving the keys to the kingdom of heaven, Peter attempts to stop Jesus from his appointed mission in Jerusalem.

Matthew 16, 22 and 23. After receiving the keys of the kingdom of heaven,

Peter joins in an argument about who would be first in the kingdom. Luke 22, 24.

And there arose also a dispute among them, as to which one of them was regarded to be the greatest.

Why the dispute? Why the argumentation? If it was settled by our

Lord, that Peter would be in fact the greatest. After the day of outpouring of the spirit of God at Pentecost, Peter is confronted by Paul, at Antioch, with the accusation of immorality, that is deceit, and undermining the gospel, that is the faith issue.

Listen to these words, but when I saw that they were not straightforward about the gospel,

Peter being among them, not straightforward about the gospel, and the

Jews join him in hypocrisy. Peter shares authority with James and the other apostles at the council of Jerusalem.

Acts 15 has already been mentioned in the opening statement of my opponent.

Let me say briefly here, that we find in Acts 15 verse 4, that it's the apostles and elders meeting together.

We find in verse 6 of Acts 15, it's apostles and elders, and in verse 22, it's the apostles and elders, all in harmony.

Not one shred of evidence that Peter was the governor of the council, the vice regent holding the key of David at the council.

Not one shred of evidence whatsoever. In fact, James stands up and has the final word and closes the session.

Peter admits to equal if not greater status in the writings of Paul, in his second epistle.

Just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you as also in all his letters, speaking in them things in which some things are hard to understand.

Peter's own testimony to the credibility of Paul in his writings, in some things, perhaps that Peter didn't even understand, as well as Paul.

Peter is never said to be the all powerful leader in the church by anyone at any time. In fact, Paul's words indicate the opposite, where he says in 2

Corinthians 11 .5, For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent of apostles.

Peter finally refers to himself as a fellow elder in 1 Peter 5 .1,

Therefore I exhort the elders among you as your fellow elder, and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and I partake also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock.

Peter writing to fellow elders, telling them to shepherd the flock, poimen, shepherd the flock.

Peter is never called Pope or Father in all of Scripture. Now let's take a look at the book of Acts.

The book of Acts is the unfolding of God's redemptive program. It is a chronicle, as it were, of the historical outworking of salvation, beginning from the day of Pentecost and moving forward.

We find the first sermon given by Peter in the book of Acts. We find first Gentile converts in the book of Acts.

We find first missionary journey in the book of Acts, and it's in the book of Acts where those who believe on Christ are first called

Christians. Shouldn't we search and find a shred of evidence where we might find

Peter being called Pope first in the book of Acts, or at least given primacy in the book of Acts?

Hardly. Peter is obedient to Scripture in Acts 1 when he says, Brethren, the

Scripture had to be fulfilled. He does not take authority on his own as vicar of Christ on earth, but rather he subordinates his exhortation in Acts 1 to the

Scriptures. Scripture had to be fulfilled. Peter is conspicuous in Acts 2, but not alone.

Peter is prominent in Acts 3, but not alone or above his peers. Peter is a defender of the faith in Acts 4 and Acts 5, but not alone.

He is always with another apostle. He acts in concert with fellow believers.

There's no trace of potpourri here. Peter goes down to Samaria in Acts 8, but he is not alone, and incidentally he is sent down.

He does not carry a peculiar jurisdiction or authority over John with whom he goes. The text reads,

Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them

Peter and John. Peter was sent by the other apostles.

Peter preaches the Gospel and heals in Acts 9, but there is no hint of potpourri here. In Acts 10,

Peter is amazed at the work of God at the household of Cornelius. In recounting the experience,

Peter proclaims that the Holy Spirit was given to the Gentiles and fell upon them just as he fell upon us at the beginning.

No distinction given by way of the Spirit of God being given unto believers differently from what was given to Peter and all early believers.

In fact, if we take into account the book of Acts, we believe that Paul would be a better candidate for being

Pope at Rome. Paul was especially set aside by the Holy Spirit for his ministry,

Acts 13 .2. Paul did not consult with flesh and blood concerning the contents of his

Gospel, Galatians 1, 12 and 17. Paul says in his own testimony that he had the pressure of the entire church on him continually.

That is something a Pope might say. I have the pressure of the entire church on me continually, 2

Corinthians 11 .28. Paul was especially entrusted with the Gospel to the Gentiles.

Peter was entrusted with the Gospel to the Jews, Galatians 2 .7. Whereas the 15th chapter of the book of Acts ends the accounting of the ministry of Peter, there is no more mention of his missionary work nor advice to the church in the book of Acts or the epistles of Paul.

Paul is mentioned throughout the remaining chapters of Acts, all the way through Acts 28, and writes six times as much to the body of Christ as Peter.

If you are looking for a Pope, ladies and gentlemen, give it to Paul. No one has more prominence, no one has more authority, no one has more divine initiative in his ministry than the great

Apostle Paul. Furthermore, Paul at least claimed authority, whereas Peter never did.

Listen to the words of Paul. If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which

I write to you are the Lord's commandment. That's papal language. And we, for this reason, we also constantly thank

God that when you receive from us the word of God's message, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.

First Thess 2 .13. Who is to shepherd the flock of God according to the word of God?

What does first century ecclesiology look like from the New Testament? Well, the New Testament plainly paints the picture of a multitude of missions in the local church.

The local body is to be governed by elders, presbyters, bishops, episkopos in the assembly.

They are to be aided by deacons, diakonos, servants. This we find in Acts 20, verses 17 and 28.

On Paul's final departure for Jerusalem, he calls together the elders at Ephesus and warns them.

He doesn't call the Pope and warn him. He calls the elders, plural, together to warn them.

What are the qualifications for an elder or a bishop? According to the New Testament, they're clearly set forth in Scripture and have nothing to do with Romish popery.

Read it yourself, 1 Timothy 3, 1 and following, and Titus 1. What was the gospel of Peter?

What gospel did God give to Peter? Peter preached the gospel of repentance and faith for forgiveness of sins.

We find these words in Acts 2, 38, repent and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the

Holy Spirit. Again, in Acts 15, 11, but we believe that we are saved through the grace of the

Lord Jesus, in the same way also as they are. This message is contrary to the modern message of Rome and serves notice that scriptural

Petrine prominence has nothing to do with Romish religion, let alone the false primacy of the

Romish Pope. I'd like to turn now in the final few minutes that I have to a focus on an initial denial of the

Roman Catholic interpretation of four passages summoned to prove Romish popery.

Matthew 16, and I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock

I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.

Whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Matthew 16, 18, and 19.

We deny that Matthew 16, 18 establishes that Peter was the very foundation of the church with all the aforementioned power and authority lauded on the

Pope at Rome. It cannot be proven that the original

Matthew was written in Aramaic. This eliminates the Catholic charade of Aramaic originals, lending the so -called true translation of thou art

Cephas, and upon Cephas I will build my church. Ladies and gentlemen, there is no proof whatsoever that Matthew was written in Aramaic originally.

We have not one scrap of manuscript evidence that it was in fact Aramaic. There is scholarly opinion, and that's it.

What we do have, however, is manuscript evidence of the Greek text that has a differentiation in the words.

Secondly, the use of the demonstrative pronoun upon this rock I will build my church diverts attention away from Peter.

Christ did not say upon you I will build my church.

The change from second person to the demonstrative opens up the proclamation of Christ to either

Peter's confession, thou art the Christ, or to Christ himself. And I also say to you that you're

Peter, and upon this rock, this being the demonstrative, not upon you

Peter, but upon this rock, diverting attention away from Peter to either his confession or to Christ himself.

Thirdly, even granting Peter as the rock upon which Christ will build his church does not lead to popery. Petrine prominence has already been noted.

It is an unwarranted leap from Peter being an apostle of initial prominency to the

Pope at Rome. Christ is everywhere called the foundation of the church. Also, the passage does not say upon this rock and thy successors

I will build my church. Neither does it say that the universal Son of the body of Christ will be in Rome.

Luke 22, 31 and 32 was mentioned, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers. There's no room for popery here, or power or papal potency.

Jesus exhorts Peter to strengthen his brothers after he himself has been restored from his own serious weaknesses.

The word strengthen here is used in Revelation 3, 2 as part of the Lord's admonition to strengthen the things that remain.

There is nothing magical about this exhortation. Paul wishes to strengthen the church at Rome with his visit,

Romans 1, 11, same word. John 21, 15 through 17, that was read earlier, there's nothing in John 21 that remotely suggests popery.

This passage centers around the reinstatement of Peter to the ministry after he decided to go fishing.

We notice the three -phone questioning of our Lord by way of recapitulation. This is a new charcoal fire, and unlike the one where Peter denied the

Lord, this fire will be a source of warmth and sustenance. The entire episode centers around the reenlistment of Peter for the work of service.

Ironically, Peter, unlike modern Romish popery, is told to keep his mind out of what

God may be doing with others, for Jesus said, if I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?

Thank you. I'm Bob St.

Genes, and I thank you for all being here tonight. Mr. Zins, I would like to thank you for a very accurate historical presentation of what the

Catholics believe about the Pope, very accurate. However, your biblical information is totally inaccurate, and I will address each of the points that you have brought forth to us.

In Galatians 2, as Mr. Zins pointed out, he says that Peter was upbraided by Paul for what

Peter had done in perverting the gospel, supposedly. Let me just give you some background on this issue.

Paul's major concern in Acts 15 .1 is that the Jews are commanding that the

Gentiles be circumcised before they come into the church. That is his concern. That is also his concern in Galatians chapter 2.

We read that he didn't want to circumcise Titus to give the Jews any space to say that yes, we were falling back into the circumcision that we were denied.

That is the issue. Is that what Peter is doing in Galatians chapter 2? No, not at all.

Paul accuses Peter of disfellowshipping with the Gentiles, a very minor infraction.

Peter is not doing what Paul had accused him of. He is not perverting the gospel.

He is not circumcising anyone. Paul is overreacting to Peter. It is actually the very

Paul who had decided to circumcise Timothy because he had an understanding of the

Jews. He wanted to placate them. He circumcises Timothy so that it would be much smoother to approach the

Jews. Then he changes his mind in Galatians 2 and says that I didn't circumcise

Titus because I didn't want to give any place to the Jews. But which is it, Paul? One or the other?

He does this both because Timothy is a Greek and Titus is a Greek. That is the criterion that Paul uses.

Yes, Paul is overreacting. What is Paul's address to? The Galatians, the

Judaizers. These were the ones who were trying to circumcise Christians and say that they had to be circumcised, had to obey this law to become

Christians. When you read the rest of the Galatian epistle, that is his concern. As a matter of fact, he says I wish they would circumcise their whole body and leave me alone.

His concern is not with Peter. Augustine says yes, Peter did have a moment of imprudence, but it wasn't the destruction of the gospel that we are told that it is.

In Matthew 16, Mr. Zinn says that Jesus rebuked

Peter for Peter's alleged stopping of Jesus from going to the cross as if this is some great crime.

Let me back up a little bit and give you the context of Matthew 16 so you can understand what is going on here.

Peter is given a revelation from God. Jesus recognizes, he says, you did not have this information given to you by flesh and blood that I am the

Son of God, it was given to you directly by the Father. You see, the whole context that Jesus is basing the giving of the keys to Peter is on the revelation that Peter received from God, not so much on his faith.

Yes, faith is a prerequisite for anyone who comes to the kingdom, but what is special about Peter that is not given to the other apostles is this revelation from God directly.

Now, we know that Peter was not given a revelation that Jesus had to go to the cross and die, because in the next verse it says that is the first time that Jesus told the apostles that he had to die.

So naturally, Peter is surprised at this. The Father had not given this information to Peter. He had given the information that yes, he was the

Son of God, but not that Jesus had to go to the cross. So there is no conflict here.

There is no issue here. Jesus is now teaching Peter, yes, I must die, and not even until Jesus died and rose again did the apostles really understand the death and resurrection of Christ.

Not a shred of evidence we are told for Peter being the Pope. Peter was a sinner.

I did not know that sin was a disclaimer or disqualifier for being a Pope. I did not read that anywhere in the

Bible. He brought the fact out that the apostles are talking about who is the greatest.

This is pettiness among the apostles. This is their problem. They are all vying for leadership, vying to see who is the better among them.

That is exactly what Jesus is condemning. Don't talk about who is the greatest. What Jesus wants them to be is servants.

That is exactly what Jesus said he was. He was going to be a servant. Does that diminish his authority at all because he wants to be a servant?

No. This is exactly what he does not want Peter to be, to claim to be the greatest.

It is not a competition here. It is a position of servanthood for the rest of the church.

That is what Jesus is concerned about. In Acts 15 we are told that all the apostles and elders are present.

Well, I hope so. It is a council. That is why they are there. But who is the one who stands up first and declares this dogma that the

Gentiles do not have to be circumcised in order to be let into the church? It is Peter. You know what else

Peter says? He says, God told me this. A revelation again.

The same thing as in Matthew 16. God told him that in Acts 10. The sheep came down with all the animals in it.

As a matter of fact he backs it up and he says, and why do you test God trying to give

Gentiles this burden to carry? He is speaking in God's place at the council. Everybody is hushed up listening to him.

Paul and Bartimus come over and give examples of all the miracles that were performed. Yes, Peter is right. James stands up and says, yes,

Peter is right. Simeon has declared this. And I want to add my little opinion here. And then the whole group gets together and says yes.

But Peter made the doctrinal proclamation that still stands today. Gentiles do not have to be circumcised to be let into the church.

He says in 2 Peter 3 .16, Peter did not understand what Paul was writing. Where does it say that? In 2 Peter 3 .16.

He says the unstable wrestle with Paul's writings that they don't understand it. It doesn't say that Peter didn't understand it.

In 1 Peter 5 .1 we are told that Peter is just a fellow elder. That he addresses these people just as a fellow elder.

And that doesn't really give him any prominence among these people. Well, I don't know about you, but when I talk to a group of people,

I don't say, hey, you know, I'm the big cheese here. I'm the boss. You have to listen to me. What you do is you come down to their level and you say,

I'm a fellow elder with you. Just like the president would say, I'm a fellow American citizen with you.

But it doesn't diminish his authority as the president of the United States. Exactly what is happening here is

Peter is doing exactly what Jesus told him to do in John 21. If you remember what my colleague had said about John 21.

Jesus uses the special Greek word poimene. Almost half of the time that it's used in the

New Testament refers to ruling. There are lambs and sheep that he is supposed to rule over in John 21.

They must represent the whole church. There's nobody else in view here. In other words, Peter is to poimene, to rule, to govern over this whole church.

And he is also to boske, to feed them. That's exactly what he's doing in 1 Peter 5 .1.

He is governing, he is ruling, and he is feeding. What Jesus told him to do. He says in the book of Acts, he's always with another apostle.

Why hope so? I hope that the apostles wanted to travel around with Peter, and trying to imply that this means that Peter is somehow degraded or that, you know, because he has these companions along with him.

Please, people, don't get that impression at all. If you look at what's happening in the book of Acts, every chapter that talks about Peter, he holds the prominence.

He's the one who speaks. John, who is the inner circle of the apostles, is there. And John doesn't say a word, most of the time.

John doesn't perform, he may perform miracles, but there's no recorded miracles of John, nor James.

Peter is the one who raises people from the dead. His shadow is curing people.

As a matter of fact, when it refers to the apostolic man, it says Peter and the apostles. It doesn't even name the other apostles sometimes.

He says that Paul did not consult flesh and blood in Galatians chapter 1 and 2. Yeah, here's

Paul, knocked off his horse. He's got all this new stuff he's got to learn. God gives him this special revelation.

But what does he do afterwards? He goes to see Peter for two weeks to consult with Peter. The Greek word used there is hysteria, which means to get information from, to learn from.

Now, if Peter has no prominence, why is Paul going to him? He's consulting with flesh and blood now, because Peter is somebody.

Yes, Paul says, I had the pressure of the church on my shoulders. I hope so, because he is the messenger to the

Gentile churches. He's the one who's doing it, as Peter was to the

Jews. I hope he has the pressure. He has to take that pressure, that's God's mandate for him. Paul is mentioned more than Peter was the claim.

So what? This doesn't, I mean, Paul has a mission to do from God.

Peter had his mission to do from God. Frequency is not a criterion for leadership.

It's not a criterion for papal primacy. And he says that because Paul says, the things

I write to you with the Lord's commandment, as if Peter doesn't believe the same thing. As a matter of fact, that's exactly what

Peter says in his epistles. Things I write to you, I want you to believe too, because it's scripture. They both believe scripture is

God's Word. I would say that too, if I were Paul or Peter. And he says in Acts 17,

Paul calls the elders, not the Pope. It's because he's dealing with elders at the church.

