The Great Debate III - The Papacy - Pacwa

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. Thank you very much. My name is Chris Arnzen and I am with WMCA Radio.

I'm really moving up in my company. I am now cleaning toilets on the seventh floor.

And I'm probably the only one in this room, for a Christmas bonus, got a pair of rubber gloves, so I'm doing real good.

I've been called by some people the Don King of theological debate.

You've heard of Muhammad Ali's fights, the famous fights like the Thrilla in Manila, the

Rumble in the Jungle. Welcome to the Quarrel at the Coral. Just kidding, we're going to be doing anything but quarreling tonight.

We don't want to quarrel. We want to pass out serious issues in love and in truth, in the spirit of truth.

By the way, the management of the Coral House just gave me this slip of paper before.

They have a special announcement for all Catholics, Lutherans, and Presbyterians. Smoking is not permitted in this section.

If you'd like to smoke, there's a lounge downstairs in the bar area as well.

For the Baptists in the audience, yes, the coffee is free, but there is a 26 -cup limit.

And please, no doggie bags for the pastry. By the way,

I hope you enjoy the tie that I'm wearing. This actually is a tie that used to belong to James White.

And I have a little, you know, you could call it a superstition, but I always like to wear an article of clothing worn once by the debater that I choose to support in a debate, which is why my church nearly excommunicated me when

I organized a debate for Beverly LaHaye. And believe me, her feet are a lot smaller than they look.

The question is constantly asked, Chris, this is the third year

I'm doing this, Chris, why are you doing this? And I'd like to try to get serious here for a moment.

It puzzles me why people ask that question, but people every year ask, why are you doing this? Sort of indicating to me with a sour note that they don't agree with what we're doing.

Well, anybody who knows anything about church history knows that years ago, the liberals who called themselves

Christian, the liberal Christians, if you could call them that, they sold out the gospel and exchanged it for a social gospel.

And their social gospel consists very often of things that are very good and very important, feeding the poor, fighting racial injustice and things like that.

But the problem lies in when that eclipses the gospel. Most modern liberal churches,

Jesus Christ has little or no place in their theology, at least no little importance.

And if he does exist in their theology, it's usually a Jesus of their own invention, not a

Jesus of the scripture. Well, I'm guessing that most of the people in this room tonight are conservative people who are either conservative

Roman Catholics or conservative Protestants. But there is a danger that I'm warning you about.

I've warned you about it in these years past. Religious conservatism is trading in the gospel of Jesus Christ for their own social gospel.

And when I say that, I'm the first here to say that the crimes of abortion,

I mean, abortion is a modern day holocaust. It's murder. And this is a damnable, wicked sin.

The gay rights movement is a damnable, wicked sin. Many things that we who are conservatives fight, we should be fighting.

But the danger lies when we think that is the gospel to fight these things.

When we think that we can link arms with people of other religions, and I'm all for co -belligerences,

Francis Schaeffer, I believe, coined it. I'm all for co -belligerence where Catholics and Protestants and Jews and even

Mormons and even socially conscious atheists can work in the political system to fight these things with every fiber of our being.

But when we equate that with Christianity, it's very dangerous. And the ecumenical movement is growing rapidly amongst conservatives to a dangerous level.

My friend James White has recently written a book in response to a book published by InterVarsity Press called

How Wide the Divide, written by a Mormon and an evangelical professor. And the book leaves dangerous implications.

Although it is claimed by the evangelical author that it was not his intention, the book nonetheless leaves dangerous implications.

But there's little difference between Mormonism and Christianity, and nothing could be farther from the truth.

Some people have complimented me before. They said that I look like I lost a little weight.

In actuality, I have to confess, this is the first time I feel comfortable enough for the group of Catholics and Protestants not to be wearing my bulletproof vest underneath the suit.

But I'm about to say something that may require me putting the bulletproof vest back on, possibly even because of my

Protestant friends out here. I happen to be an evangelical Protestant and Calvinist. And I have to say something about a man that is much beloved by many

Catholics and Protestants alike that you may not like. Billy Graham was on Larry King in February, the

Larry King live show. And Larry King asked Billy Graham, you seem to get along so well with Jews and Catholics.

Why is that so, even though you have many differences with them? Billy Graham's answer to Larry King was, well, we don't talk about our differences.

And when I heard him say that, I had a sinking feeling in my heart that a man who has many, many numerous admirable qualities, and he's done many things good for the kingdom of God.

But when he is a role model for Christians all over the world to follow, for him to say something like that is very dangerous.

I would rather respond like Jesus Christ when the

Pharisees were trying to silence his disciples. He said, if they remain silent, the stones will cry out.

And are we, when we are sitting with our friends, our loved ones, who we care about their souls, are we not to share the most important things that we believe and live for with them?

I ask you if, we don't know how long religious liberty and freedom in this country will last.

Who knows what could happen. If you cannot share the truth of your faith with your friend, your neighbor, your uncle, your aunt, your parents, whoever you love over a bagel and a cup of coffee, how are you going to share your faith with a firing squad?

How are you going to share your faith with a gun to your head or tied to a stake? It makes no sense.

We should be diligently spreading what we believe in love and with truth, not in an ugliness, not in a misrepresentation or a slander of someone else's beliefs.

We should never do that. But we should seek to find the truth, learn it, embrace it, and be very vocal in spreading it, especially to those we love.

Because if you care about God and you love God and you respect God, whose truth this is, and if you love your friends whose souls you are concerned about, whether they're

Jewish, Roman, Catholic, Protestant, whoever they are, we should be discussing these things. And I wish that Billy Graham and others who are very much in the spotlight of our modern religious world,

I wish that they would see how very important that is, I believe. I'm just going to quickly explain how

I believe the modern ecumenical movement is going, the route that they're taking.

Perhaps you know the story from the Old Testament when the

Ark of the Covenant was being transported, the

Ark of the Covenant which contained the Ten Commandments of God and the

Holy Law. When the ox stumbled, a man named

Uzzah reached out to touch the Ark to steady it, and God killed him on the spot.

Now, when I read that as a new Christian, I remember how shocked I was. I said, that looked like a good thing, looked like the right thing, looked like something

I would do. I would have stopped it. I would have reached out and stopped that Ark of the

Covenant from tumbling. That is what the modern ecumenical movement is doing. They see the world tipping with all of these problems that we have, the horrendous crime rate, the abortion rates, and all these horrendous, despicable things.

But in seeking to steady this world, they're trampling over what God has commanded. If God has commanded, do not touch the

Ark, don't touch the Ark. So as we as Protestants and Roman Catholics and others seek to bring light into this dark world, please don't do it by trampling on the gospel of Jesus Christ and touching the

Ark. I would like to now introduce the debaters that we have.

We have two very fine men here today. You are indeed privileged to see two very qualified representatives of their respective faiths to defend their faiths.

To my right is a very good friend of mine, James White.

As the leading Protestant representative engaging Roman Catholic apologists in debates across the country,

James White knows the issue well. He's an adjunct professor teaching

New Testament Greek for Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary. He's also director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a theologically reformed

Christian apologetics organization in Phoenix, Arizona. He's the author of over a dozen books, including

Answers to Catholic Claims, The Roman Catholic Controversy, and his latest, Mary, Another Redeemer, and a book on the papacy is expected soon.

He currently serves as critical consultant for the New American Standard Bible's updated version and is a frequent radio guest on the

Bible Answer Man broadcast with Hank Hanegraaff. He and his family belong to Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, and you can currently hear

James White every single Thursday night on WMCA radio as the Thursday night host of the

Voice of Sovereign Grace. That's 570 a .m. every Thursday night at 10 p .m. Here he is,

James White. And my next distinguished guest and debater is

Father Mitchell Pacwa. Many Roman Catholics and Protestants alike will recognize this

Jesuit priest and scholar from his televised debates on the John Ankerberg Show with author of Kingdom of the

Cults and founder of the Christian Research Institute, the late Dr. Walter Martin. Father Pacwa has served on the faculties of Tennessee State University, Loyola University, and the

Auguste University of Dallas, having taught such courses as Introduction to the Bible, Introduction to the

Old Testament, Introduction to the New Testament, Hebrew 1, 2, 3, and 4, and master's level courses in the

Psalms, the writings of St. Paul, the Johannine writings. Father Pacwa also has abilities in 12 languages, including the ancient languages of Latin, Koine Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Ugaritic.

He currently serves as contributing editor of This Rock magazine and the Touchstone Journal, in addition to hosting his own regularly aired television program on the

Eternal Word television network, seen here on Long Island on Telecare Channel 25.

He is also seen often on Mother Angelica Live. Here he is, Father Mitch Pacwa. I just had the privilege of having dinner with Father Pacwa before we came here tonight, and I'm glad that he trusted this

Protestant Calvinist to take him out to dinner. And I could just assure you, if you see him starting to doze off during the debate,

I did not touch his Pepsi. It was in plain sight at all times.

In fact, I'm in a bit of a quandary here, because I happen to be the

Protestant in this debate who organized it, and my good friend

James White is the Protestant debater in this debate. But I have to admit that Father Pacwa is an incredibly nice man, incredibly nice man.

I really got to love getting to know him, and I'll tell you why. I know he may even be a little bit of a nicer guy than James White.

I gave them both Christmas gifts, and only

Father Pacwa thanked me. I got this video.

I got this video of Martha Stewart teaching you how to make nice crafts. I made this beautiful Christmas wreath for Father Pacwa, a beautiful wreath made entirely of chick tracks.

And he thanked me. He thanked me profusely for this gift.

Meanwhile, James White, I gave him a gift, this beautiful framed painting.

I spent a lot of money on this thing, this beautiful painting, framed, this beautiful painting of our president and Hillary.

I never thanked before. But nonetheless,

I will still pray for the victory of my side tonight. Our moderator is a very good friend of mine, a man that you've seen moderating all of our debates.

I believe he only moderated the half of the last one. He took off about, I think about a half hour after it started.

I heard there was a car accident. As I've told you in the past, this is my good friend,

Robert Unger, who's a conservative political activist. He's also Jewish. And unlike what our friend

Billy Graham has said, I love talking about what I believe, that Bob Unger, one of the reasons I value my friendship greatly with Bob Unger is that we can talk about these things.

He knows that when I share Christ with him and share his need for Christ, that I'm not being anti -Semitic.

He knows that's because I love him. And I want to share these things with him. And he has shared many things with me that have become very valuable in my life.

But as I said, over these past three years, Bob Unger, our Jewish moderator, has become a bit confused by the different sides.

He wasn't quite sure whether the Protestants were right. He wasn't quite sure whether the Catholics were right.

So I've got some bad news. He's actually become Anglican. Here he is, my good friend, and our moderator this evening,

Robert Unger. I'd like us all now to bow for a moment of silent prayer before our debate begins.

Amen. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. This works.

Actually, the reason why I was the moderator is because in order to be the moderator, they wanted to pick somebody who didn't have a chance of getting to heaven.

So they picked an attorney, especially an accident lawyer, not even a chance.

And actually, I thought we were waiting for two extra debaters to come and debate the merits of their faith.

I understood that Al Gore was going to come and debate the merits of his faith of New Age pantheism.

And I'm surprised that Bill Clinton didn't come because his faith is New Age pantheism.

True. At any rate, the debate will center on how biblical and how ancient is the papacy.

And we will first have opening statements. And I believe Father Papua is the first.

And it'll be a 35 -minute opening statement. The timer is...

You're going to have to take that down front, too. That just has to go back. Take this with us. I need this, too?

Yeah, but you can walk around. I think you take from there. Oh, I see. I think so. Are you supposed to speak from here or here?

From that. Oh, okay. There, okay. We'll do the cross -examination.

I'll take that. Thank you all very much for your warm welcome.

The basis of the Catholic faith is in Jesus Christ. What we profess every

Sunday except Easter Sunday is our creed, which is belief in the one

God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and the salvation that Jesus Christ has won for us by being

God incarnate, who died on the cross and was raised in glory, ascended to the right hand, and will come again to judge the living and the dead.

The only reason that we don't profess this faith on Easter Sunday is because we renew our baptismal vows, which most of us

Catholics took as babies, but each year we renew them because we want to make that commitment not just a statement, but we want to say

I do to each part of our creed, and that we want to affirm that as most important in the

Christian faith. But along with our faith in God the

Father and Jesus Christ and his saving work, and in the Holy Spirit who proceeds from them, we also profess faith in the one holy

Catholic and apostolic church. And tonight it's not so much a debate on the work of Christ to redeem the human race, but rather some aspects of the church in particular dealing with the papacy.

To understand this we must start off with the foundation of the church itself.

In 1st Timothy chapter 3 verse 15, St.