The Pope isn't there. He's in Jerusalem. Why call the Pope up there? He doesn't need the

Pope in Acts 17. They don't have having a council there. They had their council in Acts 15. Let me give you some more information about the understanding of Matthew 16,

John 21, Luke 22, and others. As I said before, there is a revelation that is given to Peter.

It's not based so much on his faith. Now, the problem that Protestants have is they don't understand that someone can be called rock and another person can be called rock.

Someone could be called a stone, another person can be called a stone. In Ephesians 2 20, the apostles and the prophets are the foundation.

And Jesus is called the foundation. Believers are called stones and rocks. Jesus is called a stone and a rock.

The metaphors are interchangeable. Jesus is called the shepherd and bishop.

The exact same two words that are given to the pastors of the church, shepherd and bishop. One amazing thing that I found in Matthew chapter 16 is this very word that was brought up, this.

When Jesus says, upon this rock, I will build my church. It's the Greek, Taltite Petra.

This is a very interesting phrase in Greek because it can be translated this. It could be this very rock, or this same rock, or even this rock.

If you want to prove this to yourself, go to Protestant translations of this Greek phrase in the Bible and you will see it.

In the King James Version, for example, it's translated as the same in 1 Corinthians 7 20, or this same in 2

Corinthians 9 4. The same thing can be found in New American Standard Bible, the Revised Standard Bible, the

NIV, the NEB, all Protestant versions of the Bible. In other words, how could we translate this phrase?

It could be this, upon this very rock, I will build my church, or upon this same rock,

I will build my church. The Greek word Taltite there has a very demonstrative force. Yes, Mr.

Zins, it does. It's pointing out exactly the rock that I just talked about two words ago.

That's the natural reading of this text and verified more by the Greek. What's even more amazing is what

Jesus didn't say. He didn't say, upon the rock, or upon a rock, to make it more ambiguous.

He said, upon this rock, or this very rock. He didn't say, you are Peter, but upon this rock,

I will build my church. He said, you are Peter, and upon this rock, I will build my church. He's connecting the two phrases together, showing that they're one in the same.

There was an argument brought up in the production Mr. White did from Peace White Productions, claiming that the word you is in the second person in this passage, and because the word rock is in the third person, therefore, second person and third person do not match up, therefore,

Peter cannot be the rock. Let me tell you this, we don't need anything past eighth grade grammar to understand that rock is a noun, and it doesn't have person.

Pronouns have person. I, you, he, she, it have person. So it's a fallacious argument to say that second and third person don't match up together.

Another aspect of this passage is very important. Jesus says, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.

In Hebrews chapter 6, verse 13, it says that God cannot lie. That means that God cannot bind anything in heaven that is a lie on earth, because God cannot lie.

God cannot confirm, validate, or accept anything that is an error in heaven, because he is

God. That is his nature, not to lie. Therefore, whatever Peter binds on earth must be without error, or God could not bind it in heaven.

How will this happen? Because God will intrude into the mind of the Pope and prevent him from error.

That's the only way it can happen. The precedent for that was already set in Matthew 16, when

Peter was given a revelation from God that Jesus was the Son of God. It wasn't for Peter's own heart, it was given to him by God.

That's what the Pope has today. In John 21, when

Jesus says, do you love me, Peter? Feed my sheep, and the whole scenario there. Does Jesus say to Peter, as some

Protestants tell us, well, Peter, you don't really agape me, you only phileo me, so I'm not really going to accept your answer?

That's the kind of claim that is made, because Peter is using a different word for love. No. Jesus accepts

Peter's answer every time. He says, yes, Jesus, I love you, and he says, okay, do this.

This is your job, this is your position. Feed my sheep, shepherd my sheep, feed my lambs, and he does that very thing.

The other apostles are all there. No one of them is approached. James and John, the inner circle, are there.

They are not approached. They are not given this job and position. Peter is. He passed the initial test.

Jesus gives people tests before he gives them a position. He had failed, yes, but now he is going to be reasserted, and Jesus wants to know where his heart is.

Yes, Jesus, I love you. The comment was made that when, in Luke 22,

Jesus says, when you are turned around, strengthen your brothers, that this word still reads on in the Greek. It is used of Paul to confirm the brethren.

Well, of course, all that does is define the word. Yes, it does mean to confirm, but what is the context of this passage?

It is used in reference to Peter's relationship with the apostles, not the laity. He is to confirm the apostles, the highest authority that there is on earth, and in order to confirm them,

Peter must be a higher authority. In 1

Peter 5 .1, which I already covered a little, it says that Peter tells the people to feed their flocks, to shepherd their flocks.

That's because he is fulfilling the mission that Jesus gave him from John 21, feed the sheep, rule the sheep.

It was pointed out that that word means to rule. As a matter of fact, other words are used in that context.

Presbyteros, episcopate, all words that are used for leadership in the church.

Peter is using those. In Isaiah 22, that was brought up by my colleague.

It's amazing when you go back, if you remember the argument there, Eliakim in Isaiah 22 is the prime minister under King Hezekiah, and many

Protestants are claiming that yes, this is where Matthew 16 gets its language from. Yes, it appears in Revelation 3 .7

as well, where Jesus says, I have the key of David too, but there's a sharing of authority. Just like the father can have authority, the son can have authority.

It doesn't diminish the son's authority because the father has authority, nor the father the son. Likewise, it doesn't diminish

Jesus' authority if he gives to Peter authority. But what is important about this is the dynastic succession of this office, and in the

Hebrew it's called El Habayit, the master of the palace. In our setting, it could be something like the chief of staff of the

White House. That's what Peter is. The house is the church. He's the chief of staff.

He rules that house. That's exactly what Israel had. Ahishar under King Solomon.

Arzah, 1st Kings 16 .9 under King Elah. Under King Ahab, there was Obadiah, 1st

Kings 18 .3. It's the same Hebrew phrase that is used, El Habayit, the master of the palace, and that was passed down in succession all throughout

Israel's history. Now there's only one king left, Jesus, but there is a prime minister still, and there's a succession of prime ministers going on.

Now we are told that there is no succession. Can you imagine when the framers of the

U .S. Constitution got together and they elected George Washington as their president, all the while musing that after his death there would be no more presidents?

Can you imagine that happening? No, that's an absurd proposition. Now are they any smarter than Jesus?

Doesn't Jesus know the future? Yes. Why would he set up an office in Matthew 16 and all these other places giving

Peter this position and not follow it through with a succession? It doesn't make sense.

In my next approach, my next time, I will go through succession even in more detail in the scripture.

I just want you to be, when you listen to the rest of this debate, please understand that because scriptures are thrown out and said this way or that way, please, as the

Bible says in Proverbs 18, 17, when you hear one story, wait till you hear the other side, because you need both to make your decision.

The necessity of listening to all that is said this evening and remember what my colleague Mr. Zinn said.

Roman Catholicism is not telling us that the papacy is a probability. Roman Catholicism is not telling us this is something that we might want to believe.

Roman Catholicism is telling us this is something we must believe and it's absolute truth. It is not an issue where you can have arguments that, well, maybe

I can come up with an argument here and maybe I can come up with a possible understanding of this passage, a possible understanding of that passage and string them all together and that's enough.

No, when you tell people that they have to believe in what you're teaching under pain of the anathema, it cannot be that that doctrine is the end of a long chain of syllogisms and at every single point along that line you can successfully challenge that line of thinking.

If that's all we are presented with this evening is, well, maybe we can understand it this way or maybe we can understand it that way, that is an insufficient basis for the

Roman Catholic doctrine of the papacy. Now, I only want to refer to one thing that Mr.

St. Genes said just a few moments ago while still fresh in your mind and that is in regards to Galatians chapter 2.

He said that what Peter had done was a very minor infraction and to quote him,

Paul is overreacting to Peter. I would like to ask who Mr. St. Genes is to judge what the scripture says at this point.

It is the scripture that says at Galatians chapter 2 verse 4, but it was because the false brethren who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty, which we have in Christ Jesus in order to bring us into bondage, but we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you.

Paul is talking about the truth of the gospel. He's talking about false brethren in relationship to the truth of the gospel and it's in that context that we have verse 14 that Mr.

St. Genes says is Paul's overreaction, but when I saw that they were not straightforward about what?

Just a minor thing about table fellowship? No, verse 14, but when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel,

I said to Cephas and the presence of all. My friends, I think one of the major problems of the church today is that we think that being not straightforward about the truth of the gospel is a minor infraction.

Now, in regards to Matthew chapter 16, you're going to be hearing a lot about this tonight. You're going to be hearing a lot about Luke 22, John 21,

Matthew 16, because folks, that's all Rome has. That's all there is, so that's what we have to deal with.

Now, as we look at Matthew chapter 16, we have heard it said, well, it must have been written in Aramaic.

I would like to challenge our Roman Catholic friends to come up here and show us the Aramaic Matthew. Show us how they can have certainty of what it said in the

Aramaic Matthew. Dr. Kurt Alon, the greatest living expert in the text of the

New Testament, summarizes my position. It was also held by Alexander Bruce and Schoed and Nigel Turner and Robert Gundry and many others, quote, there is no longer any doubt that Greek was the language in which all the parts of the

New Testament were originally written, end quote. Now, are there people who believe it was written in Aramaic? Yes, but can you base an entire dogma upon which you will use the anathema upon a mythical Aramaic original that you don't know what it said?

Oh, but we know what it said. No, you don't. For example, I would like to suggest for you reading the very recent work of Chris Karagounis, available in English translation under the title

Peter and the Rock. Karagounis provides compelling documentation against the theory that we have here in Matthew 16, a repetition of the

Aramaic term kepha, demonstrating that the evidence would more likely favor the use of the Aramaic term minra for the phrase upon this rock

I will build my church. Now, let's say you disagree with Karagounis. That's fine. The simple fact matter is there is a perfectly logical and scholarly alternative, the

Roman Catholic position, but there can't be alternatives to absolute dogmas, folks. If you base yourself upon this concept of the

Aramaic original, I simply would challenge my friends here to show us the Aramaic original, prove to us that it did indeed say that.

The simple fact matter is Rome claims to have canonized scripture and the gospel they canonized wasn't in Aramaic.

Now, anyone familiar with the comments of scholars on this passage is aware of the multitude of differing positions taken about it.

I would like to point out to you that the central theme of Matthew 16 is the messiahship of Jesus Christ.

Any interpretation that takes the focus off of Jesus as messiah is missing the point.

Jesus' questions to disciples about the opinions of the multitudes and then their own viewpoints are all directed toward his own person, his own identity.

When Peter speaks up and confesses that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God, he is confessing the faith of all the disciples, not merely himself.

He is speaking for them all as he so often does. Jesus' pronouncement of blessing upon Peter is not due to any inherent goodness in Peter, but is due to Peter's being the recipient of a great blessing from the father.

Now, the subject of the passage remains the identity of Christ found in the confession of Peter. When the Lord says,

I tell you that you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not overcome it, the focus does not change.

Jesus is not here speaking of the identity of Peter. He is still talking about himself and his church.

This is plainly seen by continuing on through verse 20 where we read, quote, then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the

Christ, the Messiah. Some modern scholars, having missed the fact that the focus remains on Christ all the way through, are so puzzled by his passage, they suggest it's not in the original.

But such conjecture is simply not necessary. The rock of which the Lord speaks is that common confession made by all who are part of the church.

Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God. This is seen, I believe, in the fact that while the Lord is addressing Peter directly, and by the way, these are the very words

I used in the video presentation Mr. St. Genes just misrepresented. Listen closely to what I actually said.

In the fact that while the Lord is addressing Peter directly, he changes from direct address to the third person, this rock, when speaking of Peter's confession.

He does not say, upon you, Peter, I will build my church. Instead, you have a clear distinction between Peter, the

Petros, and the third person. In what? In address. He's not addressing this

Petra. He's addressing Peter, second person. I say to you, Peter, but upon this rock, something else, third person of address,

I will build my church. Notice something that has not been brought out by our Roman Catholic friends.

This statement is followed by the promise to at some time in the future, I will give.

Doso in the Greek is future. I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter.

So what he binds on earth will be bound in heaven. Whatever he looses on earth will be loosed in heaven. I emphasize this is a promise.

The verb is future intense, yet when we see this authority given in Matthew chapter 18 verse 18, it is given not to Peter alone or even primarily, but to all the apostles.

And that using the exact same language, word for word regarding binding and loosing.

If someone wishes to say that Peter receives the keys in distinction from the other apostles, and that's what

Mr. Butler says in his own copyrighted materials that he was presenting to you as he was giving his presentation.

If someone wants to say that, they are also forced to admit that the giving of these keys to Peter and Peter alone is never recorded for us anywhere in scripture.

A strange thing indeed for something supposedly so fundamental to the constitution of the very church itself. Now it is very true that there are many

Protestant interpreters who identify Peter as the rock in Matthew 16. For example, Dr. William Hendrickson follows this course as was cited to you.

However, unfortunately again, it is not brought out as I think it would have to be brought out to be honest with these things.

That all of these Protestant interpreters that say this are quick to reject any papal pretensions that are placed upon this passage.

Dr. Hendrickson who was cited in part not in full by Mr. Butler, in his commentary on page 645 presented three views that he said must be rejected.

One view that is to be appreciated and one that he takes himself. The second view presented that must be rejected is that quote, this passage proves that Peter was the first pope, end quote.

He then quotes the same passage from Cardinal Gibbons book, The Faith of Our Fathers and says as follows, and this is a very exalted statement about Peter being the pope, the passage does not support any bestowal of well -nigh absolute authority on a mere man or on his successors, end quote.

Similarly, we find Dean Alford identifying Peter as the rock but following this with the following statements, quote, we may certainly explain with bingo all this may be said with safety for what has this to do with Rome.

Nothing can be further from any legitimate interpretation of this promise than the idea of a perpetual primacy in the successors of Peter.

The very notion of succession is precluded by the form of the comparison which concerns the person and him only so far as it involves that direct promise.

In its other in general sense is applying to all those living stones, Peter's own expression for members of Christ's church of whom the church should be built, it implies its origin excellently comments on it saying that all this must be understood as said not only to Peter as in the letter of the gospel but to everyone who is such as Peter here show himself as the spirit of the gospel teaches us, end quote.

Therefore the Protestants that are cited are all saying the same thing as Frederick Dale Bruner is writing, they are emphasizing quote, the uniqueness the historical ones for allness of Peter's commission is rock.

The text does not say on this rock and on his successors I will build my church, solus

Petrus, Petra Peter alone. To take this text literally is to honor

Peter only. Peter was given the first place by Jesus as the one who first confessed Jesus Christ the divine son and so Peter is made the first rock of the church.

For the church is built upon the foundation of the apostles like Peter and prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.

I want to comment just briefly on the use of Isaiah chapter 22 and the key to the house of David to Peter himself in Matthew chapter 16.

Such an attempt at connection is logically necessary for their own position for there must be some effort found somewhere in scripture to establish succession in this passage despite the fact that it simply isn't there.

Yet upon what basis do I identify the keys and Mr. Butler went back and forth between key and keys never pointing out there's a difference between the two.

The keys plural of the kingdom of heaven which are associated plainly with the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ in the

New Testament with the key singular of the house of David which is messianic in nature.

How do we connect those two? We weren't told and should we not instead accept the interpretation given by the

Lord Jesus himself when he cites Isaiah 22 22 of himself in Revelation 3 7 where we read into the angel of church of Philadelphia right he who is holy who is true who has the key singular of David who opens no one will shut and who shuts and no one's open says this and quote

Jesus has present tense the key of David. He does not say that he gives this key to anyone else and it's very interesting to note that in the materials that Mr.

Butler has written he says well yes Jesus has his key but who did he give it to before he passed off the earth see

Matthew 16 19. Wait a minute can we put this in order here this is being written to the church of Philadelphia folks there was no church of Philadelphia when

Matthew 16 was written and when that was promised was made. Jesus says I am right now the one who holds this key and that's long after Matthew 16.

There's a real problem with anachronism in the arguments being presented by our friends across the way this evening.

Now John chapter 21 I hope you're all keeping a deep seat in the saddle. John chapter 21 you've heard it read to you feed the sheep feed the sheep so on and so forth shepherd the sheep.

Now we are going to be dealing with the church fathers in just a few minutes but I hope you don't mind my using

Cyril of Alexandria as my interpretation of this passage because I agree with him. Cyril said if anyone asked for what cause he asked

Simon only though the other disciples were present and what he means by feed lambs and the like we answered that Saint Peter with the other disciples had already been chosen to the apostleship but because meanwhile

Peter had fallen for under great fear he had thrice denied the Lord he now heals him that was sick and exacts a threefold confession in place of his triple denial contrasting the former with the latter and compensating the fault with the correction end quote.

Here we have the gracious Lord restoring the apostle who in his brash impetuosity had promised to follow him even to death and yet had denied him three times.

The threefold question of Peter followed by the command to feed or shepherd Christ's sheep is restorative in nature nothing in the passage even begin to suggest to us that this means that the other apostles were not likewise commissioned to feed and pastor

Christ's flock on an equal base with Simon Peter there is no indication that only

Peter is told to shepherd God's flock nor that all others who shepherd the flock do so derivatively from Peter's supremacy which is the

Roman position indeed if such were the case Paul seems to have been very ignorant of this doctrine for he instructed the

Ephesian elders in Acts 20 28 keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers be shepherds of the church of God which he bought with his own blood

Paul does not say as Peter is the chief shepherd you act as under shepherds of the flock of God no again the only way that such an understanding can be found is if we have take a much later development and read it back into the text as our

Roman Catholic friends are forced to do this passage in no way sets Peter apart as the prince of the apostles instead it shows that he was in need of special pastoral care on the part of Jesus Christ then

Luke chapter 22 was brought up Simon Simon Satan has asked to sift you as wheat and the Lord Jesus prays specifically for Simon now even after Jesus tells

Peter that he's in trouble he rashly says in verse 33 the same passage Lord I am ready to go with you to prison and to death to which the

Lord replies that Peter will in fact deny him three times Roman Catholics have cited this passage as pointing out yet once again the preeminence of Peter and some have even gone so far to say it the

Lord's prayer for Peter's faith extends to Peter's successors in the bishops of Rome yet if there is any

Petrine primacy here it is Petrine primacy in the denial of Christ not in being the vicar of Christ this passage like John 21 shows us that Peter was more in need of pastoral care by the

Lord due to his impetuosity nothing more the Lord's prayer was fulfilled for even having denied

Christ Peter unlike Judas went out and wept bitterly but his faith did not fail completely and he was restored humbled but wiser to take this as indicating

Petrine primacy however is to go far beyond anything the text says and again if this is the type of basis that a dogma upon which you use the anathema is based we have a real problem now some have said that Peter is here set apart from the others by the phrase and when you have turned back strengthen your brothers

Mr. St. Genes just told us yes de Rydzine is used elsewhere for example in Acts 14 22 and 15 32 and many other places this term is used and not only of Peter by the way those places are where Paul confirms the churches but he says if you're going to do that you have to have higher authority where to get that from I don't see it in the passage where does it say those who confirm someone else must be of higher authority

I would like to find the lexical sources from which Mr. St. Genes derived that meaning of St. Rydzine I would like to ask him to provide those things to us in his opportunity of responding to my comments now in the few moments that I have left

Mr. Butler told us that in Matthew chapter 23 we have the chair of Moses and in his printed materials he says that Christ passed the chair of Moses on to Peter I would like to invite all of you to take your

Bibles to read Matthew chapter 23 and see if you can find anywhere anything about the chair of Moses being passed on to anyone in fact

I'd like to invite Mr. Butler to show us a single place where cathedra in the Greek is ever used of Peter at all

I'd like to see where this comes from we were told that that is the case much has been made of Acts chapter 15 we were told that we were going to be demonstrated that one use of Sagao and another use of Sagao means this that and the other thing we haven't heard any of that but in Acts chapter 15 again

I would invite you to take the time to get out your Bible read it and see if Peter is a pope in Acts chapter 15 don't start with the assumption that he is just read the scriptures and ask yourself the question is the man speaking starting at verse 7 through verse 11 the vicar of Christ on earth do the people hearing him see this man is the vicar of Christ on earth the

Holy Father the one upon whom the church is built ask yourself if that passage teaches this

Peter speaks the truth we were told that he got a revelation here he doesn't say that he says you know that in the early days

God made a choice among you that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe and he preaches the truth about the gospel that the

Gentiles are not to be brought under the necessity of circumcision but then after he speaks is the issue over would you derive that from any honest reading of the text verse 12 says and all the multitude kept silent and they were listening to Barnabas and Saul as they were relating what signs and wonders

God had done to them among the Gentiles Paul Paul wait a minute the vicar of Christ just spoke you don't need to relate these signs and wonders the case is settled it's all over we don't need this

Paul you don't need to do that anymore no Paul confirms the truthfulness of what

Peter has said Peter is exactly right but for some reason Paul and Barnabas felt the need to get up and the whole assembly fell silent as they listened to what they were saying and when they then fell silent that is

Paul and Barnabas James gets up and I would like to point a few things out a

I would like to ask my friends to show us anywhere else in Acts 15 where the speaker uses the imperative mode in the

Greek issues a command James says brethren listen to me imperative and then we were told that in when when

James gives his decision and when he talks about my judgment in verse 19 well that's my opinion that's just my voice you know it doesn't mean anything more than just simply my voice verse 19 says therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the

Gentiles ego crino I judge is that used of opinions yeah it is is it also used the very judgment of God by the same author yeah it is read it for yourself and judge and again remember these things folks if in every single one of these verses

I can give you a perfectly logical consistent implausible alternate understanding the

Roman position fails the Roman position is based upon this long line

Peter's the rock Peter's given the keys nobody else has given the keys this somehow has something to do with Isaiah 22 that has something to do with the bishop of Rome therefore their successors if you can challenge that line all the way along think about what it means for Rome to say you are anathema if you reject this belief thank you very much my concluding remarks will be confined to rebutting what

Mr. White has just said in Galatians chapter 2 he asked who was I to judge that Paul was just overreacting that's exactly the point in the context of Galatians 2 there is no divine judgment

God is not saying Paul you're correct Peter you are wrong nor Paul you are totally correct and Peter you are totally wrong we must remember that this is written from Paul's disposition

Paul was really concerned about people circumcising Gentiles but let me reiterate that is not what

Peter did Peter just disfellowshipped himself from eating with Gentiles that is not a major crime that is not distorting or destroying the gospel circumcising

Gentiles is destroying the gospel he talks about the

Aramaic we don't need the Aramaic I don't even use the Aramaic in my arguments

I use the Greek that was very demonstrative in pointing out the demonstrative tauti te petra this very rock

I don't know how much clearer it can be in Matthew 16 what else does

Jesus have to say to us to get it through our heads it is not the rock it is not a rock it is this rock

I just talked about Petro's means rock John 1 42 he changed his name from Simon to rock the

Aramaic Kephas how much more information do we need he says that Peter speaks for all the apostles yes on certain occasions but in this occasion in Matthew 16 he doesn't speak for all the apostles as a matter of fact their information is wrong they don't know who he is they say some say you're this some say you're that nobody speaks up Peter gets the revelation as I said before from God that this is the son of God he says that rock is the third person address my friends let me tell you again there is no such thing as a third person address for a noun rock is a noun it's

Petra nouns do not have person address they have declensions in Greek to signify what represent they represent in the context his argument about Chris Karagounis his book his own professor for theological seminary says any argument of the caliber of Chris Karagounis is just prejudice against the papacy of the

Roman Catholic Church and this is a Protestant scholar he says

Matthew 16 19 uses the word do so in the future well of course Peter will be on the sitting on the chair of Peter in the future he will be restored from his fall and be the

Pope and they will continue throughout the centuries it doesn't dilute the message that Jesus gave him remember

Jesus gave him the keys he said whatever you bind shall be bound listen to that that's what he said to him don't get confused about future perfect and present in the

Greek that doesn't mean anything here he will have it if he doesn't have it now he will have it in the future he says that yes

William Hendrickson talks about Peter as the rock he admits it congratulations

Mr. Hendrickson and you along with many other Protestant scholars but he says well Mr. Hendrickson doesn't talk about succession he doesn't believe the succession

I know that's a Protestant that's a Protestant problem they haven't they took them 400 years to discover that Peter was the rock

I hope it doesn't take him another 400 years to discover the next truth that there is succession and we never said that Matthew 16 talked about succession all

I said was Matthew 16 said Peter was the rock he was given the keys to bind and to loose and Mr.

White makes a big deal about the singular key in this end of plural keys and he says well

Jesus gave Peter the keys plural in Matthew 16 but it's singular in Isaiah 22 and it's singular with Jesus let's not get petty about these words the singular is also used of Jesus revelation 118 it says

I have the keys plural of hell and death and he says in singular I have the key of David Jesus uses both singular and plural about his own authority so what's the big deal about singular and plural

Jesus uses both of them and he gives this to Peter the keys many commentators say it's because he's opening and shutting there's there's there's a significance to the plural keys here because he has the complete authority it's as if there are two keys and Peter has both of them not just one because it may imply that somebody else may have a key there's a lot of nuances here that we can't cover but I hope that that suffices he says that Paul does not this is what he says

Paul does not say you are to go to Peter as the under shepherd when when Paul is talking to the elders another argument from silence just because he doesn't mention

Peter the Pope doesn't mean that Peter is not the Pope he's talking to the people in this specific church about their problem it doesn't dilute

Peter's authority in Jerusalem and he asked where did

I get this higher authority idea of the words to reads on in John 21 to remember that word was also used of Paul as they claim when

Paul says I strengthen the brethren to I strengthen the churches I get it right from the context of John 21

I don't have to be you know confused about the definition of stir reads on the context helps us define what its usage is in this passage the usage is in the context of the apostles they we know are in authority are they not are they not the highest authority in the church it says build on apostles and prophets now if Peter is to strengthen them who have authority how can he do it without greater authority and he's not talking to James and John he says

James you strengthen the brethren John you do it these are part of the inner circle of the apostles he talks to Peter Peter is mentioned over and over and over and over again in the

New Testament Jesus is speaking him constantly Peter speaks up for everyone can't we get it through our heads if there's something significant about this person and he says read open up your

Bibles and read Acts 15 and tell me if you think Peter is the Pope well from his understanding I don't see how you could understand

Peter was the I explained to you before there is a doctrinal issue at stake here in Acts 15 1 look at verse 1 it says the

Jews were coming down and wanted people to be circumcised to be saved that is a problem that is a doctrinal problem

Peter no one else stands up and says no that will not be the case they do not have to be circumcised and uses

God as his authority God told me and why do you test God how much clearer can it be that he's laying down a doctrinal proclamation now he says that Paul and Barnabas get up and and this discussion's not over they get up and they talk about their miracles and all this stuff and the discussion's not over and James has to get up as if Peter you know wasn't complete he didn't really do his job come on Mr.

White all they're doing is confirming exactly what Peter said and now giving the stipulations that may be good for the church that is the four noachite laws that were mentioned don't offer meat don't eat meat offered to idols just so these

Jews won't be hurt they're supporting Peter yeah the discussion's not over because somebody wants to add something but it doesn't dilute

Peter's authority he already made the doctrinal proclamation no Gentiles are to be circumcised and that still stands today that has never been taken away but as we saw from my colleague the pastoral concerns of James were diluted they were taken away because they're not dogmatic proclamations why would

James stand up and speak because he's the Bishop of Jerusalem the council's taking place in Jerusalem I hope he would have something to say but you know that's the only time that James says something in the

New Testament he's only mentioned four times and the other three are just in passing this is the only time he says something and it's in support of his

Pope Peter he doesn't deny what Peter is saying in the

Greek it says egocrino yes it can be used in very divine senses

I give a judgment very firm judgment it can also be used in a very weak sense the word egocrino has a wide semantic range we can't pin acts 15 down and say yes it refers to James's judgment as if he's making some doctrinal proclamation here we have no way of verifying that from the use of this word as a matter of fact in many passages in many translations of the

Bible Goodspeed Moffat the the New American Bible Society all translated as this is my opinion

I'm not saying that they're correct either we just don't know what the semantic force of this word is but I'll give

James every right to speak up he has it but he's not denying what Peter is saying he's just adding to it to help the church get along with the problems that they have now as I said before the problem with the exegesis that is presented by Mr.

White is it touches on some things but it ignores the very things that we need to understand these passages

I wish I had time to go through more of them but I think you're getting a flavor for how they can distort the scriptures with what they do we would certainly like to know what it's going to be from our opponents on the one hand

Mr. St. Genes has stated over and over again frequency does not equal papacy in response to my argumentation that Paul would have made a better Pope but then he says

James is not mentioned much in scripture and look how many times Peter is mentioned but then frequency does not equal papacy does it also in Galatians chapter 2 since this seems to be the issue that we're on at the moment

I want to just read to you the context so that you can have in mind what is going on verse 7 of Galatians 2 but on the contrary

Paul speaking seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised just as Peter had been to the circumcised for he who effectually worked for Peter and his apostleship to the uncircumcised effectually worked for me also to the

Gentiles and recognizing the grace that had been given to me James and Cephas and John who reputed to be pillars gave to me and Bartimaeus the right hand of fellowship that we might go to the

Gentiles and they to the circumcised they only asked us to remember the poor the very thing I also was eager to do notice

Paul says that he had been trusted with the gospel in verse 11 next verse he says but when

Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face because he stood condemned for prior to coming etc etc and the rest of the

Jews joined him in hypocrisy it is not a small issue for an apostle to say of somebody that he stands condemned as much as our opponents wish to minimize the passage the passage speaks for itself insofar as the seriousness of the accusation now then

I had mentioned earlier that the apostles were vying for leadership after Peter had already been allegedly given the position of primacy by Jesus Christ this was never answered why would they argue who would be the greatest among them after Peter had already been declared to be the greatest among them

James at Jerusalem he stands up in Acts 15 13 and says listen to me in the imperative

Peter does not stand up and say listen to me can you imagine what our opponents would do if Peter had stood up and said listen to me we would still be hearing it ringing off these walls

Peter says listen to me Peter says listen to me what other apostles have listened to me but Peter Peter speaking with authority but when

James says it it means nothing it's only his opinion mr.

Syngenis says that Peter is given primacy and proves it by the fact that he is the one performing miracles in the book of Acts that there are no other miracles performed by anybody else in the book of Acts to speak of I direct your attention to Acts chapter 8 early on Philip at Samaria performs miracles comes back and reports to the rest of the apostles all that God is doing in Acts chapter 8 also in Acts 20

Paul who does not qualify for the papacy brings a man back to life who has fallen out of a window so much for nobody else performing these grandiose miracles we've already shown that in Matthew 18 keys equals binding and loosening and binding and loosening is repeated in Matthew 18 given to all of God's apostles and also this binding and loosening is remarked on later in the book of Luke as the preaching of the gospel many

Roman Catholic scholars reject the position that Peter is the rock in Matthew 16 and if you stay around long enough for the historical end of the debate we should bring forth evidence that these will be in the minority insofar as the interpretation of Matthew 16 referring to Peter as the rock so how can it be that the established principle of the entire papacy of Rome is equally divided among Roman Catholic scholars as to what

Matthew 16 is teaching they would have you believe that this is the teaching that has been given to us from the first century on forward and they are just trying to protect this teaching we'll show you the contrary in the next hour also

I'd like to mention to you that my opponent this evening our opponent this evening

Mr. Bobson Jenis has written of his conversion story in a book entitled surprised by truth they're sawing outside in the hallway in his conversion story which is given in this book surprised by truth there's a footnote at the bottom of his testimony towards the end of it in which he says quote this is

Bobson Jenis our opponent this evening I am inspired by the holy example of the counter -reformation apologist

Saint Francis de Sales his sermons and apologetics writings converted over 60 ,000 reformed

Protestants back to the Catholic Church as a result of his bold proclamation of biblical truth the story of his ministry among the

Calvinists as well as the scriptural and patristic arguments he employed to combat the heresies of Calvin and Luther can be found in the

Catholic controversies just happen to have a copy of the Catholic controversies with me this evening and I'd like to give you some of the information from Francis de

Sales that so impressed my opponent to turn away from biblical Christianity and embrace the

Romish religion let me give you some good Roman Catholic doublespeak from Saint Francis de

Sales insofar as the cornerstone is concerned and I quote de Sales says our

Lord then is foundation and Saint Peter also but with so notable a difference that in respect of the one the other may be said not to be it for our

Lord is foundation and founder foundation without other foundation foundation of the natural mosaic evangelical church foundation of perpetual and immortal foundation of the militant and triumphant foundation of his own nature foundation of our faith hope and charity and of the efficacy of the sacraments but Saint Peter is foundation to not founder of the whole church foundation but founded on another foundation which is our