Paul tells Holy Timothy that even if he has to delay, he wants them to know how necessary, how it is necessary to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living

God, the pillar and the bulwark of the truth. And then he continues in verse 16 with that marvelous proclamation of faith about Christ who appeared in the flesh, was justified in the spirit, was seen by the angels, was preached among the

Gentiles, was believed in the world, and was taken up in glory. And while the church is proclaimed here in scripture as the pillar and the bulwark of the truth, it is that truth of Jesus Christ which we proclaim.

But we also see that the church has as its structure, in a variety of ways, in 1st

Corinthians certainly, Jesus Christ is called the foundation of the church, which

St. Paul laid and then Apollos built upon it. But in Ephesians chapter 2 verse 19, we see that therefore you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but fellow citizens of the saints and householders of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets.

Jesus Christ is its keystone. I believe that he has in mind the western wall of the temple mount, which

Herod the Great had built to protect the mountain and make square it off.

And in the center of that big wall, we can't see it, it's kind of blocked off now by buildings, but if you go inside the tunnel, you can see two large 500 ton stones, which

Herod put there so that in earthquakes they would absorb the pressure. And I often think that St.

Paul had that in mind. Jesus Christ is that keystone. He takes all the pressure of the church.

But just like that stone is on the foundation of other stones, Jesus the keystone here is presented in this new temple of God, this holy temple to the

Lord, as being built on the foundation of the prophets and the apostles.

And he says that you are also being built together into a dwelling place of God in the spirit, that we are built on top of that foundation of the apostles.

And we see the same thing put in more of an image in Revelation chapter 21 verses 12 through 14.

That marvelous description of that new and heavenly Jerusalem for which every single one of us Christians longs.

So that the 12 foundation courses of stone have the names of the 12 apostles on them.

Another image of the same thing that St. Paul says in Ephesians 2.

And we also proclaim as Catholics along with blessed

Paul in Ephesians chapter 4 when he says that we must be eager to maintain the unity of the spirit and the bond of peace.

There is one body and one spirit and you were called in one hope of your call.

You have one faith, one God, one baptism, one

God and Father of all. And that unity of that faith of that one body of Christ, which is the church, that is all built on the foundation of the holy apostles.

And yet while it is that our Lord has founded the church as he came to do according to scriptures and that he's made the church the bulwark and pillar of truth built on these 12 apostles, not on 12 ideas, on these 12 men.

One of whom of course fell away but was replaced by Matthias. And as a result this is the basis of Christian belief.

The Christian church has to be based on what these men gave us. We know nothing else of Christ except from them.

Now this does not exclude knowing, believing, and teaching the fundamental truth about Jesus Christ.

He is the truth and all truth has its reality in him. And we must proclaim those truths of the gospel.

We must call all people to have salvation in him because there is no other name by which men can be saved.

No one can come to the Father except through Jesus as he himself says in John 14. And that we believe these apostles and we accept them as the foundations of the church because they are witnesses to all that Jesus did from the baptism by John to the resurrection and the ascension as blessed

Peter says in Acts chapter 1 verses 21 to 22. And not only is their testimony confirmed in their words but in their actions and in their blood.

They prefer death rather than change their commitment and their love of Jesus Christ not dead and in a tomb but raised up in glory and ascended to the right hand of the

Father. No matter where they went they preached the same gospel, they taught the same truth, the same

Jesus Christ, and they died for his sake. And they left this testimony as we see in 2

Thessalonians chapter 2 verse 15 in word and letter. Not only Saint Paul left it in word and in letter but so did they.

Saint John himself mentions in the gospel as he concludes it that there are many other things that Jesus said that could not be written in the book.

And yet we know of many of these. We know everything that we needed to know because of what

Jesus gave to them. And because scripture says it we accept the tradition whether it be written whether it be oral.

So that the scriptures that they have left us are in the the inerrant spirit inspired word of God but also so is the written the oral tradition by which we know those scriptures and everything else which they taught us.

Now it is Jesus Christ himself who has chosen Saint Peter to be the chief of those apostles upon whom he built his church as its foundation with himself as the cornerstone.

And he especially designates blessed Peter as the rock as his name itself means rock on whom he would build the church.

In John chapter 1 verse 42 after Holy Andrew led his brother

Simon Peter to Jesus. Jesus said you Simon son of John you will be called

Kephas which is translated as Petros.

Jesus made a promise. Jesus does not lie about his promises and he keeps that promise that he will be called

Kephas. We see that fulfilled not mentioned again in the gospel of John but because we believe that every word of God is inspired by the

Holy Spirit and is therefore the inerrant truth. In Matthew 16 verses 13 to 19 we see how it is that our

Lord fulfills the promise mentioned in John 1 42. And I love to notice this with a former

New Yorker, not a resident of New York, not a native of course. He's a native of my own home

Illinois. But Archbishop Sheen used to love this text in Matthew 16 verse 13.

Jesus came to the district of Caesarea Philippi. He asked his disciples saying who do men say the

Son of Man is? Archbishop Sheen used to say that was the democratic approach to theology and all their answers are wrong.

Some say John the Baptist, some say Elijah, some say Jeremiah one of the prophets. They're always wrong.

You can't do democracy to come to the truth in theology any more than you can vote on mathematics.

It's true or not. Then he said to them, sort of a committee approach, who do you say

I am? But it's Simon Peter who answers, you are the

Christ the Son of the living God. Now we have to stop there as this being crucial because this is the faith that all

Christians must proclaim. That Jesus Christ is just that. Jesus of Nazareth is the

Messiah, the Christ. He's the Son of the living God. He's not just a man.

He is God made man. And I don't know as a matter of fact I suspect that Simon Peter hardly understood what he said but he said it and it was true.

And this is still the gospel we must proclaim about Jesus Christ and nothing less.

And it is precisely this content of who Jesus is that is determinative for the church. This is where the church has its meaning because the church is the bride of Christ and without her groom she's a widow or worse.

We have to have Christ as the center, the Son of God. But secondly we notice as Jesus from what

Jesus says here a most basic truth where Jesus responds

Blessed are you Simon son of John because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you but my

Father who is in the heavens. We have to have the grace of faith to believe this.

As blessed Paul says in first Corinthians chapter 12 verse 3 no one can say

Jesus is Lord unless the Holy Spirit gives it to him. We need the grace of God.

We need God's inspiring us to understand even to say these with faith. So also did Peter and this too is the basis of our

Catholic faith and of the faith of other Christians. We need God to make it possible to give us the grace to be able to have faith.

But along with that we see that next that it's precisely

Jesus Christ's recognition of the divine origin of Peter's statement of faith that he says this most important word for us and the point tonight.

And as for me I say to you and it's an emphatic I say to you, you singular, that you are

Petros, you are Peter and on this rock this Petra I will build my church.

That this becomes the key of our Lord's teaching about Saint Peter.

This is why we Catholics look to him and his successors as having this importance not only as Peter's prominence among the apostles who are the very foundation of the church but even to this day.

Peter and his successors the bishops of Rome have this tremendous authority. Peter is called

Petros again as Saint John's explained. That's the translation of kepha, rock,

Aramaic word. There's only one other person known from about 400

BC who has had this name. A man who lived in Elephantine in Egypt.

It's mentioned on a marriage contract. Other than that we don't know anybody else had this name. And this 400 years later is something quite distinctive to be called kepha, rock.

And of course we know the arguments. We may hear more about it tonight that it says you are

Petros and on this Petra I'll build my church. It's you know calling Peter a

Petra would have been something of a faux pas. It would be like calling somebody Rockette instead of Rocky.

I figure New Yorkers would understand that difference. But in Aramaic though the gospel of course is written in Greek.

Scholars Catholic and Protestant alike recognize that behind it is an

Aramaic forelogger, an Aramaic saying of our Lord, the language of our Lord Jesus Christ.

And that it works out much better in the pun there. So that you are kepha and on this kepha

I will build my church. So this is a start.

But it's not all that our Lord says. He says that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I've go frequently to Caesarea Philippi in the Holy Land. And in the cliff behind about 500 feet long, a couple hundred feet high.

You see the city is built right against this cliff. Our Lord has this visual image of this huge cliff of rock, solid rock.

And there aren't many others around it. The rest of the hills from Mount Hermon slope down.

But there's Caesarea, it's this cliff. And at the base of a cliff, of the cliff is a spring, one of the three springs of the

Jordan. And in ancient times it was called the Sha 'are Sha 'ul, the gates of Hades, the gates of hell.

And just as the gates of hell, the name of that spring could not prevail against that cliff.

Just as hell cannot prevail against the church. Not because we're great.

As a matter of fact, we can certainly go through the history of Catholicism, and the history of the papacy, the history of St.

Peter himself, and see that there's anything but immaculately conceived people who hold those offices.

Sinners hold them. It's the only kind God can find anymore. They don't make the other kind. So there's sinners.

And there are lots of them. Despite that, the gates of hell will not prevail against his church as it continues to grow through all ages.

And that's not, again, never ever is it because we're great. It's because of Christ's promise.

That's the basis. And he also goes on to say, as is known to anybody who tells any jokes about heaven,

I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. St. Peter usually is the one in the joke.

And this sense of being able to have keys is a sign of authority doubling. If you have keys, it means you can open or you can shut.

But also in light of Isaiah chapter 22, that giving keys was a sign of being prime minister in the ancient kingdom of Judah.

And as a result, a similar symbol is here where St. Peter is not the king.

He is not the invisible head of the church and the authority of the church at its root.

That's Jesus Christ. He's the king. But as prime minister, he stands in his place. And furthermore, besides having the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he says, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in the heavens and whatever you loose on the earth will be loosed in the heavens.

So that our Lord promises to back up his decisions. And we'll get to that with some points on that in a bit.

But it's important for us to understand this at the outset, biblically. We Catholics may not have chosen

St. Peter. There's even another joke that goes around that analyzes each one of the disciples.

Thomas is not to be trusted. He doubts a lot. Peter denies and all these other things. The most promising disciple by the standards of business management would probably have been

Judas Iscariot. I'm glad that we weren't in charge. We have enough problems.

And it is this man that Jesus makes the rock upon which he builds his church.

When I hear that, I cannot help but think back on Matthew chapter 7, where our

Lord says that if anyone who listens to his words and does them is like the wise man who built his house on the rock, and that when the rain and the storm came, it would not fall.

How much more Jesus Christ would build on a rock to make sure that his house, the church, would not fall?

Is he less clever than we? I don't think so. And if for us to obey his word gives us a solid rock, which by the way is the word

Petra, then how much more will he build on solid rock? Luke chapter 22 verses 31 to 32 shows us that our

Lord Jesus Christ prays. He is the mediator between us and God, and he prays for us.

And his task to this day is to pray perpetually, forever, as he stands at the right hand of the

Father interceding for us. But we see it here at the Last Supper, not only in Luke's Gospel, but in John 17, a long prayer by our

Savior, and in many other times our Lord has prayed. But here he prays, not for the unity of the church as he does later in the

Last Supper in John 17, but here Jesus prays that Peter's faith might not fail, and that when he turns back, that he might strengthen.

He tells Peter, strengthen your brethren. Here we see that our

Lord knows that Peter's faith might fail, that he, as a matter of fact, he's well aware that he'll have to repent.

But he knows that when he does repent, when he does turn around, that he can command him, and it's used singular, to take care and to strengthen his brothers.

And I find it interesting, as a matter of fact, most salutary, that when he prays, it is right after our

Lord has told him that the apostles, along with blessed Peter, will sit on thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel, the tremendous authority he's giving to them.

But he also knows that they need one to serve them as a leader, to strengthen them in their in their faith.

Finally, John chapter 21 verses 15 to 19. Here we see that Jesus Christ, our

Lord, has called his disciples to haul in the net that was filled with 153 fish, not necessarily because it's a symbol of anything, but any good fisherman remembers a catch like that.

I know my biggest fish. And he has already bread and fish cooking on a fire.

And at that charcoal fire, three times he reconciles Peter, who had denied him at the charcoal fire in the house of Caiaphas.

And he reconciles the one who said, I don't know the man. I don't know the man.

I tell you, I don't know the man. He reconciles that same St. Peter. St.

Peter, do you love me? Feed my lambs. Peter, do you love me? Shepherd my sheep.

Peter, do you love me? Feed my sheep. And singles him out for this ministry of leading.

And again, just as our Lord who told us to build on solid rock our faith by listening and doing his words in Matthew 7.

Here we see Jesus Christ, who is the good shepherd, who knows his sheep and his sheep know him, saying to Peter, to feed my lambs, my sheep and shepherd.

The good shepherd would not leave us in the hands of a hireling, but put us in the hands of another good shepherd.