Lord foundation of the evangelical church alone foundation subject to succession foundation of the militant not the triumphant foundation by participation ministerial not absolute foundation on and on he goes he closes with a difference between being a foundation and being a foundation is so great as this makes the one unable and comparison to be called a foundation by the side of the other while however taken by itself it can be called a foundation in order to pay proper regard to the word of God if you can follow that Peter is the foundation but not the foundation but is the foundation in the foundation and Jesus is the foundation upon which the foundation is founded you can follow along further with Francis de

Sales I want to turn to some of his other comments here in the time that I have closing he says on page 209 and following he gets some comparisons insofar as his biblical proof for the supremacy of Peter and Peter being

Pope at Rome he likens the church to a ship if the church is a ship

Saint Peter is its captain if the church is a fishery Saint Peter is first in the fishery if the church is to draw nets

Saint Peter who cast them into the sea and Saint Peter is the one who draws them do you say the church is like an embassy

Saint Peter is the first ambassador do you say it is a brotherhood Saint Peter is the first governor and confirmer of the rest would you rather have it a kingdom

Saint Peter receives its keys would you consider it a flock or a fold of lambs

Saint Peter as its pastor and shepherd general etc etc the problem with all of this of course is that the church is not called a ship it's not called a fishery it's not called a draw net it's not called an embassy and if it is called the kingdom of God it is given to Jesus Christ not to Peter Colossians 1 13 if it is the flock and if there is a shepherd we read in John 10 that my sheep hear my voice and they follow me he is the good shepherd who lays down his life for the flock the sales goes on with his biblical proof by saying that Peter is the first one to preach penance page 271 in this book says that Peter is the first catechist of the church and preacher of penance now the

Roman Catholic Church long ago decided that penance was the improper word for act 238 but yet here it is quoted by the one who most impressed my opponent this evening that Peter is the first one to preach penance not repentance not metanoia 230 but penance

Catholic penance this is confounded by modern Roman Catholic Bibles that have changed the word to its proper understanding of repentance not penance he says

Peter touches the lame and he alone wrong Philip in Samaria touched the lame he goes on to say that in Acts 12 when

Peter is in jail they pray intensely for Peter why didn't they pray for James could it be that James was beheaded in Acts 12 chapter 1 and there's no need to pray from unless you're

Roman Catholic and you're praying for the dead on and on it goes insofar as this so -called biblical proof is concerned from the one whom by his own confession convinced him of the power of the scriptural and patristic arguments employed to combat the heresies of Calvin and Luther we think not thank you referring to the entire concept of the papacy and papal infallibility the great

Princeton theologian Charles Hodge said if any in their sluggishness are disposed to think that a perpetual body of infallible teachers would be a blessing all must admit that the assumption of infallibility by the ignorant to the erring and the wicked must be an evil inconceivably great the

Romish theory if true might be a blessing if false it must be an awful curse it is our position that the theory is most definitely false and hence is as Hodge put it an awful curse for those trapped in its power we turn now to the fact that history itself demonstrates beyond all possible controversy that the

Christian church has not historically understood that Peter was appointed by Jesus Christ to be vicar of Christ on earth nor that he was granted a plenitude of jurisdictional authority over all the church the great

Vatican council the last century taught the following as a matter of Christian doctrine please listen closely quote at open variance with this clear doctrine of holy scripture as it has been ever understood by the catholic church are the perverse opinions of those who while they distort the form of government established by Christ the

Lord in his church deny that Peter in his single person preferably to all the other apostles whether taken separately or together was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon blessed

Peter himself but upon the church and through the church on Peter as her minister if anyone therefore shall say that blessed

Peter the apostle was not appointed the prince of all the apostles and the visible head of the whole church militant or that the same directly and immediately received from the same our

Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of honor only and not of true and proper jurisdiction let him be anathema end quote this is truly a monumental claim the same council spoke of interpreting scripture solely in harmony with the unanimous consent of the fathers as we shall see the very concept of such a thing as the unanimous consent of the fathers with reference to this topic is a sheer myth no such thing exists instead the majority of the early fathers are opposed to the roman claims before examining the large amount of evidence that speaks against the roman claims let us note a number of the commonly committed errors made by roman apologists in attempting to defend their position error number one i call anachronistic interpretation anachronistic interpretation that is the reading into the early fathers ideas beliefs and concepts that were not a part of their world and did not develop until much much later keep an eye out for that error error number two i call the peter syndrome this refers to the propensity on the part of many roman catholic apologists to find any statement about peter in the writings of an early father and apply this to the bishop of rome there are many exalted statements made about peter by men such as cyprian or chrysostom however it does not follow that these statements about peter have anything at all to do with the bishop of rome the roman apologist must demonstrate that for such statements to be meaningful that the father under discussion believed that the bishop of rome alone is the sole unique successor of peter so that any such exalted language about peter is to be applied in that father's thinking to the bishop of rome alone if such a basis is not provided references to peter are irrelevant and error number three i call ignoring the broad context this error involves the roman apologist in asserting a particular father believed in the modern theory of roman primacy even when that same father made statements or took actions that demonstrate that he did not in fact hold to any such concept let me give you some brief examples of these errors one of the most often cited passages from an early father that allegedly shows a roman primacy is the saying of augustine from sermon 131 rome has spoken the case is closed i have seen this phrase used over and over again without context as evidence that augustine held a modern roman catholic view of papal primacy yet as roman catholic historian robert eno notes quote it was at this point that the famous words of augustine were uttered as misquoted roma locute to est causa finita est actually he said and here's what augustine really said already two councils on this question have been sent to the apostolic sea and replies have also come from there the case is closed would that the error might sometime be finished as well but beyond any quibbling over precise words the greater irony is the use of this quotation in later centuries we have all heard it used in the following sense rome has made its decision all further discussions must cease end quote hence not only is the citation not accurate in and of itself but the import is given by many roman apologists is inaccurate as well von der linger noted in regard to these same passages quote the pelagian system was in his eyes that is augustine's eyes so manifestly and deadly in error that there seemed to him no need even of a synod to condemn it the two african synods and the pope's assent their decrees appeared to him more than enough and so the matter might be regarded as at an end that a roman judgment in and of itself was not conclusive but that a plenary council was necessary for that purpose he had himself emphatically maintained and the conduct of pope zosimus could only confirm his opinion end quote von der linger mentions pope zosimus and well he should have for zosimus provides us with a glowing example of how a father like augustine can be misused by less than honest historical apologists upon becoming pope in 417 zosimus reversed the course of his predecessor and fell into the sway of pelagius and celestius jnd kelly notes quote in brusque letters he informed the african episcopate that both heretics had cleared themselves criticizing the action taken against them as over hasty and based on unscrupulous witnesses the outraged reaction of the african bishops who frankly told him that innocent sentence must stand forced zosimus to beat a retreat the pope had no option but to make a complete climb down and address to the bishops of east and west a lengthy document known as his tractoria in which reversing his previous stand he anathematized the pelagians and their teachings end quote in fact it is in this context that augustine said when faced with zosimus is about faced christ has spoken the case is closed so much for the first citation proving primacy we note that not only does this incident illustrate how easy it is to proof text the fathers without reference to the real meaning of their words but we shall see that zosimus will provide us with another example of the truth of our denial of the historicity of the concept of papal supremacy which we shall examine later my second example of a common error made by roman apologists is found the words the council of chalcedon often quoted in roman works peter has spoken through leo we are told that here we have clear evidence of the belief that the early church viewed leo as the unique and supreme successor of peter yet is this the case not at all if we take the time to examine the issue we discover that first of all that leo had written his work the tome prior to the synod held in 449 but it had not caused that synod to follow leo's position leo sent his legates to chalcedon with a letter that instructed the council not to bother deliberating since his tome was a sufficient statement of the faith john meyendorff the great historian orthodox historian noted regarding this quote no wonder that his legates were not allowed to read this unrealistic and embarrassing letter before the end of the 16th session at a time when acrimonious debates on the issue had already taken place obviously no one in the east considered that a papal fiat was sufficient to have an issue closed furthermore the debate showed clearly that the tome of leo to flavian was accepted on merits and not because it was issued by the pope upon the presentation of the text in greek translation during the second session part of the assembly greeted the reading with approval peter has spoken thus through leo they shouted but the bishops from the ilyricum in palestine fiercely objected against passages which they considered as incompatible with the teachings of saint cyril of alexandria it took several days of commission work to convince them that leo was not opposing cyril the episode clearly shows that it was cyril not leo who is considered a calzone as the ultimate criterion of christological orthodoxy leo's views were under suspicion of nestorianism as late as the fifth session when the same illyrians still rejecting those who departed from cerulean terminology shouted the opponents are nestorians let them go to rome the final formula approved by the council was anything but a simple acceptance of leo's text it was a compromise which could be imposed on the fathers when they were convinced that leo and cyril expressed the same truth only using different expressions end quote and a footnote is provided to the above shout of the fathers which reads quote the acclamation peter has spoken thus through leo often quoted as a triumph of roman authority seems to have actually been a defensive reaction against objections by the illyrians end quote so here we have what was in fact a defensive reaction raised in defense of leo's position against the objections of many of the bishops present taken by many modern roman catholic apologists as evidence of a primacy that the very council of calcedon not only denied by its very existence but by its famous canon 28 which we shall examine at a later point now in the brief time i have available to me i shall attempt to address two major topics first i shall very briefly address the issue of the patristic interpretation of the key passages upon which the papacy claims to be founded and will demonstrate that the modern roman interpretation of these passages flies in the face of the patristic understanding then i shall begin presenting just a sampling of the large body of evidence that demonstrates that the early church did not view peter as the vicar of christ in the roman understanding and hence they did not see the bishop of rome as the sole successor of peter nor the head of the universal church with jurisdictional authority over all of christ's flock we turn to the pivotal passage you may be getting tired of it by now matthew chapter 16 when we look at the patristic information regarding this passage we find a wide variety of interpretations it is easy to understand why many roman catholic scholars felt it necessary to leave communion with rome following vatican one for any person even slightly familiar with patristic interpretation and slightly concerned about being truthful would never ever say that the church has always interpreted this passage as it is interpreted by that council the first thing to note is that there simply is no one understanding of this passage in the early fathers and what is the importance of this dr salmon said quote but none of these can be reconciled with the interpretation which regards this text as containing the charter of the church's organization a charter would be worthless if it were left uncertain to whom it was addressed or what power is it conferred so the mere fact that the fathers differed in opinion as to what was meant by this rock and that occasion the same father wavered in his opinion on this subject proves that none of them regarded this text as one establishing a perpetual constitution for the christian church end quote next we know that the central aspect of rome's understanding this passage specifically the identification of peter as the rock is in fact the minority understanding of the early church the french roman catholic lanois surveyed the patristic evidence and found 17 citations supporting the concept that peter is the rock of matthew 16 please note that this does not mean that all 16 of these fathers also felt that this meant that the bishop of rome was a pope but only they saw matthew 16 in the phrase this rock as referring to peter however lanois found 16 citations identified the rock as christ himself he found eight that identified all the apostles together as forming the rock of matthew 16 and he found 44 citations including that indicating that the rock of matthew 16 was the confession of faith made by peter in jesus christ now if we add these numbers together we find the roman position which claims to have always been the faith of the catholic church actually represents in lanois survey 20 of the fathers 80 of the time then the early fathers expressed in vatican one's words perverse opinions at the very best i might note in passing that even as late as the council of trent one can find that council referring to this passage as referring to the faith that peter expressed but should one roman catholic survey not be enough we turn to jesuit maldonatus who writes quote there are among ancient authors some who interpret on this rock that is on this faith on this confession of faith in which thou is calling the son of the living god as hillary and gregory neeson and chrysostom and silo of alexandria saint augustine going still further away from the true sense interprets on this rock that is on myself christ because christ was the rock but origin on this rock that is to say on all men who have the same faith end quote was maldonatus correct well let's look for example at hillary's statement regarding matthew 16 18 has found his work day trinitate book 6 chapter 37 quote this faith it is which is the foundation of the church through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her this is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven end quote indeed as one reads all of chapter 37 one finds hillary referring to each of the prime texts upon which the papacy is built including john 21 and luke 22 and yet not once mentioning the papacy can you imagine a modern roman apologist citing all three of these passages and not mentioning the papacy for once come at this perverse notion that the passage here refers the faith of peter's confession not to peter himself was it not as we've been told the common belief of christians for centuries before that this passage referred to peter thus establishing the papacy how could hillary be ignorant of such a fundamental concept and how could he be joined by the likes of john chrysostom or gregory nazianzus how could these great men and preachers be ignorant of such a basic truth unless perhaps it's not such a basic truth at all and one of the great augustine surely many are aware of his statement in his retractionis regarding this passage and its meaning and i shall not take the time to read it yet once again i would point out however that augustine left his readers to decide how they would interpret the passage may i ask us all to think seriously about what it means that the great bishop of hippo augustine could think that how one views this passage is a matter of freedom when vatican 1 tells us it is a matter upon which the anathema can and should be used can we not see in this the tremendously huge amount of evolution that has taken place between the early part of the 5th century and the latter part of the 19th indeed we can the roman interpretation of matthew 16 is vulnerable on many other points as well in fact it requires of us faith in a long intricate and highly questionable chain of propositions first jesus must be referring to peter as the rock second this must involve a giving of authority to peter that is given to no one else third this passage must somehow provide to us something about successors the roman position to have any meaning at all yet the idea of succession in matthew 16 is simply absent from the understanding of the early fathers as oscar cumann said quote we thus see that the exegesis that the reformation gave was not first invented for their struggle against the papacy it rests upon an older patristic tradition end quote and the great historian von der linger and his work the pope and the council said quote of all the fathers who interpret these passages in the gospels matthew 16 18 john 21 17 not a single one applies them to the roman bishops as peter's successors how many fathers have visited themselves with these texts yet not one of them whose commentaries we possess origin chrysostom hillary augustine cyril theodorette and those whose interpretations are collected in katina's has dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of rome is the consequence of the commission and promise to peter not one of them has explained the rock or foundation which christ would build his church of the office given to peter to be transmitted to his successors but they understood by it either christ himself or peter's confession of faith in christ often both together or else they thought peter was the foundation equally with all the other apostles the 12 being together the foundation stones of the church the fathers could the less recognize listen closely in the power of the keys and the power of binding and loosing any special prerogative or lordship of the roman bishop in as much as and listen very closely gentlemen what is obvious to anyone at first sight they did not regard the power first given to peter and afterwards conferred on all the apostles as anything peculiar to him or hereditary in the line of roman bishops and listen closely they held the symbol of the keys as meaning just the same as the figurative expression of binding and loosing end quote to this we add the authority of carl fried frulich who noted that until the time of innocent the third in the 12th century over a millennia after christ quote the understanding of these petrine texts by biblical exegetes in the with reference to a primacy of the pope in rome as time is fleeting we pass from the interpretation of biblical passages to the numerous statements and actions by early fathers and councils which demonstrate to the unbiased and i would pray today even to the biased observer that the roman concept of petrine primacy preserved in the person of the bishop of rome is a belief that was not at any time in the past nor is it today the universally held belief of the christian people i begin with the is often overlooked by defenders of the roman concept joseph f kelly in the concise dictionary of early christianity said quote it is likely that in the earliest roman community a college of presbyters rather than a single bishop provided the leadership end quote this is echoed by ferguson the encyclopedia of early christianity and the eminent church historian j and d kelly concurs saying with reference to an alleged early pope quote his actual functions and responsibilities can only be surmised for the monarchial or one -man episcopate had not yet emerged in rome end quote this is in reference to a period all the way into the middle of the second century ask yourself this question if vatican one was right and if christians have always believed that peter alone was given a primacy and that peter alone was given the keys and that peter's successors are alone to be found in fullness in the bishops of rome why would the church at rome go for nearly a full century without a single bishop as leader instead using the primitive and most biblical concept of a plurality of elders john henry cardinal newman probably the most noted roman catholic scholar of the 19th century in his work and essay on the development of christian doctrine quoted approvingly from barrow's 1836 work against papal supremacy he know that it was quite right for the protestant to point out that there are historical facts that are contrary to a functioning widely recognized papacy in the early church for example he agreed with barrow that had the pagans been aware of the institution of the papacy they would surely have raised great objections to it but such objections are not to be found anywhere and he and very importantly he quoted with approval barrow's statement quote it is most prodigious that in the disputes managed by the fathers against the heretics the gnostics valentinians etc they should not even in the first place allege and urge the sentence of the universal pastor and judge as a most evidently conclusive argument as the most efficacious and compendious method of convincing and silencing them end quote note what newman admits that it is decisive that the early fathers when debating against the heretics such as the gnostics did not appeal to the papacy as judge and arbiter of theological issues but if modern roman claims are correct how can this be is not the papacy the ancient and constant faith of the universal church have not christians always understood the scriptures as teaching the existency of the papacy at rome the silence of the church in this instance is devastating evidence against papal claims the council of nicaea provides us yet another fact that is contrary to papal claims is we found canon six of that council and it reads as follows quote let the ancient customs in egypt libya and pentapolis prevail that the bishop of alexandria have jurisdiction in all these since the like is customary for the bishop of rome also likewise in antioch and the other provinces let the churches retain their privileges end quote notice that the bishop of rome is not here given universal sovereignty but is instead seen as an equal one with jurisdiction in a particular geographical area and folks that geographical area was limited not worldwide yalen noted regarding the council of nicaea that quote the first ecumenical council knew nothing of the doctrine of papal supremacy end quote and with reference specifically the language of canon six quote it is not what would be natural on the part of any assembly of christian bishops who believe that christ had given to the roman sea a plenitude of jurisdiction which differed not only in degree but in kind from that of any other sea whatsoever end quote in canon six nothing is mentioned about peter or the vicar of christ indeed i note in passing the first man audacious enough to allow himself to be called vicar of christ seemingly was galatius the first in 495 half a millennia after christ came to earth and 450 years after the true vicar of christ came to earth that being the holy spirit of god but as kelly notes the use of the title vicar of christ did not become current for popes until the reign of hadrian the fourth in the middle of the 12th century about returning to the topic of the council of nicaea i wish to point out that here at probably the most important council in all of church history we not only do not find any papal supremacy we find quite a bit of evidence that is contrary to such claims first why did no one inform constantine that all he had to do was send word to the bishop of rome and obtain an infallible ruling from the vicar of christ and the person of the pope so that all christians everywhere would obey obviously because no one had thought such a thought constantine called the council together again seemingly ignorant that he should have let the bishop of rome do that and again no one seemed to mind as they had never thought that they needed the bishop of rome to do such a thing in the first place the current bishop of rome at that time sylvester did not attend pleading old age but sent two presbyters in his place history records that rome had little or nothing to do with the events in nicaea it was not the bishop of rome who undertook the defense of faith during the years of arian ascendancy that followed nicaea but athanasius the bishop of alexandria indeed one might note in passing that while athanasius was forced from his sea five times yet remained unbowed liberius the bishop of rome yielded and signed the arianized sermium creed be as it may the very fact that the council of nicaea was convoked is a strange thing indeed if in fact roman claims are true would not have been much easier to simply ask the pope for a ruling on such a central doctrine but history will not allow for such simplicities even when nicaea had concluded its proceedings its creed had to fight for survival for 60 years thereafter despite the fact that roman bishops excluding liberius's lapse defended it again it is plain that just because the bishop of rome took a particular position was no guarantee that all the christians would follow suit and why is this because all the christians did not look to the roman bishop as the final authority in matters of faith and morals over a century later we find more indication of the absence of absolute papal supremacy at the council of chalcedon here we find the famous canon 28 a can that rome resisted and for obvious reasons i read to you in part quote we do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy church of constantinople which is new rome for the fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old rome because it was the royal city and the 150 most religious bishops gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of new rome justly judging that the city which is honored with the sovereignty and the senate and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial rome should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is and ranked next after her end quote note well what is said here first it is said that the fathers granted privileges to rome on what basis because of matthew 16 and the bishops of rome being the successor of peter and isaiah 22 and all that stuff no indeed the privileges were granted rome because it was the royal city and now constantinople being the seat of government assumes such privileges which are bestowed logically on the church that resides in the capital of the empire it is highly instructive to note the reaction of rome to this canon when it was proposed the roman legates at the council they indicated that they had no instructions from rome and withdrew the can was passed in their absence the next day when they objected their objections were dismissed the commissioners bluntly declared the issue closed all was confirmed by the council they said explicitly denying any papal right of veto when pope leo heard about this he was angry and rejected the canon but on what ground did he reject it this is very important he did so on the basis of allegedly defending the older patriarchates alexandria and antioch and by so doing of course he was protecting roman claims as well leo did not refuse to recognize the canon because it had been passed without his consent but because he said that the canons contradicted the decrees of nicaea which he said would last forever and could be altered by no one did this end the dispute not at all in fact the pope's resistance to the canon had no effect the quintessex council in 681 confirmed all the calcedon canons without exception and the council of florence repeated the same order found in the canon with constantinople second the canon appeared in the syntagma and 14 titles in the 6th century and all later byzantine collections and even in some 6th century copies of the oldest latin canonical collections the prisca another indication from a conciliar action takes us back to good old pope zosimas that we mentioned before i quote again from meyendorff quote finally in africa the disciplinary claims of rome were passionately rebuked in 418 examining the case of a presbyter deposed in africa and received in rome by zosimas the african bishops formally forbade appeals beyond the sea furthermore writing to pope celestine in 420 the africans proclaimed what amounted to a formal denial of any divine privileges of rome who will believe they stated that our god could inspire justice in the inquiries of one man only that is the pope and refuse it to innumerable bishops gathered in council end quote the fierce independence of north african bishops had a long history going back to the great martyr bishop of carthage cyprian very shortly before his martyrdom cyprian presided over the seventh council of carthage which gives us the following information and i quote for neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleagues the necessity of since every bishop according to the allowance of his liberty and power has his own proper right of judgment and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another end quote it is easy to recognize a reference to stephen the bishop of rome with whom cyprian had clashed in previous years in the rebuke of the title bishop of bishops why is this important cyprian is truly one of the greatest obstacles to any serious acceptance of roman catholic claims regarding papal primacy while he is often cited by roman apologists it is only at the expense of the fullness of his teaching that this is done you see cyprian was one of the minority of early fathers who saw peter as the rock of matthew 16 indeed he saw peter as the symbol of ecclesiastical unity and because of some of his words if relieved of their context can lend support the roman contentions he's often cited however a full examination of cyprian's words and actions is the death knell for roman pretensions first we know cyprian's rejection of stephen's claims to authority over the north african seas in his own words quote neither can it rescind an ordination rightly perfected the basiletes after the detection of his crimes and the bearing of his conscience even by his own confession went to rome and deceived stephen our colleague placed at a distance and ignorant of what had been done and of the truth to canvas that he might be replaced unjustly in the episcopate from which he had been righteously deposed end quote cyprian specifically rejected the intrusion of stephen how can this be a cyprian saw peter as the rock the answer is devastating to roman claims cyprian believed that every bishop himself included was fulfilling the role of peter as the rock in epistle 26 of cyprian he makes this very claim citing matthew 16 18 with a reference to all bishops nowhere mentioning the bishop of rome alone such passages led meindorf to note quote in fact however cyprian's view of peter's chair was that it belonged not only to the bishop of rome but to every bishop within each community thus cyprian used not the argument of roman primacy but that of his own authority as successor of peter in carthage end quote we can only agree wholeheartedly with the words of dr cox who commenting on cyprian's treatise on the unity of the church said the following quote compare this treatise of cyprian then with any authorized treatise on the subject proceeding from modern rome it will be seen that the two systems are irreconcilable thus in a few words say the confession of pious the fourth quote i acknowledge the holy catholic apostolic roman church for the mother and mistress of all churches and i promise true obedience to the bishop of rome successor to saint peter prince of the apostles and vicar of jesus christ end quote this is the voice of italy in the ninth century but cyprian speaks for ecumenical christendom in the third and the two systems are as contrary as darkness and light end quote it is no wonder then that for a million bishop of caesarea could write to cyprian joining in his condemnation of pope stephen speaking of those who are at rome vainly pretending the authority of the apostles and making schism for the peace and unity of the church and could go on to say quote i am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of stephen that he who boasts the place of his episcopate and contends that he holds the succession from peter on whom the foundations of the church were laid should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches end quote such are but a few of the many historical facts that could be presented to you this evening we could bring in clement's epistle to the corinthians ignatius's letter to the roman church irenaeus's rebuke of the impetuous victor tertullian's mocking use of the phrase pontifex maximus and many more items all of which demonstrate that the concept that peter was chosen by christ the vicar of christ on earth the head of the universal church and that his successors are solely the bishops of rome is a historical novelty that took many centuries to develop it is a claim that flies in the face of the early christian leaders and as such is without merit thank you very much you know the father son the holy spirit lord i just come before you as one wanting to be used today and i pray that you would lead me and help me to bring forth these truths of your church for two thousand years i ask that you would articulate these things through me in the name of christ amen one of the things that james had brought up which i think is very very important is the councils when i was an evangelical i accepted many parts of the councils for example the first council of nicaea in 325 it said that jesus christ was god the second council first constantinople in 381 said that the holy spirit was god the fourth ecumenical council in 451 chalcedon said that jesus christ was fully divine and fully human the seventh ecumenical council in 787 at the council of nicaea said that jesus had two wills and two operations so i accepted all those different things that were coming out of the councils but out of the councils are also coming things that have to do with peter and that's what we're going to look at we're going to look at not only in the councils the things that they're talking about peter we're going to look at the papal jurisdiction where the west is asked to intervene in the east on all types of doctrinal and authoritative things and thirdly we're going to look at the bishop of rome and i believe because he has the power of the keys that he will have the line item veto on the cannons that are coming down through the councils sean meyendorff the orthodox scholar he says curiously enough the ecclesiastical problem was never posed as a real issue in the medieval debate between constantinople and rome only in 1204 after the sack of constantinople did byzantine theologians begin to discuss seriously the origin of the power which the popes claimed to have had it wasn't an issue until about the year 1204 for the byzantine church i belong to the eastern catholic church and one of the reasons that i came into the catholic church after studying orthodoxy was i found these different principles that i had to be united with peter the first instance of this happening is clement of rome the corinthian church this is around the year 95 had appealed to rome to make a decision rome was 600 800 miles away they could have gone to ephesus where john was still living and had them take care of the situation but they appeal to rome why would they be appealing to rome very early in the church rome writes back excusing themselves for not writing back in time but they say this accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret if anyone disobeys the things which have been said to him jesus through us let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger we however shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entrenty and supplication that the creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect protestant patristic scholars are saying something quite different than what mr white is saying for example jb lightfoot says this it may perhaps seem strange to describe this noble remonstrance as the first steps towards papal domination and yet this is a doubt undoubtedly the case monsignor battleoff an anglican scholar says that this is the epiphany of the roman primacy harnack a liberal scholar says yet it might not be unreasonable to infer from these words that the roman church was already conscious of some degree of external responsibility such as does not have appear to have been realized by geographically neighboring churches of philippi as we shall see it will be not not be long before the thought which seems to underline the clementine consciousness of responsibility that the roman church has this authority now many times what protestants uh uh scholars have tried to do is they've tried to separate the church of rome from the bishop of rome and i'm going to be addressing that a little while but one of the things that uh dionysus of clement he writes a letter to pope soter in about the year 180 and so that shows the connection between the two now the next instance that we have of people jurisdiction the west interfering in the east remember now we have four patriarchal seas rome is number one alexandria is number two antioch is number three and jerusalem is number four victor you know the year around 180 he wants to coincide he had had most of the church was agreeing that they would take the easter holiday the easter days and put them in one so everybody would have the same kind of doctrine on this type of thing but what does he do there's a different bishops out of the asia that do not want to uh agree with the bishop on this and what does he do he excommunicates all of the asiatic churches what gives him the authority to excommunicate all of these eastern churches if he didn't have this authority now later on erinaeus will come back and he will talk later out of doing this because of the sake of unity but what gives him that authority in the year 180 to be involved in the eastern seas if he doesn't have this authority this later will be agreed upon at the council of nicaea they will go with the roman part on easter and also at the council of arles in 314 but just to dispel this distinction between the bishop of rome and the church of rome ignatius he says where where the bishops are there the people are where jesus christ is there is the catholic church ignatius always went and all those different letters and different things is always talking about the bishop having this major role so there's no differentiation between the two erinaeus when he talks about the roman church he he talks about the succession that came down we that the church was founded on peter and paul but the succession that he talks about comes out he lists a whole bunch of different popes after peter but the succession that he talks about comes from peter's succession there's no succession from paul but just to show you this tertullian he speaks of peter baptizing in the tiber clement of alexander speaks of peter apart as proclaiming the word publicly at rome the poem against marcian tells about peter bade lane linus take his place and sit on the chair whereon himself had sat the word chair cathedra in ecclesiastical language always means episcopal throne wherever the chair of peter is spoken of it means that he sat on the chair as the bishop of the sea caius in the year 214 calls pope victor 13th bishop of rome after peter hippolytus calls peter as the first bishop of rome saint cyprian speaks of the place of peter vermilion speaks of the succession of peter and the chair of peter eusebius in 314 says that peter was 25 years bishop of rome he calls linus the first after peter to to obtain the episcopate and victor the 13th bishop of rome the council sardica honors the memory of the apostle peter by referring appeals to the head to the sea of peter saint athanasius calls rome the apostolic throne pope julius speaks of the doctrines received by him from peter pope damasus speaks of the apostolic chair in which the holy apostle sitting taught as successors and how to guide the helm of the church saint ambrose speaks of peter's chair in the roman church where peter first of the apostles sat saint jerome speaks of the chair of peter the apostolic chair and states that saint peter held the episcopal chair for 25 years at rome saint augustine tells us of a number of bishops from the chair itself of peter the chair of the roman church in which peter first sat i could continue on and on i have 25 different quotes just to show you that type of thing that there is no distinction between the church of rome and the bishop of rome now in the year around 260 one of the first things that we see is the pope intervening again papal jurisdiction the alexandrian c had written the pope saint dionysius and he says i wrote to pope sixtus because i'm writing you so that i might not err why would he be writing to the bishop of rome on a certain thing on papal jurisdiction which is part of the vatican one document why would he be doing that aurelian in the year 265 he is a pagan emperor and it was in it was regards to the second third greatest c the council of antioch paul of samosauda he had fallen from the episcopate and from the true faith as already said dominus was the person that had succeeded him and he didn't want anything to do it do with it and so what he does is he refers it to the roman c to take care of the whole situation why would they be doing that the number two c alexandria the number three c antioch now cyprian and formillion they resisted the papal decisions of both of both uh what rome was claiming but they do write showing that they believe that that peter has this foundation for example bishop for million he's protesting against heretical baptism he says he that is stephen the bishop of rome who so boasts about the place in his bishop bishop and insists that he holds a succession from peter on whom the foundations of the church were laid cyprian writing to pope cornelius says after all this they yet in addition having had a false bishop ordained for them by heretics dare to set sail and to carry letters from schismatic and profane persons to the chair of peter and the principal church whence the unity of the priesthood took its rise they failed to reflect that those romans are the same as those whose faith was publicly praised by the apostle to him unbelief the point being is even though there were different people from different seas from the east arguing about different things with the bishop of rome they at least admitted this principle that they they had this rock position now another thing that that is not usually brought up at the there was a bishop from aro and his name was marcianus and cyprian could not resolve the situation in fact he gets the bishop from lion also to try to resolve it but finally what do they do they refer it to the bishop of rome because he has that jurisdiction why would they be doing that because they they didn't have that authority now many uh the first council that we're going to be going into is arles and here's what it says in a synodical epistle it's writing to the father's writing to pope sylvester in 314 it says the place in which the apostles daily sit in judgment and their blood without ceasing witnesses to the glory of god our next council is the council of nicaea in 325 we would call that an ecumenical council mr white has quoted canon 6 but he forgets to tell you something before in canon 6 it says let the asian customs of egypt libya and pentopolis prevail that the bishop of alexander of jurisdiction all these since the like is customary for the bishop of rome also but he forgets to tell you what in the latin version what it said before it says rome has the primacy this was even read at the fourth general council of calcedon this is from philip shaft's work on page 15 acknowledging this paschenus which was a legate of the row of the roman church at the fourth council gets up and reads the documents in latin and he says row in reading canon 6 rome has the primacy he forgot to tell you that now the east and the west have a certain way you know there's a mindset but when the arabic canons even though there's only 20 different canons at the council of nicaea from the arab the arabic canons they had more but what it would what it would show us is how did the east view this peter and here's what it says of the care and the power which a patriarch has over the bishops and the archbishops of his patriarch and of the primacy of the bishop of rome overall then it goes on to say he is head and prince of all the patriarchs in as much as he is the first as was peter to empower his given over all christian princesses and over all the people and he who is the vicar of christ our lord over all people and over the whole christian church and whoever shall contradict this is excommunicated by the synod this is the eastern frame of thinking this is what they they they are acknowledging you know mr white says well the first time it's ever brought up is in the year 495 this is from the eastern part of the church in the year 325 at the first council saying these the vicar of christ on earth then we move to the council of sardica the council of sardica is in the year about 343 and and what happens is at the council of sardica julius says that there are a couple arian councils going on tyra and antioch and with one swipe he says i counsel those councils i depose all the arian bishops i reinstate athanasius what gives him the authority to be able to do that i mean pope julius says this because christ said to peter you are peter and i will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven the roman church has on account of a privilege uniquely granted to it the power of opening and closing the gates of the kingdom of heaven to whom it wishes this is in the year 341 a pope saying that now at the council of sardica what we have is bishops from the east and the west coming from arabia crete all of egypt and you know who presides over that of that council athanasius is the one that presides over the council of sardica and here's here's what happens in the canons that are brought down if a judgment be passed upon any bishop and he thinks he has sufficient grounds for referring the matter to another judgment let us honor the memorial let us honor the bishop of rome it's the bishop of rome that has that judgment then it goes on to say if there is a successor then they're trying to nominate a successor in these different areas and the bishop of rome had not decided the appeal that the bishop of rome had the authority not even to allow any successor to be brought forward so the point being is as a byzantine catholic this was even realized at the the council of trullo and 692 by the eastern part of the church we realized these different canons we accepted these different canons that rome had set down the council sardica says for this seems to be the best most suitable if the priest of the lord in every province referred to the head that is to the apostolic sea of peter why would they even be saying that if there's nothing about this peter now there's some other little local councils that are happening not ecumenical councils as such at the council of aquila it says should you be petitioned not to suffer the head of the roman world the roman church to be thrown into confusion flows onto all the rights of venerable communion this is a little council and guess who's guess who is uh presiding over ambrose is presiding over this council in the second ecumenical council of the council of calcine and open 381 it says in the father's writing and you can see this through theodorette's uh writings the synodical epistles to pope damasus and the bishops assembled in rome the eastern fathers say you have summoned us as your own members by the letters of the most religious emperor and the pope and his reply says most honored children and that your charity accords to the apostolic sea the reverence do you confer your greatest honor on themselves the council of milan in the year 391 again ambrose is involved but if they will not believe the doctrines of the priest let them believe christ oracles let them believe the admonitions of angels who say for with god nothing is impossible let them believe the apostle's creed which the roman church has always kept undefiled we can see different you know different jurisdictional things that are happening at the council of ephesus is the third ecumenical council here's what the words are saying we being necessarily impelled there unto the canons and by the letter of the most holy father and colleague celestian bishops of the roman church with many tears have arrived at the following sentence against him our lord jesus christ who has been blasphemed by him defines by the present most holy synod that the same is notorious is derived of episcopal dignity and all the sacerdotal rights then he goes on to say it is doubtful to no one nay it is known to all the ages that the holy and blessed peter the prince and head of the apostles the pillar and the faith the foundation of the catholic church received from our lord jesus christ the savior of the human race the keys of the kingdom and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins who up to this time and always has lived in the power of his successors his successors and representatives therefore our our holy and most bishop celestian has sent to this senate then it also goes on to say the members are joined to the head for the beatitude is not unaware of the head of all the faith and the head of the apostles is the blessed apostle peter now one of the things that i'm going to do and i'm going to cover this but i'm going to go through the the line item veto what the line item veto is this and it's only the bishop of rome has this this right in the council of nicaea the first ecumenical council most protestants acknowledge the first four it says this for in as much as all things concerning the divine mysteries has been enforced on ecclesiastical prophet which pertained to the strength of the holy catholic and apostolic church we report them to your roman sea having translated them from the greek whenever then we have ordained the council of nicaea we pray we may be confirmed by the fellowship of your countenance the bishop of rome had to confirm the final canons pope julius writing you can see this in athanasius is uh an apology number 35 five for for if we as you say they athanasius and marcellus did some wrong the judgment ought to have been given according to the ecclesiastical canon and not that you should have written to all of us so that your justice might have been decreed by all for the bishops who are the sufferers and it was not obscure churches which were ruled by apostles in person with regard to the church of alexandria in particular why did you not consult us do you not know that this was the custom first right to us so for that is just to be defined from hence i studied the eastern part of the church socrates the great uh uh byzantine uh uh theologian says since the ecclesiastical canon ordered the churches shall not make any canons against the opinions of the bishop of rome so sozomen in the year 440 saying that it was a sacred law that would be done according to the will of the roman bishop was null and void when julius was present again at the council of antioch in one swipe of hand he said it's no longer a council he's the bishop of great rome although the ecclesiastical canons orders the churches that the church may not make decisions without the bishop of rome now what's my point on this the point is is it the second ecumenical council canon three it said rome has the primacy constantinople has the second place they wanted to replace alexandria c number two and antioch c number three with constantinople and what happens is this the bishop of antioch signs the agreement the bishop of alexandria signs the agreement but when it got to the bishop of rome he said no and he would not sign the agreement why because he has the right to be able to strike any canon he has the line item veto on anything that's coming down in the councils this later on is affirmed by pope damasus he says no which is 382 the next year pope boniface in 418 now mr white would make you think like well that this was given to the different seas and uh it was trying to take away from rome no this was causing major confusion for for the the sea that had risen in 325 to take basically take the whole world they were had become a major sea and the bishop of rome will not allow this to happen and then what happens is the council of chalcedon in 451 there are 600 bishops that arrived at the council 150 will remain they're all from the east and they try to submit a canon known as the canon 28 and the same canon that was submitted back there the council in 381 at constantinople an ecumenical council this is going to be the fourth ecumenical council said let constantinople have the new rome what happens is pope leo says no it cannot be done and every person from that was even involved in the church during that time uh agrees with this and the patriarch of constantinople writes and said you know i really wanted this canon to get in but i was i was getting a lot of pressure from a lot of the other bishops the empress says you know this is in your right and we're glad that we're following your rule there's four or five other people that are around this and so the council of chalcedon says this the father's ass honor then we pray our judgments with your decree that as we have been united to our head and agreeing to what was right so the head too may confirm the becoming act of the children so will our pious princesses be pleased who has ratified as a law whatever your holiness has determined writing to the bishop of rome you have been for us the interpreter of the voice of the blessed peter you have bestowed on us the blessing of this faith we bring to your notice the fact that we have decreed several other matters the 28th canon in the interest of peace and good order and ecclesiastical affairs and confirmation of the statutes of the church knowing that your holiness will confirm or approve but what happens to the 28th canon we know theodore the lector a greek historian 100 years later and john scholasticus a greek historian in the year about 550 write that there were only 27 canons mr white had mentioned dionysus he exegesis there's he he writes right in his writings that there's only 27 canons he had meant in this and so the point being is why does the pope have this right in the church it's because he's been getting up not only did he strike canon 3 down not only did he strike canon 28 down but in in later on and we see the that after pope leo does galatius does in 495 and also somatius does in the year 14 all of these people reject canon 28 and it would have kept harmony in the church if we had just allowed for constantinople to be the new rome but leo harkened back to nicaea saying that alexandria and antioch that we couldn't change the creed or the the council of nicaea so the point being is in many of these different councils that are going down it's leo that has this right to do whatever he wants in the church why i believe he has the keys he has that authority to be able to do that whenever he chooses now what happens is constantinople grew in the eighth ecumenical council in about the year 869 and canon 21 it is allowed for constantinople to be the new rome because the accommodation principle the the pope thought it was all right to put it in because there were so the point i'm trying to say is this at every one of these different councils why does the pope have this right to be able to strike or not strike a line item veto now going to the fourth ecumenical council what happened at the fourth ecumenical council is this the fathers got up there talking about peter and they say peter has spoken through leo we can see it in the the sixth ecumenical council a gotho has spoken through peter both times so christ leo speaking through peter but let me just give you the surroundings of the different people that are claiming are saying something this is patriarch flavian which was a patriarch at the fourth ecumenical council the matter needs only your single decision and all with the settled in peace and quietness your sacred letter with with with with god's help completely suppress the heresy which which has arisen and the disturbance it has caused and so the convening of a council which is in any case difficult will be rendered superfluous paschenus gets up and he says rome has the primacy this is cried out the council wherefore leo the most holy and blessed archbishop of great and elder rome one with the thrice blessed and all praiseworthy apostle peter who is the rock and the foundation of the catholic church and the foundation of the right faith the the fourth ecumenical council writing to pope leo the great you have come to us you have been for us the interpreter of the voice of the blessed peter you have extended over all of us the benevolence of his faith we were close and so he continues on in these different councils now one of the things that i think that's important is this libellus hermistus in the year 521 2500 bishops from the eastern part of the church not one stood out submit to this formula it is the first condition of salvation to keep the rule of right faith and in no degree to deviate from the tradition of the fathers for the sentence of our lord jesus christ cannot be passed over which says thou art peter and upon this rock i will build my church these spoken words are proved by their effects because in the apostolic sea religion is always kept undefiled therefore desiring not to fall from his faith and following what has been constituted by the fathers and all things it keeps on going on wherefore and all things following the apostolic sea as we have said we also preach all that has been decreed by it and therefore hope to be in one communion with you which the apostolic sea enjoins in which the true and perfect solidity of the christian religion promising that in the future those who are separated from the communion of the catholic church that is today say those who do not consent to the apostolic sea of peter that they're not going to be part of the church the east and the west were together 2500 bishops from the east signed this agreement okay we see five different times the emperor declaring declaring in the 5th and 8th century saying this since the primacy of the apostolic sea was confirmed by the merits of saint peter prince of the episcopal crown by the dignity of the city of rome and also by the whole the authority of the holy senate let nobody have the presumption to attempt anything illicit outside the authority of the the the sea of rome for the peace of the churches shall finally be preserved everywhere when the universe subjects itself to the supreme ruler the old city of rome has the honor of being the mother of laws and nobody may doubt that the height of the sovereign pontificate lies with her for this reason we ourselves have also believed it necessary to honor this crate of law and the source of priesthood by a special ordinance of the sacred will we decree this another one we decree from the following decisions of the councils that the most holy pope of the old rome is first of all hierarchs and all and the holy archbishop of constantinople occupies a sea that is lesser than the pope of the old rome five different times the emperors are saying that peter holds this place in the church i would like to remind the audience that the thesis of the second portion of this debate is the church has historically understood this to be true not the church from the 5th century forward or the church from the 12th century forward but the church the church as it was begun on the day of pentecost we read the following interesting citation from the catholic encyclopedia now my opponent has stood up here and argued for 30 minutes that the primacy and infallibility which is a logical conclusion of primacy of the pope has been vouchsafed to us in and throughout church history by various council citations etc we read this citation however from their own roman catholic encyclopedia one need not expect to find in the early centuries a formal and explicit recognition throughout the christian church either of the primacy or the infallibility of the pope in terms in which these doctrines are defined by the vatican council no wonder it took them so long to search throughout to find it his own encyclopedia says it can't be done we present as further evidence the testimony of some of the early church fathers according to philip philip schaff and his massive three -volume work history of the christian church we quote the following from the time of saint paul's epistle 58 a .d