Now, there's some things I want to make clear about what I'm not about to defend.

I will not stand here to explain or to approve of. A, I will not support the idea that the popes are impeccable, that is, that they are without sin.

One of the great joys for me is doing a lot of reading to prepare for this debate over the last few months, and I spent a lot of time reading church history.

And there are a lot of scoundrels and sinners, all of them, all of them. It's the only kind our Lord can find. So, we know that popes sin, beginning with St.

Peter, and as a matter of fact, as I once said to my deceased but very good friend, much beloved friend,

Dr. Walter Martin, even Dante put some popes in his inferno. He had them in heaven too.

Secondly, I will not defend the idea that every papal statement is infallible. It's not. As a matter of fact,

Wilfred Ward and Louis Vuillot both wanted to have this defined.

That was what they were searching for. That's one of the reasons that the Vatican Council defined papal infallibility.

There were some people, the neo -ultramontanists, this new ultramontane attitude that wanted to have everything the pope said be infallible.

That's not what we believe. That's not what we teach. And this was rejected by Vatican I. Thirdly, I will not defend the idea that the popes are oracular, that they are inspired to give new doctrines.

The Vatican Council, one, explicitly said that that is not what they do.

They don't have new inspirations for new revelations. Infallibility does not mean that they can define new revelations, but rather that they are there to defend what

Christ has left the apostles, who are the foundation of the church. Fourthly, that since the popes are infallible, that they don't need to convene councils or synods.

I'm not going to defend that. Of course they need to convene councils and synods.

Every husband is the head of his family, but every husband who refuses to listen to his wife is a fool.

Is that not right, ladies? Of course you can be the leader, but you need to consult and learn what the problem is and what the issues are.

And this is related to another point that I will not defend, that the popes know everything.

Archbishop Sheen used to tell the story of the Jewish boy and the Catholic boy who argued, my rabbi is smarter than your priest.

No, my priest is smarter than your rabbi. And they went back and forth. Finally, the Jewish kid said, okay, maybe your priest is smarter, but it's because you tell him everything.

They made a confession. Whereas we don't say that the pope knows it all.

And as will some of the problems that will come up with, I'm sure, come in the papacy because they don't know it all.

They are not omniscient. God is omniscient, not the pope. That is not what we teach.

That is not what we believe. I will not defend the idea that the pope knows everything. That's why he needs to have councils and synods.

And that when he does teach officially, that he likes to do it. The history shows that the popes prefer to teach with the councils.

Popes, as a matter of fact, on this point of not being omniscient, popes like all of us are born ignorant.

Popes have to study and learn, which they do more or less. And popes can be and have been deceived and lied to.

Seventh, I will not defend the idea that papal infallibility precludes freedom of speech at ecumenical councils.

That's not true. Even when popes like Pope Leo the Great, Pope Leo the First, sent his tome to the

Council of Chalcedon, or Pope Agathos sent his letter to the

Third Council of Constantinople. Those letters don't mean that all discussion has to stop.

Pope speak is here. That is not it at all. That conversation and discussion can take place and need to take place.

Because the bishops themselves are also successors of the apostles. The same apostles whom our

Lord said in Matthew chapter 18, that they have the authority to bind and to loose.

And that they who are the successors of those apostles who are the foundation stones of the church, those bishops also have much to say and wisdom to give.

My heartbreak over the separation of the Eastern Orthodox from the Catholics is that we miss them the way someone who's had surgery would miss a left lung.

I hate to see that they're not with us. Because we have so much wisdom to learn with them and of course share with them.

Finally, I will not defend the idea that the Pope's infallibility is personal in the sense that it refers to his personal private opinions.

That's not what infallibility means. It has nothing to do with the Pope's private thoughts or ideas.

It is not anything to do with about his knowledge on topics or subjects not related to faith and morals.

And it's not something that he might write to a friend or say to an individual in conversation. Those are not part of infallibility.

So those are things I will not defend because that's not what Catholics believe. What I will defend is two things.

First of all, the primacy of the papacy. This I will defend happily.

That this means that the Roman pontiff is a successor of Saint Peter who ministered and was martyred in Rome and that his see has his successors.

We don't see the New Testament tell us about who succeeded Saint Peter. As a matter of fact, you don't see any event in the

New Testament as far as I know past the mid -60s. The last things to be written

I know would be Saint John but he only talks up to the resurrection of our

Lord. And we don't see Acts of the Apostles going past 62.

Saint Peter didn't die until maybe 65 or 67 even. So it just doesn't record it.

But we do see that Saint Paul establishes people like Timothy to continue the ministry of bishop and that other sees are given bishops by Saint Paul in Acts of the

Apostles and he gives instructions on establishing bishops and priests and deacons.

And presbyter is of course the Greek word that is the basis of our English word priest to the

German word priester. And so that these ministries are continued and there's no reason to expect that the ministry and the primacy of Saint Peter would stop with him because the gates of hell have not stopped trying to attack the church of Christ.

And as long as the gates of hell oppose his church and oppose his truth,

Christ will not let them prevail and that that ministry of Peter will continue and will do so in his successors the bishops of Rome.

So of course the New Testament doesn't describe it. They stopped writing before he passed on to and then

Linus became the next bishop. But we do see that in the histories of the church like Eusebius or in Irenaeus of Lyon that the succession of the see of Peter is described as part of the tradition of the church.

And that his power of jurisdiction is truly episcopal. It is immediate. It's over all of the other rites.

In the Catholic church we have we're not all Roman Catholic. They're in the sense of being

Latin Catholic. We also have Greek Catholics, Byzantine Catholics, and Chaldean Catholics and Melkite Rite and Maronite Rite.

I'm privileged to be able to celebrate Holy Mass with the Maronites because I know some Arabic. And so you know that there are many other rites but he has authority over all the rites of the eastern churches and west and he has immediate power over all the pastors, the faithful, both individually and collectively.

And so this is a key part of his ministry. But I also will defend his infallibility.

A, because Jesus Christ has promised to the church, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the

Spirit of Truth, that he will be beside and inside the members of the church according to John 14, verses 16 and 17.

The Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, whom the Father will give in the name of Jesus will teach you all things, remind you of all things that Jesus said in John 14, 25 and 26.

And that the Paraclete whom Jesus will send from the Father, the Spirit of Truth, is given to the disciples to be able to be witnesses.

And he gives that same Holy Spirit in a special way because of the special promise to Peter so that he can strengthen his brethren, so he can have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, so that he can bind and he can loose.

And by infallibility, we have to keep in mind specifically what we

Catholics mean. First, on the basis not of his great personal characteristics or because the choice of the church, but because Jesus Christ singled them out in recognizing that the

Father gave the revelation to Peter. Jesus chose Peter for these gifts to have the keys to binding and loosing and to be the rock.

Secondly, that this gift of infallibility is only in operation when he speaks ex cathedra, which means when he speaks in the discharge of his office of pastor and doctor of all

Christians by virtue of his apostolic authority. Then he must teach it to the whole church, not to an individual, not to a part of the church, but it's only infallible when he teaches it to the whole church.

Then it has to be defining a doctrine of faith and morals and nothing else to be held by the universal church.

And that it is God's divine assistance by the Holy Spirit that makes this gift possible and effective in our church.

For this, I give great thanks to God. It is truly a pleasure to be with you this evening.

I must admit it seems somewhat unfair, however, I must apologize to Father Pacwa. I was looking out the window there and someone,

I don't know who would have done this, Father Pacwa, planted thousands of tulips right outside the window. And it really seems very unfair and the non -reformed amongst you are going, what is he talking about?

But I am very honored to have the opportunity of engaging in this debate this evening.

Father Pacwa and I debated twice in January of 1991 on the mass and on justification in San Diego.

I've done many debates since then, but in all of those times, I must admit that of all those debates, the ones

I enjoyed the most, the ones I feel were the audience was most blessed because the clarity of the presentations were the two that I did with Mitch Pacwa.

We are not up here this evening for a fashion show or a talent show, though I bet you he actually likes my tie and wishes he could wear one.

We're not here to impress you with our oratory skills.

In fact, I have mentioned as I've been speaking around Long Island for the past week, I truly hope that it is not

Mitch Pacwa and James White that you hear this evening, but that you hear the issues. And when you leave this room, you'll have the most information upon which to understand this extremely important topic.

Now, I'm going to try to focus our attention this evening. There's a great danger of information overload on this topic.

There is a great danger of confusion. There are two areas in our debate. Is the papacy biblical?

That is, does the Bible lead us to believe that the Lord Jesus established a papacy by making

Peter the head of the apostles, giving to him alone the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and establishing in him an office replete with successors in the bishops of Rome?

And the second area is, is it ancient? That is, when we examine the history of the ancient church, do we find that what modern

Rome claims has always been the case, that the pope in Rome is the vicar of Christ, the head of the universal church?

Now, Father Pacwa has mentioned the issue of infallibility. That was never mentioned to me. I consider that a separate issue.

I'd be glad to debate that sometime, but I think you first have to debate whether the papacy actually exists before you can debate whether it's infallible or not.

And so, I'm not going to be focusing on issues of infallibility, or on Aureus, or Liberius, or any of that stuff.

I'm going to be focusing upon these two areas. Is the papacy biblical, and is it ancient?

Now, first we need to focus upon Rome's claims for herself. Rome's claims for herself.

Listen to the words of the great Vatican council from 1870. We, therefore, for the preservation, safekeeping, and increase of the

Catholic flock, with the approval of the sacred council, do judge it to be necessary to propose to the belief and acceptance of all the in accordance with the ancient and constant faith of the universal church, the doctrine touching the institution, perpetuity, and nature of the sacred apostolic primacy.

Please note that the council claims that the teaching that it presents is in full accord with the ancient and constant faith of the universal church.

I continue, quote, We, therefore, teach and declare that, according to the testimony of the gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal church of God was immediately and directly promised and given to the blessed

Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord. For it was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said, thou shalt be called

Cephas, that the Lord, after the confession made by him saying, thou art the Christ, the son of the living God, addressed these solemn words.

Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood have not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.

And I say to thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

And I will give to thee the keys, the kingdom of heaven, and whatever thou shalt bind on earth, it shall be bound also in heaven.

And whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. It was upon Simon alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, bestowed the jurisdiction of chief pastor and ruler over all his fold in these words, feed my lambs, feed my sheep.

At open variance, please listen to this, 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, accursed.

Now this position remains valid to this day. The Second Vatican Council borrowed directly from the language of the first in saying, in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, he placed blessed

Peter over the other apostles and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity, of faith and fellowship.

And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the force and reason for the sacred primacy of the

Roman pontiff and his infallible teaching authority, this sacred synod again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful."

What does all this mean? Let me try to summarize it. The Roman Catholic Church claims that Peter is placed in a position of primacy by the

Lord Jesus himself. This primacy is one of honor, jurisdiction and rulership.

This primacy given to Peter is presented according to dogmatic teachings of the Church of Rome in Matthew 16, verses 18 -19 and John 21, verses 15 -17.

According to Roman teaching, Peter is the rock of Matthew 16. That Christ, in conferring a primacy upon Peter, intends this to be understood to apply to Peter's successors as well and that hence

Christ is, in this passage, instituting the office of the Pope for the Christian Church. Rome further teaches that when

Christ spoke to Peter and said, feed my sheep, he was by so doing setting Peter apart as the pastor of all

Christians in a way different from all the other apostles. Peter is then said to have been the bishop of Rome.

Because of this, his supposed primacy is passed on to his successors, the bishops of Rome. The form of the

Church that includes the papacy is said to have been instituted by Christ himself. That is, it is not merely the result of long centuries of evolution, but is instead the form of government actually instituted by the

Lord Jesus. And finally, this viewpoint has supposedly been the ancient and constant faith of the

Christian Church. Suppose the Church has always believed this to be true and anyone who would express a different perspective is holding to perverse opinions and are, in fact, anathema.

So what does Father Pacwa have to do to win the debate this evening since he is bearing the affirmative position?

First, he must prove that Jesus is without question speaking to Peter in Matthew 16, and in so doing, identifying him as the rock upon which the

Church is built. Secondly, that the words the Lord Jesus speaks establish Peter as the prince of the apostles, the very first pope, the head of the

Christian Church. Thirdly, that these words of Jesus necessarily indicate the creation of an office of pope replete with successors and associated powers.

Fourth, that these successors are only the bishops of Rome, not the bishops of any other city.

And finally, that the Christian Church has always held this to be her constant and unchanging faith.

Now I believe that Father Pacwa has a tall hill to climb this evening. He cannot merely say that the

Roman position is probably true, but that it is infallibly true. Rome claims absolute spiritual authority over all

Christians. She claims that the pope can define Christian dogma and bind every single follower of Christ to that belief.

For example, the pope has defined as a dogmatic belief of the Christian faith the idea that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven.

He also has the power of dogmatically defining, if he chooses to do so, that Mary is co -redemptrix, mediatrix, and advocate for the people of God.

The current pope has that ability if he chooses to do so. He hasn't done so yet. Now that's a tremendous power.

Hence, the papacy is not an issue upon which one can be neutral, nor can it be proven by a string of arguments that are only possibly true, but not convincingly so.

Pope Boniface made this quite clear in the papal bull Unum Sanctum, promulgated November 18, 1302, when he said, quote, consequently we declare, state, define, and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to for every human creature to be subject to the

Roman pontiff, end quote. And very important, we must note the words of Satis Cognitum, the words of Leo XIII from June of 1896, an encyclical meant to define and defend and delineate the

Vatican I Council's statements, quote, wherefore in the decree of the Vatican Council as to the nature and authority of the primacy of the

Roman pontiff, no newly conceived opinion is set forth but the venerable and constant belief of every age, end quote.

Rome's dogmatic statements do not allow for a mere development of the papacy over time. They insist that this is the teaching of Christ and the apostles, and it is the primitive form of the government and the church.

And so here, if you'd like to know how I'm going to approach this, here's my outline. Examining the biblical evidence is relatively easy.

There are only a few passages that Rome has dogmatically defined as infallibly teaching the papacy. Modern apologists have tremendously expanded these numbers, but without Matthew 16 and John 21, no case can possibly be made.

All Roman Catholic arguments are based upon seeing in these two passages the establishment of Petrine primacy.

For the historical information, I will focus primarily upon two things. The fact that the early church did not interpret these key passages the way

Rome does, thereby disproving her own claim that this is the constant faith of the church, and upon the

Council of Nicaea as an illustration of how the concept of the Roman papacy was not in existence in the year 325

AD. But the first thing we must do and the thing we must spend most of our time on is

Matthew chapter 16, the foundation of the papacy, or is it the identity of Jesus Christ?

It's already been read in your hearing. You'll probably have it memorized by the end of the evening. He said to them, but who do you say that I am?

Simon Peter answered, you are the Christ, the son of the living God. And Jesus said to him, blessed are you,

Sion Bar -Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

I will give you, the pronoun is singular, the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

All of us agree that this is a singularly important passage. It is being used tonight, however, to teach us that the impetuous

Peter, who here speaks on behalf of the rest of the apostles, is in fact hereby made the foundation of the church, the prime minister of the kingdom of God, the first pope, with full jurisdictional authority over every person who names the name of Christ.

We are likewise told that here we have the establishment of an office of pope involving successors who will sit on the seat of a bishop in a church 1 ,500 miles distant and not at the time of the speaking of these words even in existence.

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

I would first like to provide a straightforward interpretation of the passage and then discuss some of the areas of dispute.

The central theme of this passage is the messiahship of Jesus Christ. Any interpretation that takes the focus off of Jesus as the messiah is missing the point.

Jesus's questions to the 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 of the disciples, not merely himself.

He is speaking for them all as he so often does. Jesus's 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. The Father has revealed to Peter the true identity of Jesus Christ and of course this revelation was given to the other apostles as well.

We can hardly think they're all sitting around going, I had never thought of that. I had never thought that Jesus was the Christ. The point of Jesus's words is that it requires the work of the

Father to accurately reveal the Son. 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 on this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not overcome it, the focus does not change.

This is seen, I believe, in the fact that the Lord is addressing Peter directly. When he says it 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, then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the

Christ. The focus never shifts from Christ to anyone else including Peter.

Now 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. I believe this is seen by focusing upon the fact that while the

Lord is addressing Peter directly, he changes from direct address to referring to something else, 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 use of the demonstrative pronoun, this Petra, this rock, the confession of faith upon which the church is built.

Now this statement is followed by the promise to, at some time in the future, give the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter.

I emphasize this is a promise, for the verb is future intense. Jesus gives nothing to Peter in this passage.

Jesus does not here in this passage give anything to Peter in the way of keys. Yet when we see this authority given in Matthew 18, 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, as their superior, they are forced to admit that the giving of these keys is never recorded for us anywhere in scripture, a strange thing indeed for something supposedly so fundamental to the constitution of the church itself.

I also point out that according to Von Derlinger, the early fathers, quote, held the symbol of the keys as meaning just the same as the figurative expression of binding and loosing, end quote.

I mention only briefly another point that is often ignored when looking at this passage. Did the apostles interpret these words as setting

Peter apart as their leader? The answer is obviously no. Not only did they continue to argue amongst themselves as to who would be the greatest, something that is rather silly if in fact they already knew

Peter was their leader, but over and over again in the New Testament, we find evidence that the other apostles viewed themselves as Peter's equal, not his inferior.

This can be seen in Paul's treatment of Peter as the apostle to the Jews and Galatians. His rebuke of Peter in the same book, the role

Peter takes in the book of Acts at the Jerusalem council as a participant, not the Pope, and the fact that in his own letters he describes himself as a fellow elder, not as the vicar of Christ on earth and supreme leader of the

Christian faith. When we look at the patristic information regarding this passage, we find just as wide a variety of interpretations as we find in scholarly literature.

It is easy to understand why many Roman Catholic scholars felt it necessary to leave communion with Rome following Vatican I for any person slightly familiar with patristic interpretation knows and would never say that the church has always interpreted this passage as it is interpreted by the council.

But before documenting this, I wish to quote a passage from Dr. Salmon that is very important. After going through the various interpretations found in the patristic sources, he writes, 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 as to whom it was addressed or what powers it conferred. So that the mere fact that fathers differed in opinion as to what was meant by this rock and that occasion of the same father wavered in his opinion on this subject proves that none of them regard this text as one establishing a perpetual constitution for the

Christian church. It is very important to note then that when the Roman Catholic advocate makes

Matthew 16 the very charter of the papacy, he is by so doing in reality separating himself from the early church who saw no such thing in this passage but instead allowed for a multiplicity of interpretations.

Now the French Roman Catholic Lanois and Father Pacqua has this material with him, 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 17 of these fathers also felt that this meant that the bishop of Rome was a pope but only that they saw

Matthew 16 in the phrase this rock as referring to Peter. However, he also found 16 citations that 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 indicating that the rock of Matthew 16 was the confession of faith made by Peter in Jesus Christ.

If we add these numbers together we find that the Roman position which claims to have always been the faith of the

Catholic church actually represents in this survey 20 percent of the fathers. Eighty percent of the time then the early fathers expressed in Vatican 1'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 even that council referring to this passage as mentioning the faith that Peter expressed.

You can find pretty much the exact same data in Edward Denny's response to Satus Cognitum. He points out however that a number of fathers end up in more than one category since they interpreted the passage in more than one way.

Now the Jesuit Maldonatus whose testimony should be even more welcome this evening I would hope says the following.

There are among ancient authors some who interpret on this rock that is on this faith or on this confession of faith in which thou has called me the son of the living

God as Hillary, Gregory Nissen, Chrysostom, and Cyril 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? Most definitely so. Let's look for example at Hillary's statement regarding Matthew 16 18 as found in his work

De 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 Catholic apologist citing all three of these passages and not mentioning the papacy in passing? From whence come at this perverse notion that the passage here refers to the faith of Peter's confession and not to Peter himself?

Well was it not the common belief of Christians for centuries before this that this passage referred to Peter thus establishing the papacy?

Did not Leo the 13th insist that this has been the quote constant belief of every age end quote?

Did not Vatican 1 insist that the Catholic church had always understood these passages to teach Petrine primacy and the papacy?

How could Hillary be ignorant of such a basic truth and how could it be joined by the likes of John Chrysostom or Gregory Nazianzus?

Juggle? No I've never really tried that. Thank you very much.

I was referring to the number of fathers who viewed these passages in another way. How could these great men and preachers be ignorant of such a basic truth unless of course it wasn't a basic truth at all?

And what of the great Augustine? Surely many are aware of his statement in his retractionis regarding this passage and its meaning.

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 all of us 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?

In fact, I might note in passing that Dr. Froehlich said, quote, the most astonishing fact is that in the entire

Middle Ages, in contrast with the polemical literature of the period, specifically exegetical literature universally made the equation rock equals

Christ, not rock equals Peter. And I agree with William Cathcart who wrote with reference to the patristic interpretation of the rock, quote, and outside of Rome for the first five centuries of our era, no

Christian father of any note dreamt that this saying gave Peter the sovereignty of the church, end quote.

So the interpretation I have put forward was given by 44 of the early fathers, more than twice as many as any other view.

Some include St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Cyril of Alexandra, St. Chrysostom, St. Ambrose, St.

Hilary, St. Augustine, St. Gregory the Great, many individuals to quote just one, John Chrysostom, one of the greatest biblical exegetes of the ancient church, he said, quote, having said to Peter, blessed art thou,

Simon Barjona, and of having promised to lay the foundation of the church upon his confession, not long after, he says, get thee behind me,

Satan, end quote. And elsewhere he said, and listen carefully to this one, quote, upon this rock he did not say upon Peter, for it is not upon the man, but upon his own faith that the church is built, and what is this faith?

You are the Christ, the son of the living God, end quote. Now, the

Roman Catholic may disagree with my interpretation. That's fine. The problem is that my interpretation makes perfect sense.

It does not require giant leaps of illogic to see how I came to my conclusions. And it is obvious that my position has been held by Christians from the earliest days of the

Christian faith until now, and in point of fact carries the most weight of the early fathers behind it. In fact,

I would challenge Father Packwell to show me one person outside the Bishop of Rome in the first five centuries of the

Christian church who taught that this passage establishes everything the Vatican Council said was, in fact, the constant faith of the universal church, or as Pope Leo XIII put it, the constant belief of every age.

Let's say Rome can present an equally likely interpretation, though obviously without the historical support my own position carries.

In such a case, the Roman position fails. Why? Because as we have seen, Matthew 16 is the foundation of the entire concept of the papacy.

Rome has infallibly declared this verse to so teach. If it is not here, it's nowhere.

Every other passage cited must assume this passage as its foundation, yet the very existence of a viable, logical, rational, reasonable alternative to the

Roman interpretation makes the Roman interpretation just one of many, and as such it is not supportive of the structure built upon the passage by Rome.

Rome cannot simply provide us with a possible alternative, but must be able to prove beyond all question the impossibility of all other interpretations, yet this cannot be done.

Now, as mentioned in passing, the idea of Isaiah chapter 22 being relevant to Matthew 16, so I want to comment briefly on this attempt by Roman Catholic apologists to apply

Isaiah chapter 22 and the key of the house of David to Peter himself in Matthew chapter 16.

Such an attempt and connection is logically necessary for the Roman position, for there must be some effort made to establish succession in this passage, for Matthew's words make no mention of any successors to Peter.

Yet upon what basis do we identify the keys, plural, of the kingdom of heaven, which are associated plainly with the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ, with the key, singular, of the house of David, which is messianic in nature?

And should we not accept the interpretation given by the Lord Jesus Christ himself when he cites Isaiah 22 -22 of himself in Revelation 3 -7, quote, and to the angel of the church of Philadelphia write, he who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens says this, end quote.

Jesus has, present tense, the key of David. He does not say that he gives this key to anyone else.

Indeed, when we look at how the Lord introduces himself in each of these letters, the description set him apart from all creatures.

Should we not then reject such an obvious attempt at eisegesis and instead stay with the plain meaning of scripture and let

Jesus interpret Isaiah 22 -22 for us? Now, the other passage that is used is

John chapter 21. You heard it read, so when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?

He said to him, yes, Lord, you know that I love you. He said to him, tend my lambs. He said to him again a second time,

Simon, son of John, do you love me? And he said to him, yes, Lord, you know that I love you. He said to him, shepherd my sheep.

He said to him the third time, Simon, son of John, do you love me? Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, do you love me?

And he said to him, Lord, you know all things. You know that I love you. And Jesus said to him, tend my sheep.

In commenting on this passage, Cyril of Alexandria said the following, if anyone asks for what cause, he asks

Simon only, though the other disciples were present. And what he means by feed my lambs and the like, we answer that St.

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."

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 would 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 basis 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.

Indeed if such were the case, Paul seems to have been ignorant of this, for he instructed the

Ephesian elders in Acts 20 -28 to 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 for the flock of God. No again, the only way that such an understanding can be found is if we 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, indeed it shows that he was in need of special pastoral care on the part of Christ.

So we see that in the case of the two primary passages used by Rome dogmatically to present papal primacy, both the text as they stand in scripture and the history of the interpretation of these texts stand inalterably opposed to the modern claims of Roman Catholicism in regards to the papacy.