when he bestowed high praise on the earlier roman converts to the episcopate of victor 189 a .d

at the close of the second century and the unfavorable account of hippolytus of pope zephrinius and pope callistus we have no express and direct information about the internal state of the roman church this represents a gap of 130 years where we have no express and direct information about the internal state of the roman church now romanists try to find support for roman authority in a letter that has been mentioned a letter of clement sent from rome to corinth around 97 a .d

however this letter of clement does not have a word about the dominance of an alleged pope at rome it states ye therefore that laid the foundation of the sedition submit unto the presbyters and receive chastisement unto repentance bending the knees of your heart not a word about bending to the pope at rome rather submit to the presbyters notice clement puts the church of rome in the same vulnerable position that he felt the corinthians were in by saying we are in the same list and the same contest awaits us speaking of their temptations and trials some appeal is made to ignatius bishop of antioch around 110 and his so -called flattering language written to rome in a letter however the same flattery is common to all the epistles of ignatius and i quote ignatius who is also called the opposite the theophorus unto her which hath been blessed in greatness through the plenitude of god the father which has been foreordained before the ages to be forever unto abiding and unchangeable glory united and elect in true passion by the will of the father and of jesus christ our god even unto the church which is in you would expect rome wouldn't you after that language no this letter is written to ephesus worthy of all felicitation abundant greeting in christ and in blameless joy now to rome ignatius writes having the presidency of love not as roman catholic scholars want to say presiding over the brotherhood also to rome ignatius writes presidency in the country of the region of the romans not as it is alleged presidency over the entire realm of christendom the actual words of ignatius are having the presidency of love that is being first in love and having presidency in the country of the region of the romans not having presidency in the entire realm of christendom in his closing remarks to the church at rome ignatius remember writing in 80 110 gives us his understanding of exactly who would bishop the church at antioch in his absence he is on his way to rome and he says this in his letter remember in your prayers the church which is in syria which has god for its shepherd in my stead jesus christ alone shall be its bishop he and your love we move forward in the church history to cyprian bishop of carthage 200 258 a .d

and we find this amazing concession given to us by the catholic encyclopedia with respect to cyprian's loyalty to rome and i quote cyprian undoubtedly entertained exaggerated views as to the independence of individual bishops which eventually led him to serious conflict with rome i'll say cyprian had serious conflict with rome and we'll talk more about that later here are a few comments from polemicists and apologists of the third and fourth century origin was the first father to write a complete commentary on the bible he's from alexandria egypt and explained matthew 16 18 as follows if you suppose that on this peter alone the whole church is built by god what would you say about john the son of thunder or about any other of the apostles john chrysostom patriarch of constantinople explains thou art peter and upon this rock i will build my church which means upon the faith of his confession upon this rock petrum he did not say upon peter petrum nor upon a man but upon his faith fight him he has built his church jerome writing in ad 40 official bible translator interpreter of the church of rome writes in his commentary on matthew thou art peter petrus and upon this rock petrum i will build my church to simon who believed in the rock petra that is christ the name of peter petrus was given the rock is christ who granted to his apostles that they too should be called rocks augustine bishop of africa the greatest of the latin father says therefore he said thou art peter upon this rock which thou has confessed that is upon myself who am the son of the living god i will build my church i will build my church i will build you upon me not me on you the church is not built on men but on christ those who wish to be built upon men said i am a paul i am of apollos and i am of cephas who is peter but others who did not wish to be built upon peter but upon the rock said i am of christ that's augustine others who did not wish to be built upon peter but upon the rock said i am of christ at the seventh ecumenical council 787 a .d