Given that this is the very foundation of the claims of the papacy, we are forced by the simple weight of this information alone to reject the

Roman position. Now in the few moments I have left, I want to address one other issue of history and that is the

Council of Nicaea. The Council of Nicaea provides us with yet another fact that is contrary to papal claims.

It is to be found in Canon 6 of that council and it reads as follows. 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. 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 that geographical area was limited, not worldwide.

Yoland 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 to the language of Canon 6, it, quote, 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 6, nothing is mentioned about Peter or the Vicar of Christ. Indeed, I note in passing that the first man audacious enough to allow himself to be called the

Vicar of Christ seemingly was Galatius I in 495, half a millennia after Christ came to earth and 450 years after the true

Vicar of Christ came to minister in the church, that being the Holy Spirit of God. But as Kelley notes, the use of the title

Vicar of Christ did not become current for popes until the reign of Hadrian IV in the middle of the 12th century.

But 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 of such an idea.

Constantine called the council together, again seemingly ignorant that he should have had the Bishop of Rome do that, and again no one else seemed to mind because they had never thought of it either.

The current Bishop of Rome at the 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 at Nicaea. It was not the Bishop of Rome who undertook the defense of the

Nicene faith during the years of the Arian ascendancy that followed Nicaea, but the Bishop of Alexandria, the great

Athanasius. Indeed, one might note in passing that while Athanasius was forced from his sea five times, yet remained unbowed,

Liberius, Bishop of Rome from 352 to 366, yielded and signed the Arianized Sermium Creed.

Be that 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 as the deity of Christ, 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, and listen to this, despite the fact that Roman bishops, excluding Liberius' lapse, defended it.

Again, it is plain that just because the Bishop of Rome took a particular position was no guarantee that all other

Christians would follow suit. Why is this? Because all other Christians did not look to the

Roman Bishop as the final authority in matters of faith and morals. Why are we here this evening?

This year's debate is the completion of last year's debate. Last year, I defended my ultimate authority, sola scriptura, the

God -breathed scriptures. This year, we're looking at the ultimate authority in the position that denied sola scriptura, and that is the person of the

Pope who can speak infallibly for God. Certainly, none of the things that Father Pacwa mentioned

I would even attempt to present, and the things he would not defend, and have not presented in my works, my written works, and debates on this subject.

But what we do have to focus on is this, my friends. If the papacy is true, then it is a terrible sin for any one of us not to bow to the

God -ordained structure of the church. And if the Pope in Rome is God's ordained leader of the church, then those of us who do not follow him are in sin and in danger of our very souls.

But if he is not, if the papacy is not biblical, if the papacy is not ancient, then the

Pope is a usurper of authority that has never been given to him. And the dogmas that he defines as being definitional of the

Christian faith cannot be bound upon the Christian conscience. And the person who follows such an individual, who takes authority that is not in actuality his, is in tremendous spiritual danger.

It is important what we discuss this evening. Let's focus our attention upon it. Thank you. Okay, now we'll have two 12 -minute rebuttals and then a 10 -minute break after the two 12 -minute rebuttals.

By the way, I like your tie. But I like better the fact that I don't have to choose a collar to fit my shirt.

They all match. When we take a look at the evidence of history, again, as a

Catholic, I'm so delighted to be Catholic. And not only delighted because it's a lot of fun, what it is, but also precisely because of what

Mr. White did say, that if this is the way that God has established the church, then yes,

I want to be with it. And the question, there are so many ways to approach this, and it would take courses of work and lots of years to do so.

But let me make some responses. First of all, let me deal with the question from the

Council of Nicaea real quickly. That's an important canon, canon number six of Nicaea.

However, one of the things that we must do when we look at history to the best of our abilities, look at the context.

What was the context of that canon, and how does it continue? It continues on that, in general, the following principle is evident.

If anyone is made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, this great synod determines that such one shall not be a bishop.

It went on. Why did it bring that up? Because this canon came about when a certain bishop,

Miletios of Lycapolos, who lived in that area, was consecrating bishops without permission of the

Patriarch of Alexandria. The issue wasn't one of Alexandria over against Rome or Antioch or Jerusalem, the other patriarchates, and then the new patriarchate, which was declared to be second to old

Rome, Constantinople. But rather, it was an issue that someone had infringed on the rights of the

Patriarch of Alexandria in ordaining bishops, and this council was correcting that error with no reference to Roman problems at all.

And it's just simply using Rome as a model that the bishop of Rome is the metropolitan of Italy, and that bishops have to be approved by him, as well as the

Patriarch of Antioch and Jerusalem, etc. So that really has nothing to do with papal infallibility.

And secondly, the issue that you bring up, because you brought it up in other debates, about why didn't

Constantine just go to the Pope if he's infallible? That's exactly one of the things that I said we wouldn't have to defend.

Infallibility of the Pope doesn't mean that nobody can't talk about issues.

These things can be brought up, councils can be called, and as a matter of fact, following the model of the

Council of Jerusalem, it's much more typical for the Pope, including Pius IX during the first Vatican Council, and John XXIII and Paul VI in the second

Vatican Council, to not participate. They said, and let the bishops discuss freely.

That's one of the things they love to do, and they allow. I think they love it because they do it.

Even at Trent, the Pope wasn't there. He sent legates. Members, in fact, of my own order were his theologians, and he had legates there.

He let the bishops discuss freely the issues. So this is something that's very important, and that's not contrary to the papal ministry, that others can initiate the issues of councils, etc.

So that's fine with us. Now, in regard to history, I can't go into every single point of history.

We're having available a book called Jesus, Peter, and the Keys. There will be a lot of points of disagreement, to be sure, but I'll tell you at least this much.

If you get this book, you'll find citations, and even if you don't like the citations, it will let you at least know where you can go to start finding them yourself.

So it's a good, it'll save you a lot of initial legwork about seeing different statements on the papacy, and I highly recommend it, at least as a starting source for knowing where to look among the church, who are themselves, for the most part,

Catholic bishops and priests, not Protestant ministers, even though many of them were married.

But they were Catholic bishops and priests, and you can find out what they said in the early church.

And again, even if you disagree with the way these authors have organized it, go and look it up yourself.

Do the legwork. Do the research. Now, in terms of some other issues, was this a concept that they name as the primacy of the papacy?

Is there something in history? And I was reminded of a story that a priest recently told me.

I had mentioned I'd been in Borneo and Singapore, and one of the highlights of the trip was holding an orangutan on my lap.

And he said, you know, I just baptized a baby that kind of looked like an orangutan. It was the ugliest baby

I ever saw. And you know what? The mother came up to me and said, isn't he beautiful?

And the priest said, you know, but that's in some ways something like the situation of the church.

A baby has all kinds of potential. That child did not see ugliness. She saw what her baby could be and that it's hers.

And she saw the potential for a genius, the potential for a great scientist or musician or who knows what, but it's the potential and her dreams for that child are what she's looking at.

And she's not being objective and she shouldn't be. So also the church. Do we see that everything is full -blown in the church at its beginning?

No, we don't. Full -blown. But do we see that it's there in potential? Yes. And do we see that potential developing through the church's history?

I believe so. So that I do believe that this is the God established found way for the church to exist with the

Pope at its head. Let me give some examples. First of all, most of us

Catholics will look to Holy Clement. Clement was the first Pope of that name.

He was the successor after Linus and then Cletus and then Clement.

And in 95, he sent an epistle to the church at Corinth because of a problem they had with schism.

They had kicked their priests out and they wanted other priests who were more charismatic. And so he writes to them about unity.

And as a matter of fact, he apologizes that he delayed so long, even though St. John was certainly alive still at that time in Ephesus, closer to Corinth.

They sent to St. Peter's successor, Clement. Then we see lots of fathers talking about the role of the papacy as being the successor of Peter and of having various kinds of authority.

For instance, Tertullian, in his day Prescrizione Re Resis, speaks of Peter as distinct from Paul and apart from Paul as ordaining

Clement. We see Clement of Alexandria in Eusebius, History of the

Church, is mentioned as speaking of Peter as proclaiming the word publicly at Rome.

We see in a poem against Marcion. Marcion was a heretic, the son of a bishop.

You got to watch how fast you say that. His own father excommunicated him for heresy.

And this poem against Marcion says how Peter bade Linus to take his place and sit on the chair whereon he himself had sat.

And that this chair is the cathedral. We see that Gaius in the year 214 calls

Pope Victor XIII Bishop of Rome after Peter, according to Eusebius' History of the

Church. Hippolytus, who himself tried to make himself pope, and he was the first of the anti -popes, but he and the pope who was true settled their differences when they were both in prison and were dying as martyrs.

And they abdicated mutually and another man took their place. But he counts

Peter as the first bishop of Rome according to the Dictionary of Christian Biography, Volume 1, page 577.

St. Cyprian in his letter to Antoninus speaks of the place of Peter and the chair of Peter in his epistle to Cornelius.

Now even though St. Cyprian did have his disagreements with the papacy, by the way, and later on argued with them to be sure.

But as it turns out, St. Cyprian was considered wrong by the councils because Cyprian's position was that heretics needed to be re -baptized.

And later on not only popes but also councils rejected that. Heretics do not need to be re -baptized.

So in his disagreement with the papacy, St. Cyprian was wrong. And furthermore, he never separated himself from union with the

Roman Church. Also familiar in his epistle to Cyprian, written in 257, speaks of the succession of Peter and the chair of Peter.

Eusebius in his Chronicles, written in 314, says that Peter was 25 years the bishop of Rome.

And he calls Linus I after Peter to attain the episcopate. Victor XIII, a bishop of Rome after Peter.

St. Athanasius, who was mentioned, also calls Rome the apostolic throne in his

History of the Arians. That again and again and again, I can pile these up.

And this book, Jesus, Peter, and the Keys, has hundreds of similar statements. Hundreds.

And if you disagree with them, that is absolutely fine. But look at them. And again, don't trust even just that they're here.

But this is the place to start so you can know where to start looking. So that we

Catholics look to this history. We look to, for instance, the first schism between the

East and the West. The Acacian schism was healed when

Pope Hormizdas in 517 wrote a formula that was used not only by him to reconcile the

Eastern bishop and was signed, which recognized the fullness of this authority that the

Catholic Church recognizes. But the same principle, the same document was also used by Pope Agapitus in 536 when he was in Constantinople.

And that there was a patriarch there named Anthemus who was himself a monothelite.

That is, he believed that Christ only had one will, not two. And Pope Agapitus would not confirm him.

He had the authority to confirm the patriarch of Constantinople. The man ran away and instead

Pope Agapitus made Menas, M -E -N -A -S, Menas, the next patriarch.

They had that authority. They exercised it early on. Thank you. These rebuttal periods are always far, far, far too short to get to everything you would like to get to.

Now, Father Pacwa again brought up the issue of papal infallibility at the Council of Nicaea. I am not addressing the issue of papal infallibility.

I cannot address the issue of papal infallibility tonight. I'd be glad to do so at some other point. I raised the issue of the

Council of Nicaea because if, as Rome has dogmatically stated, this is the constant belief of every age that this is the way that these passages have always been understood and that this is the form of church government established by Christ himself, not the idea of an ugly baby growing up to be someone beautiful, but according to Rome's dogmatic teachings that this is the way it has always been, then what

Nicaea did made no sense in that canon because it limits the

Roman jurisdiction to its own area and gives equal authority to other of the metropolitan seas.

The simple fact of the matter is Rome says today that they have ultimate authority over everybody else.

Nicaea had no concept that that was in fact the case. Now, you were directed to a book

I happen to own as well called Jesus, Peter, and the Keys. This book is the single best example you could ever find of what's called the

Peter syndrome. The Peter syndrome is a deadly disease rampant amongst modern

Roman Catholic apologists, and it is the disease that makes you see every reference to Peter anywhere in an early father as somehow relevant to the bishop in Rome, even if that father never makes that connection himself, never shows that he believes the bishop of Rome is the vicar of Christ on earth, never says that Peter's successors sit only on the seat in Rome.

It doesn't matter. As long as an early father says something nice about Peter, therefore he is in support of the bishop of Rome.

I am serious. I have read the book. I had this material before it was published, and it was said that this saves you some legwork only if you want to see only those passages from a father, not if you want to see everything the father has to say on an issue.

And, in fact, I would suggest if you actually look into the early fathers and read them as a whole, if you want some other works,

I would suggest Denny's work on papalism, Salmon's book on the infallibility of the church. Yeah, they're hard to get hold of these days, but they can provide you with far more extensive and fair citations that do not misrepresent the issue.

And, of course, in the back, someone's holding up Jesus, Peter, and the Keys by a friend, Bill Webster, which would also help you in that way.

Now, I must emphasize to you, we cannot deal with this issue tonight on the level of, well, it was just a development.

It was just a matter of potential. Do Roman Catholics believe Vatican I, believe

Leo XIII, or not? I have a tremendous amount of respect for Mitch Pacwa, and so I'm not going to believe that he doesn't believe those sources.

Those sources are what lay the foundation for the debate tonight. Last year, I agree with my ultimate authority.

My ultimate authority is the scripture, so I'll be held accountable for what it says. Well, if the ultimate authority for the

Roman Catholic is the infallible magisterium of the church, the infallible magisterium says, it's always been understood this way, this has been the faith of every generation, then

I would submit to you that the development hypothesis made so popular by John Henry Cardinal Newman is an abandonment of the field of historical battle.

And it is a tacit recognition that if you actually look at the early church, you will not find the early fathers believing everything that Vatican I said.

And I reiterate my challenge. Show me one early father that believed that Jesus in Matthew 16 says that Peter's the rock, that by doing so, he's setting

Peter apart from all the other apostles, that he gives to Peter alone the keys, that these are separate from the power of binding and loosing, that Peter then becomes the bishop of Rome, and that the only successors to which these words are relevant are the successors of Peter in Rome, not any place else, and that this establishes the bishops of Rome as the universal head of the church.

Show me one man outside of the bishop of Rome himself that ever claimed that for himself in the first five centuries. You can't do it because nobody did.

They did not believe that. Now, some examples. Father Pacwa talked about Clement.

I suggest you read the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. You'll find all through there, in fact,

I failed badly, and I will admit this in front of you all, I failed badly when I debated Father Pacwa on a question he asked me once about justification by faith.

There's a great passage on justification by faith alone in Clement. I just wanted to make up for that error. In fact, someone here this evening pointed that out to me years ago electronically, and now

I'm correcting that. Read it. It talks about all sorts of wonderful things, but you know what you find out when you read

Clement? There's a multiplicity of elders in Rome at this time. Clement doesn't say,

I is the bishop of Rome. There's a multiplicity of elders. This is extremely important. Patristic scholar

J. N. D. Kelly has written a fascinating work entitled The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. One of the striking features that many seem to miss in working through this reference source is to be found as an example in his entry on Anacletus, who

Kelly notes is second in the earliest succession list, which did not include Peter as bishop of Rome, reflecting

Irenaeus' statement that Peter and Paul made Linus the first bishop, and third on the later list that introduced the novelty of Peter as the first bishop.

The word seems so innocuous that one might well miss their impact. Listen, 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. Did you catch that? Kelly notes in the days of Anacletus, in fact, all the way into the middle of the second century, there was no one monarchial episcopate in Rome.

This truth is reflected in Clement's epistle to the Corinthians, where a plurality of elders is seen. Ignatius as well makes no mention of a bishop when he writes to Rome, and this fact has been generally acknowledged to be the case.

But think about what this means. We are told that Peter's supposed authority is invested in his successors as bishop singular of the

Church of Rome, yet the historical fact is that the Church of Rome didn't think she needed a single bishop until a century after Peter had died.

Indeed, the confusion of later succession lists may well be due to the fact that later men, assuming that there had always been just one bishop at Rome, attempted to trace such a succession through the early period when, in fact, there had been multiple bishops or elders at Rome.

Are we to believe that Peter did not give proper instructions to the Church so as to have one bishop elected to whom could be given the keys of heaven itself?

Can we imagine what the conciliarists of the 15th century would have done with this information? Obviously, we see that the

Church of Rome felt no need to have a single bishop, a single supposed successor to Peter or Paul or anyone else, and that is highly, highly significant.

Father Paco also mentioned Tertullian, making a statement about what Tertullian stated, but I would again suggest you read what

Tertullian actually said. He absolutely, rapaciously regales the

Bishop of Rome, insulting the Bishop of Rome, calling him Pontifex Maximus, which in those days was the chief priest of the pagan cults, and calling him

Bishop of Bishops, and every word that he used was meant to be the worst insult it could be, and the amazing thing about Church history is, a thousand years later, those are titles that the

Bishop of Rome actually wears. Yet, when they were first used by Tertullian, he was insulting the

Bishop of Rome and saying that he was teaching falsehood. Cyprian, very shortly before his martyrdom,

Cyprian presided over the Seventh Council of Carthage, which gives us the following information, for neither does any of us set himself up as a

Bishop of Bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague the necessity of obedience, 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."

Sound like they believed in the Roman primacy? 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?

Because Cyprian is truly one of the greatest obstacles to any serious acceptance of Roman 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, and that's what you get in a book like this.

You see, Cyprian was one of the minority of the early fathers who saw Peter as the rock of Matthew 16.

Indeed, he saw Peter as the symbol of unity, and because of this, some of his words, if relieved of their context, lend support to Roman contentions.

However, a full examination of Cyprian's words and actions is the death knell for Roman pretensions in regards to Cyprian.

First, we note 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 that Basilides, 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 for which he had been righteously deposed.

Cyprian rejected Stephen's meddling in the affairs of the North African church. Now, how can this be if Cyprian saw

Peter as the rock? The answer is devastating to the Roman Catholic position. Cyprian believed that every bishop, himself included, was fulfilling the role of Peter as the rock.

In Epistle 26 to Cyprian, he makes this very claim, citing Matthew 16, 18, with reference to all bishops, nowhere mentioning the

Bishop of Rome alone. Such passages led John Meyendorff to note, quote, In fact, however,

Cyprian's view of Peter's chair, which Father Pacwa mentioned, 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.

We can only wholeheartedly agree with the words of Dr. Cox, who, commenting on Cyprian's treatise on the unity of the church, said the following.

Compare this treatise to Cyprian. Then, with any authorized treatise on the subject proceeding from modern

Rome, and it will be seen that the two systems are irreconcilable. Thus, in few words, says the confession of Pius IV, 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 9th century, but Cyprian speaks for ecumenical

Christendom in the 3rd, 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 at Rome, quote, vainly pretending the authority of the

Apostles, end quote, and making schism from 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 of the place of his

Episcopate and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundation of the church was laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches, end quote.

My friends, we cannot in this short period of time even begin to scratch the surface, but you have a responsibility, and please do this for me, whatever you do.

Whatever sources you read, whether it's mine or anybody else's, go to the early fathers themselves and read the whole context.

You will find that those early fathers did not believe what Vatican I has said has been the constant faith of the universal church in every age.

Thank you. The reason that many of you are here today, and the reason that I have organized these debates on an annual basis, you can't hear me?

The reason that I have organized these debates, and the reason that they have come about, is due largely in part to a very good friend of mine who's a

Roman Catholic, and if you ever heard the way he speaks to me, you might not know he's a very good friend of mine. But he is indeed a very good friend of mine.

He and his wife are both dear to me, and he began having these parties at his home several years ago.

In fact, I'm giving your his address to everyone in this room. He began parties in his home about four years ago,

I would say. Excuse me? Nine years ago, but I wasn't involved in those at all. I was.

He had these parties developed at his home primarily to get Protestants and Roman Catholics to sit around, eat food, drink, and debate one another.

He, like I, was becoming nauseous with the mushy -gushy ecumenicalism where everybody sat around and blew kisses to one another, and never really spoke about the hard issues that divide us.

I wanted to introduce to you my good friend Robert Posh of Doubleday Books and his wife

Mary Lou, and they're here tonight. This is Bob's very first time at the debate here.

His wife has been here in the past, but this is the very first time Bob has come, so I want an extra round of applause for the fact that he's come tonight.

And it is proof that people can love one another and be very, very strong in their differences of opinion.

And because we care about each other, we share those differences regularly. And at times, 911 is dialed.

But we still remain friends, and I just wanted to tell you because that's because we think

God's truth is more important than anything else. And as Bob often puts it, it's more important than the

Super Bowl. It's more important than anything else. In fact, quickly, what endeared Bob to my heart one day, one of his parties, a

Protestant woman, had said to Bob, you know, Bob, I just think it's wonderful that you've found a relationship with God, with the

Catholic faith, and I think we should just stop arguing and bickering about these doctrinal issues.

Let's stop talking about doctrine and lift up Jesus. And Bob replied to this

Protestant woman was, you see that guy Chris Arnzen standing over there? I disagree with almost everything he believes, but he believes in something.

You don't believe in anything. And that has endeared me to his heart.

But of course, although it's noble and admirable to believe in something passionately and strongly, I'm sure everyone in this room agrees that it's equally important to believe in the right thing.

And may God reveal that to us tonight. And I want to thank Bob and Mary Lou for coming tonight. Thank you. Our debaters are going to engage in 15 minutes of cross -examination consisting of questions, and I guess a lot of rhetorical questions.

And I'll get out of the way so I don't get hit in the crossfire.

And then after that, there'll be a seven -minute closing statements, and then questions, it says from the audience, but unfortunately, there usually won't be any speeches from the audience.

So I'll let them do their cross -examination, and Father Pacwa will go first. The more charitable.

Thank you. Not necessarily more charitable, but I think a little younger.

I know a little younger. I've got a timer.

All right. First of all, you mentioned, Mr. White, the issue of Saint Augustine, saying that there's freedom to, in his

Retractationes, there's freedom to interpret the rock as Peter or Peter's faith. Actually, he says interpreting it as the rock as Christ is one of the options.

But also as Peter. Yes. And is not the fact that the issue at stake for him is that he is talking about interpreting it not any way you want, but rather, given the context of the way he uses it, interpreting it as Christ when he's dealing with the

Aryan heretics, and dealing with it as Peter when he's dealing with the papacy.

And that you can interpret as you wish, given that you have to understand the context, because he interprets it both ways, does he not?

He interprets it both ways. However, he says, in olden days, I interpreted it one way. Now, I've changed my mind on that, but I can't answer the question because I don't believe he dealt with the quote -unquote papacy.

I believe he dealt with the Bishop of Rome, but I do not believe that he had a concept that the

Bishop of Rome was the universal head of the church. So I'm not sure how to answer the question when you say he interpreted in light of the papacy, because I don't believe he did.

In relationship to that last response in particular, in his dealings with Pope Innocent I, as he says, does he not mention that the

Pope had answered, as was the right and the duty of the Bishop of the Apostolic See?

In fact, he uses the term Apostolic See not only of Rome, but of all the quote -unquote

Apostolic Sees. There was only one Apostolic See in the West, as you know. That was Rome. There were multiple

Apostolic Sees in the East, and he addresses all of them in that way of recognizing their very exalted status.

No two ways about it. And the same when he deals with the canon of Scripture at the

Synod of Carthage. How does he conclude that? Well, his view of Scripture, he disagreed strongly with Jerome in regards to the deuterocanonicals.

They argued about that. And the answer that he came up with was? Oh, he accepted the deuterocanonicals.

Yes. Because they're found in the Septuagint. And so it is St. Jerome. I'm sorry? So it is St. Jerome, once there was a decision.

No, St. Jerome translated them. He never viewed them as canonical. Yes, he did. He viewed them as canonical once a decision was made.

And when St. Augustine presided at the Synod of Carthage, which gave the list of the canon, he said, we will send this to the bishop across the sea, referring to...

Damasis. Referring to... Damasis. Yeah. Well, I'm not sure. Damasis was dead already.

Damasis had presided at the Synod of Rome dealing with the Scripture in 382.

And by 393, Damasis had already died. I don't want to lose everybody, but there are a number of scholars who don't feel that what came out of the

Council of Rome actually came from Galatias long afterwards. There was a problem there. Sure. But be that as it may, still

Augustine recognized that this would be submitted to the bishop across the sea. Yes. It was a provincial council.

And that it's a provincial council, which he submits to the Sea of Rome. Another point that I had over here, too, in regard to St.

Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria. And when Pope Julius wrote to them, he said, are you not ignorant that this is customary for word to be written to us first, and then for a just sentence to be passed from this place?

And maybe they were ignorant, but he certainly seems quite willing to correct them in terms of the issue of their treatment of Athanasius.

There's no doubt that the bishops of Rome made great claims for their sea, so did Stephen. But Cyprian rejected that.

And I just point out that when Liberius signs the Arianized Sermium Creed, that does not cause Athanasius to then do the same thing.

No. And again, Liberius, everybody even in those days knew why Liberius signed.

He had a breakdown. And why Athanasius, though kicked out of the sea five times, didn't sign.

Right. Liberius was caught, and he was imprisoned, and that he was put under such torment that he had a breakdown.

Whereas Athanasius, God be praised, because I love St. Athanasius, fled off to live with the monks who protected him.