teresius patriarch of constantinople explained the petrine text as follows the church has been founded upon the rock namely upon christ our lord in the second session of the same council we find that pope adrian wrote that the apostle peter was thought worthy to confess that faith upon which the church of christ is founded of all the exegetical commentaries on matthew 16 18 written during the first thousand years of christianity not one mentions the papacy the fathers would not even know how to spell the word not one mentions the primacy of the bishop of rome such an idea and interpretation did not exist even as a heresy it did not exist even as a heresy i wish now to cite in addition to the above quotation some of the sordid history of the roman papacy which destroys the whole concept of roman papalness this is what rome does not like to tell you the case of pope vigilius very interesting pope vigilius 500 to 555 he was pope from 537 on forward prior to ascending to the papacy vigilius was extremely sympathetic to monophysitism the popular eastern african idea that christ had only one nature despite giving indication to the contrary in his relationship with the eastern church vigilius upheld the council of chalcedon against monophysitism upon becoming the bishop of rome summoned to constant noble vigilius changed his mind and supported monophysite position but after receiving intense pressure from the west vigilius again changed his mind and retracted for his position for monophysitism and wrote constitutum which means against monophysitism in its essence then upon the convening of the second council of constant noble which affirmed justinian who sought peace with monophysites vigilius changed his mind for the third time so we have an alleged pope at rome changing his mind three times on the issue of the nature of jesus christ a sad footnote on the history of vigilius is he died on his way back to rome hardly the vicar of christ on earth one wonders if he had made it back to rome would he have changed his mind yet for a fourth time this is found assembly in the new international dictionary christian church page 1018 and following there's also the case of pope honorius at first he's pope from 625 to 638 this pope of rome was formally anathematized by the third council of constant noble in 681 what was his crime he is found guilty of sanctioning monophysitism the idea that christ had two natures but only one will so much for roman supremacy when they anathematize their own popes after they have died there's also the revealing tale of the avignon popes from 1378 to 1409 the intriguing tale unfolds as follows pope urban the sixth succeeded gregory the 11th under the duress of a rabid roman crowd on the steps of the vatican and the shout was we will have a roman pope or at least an italian on september 20th 1378 the french cardinals elected a new pope claiming that pope urban should at once resign pope urban was denounced as a apostate the great avignon schism began robert of geneva clement the seventh was proclaimed pope and the papacy was moved to france for the next 22 years there were two popes one in rome and the other in avignon it was not until the council of pisa in 1409 that both the roman pope and the avignon pope were forced to abdicate but all this accomplished was a new line the so -called peasant line of the papacy not until the council of constance in 1414 was the papacy finally united under martin the fifth three popes had to abdicate for this to happen as a footnote we would add that one of the three claimants to the papacy during the sordid history of the roman pope was john the 23rd he fled from the council of constance for fear of his life and was eventually captured and put under house arrest i'd also want to put a footnote to this that it was the same john the 23rd who offered safe conduct both to and from the council to one johann hus the bohemian reformer hus was jailed and burned at the stake on july 7th of the same year his fire yet lives today in us now there were some comments made early on by mr butler in his opening presentation which i'd like to address there is appeal in historical data from the time period of the third and fourth century on forward made by the eastern church to the bishop at rome for their support but john meindorf notes this in his work byzantine theology the reformed papacy of the 11th century used a long -standing western tradition of exegesis when it applied systematically and legalistically the passages on the role of peter to the bishop of rome this tradition was not shared by the east yet it was not totally ignored by the byzantines some of whom used it occasionally especially in documents addressed to rome intended to win the pope's sympathy but it was never given an ultimate theological significance in other words when you wanted more political support you appeal to rome you don't appeal to rome because you think rome is the vicar of christ on earth or that it has the power passed down from the so -called keys of peter you appeal to it on the basis of political expediency also i'd like to address the issue of pope victor mr butler said that iron ace had something to say the great bishop of lions writing to victor did certainly have something to say he rebuked the rash actions of the roman bishop and called him to remembrance of what had been done by his predecessors we read for neither could and satis persuade persuade polycopter forgo the observance in as much as these things had always been so observed by john disciples of our lord the whole issue centers around when to worship during the easter period the eastern church had their own date and rome wanted to change it so victor excommunicated him and irenaeus came along and said you can't do this just the fact that irenaeus would come along and say you can't do this just the fact that the edict of victor was totally ignored in this scenario leads us to suspect that neither irenaeus nor those in the east held to papal supremacy at the time i'd also like to remind the audience that mr butler quoted from saint clement in his letter to rome early on in paragraph 63 i'd like to quote that for you therefore it is the right for us to give heed to so great and so many examples the word us is used over and over again in the letter speaking of the presbyters at rome to the presbyters and the people at corinth not the bishop of rome the word us is used thank you time already in mr white's opening statement he said that the proofs brought forth for the papacy he can prove our sheer myth i would like to say the same thing about his presentation to deny the papacy it is sheer myth what i would like to read for our opponents is a quote from saint athanasius who said this regarding people who quote one thing from one father but ignore another thing from that same father athanasius says this who was confronted with the very same thing that we're dealing with today athanasius says yes he wrote it referring to a father who wrote something and we admit that his letter runs thus but just as he wrote this he also wrote very many other letters and they ought to consult those also in order that the faith of the man may be made clear from them all and not from this alone that is what i think is a major fault of the presentation given to us tonight yes there are many controversies throughout christendom about the papacy there's many controversies about the trinity the deity of christ the role of the holy spirit every doctrine that has come down the pike there's a controversy about it but the controversy does not prove or deny that this thing this papacy or the trinity or the deity of christ was a reality as a matter of fact the mere fact that it is a controversy shows us that the doctrine was in existence and there were people who opposed the doctrine if there was no papacy or papacy then we wouldn't have to worry about the issue that is what we're presented with here mr zins said that yes there is much evidence in the fifth century and beyond regarding the papacy that again just proves my point that yes it is there there is controversy but it is there now the doubt is brought into your mind by the fact that in the first four centuries it may not be as clear well let me tell you something the doctrine of the trinity was not as clear either there were people excommunicated on every side of the doctrine of the trinity for almost four centuries the deity of christ the same thing occurred they didn't understand it it was developing they came to a realization later on in four or five centuries just who jesus was as a matter of fact they didn't really know who he was they told you what you couldn't say but they didn't really know who he was they didn't know how to understand it how do you join deity and humanity in one being who can understand that the role of the holy spirit another thing they didn't understand that for centuries who was the holy spirit so it's no big deal folks that we didn't understand the papacy as well as they think we should understand it yet the fact is however we will prove that it is there and it is quite there there is no question now we were we were presented with the fact that clement the pope clement in the first century is not really acting as a pope we quoted from harnack the protestant liberal theologian now he has no axe to grind he doesn't believe jesus is god he doesn't believe in christendom per se because he's a liberal protestant theologian he's the one who doesn't have this axe to grind that tells us that clement is the one who's showing us the primacy of peter the power of the pope in the first century it's not a catholic who's saying that many of the quotes that mr that my colleague brought forth were not given to you by mr white or mr zins because you know something they simply don't have them one of the publications that they use is erdman's church fathers erdman's church fathers is a protestant publication that does not have many of the things that we brought forth today many of them are taken out of that publication that's why they're not there i would like to present this challenge to mr white and mr zins regarding the interpretation of matthew 16 18 in reference to the fathers if it is such as they are saying that peter is not the rock and christ is supposed to be the rock of that passage give me let's say three fathers before the year 400 who said that christ was the rock if you can't find three give me two if you can't find two i'll accept one give me one father that said christ was the rock before the year 400 i open that challenge to you mr white quoted quoted from the scholar lenoy lenoy had a calculation of who the fathers were saying peter was 16 he referred to as peter as the rock 17 referred to peter's faith 6 referred to the apostolic college itself and 4 said that christ was the rock now the problem with this is lenoy is a gullican he doesn't like the primacy of peter number one number two lenoy is introducing various medieval and renaissance writers into his calculations all the way up until the 12th century to try to stack the deck against us and the most important point is in the early fathers there was no difference in their mind between the faith of peter and peter himself that is a protestant invention so if we want to tally them all up 76 percent of these fathers believe that peter was the rock of matthew 16 because they did not distinguish between faith and rock let me quote you some other fathers saint theodore the studite 759 to 826 says peter's faith is undoubtedly the unshakable rock on which the church rests but this faith is inseparable inseparable from peter's person he is indeed the rock saint john damascene says the faith of peter is without doubt the immovable rock upon which the church rests but this faith is not separable from the person of peter it is certainly he who is the rock mr white quoted from the meldontist via the book james salman and this says that or he quotes mr salman as saying that hillary gregory of nyssa chrysostom cyril of alexandria do not affirm that peter is the rock that peter has a primacy let me quote you from hillary gregory of nyssa cyril alexander and chrysostom hillary says this blessed simon who after his confession of the mystery was set to be the foundation stone of the church and receive the keys of the kingdom hillary de trinitate 6 verse 20 ad 360 gregory of nyssa says this the very person mr white says no reference exists in gregory of nyssa he says the memory of peter who is the head of the apostles he is the firm and most solid rock on which the savior built his church cyril of alexander this again same person mr white said had nothing to say about this says he was pleased to call him peter by an absimilitude as the one on whom he was about to found a church chrysostom the great eastern father who mr white said had nothing to say about the primacy of peter says this he brought him back to his former honor referring to peter and entrusted him with the headship of the universal church he says again god allowed him to fall because he meant to make him ruler of the whole world the eastern bishop is saying this again god has had great account of this city of antioch where chrysostom was the ruler and he has shown indeed especially in that he ordered peter the ruler of the whole world to whom he entrusted the keys of heaven to whom he committed the office of bringing all in to pass a long time here so that our city stood to him in the place of the whole world again chrysostom i'm concentrating on him because he's a very important church father says this quote he saith unto him peter feed my sheep and why having passed by the others the other apostles that is does he speak with peter on these matters he was chose he was the chosen one of the apostles the mouth of the disciples the leader of the band on this account also paul went up a time to inquire of him rather than the others jesus puts into his hands the chief authority among the brethren chrysostom said that chrysostom also said for he who then did not dare to question jesus but committed the office to another was even entrusted with the chief authority over the brethren chrysostom again says this for observe they were 120 talking about the 120 in the upper room in acts chapter 1 and he asks for one out of a whole body with good right as having been put in charge of them for to him christ had said and when thou are converted strengthen thy brethren you see what he's doing he's interpreting the strength of my brethren command given to jesus given to peter as the one who has been put in charge of the apostles again chrysostom says but though we received him as teacher talking about the time that peter was an antioch we did not retain him to the end but we gave him up to royal rome they wanted peter to go to rome chrysostom says although he did a good job when he was an antioch now we were talking about ignatius mr zins brought up ignatius the problem with his presentation is he didn't read you the whole quote let me read it all for you he says this but my desire is that those things also may be firm which in gaining others to discipleship you command remember in your prayers the church in syria remember he made reference to that which now has god for its shepherd in place of me and he stopped there as if god is now the shepherd doesn't that give you that impression yes well let's read the rest of it jesus christ alone and your love will bishop it now this last verb is the verbal form of the noun episcopus bishop or overseer is how it's translated in the new testament and he points out that the roman church alone among those addressed in ignatius extent letters is expected to have this oversight or care for the distant church of antioch that's what ignatius said don chapman says the same thing when he uses this word presiding that it refers in a jurisdictional sense an authoritative sense that's a protestant interpretation of that very passage that mr zins diluted and said had nothing to do with jurisdiction ignatius that was talked about ignatius is important because he is in 107 and he says this to her that presides in the district of the region of the romans and having the presidency of love now there's a very specific word used here the greek word procothemen a and whenever else ignatius uses this word he's referring to an authoritative jurisdictional position and this is what he understands of the church of rome irenaeus 185 to 190 says this but as it would be very long task to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches we do put to confusion all those who in whatever manner whether by an evil self -pleasing by vain glory or by blindness and perverse opinion assemble in unauthorized meetings he was aware of controversies of people who are usurping rome's authority and said this by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles of the very great the very ancient and the universally known church founded and constituted at rome by the two most glorious apostles peter and paul as also the faith preached to men which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops for it is a matter of necessity that every church should agree with this the roman church on account of its preeminent authority irenaeus we were told that irenaeus didn't believe in this that he objected to something that the pope said hey everybody objects to something that the pope says that's nothing new irenaeus irenaeus isn't perfect people object today to what the pope says but he knew that where the authority rested as far as peter being the rock tertullian says this was anything with health and the knowledge of peter who was called a rock on which the church would be built origin look at peter the great foundation of the church that most solid of rocks upon whom christ built the church hippolytus with which mr zinn's mentioned says peter the rock of the church he says hippolytus had nothing to say about that saint cyprian says on him he builds his church and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep and although he assigns a light power to all apostles as he founded it on a single chair peter bishop eusebius says the very head of the apostles peter peter that voice of the apostles after having first founded the church in antioch went away at rome preaching the gospel and he also after the church presided over that of rome until his death saint hillary i already read saint cyril of jerusalem thank you aren't you glad this is being taped i hope you all have the opportunity of going back and listening because i am amazed at the inaccurate citations citations that aren't there and the misrepresentations that i've heard so far this evening mr singenis just said that i said it was a sheer myth there is evidence of the roma catholic position if you'll go back and listen to what i said i said it is a sheer myth there's such thing as unanimous consent of the fathers and then he used that over and over again to beat me over the head straw men work that way if you took that out of his presentation you didn't have a whole lot left he quoted from irenaeus just now but he didn't bother to tell you at the bottom of the very same page is an alternate quotation that destroys his point he called from tertullian but he didn't tell you that tertullian mocked the bishop of rome and called him pontifex maximus which was an insult to christians at that time he only gave you a part of what tertullian said about things like that it's interesting to me he then quoted from athanasius and athanasius his statement about you need to read all of what someone says it's interesting to me we haven't heard anything from athanasius this evening about the papacy because obviously he didn't believe in these things i told you that we need to be very very very very careful uh about the peter syndrome and you were just given 15 minutes example of what the peter syndrome is the peter syndrome is finding any statement about peter by any father and just assuming that that's relevant to the topic you just heard statement after statement after statement in fact it was it was he again misrepresented me he said that i said quoting from maldonatus and this this amazes me because mr syngenis has the tapes that i've where i've given this quotation mr butler has the tapes where i gave this very information and debate against gerry madison six years ago so they've got the quotation they've got the book if they'd read the book maldonatus is talking about their interpretation of matthew 16 not what they said elsewhere about peter and so again i might suggest that if they stayed in the room and listened to our presentation they might know what we're talking about and be able to respond to our actual statements now mr syngenis then said well you know the trinity and the deity of christ wasn't understood for a long time either folks i want you to think about what you're being told there the trinity and the deity of christ has no stronger basis in scripture and no greater clarity than what the tortured exegesis of matthew 16 isaiah 22 we've heard this evening the central aspect of who god is is no more clear than trying to say that john 21 or luke 22 teaches the papacy my friends this is dangerous dangerous things we are told that pope clement wrote the letter to the corinthians where does pope clement ever say that scholars recognize that clement never identifies himself secondly it's written in plural and many people feel that clement was actually the secretary for the elders in the church so much for pope clement it's interesting we were told that that this edition of the the erdman set which now published by hendrickson it takes things out please look into that you see there are a lot of later latin editions that scholars have discovered remember it's rome that for a long time based its papal claims on forged decretals for years and years and years think about who has more of a reason to insert things the later latins or the original greek in fact mr butler stood up here and said i forgot to tell you something's on page 15 of this book well there's page 15 in this book and folks i challenge you to go look at it what he said is there ain't there's something about the primacy of rome here it's not on page 15 you can look at yourself if you'd like i have the same book you do it's not there look at pages 15 in fact what mr butler forgot to tell you is on page 16 there is an excursus on the extent of the jurisdiction of the bishop of rome of the over the suburbican churches it quotes from heffalah who says quote it is evident that the council has not in view here the primacy of the bishop of rome over the whole church but simply his power as a patriarch read it yourself folks i have no no reason to mislead you on it read it yourself check out all the citations yourselves because you're going to need to for example the quotation from the council of sardica which is on page 417 the same edition the end of mr butler's quotation was not in that citation at all in fact sardica is a very interesting council you might want to look into it and rome's misuse of it later on and the north african bishop's rejection of rome's misuse of it we were told that the bishop has the line item veto regarding canning three of constantinople isn't it interesting that canon three of constantinople ends up in canon 28 of chalcedon if he had a line item video why do you keep bringing it back up didn't everybody believe that peter was a vicar of christ on earth so how's it up end up at canon 28 of chalcedon and then we were told and it's interesting mr butler's been citing from meyendorff many times but you notice he didn't cite from meyendorff about canon 28 you know why because i cited from meyendorff in my opening presentation and he confirms that canon 28 was in the byzantine collections and in numerous other places he does mention that there are people in the west who did not accept canon 28 well of course of course the roman bishop didn't like it well that that's that's terrible i mean doesn't that mean he has some primacy no he's the bishop of the one c in the west and he doesn't like constantinople getting a second position this is political folks nothing more than that at all mr butler gave you just a very small portion of jb lightfoot's citation about the letter of clement and he misled you badly he does say this is the beginning of the rise of papal primacy but this is the whole section that mr butler left out because he went on to say there is all the difference in the world between the attitude of rome towards other churches at the close of the first century when the romans as a community remonstrate on terms of equality with the corinthians that's a little bit different than what we've been told on their irregularities strong only in the righteousness of their cause and feeling as they had a right to feel that these councils of peace were the dictation of the holy spirit and its attitude at the close of the second century when victor the bishop excommunicates the churches of asia minor for clinging to a usage in regard to the celebration of easter which had been handed down to them from the apostles and thus foments instead of healing dissensions even this second stage has carried the power of rome only a very small step in advance towards the assumption of a hildebrand or an innocent or a boniface or even of a leo but it is nevertheless a decided step the substitution of the bishop of rome and notice mr mr butler kept telling us we've got to do away with this myth of the distinction between the church of rome and the bishop rome listen to what lightfoot says the substitution of the bishop of rome for the church of rome is an all -important point the later roman theory supposes that the church of rome derives all its authority from the bishop of rome as the successor of saint peter history inverts this relation and shows that as a matter of fact the power of the bishop of rome was built upon the power of the church of rome i can understand why the full citation would not be read in your hearing and i'm not saying you have to cite every single thing someone says but if you're going to cite a scholar who says x y or z if he then goes on the next paragraph to totally destroy your point don't cite him i think that's just simply honest to people who may not have the opportunity of going out and getting books like this and checking out the accuracy of the statements that are being made we are told for example that irenaeus by mr butler gives a list of all those popes after peter if you actually look at irenaeus's list the first bishop he doesn't talk about popes of course the first bishop of rome he does not say was peter he says that peter and paul ordained the first bishop of rome again just a little matter of historical accuracy and then interestingly enough he cited from vermilion and if you were listening closely maybe he just didn't hear me when i cited it i don't know but i cited the exact same passage now how could we cite the exact same passage for two completely opposite positions because of what's called as i said the peter syndrome you see when mr butler sees what vermilion said vermilion talked about the church being founded on peter and so he reads it but if you read the section as i quoted it to you vermilion is citing it mocking stephen the bishop of rome now please folks this is what i'm talking about we must take these fathers in their context we can't just simply take a little snippet out of here and a snippet out of there let's look at what they said in totality this is an important issue i just want you to think about one thing in regards to the historical section of this debate we've heard all sorts of things about peter in exalted language haven't we but have you heard anything that even begins to demonstrate that the early church believed what vatican one stated that peter was made the vicar of christ on earth with absolute jurisdictional authority over all the world were you given any information like that if you do not receive remember vatican one said it was the unanimous consent of the fathers we've had to hear mr singenis go so far as to say well but you see you got to realize they believe that peter's faith and peter are the same thing so we can change all the numbers here and so you've got more now you've got three quarters of the fathers who believe this well let's let's get away with that even if i i think it's ridiculous let's let's say that's true you're still not up to vatican one are you vatican one said unanimous it's not the case and yet rome uses the anathema upon us for standing on the truth of history think about that god bless one of the things that i wanted to point out uh mr singenis had talked about uh mr uh dr harnack a liberal theologian but here's what he says he really doesn't have a bias either way because as far as a protestant or catholic position but he says this about the second century now it is a priori probability that the transformation of christianity into an organized catholic church which was simply the adaptation of the gospel to the then existing empire came about under the guidance of the metropolitan church the church of rome and that roman and catholic had therefore a special relationship from the beginning it can ever it can however be proved that it was the roman church which up to about the year 190 was closely connected with that of the age of minor that all the elements of which catholicism is based first assumed a definite form from these considerations we can scarcely doubt that the fundamental apostolic institution the laws of catholicism were framed in that city that in other respects imposed its authority on the whole earth that it was the center from which they spread because the world had become accustomed to receive law and justice from rome again after the exposition of the arguments all these causes combined to convert the christian communities into a real confederation under the primacy of the roman church mr white had said that there is no papal jurisdiction in the east uh this is the bishop of rome intervening peter the successor of saint athanasius of the alexandrian sea in the year 370 was thrust out of the arian party party pope damasus armed with letters which claimed the power of restoring him restores him to his sea why does he have the power to do that about the same time pope damasus writing to the numinian bishops commended them for the care and observing the ordinances their forefathers and referring all doubtful matters to the head so as to avoid all departure from the regulations of the apostolic sea in the same letter the pope claimed to hold the chief helm of the church in another letter to the oriental bishops he claimed that the opinion of the roman bishops ought to be self before that of all others in the year 386 pope circius writing that the bishop of tarragona in spain claims the inheritance of peter's government and lays down a rule which must be observed by all priests who do not wish to rent from the solid apostolic rock on which christ constructed his universal church he also calls this rock the head of the body pope innocent in the year 410 writing to the bishop of rwan sends a book of rules to be communicated to his fellow bishops it's on and on to the bishop of gui gubio condemning those who think that the custom of any other church than that of rome should be followed in the same letter he asserts that no precedence prevails against what has been handed down to the roman church through peter to the bishop of carthage he writes asserting that the whole authority of the episcopate is derived from the apostolic sea and claims that according to the fathers no local action should be counted as completed till the entire sentence is confirmed by the authority of the sea hosius one that had been at the council of nicaea he was the bishop of cordoba writes that you must submit to the holy pontiff that's the bishop of rome this this whole uh thing about all these different popes that have committed this great heresy we're not going to be able to have time to cover that but all those different popes in the lutheran catholic dialogue on liberius vigilus and honorius they say that they do not affect infallibility in in in any way so this is the largest uh protestant group saying that it has nothing to do with infallibility these three different cases i would love to go into those because i could prove that there is nothing that infringes on infallibility at all one of the things that's kind of funny about saint augustine at the council of milibus this is in africa and the council of carthage they write to the bishop the bishop of rome to resolve a situation then what happens is augustine with five other bishops writes to the bishop of rome to resolve the situation on celestis and pelagius why would somebody from another western sea from the african sea be writing asking for the bishop of rome to take control of the whole situation robert zins talks about the seventh ecumenical council it's almost unbelievable the seventh ecumenical council says this the sea of peter shines is holding the primacy of the whole world and stands as head of all the churches of god and blessed peter prince of the apostles who first sat on the apostolic throne left the primacy of the apostleship and of his pastoral care to his successors who shall always sit on the most his sacred chair to whom he by divine command left the power of authority given to himself by god our lord and savior and the holy synod answered the whole most sacred synod so believes and so convinces so teaches and another time says we follow we receive we accept at the sixth ecumenical council pope agatha which is eastern pope from the he the eastern and western fathers were were saying agatha has spoken on this issue it is resolved at the council of leon in 1274 the east and the west had split at the council of leon they affirmed the roman primacy when they try to get back together at the council of florence in 1435 to 1439 the one thing that is affirmed by the eastern and the western church is that the roman primacy is true now the east backs out of that situation later on but at both of those councils it affirms the principle in every council that's coming down we see this language about the about the roman pontiff the amazing thing in the council of chalcedon in 451 we have the empress pulcheria saying this by the authority of blessed peter the apostle we utterly revoke it by the general decision the patriarch of constantinople oh he says he instantly obeyed he says all the pope's injunctions the canon was not the work of blame is to be laid on the clergy of the constant constantinople but even as the whole force and confirmation of the acts was revert reserved to your holiness point being is he tries to make it out this theodore the lector is in 550 100 years after the council is an eastern historian uh john school laticus he's an eastern historian this dionysus writes in the greek uh greek canons and different things he affirms there's only 27 canons these are people from the east mr white says they're all from the west i have 40 pages of stuff just saying on peter is the rock here bob had quoted you one on tritullian what kind of man are you subverting and changing what was the manifest intent the apostles so they govern you cannot deny that you may know that in the city of rome the chair was first conferred on peter which the prince of all the apostles the point the point being is tritullian as a catholic believed in the primacy and as a montanist after he leaves 20 years later believes that he's the rock too saint gregory of nyssa says that unbroken and most firm rock upon which the lord built his church saint gregor of nasium seeth that thou of the disciples of christ all of whom were great and deserving of the choice one is called the rock and is entrusted with the foundations of the church this is the year about 350 saint basil 371 says one also of these mountains was peter upon which rock the lord promised he built his church embryo embryo ulster said it was right indeed that he paul should be anxious to see peter for he was the first among the apostles and was entrusted by the savior with care of the churches saint epiphanius and the blessed peter who for a while denied the lord peter was the chiefest of the apostles he who became unto us the truly affirmed rock upon which is based the lord's faith upon which rock the church is in every way built saint ambrose i mean saint athanasius and saint ambrose presided over the majority of these different councils and mr white would say that they didn't they had to accept what the council said at each one of these different councils they were the presiding person the head guy and each one of those councils said that peter had this role in the church saint ambrose says this therefore where peter is there is the church saint jerome says this is peter to whom he said thou art peter upon this rock i will build my church where therefore peter is there is the church and in accordance with the metaphor of rock it is justly said to him i will build my church upon thee i have 91 quotes from saint christopherson bob was only able to fill give you like 14 or 15 i've got 91 quotes from a greek father the largest greek father writing on the primacy of peter now this will all be in a book and everybody will be able to analyze it but the point being is he's the largest greek father he's affirming this principle he's the largest father that we have the most writings from and mr white would put it as if there's no writings affirming this principle and i have not yet heard this the the before the year 400 matthew 16 18 give me one father that says jesus is the rock we asked him for three then we asked him for two now we've asked him for one give us one that's what we're asking for in my closing statements i just want to recap a couple of things that were said by our opponents that i want to clarify and then give a summary statement mr white said that the issue about moldon to us where we talked about tertullian hillary gregory of nyssa and cyril of alexandria that i said that uh well actually he said that he was trying to make some issue that they don't refer to peter as the rock that is exactly what i said that they do refer to peter as the rock hillary said that peter is the foundation stone how much closer to a rock you want to get gregory of nyssa he said peter was the most solid rock cyril upon whom jesus founded a church and i hope i don't have to read the quotes again from chrysostom who again said peter was the rock as my colleague reiterated our challenge was if peter isn't the rock give us something that says jesus was the rock prior to 400 a .d