And he then, when fleeing, brought monasticism to the West, for which were my orders, certainly partly of the descendants, all that monasticism he brought, and a delight in the great

Athanasius. But the issue about Pope Liberius, that all his contemporaries recognized, is that...

As did Athanasius. As did Athanasius, that the man had a breakdown, and you couldn't count after what had happened to him with torture, that that was any kind of a free decision.

So it's not that Liberius agreed with it. He was a broken man. So it's hard to use him as any other way.

And another thing, too, that I wanted to mention... Wasn't there a question there? Well, I was just...

I guess not. Sorry. Let me bring up a question. That wasn't... I was trying to formulate a question.

There went one of those rhetorical questions. Yes, it was. I'm sorry. One of the things...

You mentioned in the list of people, some of the 44 different fathers who see that Peter's faith is a confession of Jesus Christ, according to Lenoi.

Well, that the rock of which Jesus speaks, this rock, Epitaute Petra in the

Greek, that that is in reference to the confession... That Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the God. The content of his confession, yes.

And you mentioned a number of people in that list, right? In fact,

I'm finding it for you right now. Yes, I did. Do you know the other people on the list? Actually...

On the 44? Actually, I have a fairly extensive list in Denny, but I only listed a certain number. OK, because it includes

Pope Leo. Oh, yeah. That he also recognized that the...

Thank you for bringing that up. Pope Leo the Great. As a matter of fact, there are four texts from Pope Leo, correct?

Pope Felix in 43. Pope Ormistus in 519. Pope Gregory the

Great. Pope Adrian I. I did list Gregory. Yeah, yeah, OK. Pope John VII.

He even has John Eck, who's hardly a father of the church. Yeah, no kidding. Johann Eck would be going a little beyond what

I would consider patristics in that way. But that's one of the 44. So my question is, do you think that these people like Pope Felix, Pope Gregory, Pope Leo the

Great, Pope Ormistus, Pope Adrian I, Pope Stephen V, Pope John VIII, do you think that in stating that they recognize that this is a confession of Jesus as the

Christ, that they are in any way denying the primacy of the papacy in so saying? If you ask if they're denying the primacy of the papacy, the issue that I raised was how they understood the passage, because Rome claims that it has always been understood in that way, and it's a perverse opinion to see it otherwise.

Their foundation stones for the papacy, their belief in their own supremacy, came from a number of different issues, even as early as Stephen citing this passage of himself.

But, and I'm trying to keep my responses short and concise, but my focus is upon this.

Vatican I dogmatically states that the interpretation of Matthew 16 includes that Peter's the rock, that this sets him apart from the other apostles, he's given the keys to the kingdom of heaven, his successors are solely the

Bishop of Rome, not the Bishop of Antioch or the Bishop of Constantinople, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, and that therefore this primacy is given to the successors of the

Bishop of Rome only. And I'm trying to point out that if you're saying that that is the universal faith of the church, believed in every age, that that is not what any of these people believed, and even the popes themselves, who saw a tremendous position of authority in the west of their sea, it was still a matter of evolution before that became an established belief on their own.

Well, here's the problem, is that a number of these same people also wrote that Peter is the rock, so that it's not that, you know, you seem to indicate that because they believe that the rock is the confession that Jesus is the

Christ, son of the living God, therefore they did not believe that Jesus is the rock.

Well, if you're saying that Peter is the rock. In his sole person. Yeah, and that's one of the things that, see, about Catholicism, we can see that as both, we have no problem with that, and that fathers like Augustine and like these popes can see both.

And we don't, that doesn't contradict what Vatican I said, because these people, you know, many of these same people teach exactly that Peter is the rock and that the rock is the confession, as I myself said, and as a matter of fact, as the present pope has said.

He has said that in his book. The problem is that Vatican I then used this little thing called the anathema upon anyone who would present as a, wait a minute, as a perverse opinion, any viewpoint that would not include as a necessary element of its interpretation, this idea that Peter is hereby being set apart and that he has to be the rock.

Now you're saying, well, someone could say he is the rock and the confessions is rock and so on and so forth. That's nice, but this is why

I struggle with this. Exactly. Now let me just ask this. How do you understand the anathema? How do I understand the anathema?

What does the anathema mean? Well, the anathema, at least originally, well, biblically, the anathema is a rather important thing.

Paul uses it in Galatians 1, 6 through 9, and it is the curse of God. Right, but how does the

Catholic church understand that? Well, if there's a difference, that might result in a whole new debate. Which, I mean,

I mean, if there's a different usage, that's probably not a good thing to bring up, but I reckon, let me put it this way.

I believe that if you look at how anathema was used in the Middle Ages and up to the time of Reformation, that it had the same biblical use it has today.

I recognize the biblical use that we just discussed. I have had many Roman Catholic apologists tell me,

Father Pacwa, that anathema does not mean that I'm a curse. It doesn't mean that I'm separated from the body of Christ. However, I've had other

Roman Catholics call me up after radio programs to make sure that I knew that I am anathema and I will go to hell if I die in that state.

So, let me just make a clarification and then another question to follow upon it.

You know, the anathema does not mean that you go to hell. That's one of the things - It did in Galatians. It meant that you were cursed, but one of the things that, you know, we have to be careful, remembering our

Lord's words, that we may not judge others, in particular, not that we can't judge behaviors wrong and right.

That's what, neither of us would agree with that. But we may not judge that somebody is in hell or in heaven.

That, you know, unless - That's what Paul was judging their gospel. Right, right. And they said that they preach in the gospel, they are anathema.

Is accursed. Now, but to say that that person who is accursed ends up in hell, that's something that Paul never said.

Well, being an anathema, though, isn't a good thing. No, no, no. No, no, no. But we don't, but we don't.

But it's important for you to understand that the Catholic Church in this anathemas don't mean that you go to hell.

We don't know that. But we do know that there has to be a ban on such a person and excluding from communion.

It certainly is excommunication, because you can't share the sacraments. And this is where my follow -up question is.

Do you believe that we Catholics are Christians? What is that? Well, I have exactly two minutes to answer that question.

But I have said many, many times, I've said in the Roman Catholic controversy, we've discussed this in the previous debates, which of course you may not,

I'm not sure if you listened to the previous debates, you wouldn't know what has been discussed. But very, very briefly, I do not believe that Catholicism preaches the gospel of Jesus Christ, okay?

And that is what I focus upon. Individual, and I've said in my books that I believe that there are individuals within the

Roman Catholic communion that are heirs of eternal life, but I immediately say, insofar as they are inconsistent in believing in the system of salvation as presented in the sacraments, the mass, and I said this very clearly in our debate in regards to the mass a number of years ago.

And hence, it requires basically they be inconsistent Roman Catholics. So that, but the person who is consistently

Catholic, I would consider myself, you know, I believe, know what the Catholic church teaches about the sacraments,

I have a strong devotion. I do not believe there is salvation in that gospel. Right. So that, that is, you know, you keep, because this is one of the things you do in other debates, that it's this anathemas put on this, but you've anathematized us as well.

I would never, never deny that. Well, effectively, that by saying that we are not

Christian, and if we believe this gospel, we cannot be saved.

That's actually stronger than our canonical understanding of the anathema.

And this is something that - The question is, which is biblical? No, I'm just trying to make a point that while you worry about our anathemas, believe me, as a

Catholic, your disregard of my Christianity has little effect on me. And why you worry about our anathemas boggles my mind, because I actually don't worry about yours.

Can I answer why? Sure, sure. Because in this context, the whole reason is that if the dogmatic documents of the church are going to say that, therefore, if anyone shall say, a blessed

Peter the apostle was not appointed the prince of all the apostles, and a visible head of the whole church militant, or at the same, directly and immediately received in the same our

Lord Jesus Christ, a primacy of honor only, and not of true and proper jurisdiction, let him be anathema, that tells me that the church is serious about that doctrine and that teaching.

And that's all it's revealing to me. But we don't say that - We don't deny your Christianity. But I didn't bring that up. I'm bringing up the importance of what this is saying.

I know, I'm just saying that there's an imbalance in the seriousness of the accusations or the concerns.

Okay, my turn. And I too will make the same confession of trying to avoid the rhetorical questions as I go on and give you some rhetorical questions.

Go ahead. All right. That's all right. Now, Father Pacwa, if your interpretation of Matthew 16 is correct, why do the disciples continue to argue over who would be the greatest?

Does that they're arguing show they did not understand this passage as setting Peter apart the way you do?

As a matter of fact, I would see it as no different a situation from your own family,

Christian family, where you are the head of the house designated by God as such.

And yet I bet from age two, probably till death, your children might disagree with you.

And that this is normal - Disagree or disobey? Well, I'll confess from my side,

I did both. And, you know, with my father. Okay. And this is something that is part of the, you know, humanity.

Sure, people disobey and disagree. I, as a matter of fact, if I've, as I've heard you before, I've often sensed that it's because of your own very strong sense of conscience that that, and you've been one of the disciples and you believe this, you would not do that.

However, you know, not all of us are quite that consistent and upstanding.

But Father Pacwa - Plenty of us who would be disobedient. But Father Pacwa, if they are being disobedient, why doesn't

Jesus then correct them and say, stop arguing. I've already decided the issue. Peter's going to be your head. Instead, his illustration is serve one another.

Yes. As a matter of fact, he brilliantly, you know, defines, you know, that service as, or excuse me, as that leadership of the apostles as one of service.

And that's one of the reasons why the Popes have taken as their first title, the servants of the servants of God.

And that that's what, and you know, hopefully that they'll live up to that.

But they take that very much to heart. Why do we not find any mention of the papacy nor the power of the keys as understood by Roman Catholicism in books like the pastoral epistles, or in fact, any part of the

New Testament that is written directly to the churches of Christ? You know, one of the, it's impossible to answer, you know, an argument about silence.

You don't know, you know, that the issue, doesn't come up. And so you don't know what it is that evokes certain issues.

Why was Paul writing to Timothy and Titus and talking to them about elders and deacons and the qualifications and how the church is to function, how to deal with widows, and yet the key element of how you're to have the unity of the faith doesn't show up?

Well, see, first of all, you know, having the diaconate, the presbyters, the priests, and the bishops, the overseers, is a key element of the church.

As a matter of fact, in your point about, you know, Peter, or excuse me, about Clement, and, you know, being as part of a group of elders, of course he was part of a group of elders.

Having the presbyters, the priests there, was part of being with the bishop. We see that with Ignatius of Antioch.

And so what Paul is doing is having the Saint Timothy make sure that he sets up the correct order of the

Episcopal order including, and the priestly order, and have this in different places, you know, wherever he goes to establish them and make sure he does it according to good principles.

But, you know, it's not that you can't have, you know, both, you know, having the presbyters and the deacons and the bishops is essential in every place.

That's what Ignatius of Antioch says. Without them, you don't have the church. Let me give you an example. In Acts chapter 20,

Paul meets with the Ephesian elders. He's on his way to Jerusalem. He knows he's going to be going into bondage. He warns them that many false men are going to rise amongst them teaching perverse things.

And as he's leaving, why in that situation, when he's talking about apostasy coming in the church, do we not find him saying that you stick close to Peter and the bishops of Rome as the source of unity?

Instead, he says, I commend you to God and to the word of his grace. As a matter, again, as a Catholic, I find nothing inconsistent with that.

Of course you would commend them to God. Of course you would commend them to the gospel he gave. And then also keep in mind that Paul had not yet gone to Rome, as far as we know.

That Paul doesn't get to Rome for another two years plus. And that, you know, does he even know where Peter is?

So again, why doesn't he direct people to Peter then? If this was the ancient faith of the church, and do you believe that Paul understood that Peter was the vicar of Christ, that he had an authority that Paul did not have?

That I would believe he had an authority that Paul did not have, but I also believe that Paul had authority, as do all the apostles.

That's what I asked though. Did Paul believe that Peter had an authority that Paul didn't have? And if so, can you find me one place in the

New Testament where he indicates this? I would have to say I don't know because Paul doesn't say that or answer that question.

And one of the things, again, it's arguing from silence. I can't guess what

Paul doesn't speak about. And so I can't make a principle on the silence.

Why do you call it an argument of silence when the dogmatic teachings of the Roman Catholic Church say that this is what

Jesus meant, this is what he was doing. He set Peter apart at that time and that he gave these authorities to him.

Why is that an argument from silence when it's Rome making the positive claim that these things did exist? Again, they exist when we see them come up.

For instance, the issue with Clement, along with the elders of Rome, not apart from them.

I mean, I would hate to see the Bishop of Rome acting apart from his elders. Just as today, the cardinals who take the place of those elders and are considered his elders, when he acts, we'd love to see that he acts in union with the cardinals and the other bishops.