we have given you many fathers that said peter was the rock prior to the challenge remains i just want to clear up one thing about galatians 2 back in the biblical part where does the scripture say that disfellowshipping yourself with gentiles is destroying the gospel circumcision of gentiles is destroying the gospel show me where the scripture says the opposite but nevertheless whatever their interpretation of galatians 2 is whatever the controversy is about peter and paul this has nothing to do with either the primacy of peter nor infallibility the church does not define primacy nor infallibility based on a personal confrontation between peter and paul those things are going to come up paul had his own confrontations with barnabas and the heated debate was so heated that they split their ways and took but one took one person one took the other to the missionary journeys controversies are all over the place but this doesn't dilute the primacy nor the infallibility mr white harps on this word unanimous in vatican one the latin word used here does not mean that every single church father has to agree with this issue it is not referring to every single father it's referring to the prevailing view of the centuries of the church that is what vatican one is talking about of course not every father is going to agree who could expect that why would vatican one make such a statement knowing that the history does not show that actually the fathers that disagreed eventually some of them found their way out of the church the numbers were being refined but it doesn't mean every single father now let me pose this to you if the church was not what we say it is if there is no papal primacy let's take a doctrine the deity of christ for example there was such a controversy about this doctrine one party wanted to say jesus was just like god he wasn't really god the other party wanted to say no he really was god they used two greek words to distinguish these the ones who said he was like god said he was homoousios one little letter in the greek the iota distinguish it from the other term that was used when it said jesus was god homoousios now what if the church decided that they didn't want homoousios jesus was god and decided that he was only like god would we have the same faith that we have today the answer is no we would not have salvation today if the church chose the wrong answer to the question because jesus is god he is not like god that's what the jehovah's witnesses believe or the mormons may believe they don't have salvation or take another doctrine the trinity that we talked about before what if they said no there were three modes of god there were actually three persons would we have the same faith that we have today no again what if the church decided that the epistle of barnabas should have been put into the canon or the epistle of clement should be put into the canon and hebrews and revelation and maybe james and matthew should be taken out would we have the same faith that we have today no we would not because we would be in error and we cannot be in error and have the same faith the same salvation that jesus gave us that is why it's so necessary to understand that there can be no error these gentlemen believe those doctrines why do they believe them because the church passed them down to them they are living off the borrowed capital of the catholic church you know it's funny in debates like this the catholics are always put on the defensive we have to prove the papacy we have to prove this and the other thing i'd like to turn the tables around right now what do we have in prosentism to replace what they think we've made such an error in you know we have we have 25 000 different denominations in the world today in prosentism why because there is no leadership because everybody looks at their scripture looks at the fathers and they think something different the jehovah's witnesses even quote the church fathers to deny that jesus was god anybody can take anything they want if there is no authority you're going to have mass confusion that's exactly what we have today look at america look at the world look at how they're falling apart church is left and right falling down so let me turn the tables do they have a better yes there's a lot of ambiguities in history there's a lot of things we can't cover tonight but do they have a better answer for you no they don't you know jesus was frustrated with the people that he was trying to convince that he was the son of god the jews he was very frustrated and even jesus himself couldn't convince the jews that he was the son of god and at one time he said well you know there's this passage back in the psalms that when god said to the people of that time the rulers of that time it says he called them gods trying to convince the jews now that this is that he is the son of god okay so he says that god called these people these rules back in the old testament gods now what big a deal is it for me who when i say i'm from the father and i call myself the son of god if god called them gods why is it so hard for you to believe me being from the father that i'm the son of god an interesting argument now i would like to pose this question for you peter is called rock he's called cephas in john 1 42 he's called petros in matthew 16 paul calls him cephas all throughout the epistles which means rock now if it's so hard to understand that peter is the rock from those quotations are we in the same dilemma that jesus was in with the jews that's exactly the case jesus says god called them gods okay and i say i'm the son of god peter called jesus called peter the rock so why is it so hard for us to believe that peter's the rock that's what's so frustrating for us it's there in plain daylight for us his name was changed to rock and these people keep denying it what else does cephas mean besides rock give me one other alternative there is none he is the rock folks he is the rock and and you cannot listen to all the quotes my colleague has brought forth to you today from century after century after century the council saying yes we affirm the primacy of peter he is the rock how much more information do we need yes there is controversy one bishop against another bishop that is to be expected there's always controversy we live in a sinful world and it's not going to be perfect but folks it is there it is there examine the evidence get the tapes look at it yourself again two more times i just implore you in the one minute that i have left the arguments may sound very convincing but please listen this is the voice of the church of two thousand years of history two thousand years these gentlemen can trace their history back for 400 years martin luther the guy who started it all he took away from the bible and he added to the bible he took away james and hebrews because they were not suitable for him they didn't preach the doctrine that he wanted is that the legacy that you want to live with taking away from the scripture to prove your faith no stick with the church that has never changed a dogma in its whole two thousand year history yes practices practices have changed we don't eat we can eat meat on friday now but dogmas do not change i challenge you those who have left give me one dogma that has changed and i will convert back to protestantism i'll end it right there thank you let me start out by saying that any man who can be converted by the catholic controversy written by saint francis de sale certainly can be converted back by logic greater than this and by his own testimony if we can prove to him that the truths we have portrayed this evening are in fact reality we would expect mr singenis to debating on our team the next debate now in my closing 10 minutes i'd like to say this the roman catholic religion has stated two propositions boldly and unambiguously in vatican one dogmatic constitution on the church the first is that according to the gospel the primacy of jurisdiction over the entire church of god was promised and was conferred immediately and directly upon the blessed apostle peter by christ the lord notice according to the gospel we have examined the gospel to find out if this is accurate we have scrutinized matthew 16 luke 22 john 21 and we have thrown in isaiah 22 as well we have found these texts do not lend the least support for the roman catholic claims of petrine supremacy we have also looked at a number of other passages which show peter to have been locked out of the modern invention of potpourri by virtue of his own testimony as being a fellow elder among others we have also presented a candid portrayal of peter from the word of god we found peter to have been given prominence but not primacy we found peter failing in a test of faith and doctrine we found peter one and equal among many apostles who were the foundation of the church of god but never did we find peter superior there is no doubt from the testimony of the scriptures that peter was no more and no less than the other apostles in fact we built a case for the apostle paul as being the better candidate for the fiction of the romish pope rather than peter in fact we would prefer it in light of rome's consistent denial of justification by faith alone and the mighty apostle paul's absolute contradiction of rome at this point the second position of rome is that the primacy of peter is to be believed and held by all faithful according and i quote vatican one according to the ancient and continual faith of the universal church and to prescribe and condemn the contrary errors so pernicious to the lord's flock we have shown in fact that the testimony of early church history denies the roman catholic religion its most cherished desired possession that of a clear -cut historical witness to the papalness of the sea at rome rather we have shown that the earliest testimony of the church of christ knew nothing of the roman papacy we have marshaled up account after account some from catholic sources which deny the existence of such supremacy and such an office of power and authority we have shown that the entire concept of rome's rule among the early church fathers is imported from the 19th century and cannot be justified from an unbiased reading of the early church fathers we do search in vain for affirmation of vatican one of the rome's rule from clement of rome we search in vain for the affirmations of rome's rule from vatican run one in ignatius in polycarp in tertullian in irenaeus cyprian jerome augustine ambrose athanasius and chrysostom remember the burden of proof is to show that vatican one can be repeated in the early church fathers vatican one cannot be repeated vatican one cannot be substantiated and that's what this bait centers around the burden of proof is not to prove that one or two of the early church fathers may have thought that matthew 16 refers to peter as the rock rock doesn't equal papacy rock does not equal rome the burden of proof as i will remind you from the councils is that rome indeed can be established by the early church fathers on the basis of what vatican one claims for rome which is absolute rule and authority we search in vain for romish dominion of the early ecumenical councils we cannot find the romish pope at nicaea 325 a .d

we have said the great arian controversy in this most important of church councils was settled without rome may i remind you of canon 4 of the council of nicaea 3 nicaea 325 a .d