So that is - In Clement's letter, does he ever call himself bishop? Does he ever actually identify himself? No, he doesn't deny it either.

There is - Again, this is something that a lot of times you'll see that people don't say all that they are and what they do.

The pronouns all the way through Clement's letter, are they not all plurals? We, we, we. And Clement is never actually identified in the letter, is he?

No. So if you only read the letter, this is simply the elders at Rome writing to Corinth, isn't it? Yeah, perhaps.

But it's also perhaps possible that as the successors of Peter have done up until the present

Pope, use the we because they know that they don't speak for themselves personally.

But they sign their name. They know that they sign their name, but they use the first person plural for themselves and for the things they say and do.

We have decided, we have done this. So that's one way of speaking. But if we just looked at the letter of Clement alone without having a papacy and reading that in, all we'd be able to say is all through it, it is we, we, we, never

I. Yeah, but that's - No citations of Matthew 16, 18, no claims of a papacy. Assume that he didn't need to.

Was Cyprian when he taught that all bishops sit upon the seat of Peter, was he rebelling against truth?

Yes. As a matter of fact, not only on that, but on the point, the issue at stake, that rebaptism of heretics was wrong.

So when the seventh council of Carthage met and rebuked and said that there is no bishop of bishops and rebuked

Stephen's interaction in North African churches, there was an entire council that was in error. Well, first of all, the church, especially under Pope Gregory the

Great, accepted that. Accepted what? That there is no bishop of bishops.

Right. He rejected the Patriarchs. That's not, that's not. And also they made sure that the

Patriarch of Constantinople rejected that title who kept on trying to usurp it. So that was rejected.

And so they agreed with that. But as a matter of fact, this is part of papal primacy, that yes, they can be over any synod.

So all the early fathers who interpreted the seat of Peter as referring to all bishops, they were all rebellious bishops.

Is that what you're actually saying? They would be certainly in, you know, rebellion.

See, one of the things about rebellion is that you have to make sure, you have to make sure that it's clearly stated in a way that a person is rebelling against something.

That you can't just say that you're rebelling against a vagary. You know, sometimes folks will do things and it's not clearly defined.

Okay. Then where in the early church had it ever been clearly defined to these bishops that the Bishop of Rome was the sole successor of Peter?

This is something that you see, again, in the list that I mentioned earlier, that, and find it again, that the, you have a long list.

For instance, Tertullian. You know, one of the points that you had made with Tertullian, that he mocked the

Pope. He did. After he became a heretic. No, yes. Well, he became a

Montanist heretic. Using the terms of Pontifex Maxians. We expect the heretics to do that kind of ridicule.

But while he was still a Catholic, he speaks well of the Pope, as of Peter as having that authority in ordaining

Clement. Does Tertullian say that the Bishop of Rome is the sole successor of Peter?

No, I don't think that he, Tertullian says that. Does Cyprian say that? Cyprian, now see, this is where I'm not as familiar with Cyprian stuff.

Let me, I can say that you certainly have, see,

I mentioned Gaius. Certainly counts Victor as the successor of Peter. And that, and your question was.

Okay, I understand. I understand what you're saying. Cyprian would have no problem accepting. Yes, Cyprian does say that it's the place of Peter and the chair of Peter.

That he does say. Exactly. But where Cyprian also says that every Bishop sits in the chair of Peter.

Most of the North Africans did, all the way into the days of Augustine. Read my endorsed discussion of this in regards to Orthodox theology.

The point is that you can't have someone simply saying that the Bishop of Rome sits in the chair of Peter.

Because Cyprian would have said that. He also said, so do I. And that was his rebellious part, right?

Right. Because the point is, the clarification is, he does sit on the chair of the

Apostle, one of the Apostles. He says Peter. Right. He's the successor of the Apostles. That we would say.

Okay. But he was incorrect in his formulation. That's one of the reasons he wasn't

Pope. If he was guilty of rebellion. Actually, he was called Pope Cyprian by the deacons at Rome. But if he was guilty of rebellion, and you have to have a clear statement against which to rebel, what council, what father,

Ignatius, Polycarp, who was it that taught that the chair of Peter resides only in Rome, and that only the

Bishops of Rome are the successors of Peter? Who said that in the early church? I'll be honest with you.

I don't know anybody who did. In terms of putting it exactly that way, that they did, first of all, that they do recognize that the

Bishop of Rome succeeds St. Peter. There's no doubt. Now, do you see that again and again?

As did all of the bishops, yes. But not all, again, not all the bishops. Well, that's the whole point.

Again, that's what Cyprian says. But not all the bishops said that they all sit on the throne of Peter.

That was Cyprian's formulation, and it's not used anywhere else. Oh, yes, it is. For a million and many others have the exact same viewpoint.

Can you name me just one early father who believed that the only successor to Peter was the

Bishop of Rome on the basis of Matthew 16? Certainly Irenaeus. Irenaeus looks to, as a matter of fact, says that the pure doctrine in his

Contra Heresies, and the pure doctrine of the faith is found at Rome.

In the church at Rome, not the Bishop of Rome. Where does he say that the Bishop alone, see

Bishop Lightfoot pointed this out, that in the early fathers, the prerogatives of Rome were the church, and only over ages did it become the bishop.

At first, the royalty, quote unquote, of the bishop was due to the royalty of the church. Then it became reversed to where Rome's position was because of the bishop.

So Irenaeus never says, and in fact, how do you respond?

I should put this in a question format. How do you respond to Irenaeus' rebuke of Victor in regards to the

Quartodeciman controversy and his threat to excommunicate the Eastern churches?

The same way that I respond to St. Catherine of Siena's rebuke of the popes of her day during the

Avignon Papacy, that she told him off. For what? For not being in Rome.

That's fine. Was that doctrinal in the way that this was with Victor and Irenaeus? I'm not sure that I...

See, neither one is doctrinal. Both of them are issues of behavior.

Whether you excommunicate the entire Eastern churches isn't doctrinal? Yes, it is. Exactly. It was the issue not of a doctrine, but it was the issue of when you celebrate

Easter. Yes. It had nothing to do with doctrine. They didn't deny

Easter. He was willing to split the unity of the church over when you celebrate Easter? Unfortunately, it still does.

I mean, we wish they celebrated Easter. I'm almost out of time. I've got about a minute and a half. The Council of Chalcedon passed what's known as the 28th

Canon, in which they said that the reason that old Rome had had such a prerogative in the church was because it was the seat of the empire.

Now that the emperor was in Constantinople, then the new Rome, Constantinople, would rank second after Rome.

Pope Leo rejected that canon, but it was still passed by the council, was reiterated by later councils, and in fact, the

Eastern Orthodox would still hold on to it. How could they pass a canon like that in an ecumenical council that we believe is very important in regards to defining the doctrine of Christ if it was the universal and constant faith of the church to believe in Petri and Primacy as Rome defines it?

Much the same way that the apostles could still argue amongst themselves about who was first, that this is the kind of argument that you see in the apostolic days and the same kind of argument that continues, unfortunately, to this day as well.

Why is their doctrine of Christ infallible to their doctrine of the 28th canon not? This is one of the things about any human being that you see the apostles were themselves right about Christ in so many ways, but they were often arguing amongst themselves over themselves so that this is the way that people are.

One of the delights, as I mentioned earlier, is that in doing this debate, it motivated me to study more of the history of the papacy.

What I do for a living is teach scripture, and I love teaching scripture, but it's good to get into some areas that sometimes you miss when you're just working on exegesis and teaching the texts.

And this has been one of those cases. I know that I need to learn much, much more as far as I'm concerned.

The modern world begins in the year 200 AD. I consider people like Aristotle and Plato modernists.

I like old books like Genesis or the Epic of Gilgamesh or Exodus and so on.

But this is good to get into modern history by studying the fathers. And a few things

I would still want to hold to. As it became more clear to me,

I appreciated the discussion that we had with our questions because in a lot of ways, it helped me clarify that some of the things that Mr.

White is talking about really are concerns about the silences. And I guess they just don't bother me, the silences.

One of those things that I say, as I see that the papacy does start to speak up and as we see the issues develop, that there is greater clarity.

As a matter of fact, I feel the same way about other silences in the history of early

Christianity. For instance, silences about the history of the canon.

The canon of scripture becomes something that is clarified in the fourth century, the late fourth century at that.

The 380s and the 390s. And not only the canon of scripture, but also we see that the first council doesn't take place until the fourth century, 325 with Nicaea, and then they go on all the way to the present.

Now, does that mean that, you know, because the only prior council was the council at Jerusalem and then we don't see

St. Clement say, let's have a council or the church at Corinth. Let's have a council or somebody else.

They say, let's have councils. You know, does that mean it doesn't exist? You know, there are synods, but ecumenical councils come in the fourth century.

And it is also late that we see some of the issues of the papacy coming to their maturity in the fourth century and later.

But it's also important to point out that this is the age of Constantine's legalization of Christianity, not the beginning of Catholicism.

As a matter of fact, a certain Protestant practice started during that reign. Prior to the year 327, there's not a single case of baptism of infants being postponed.

You know, the first time we see Christian parents postpone baptism of their children is somebody born in 327.

We don't have evidence earlier. But the point is that it's during the age of Constantine and later when the persecutions stop, that the issues of authority in the church do become more clear and more clarified regarding the canon of scripture, the role of ecumenical councils and the papacy.

Again, that doesn't deny that they exist earlier. They do.

And the issues and points about papal authority and primacy exist earlier in small ways, to be sure.

But these were difficult times for other reasons. And I still maintain and believe very, very strongly that the church was established on the rock of St.

Peter and Christ did so quite firmly. In no way do I see that that contradicts the foundation of the church on the truth that Jesus is

God, the son of God, and that he's himself the Messiah. In no way, nor does my church.

That's why we allow both. One of the joys of being Catholic that sometimes drives, you know,

Protestants crazy, is that we don't go for either or. It's not faith or works.

It's not the Bible or tradition. And it's not the primacy of Peter as the rock or belief in Jesus as the rock.

It's both of those and. It's a richness that is inclusive, not denying.

And that we don't deny these other points of the primacy of scripture.

They complete inerrancy. We teach that. We encourage the reading of scripture. Absolutely.

We want all of our people to read scripture to be sure that's in papal statements and it's printed in every

Catholic Bible. And we also want people to submit to the primacy of St.

Peter. Not because we make more money often or anything like that.

Not because we like bingo and silly things, but because it's established by Christ.

Because obedience to him and obedience in this issue is part of his plan for the church.

And that, in fact, as our church continues to grow and grow, not only is it the largest church, but it's also the largest

Pentecostal church with more charismatics than all the different Pentecostal denominations combined.

And we're a church that's evangelical, a church that's missionary, a church that's on the move. We've got our problems, to be sure.

But I looked at Peter and his successors in their primacy as a focus of unity and a source of unity that has given us an impetus to be a church not of one or other nation, but of all nations.

And it's because of that glory and because of that gift, despite the problems that go along with that and every other gift, that I, myself, am strongly committed to it.

And I so believe that it's from Christ that by the grace that Christ gives me, I hope that if it should happen,

I'd rather be dead than deny that faith. I would like to begin by thanking all of you who have worked so hard to make this available to everyone here tonight.

Thank you for being here. A special thanks to Chris Arnzen and Mike Rotolo for all the work that they do.

I think it's a wonderful opportunity to address these issues. And I hope that you have been blessed by being here this evening.

I also wish to thank Mitch Pacwa for traveling all the way out here and for engaging in this debate.

I have a tremendous respect for him in that point. And we obviously disagree very, very deeply.

But I'm thankful that I think we succeeded in what I said we wanted to do. And that was, we've debated the issues tonight, not who

Mitch Pacwa is or who I am. And I think that's very important. Gregory Natsianzen, Gregory wrote this.

Having gone through the whole set of sacred offices to Passover intervening events, he is entrusted with the presidency over the people, which is the same as saying the rule of the whole world.

And I cannot say whether he received the priesthood as the reward of his virtue or to be the source and life of the church.

For she fainting through thirst of the truth was like Ishmael to be refreshed or like Elijah to be revived when the earth and the drought was cooled in the stream and from her exhaustion to be brought back to life.

Those are high words of praise. And I believe if they had been spoken of a Bishop of Rome, a

Roman Catholic apologist would cite them as evidence of the papacy because he talks about having the presidency and the rule over the whole world.

But Gregory Natsianzen didn't say that about the Pope. He said that about Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria.

Why is it then that a Roman Catholic when hearing this type of language used of the

Bishop of Rome automatically assumes that it means that that person believed that the Bishop of Rome has the sole and prime jurisdiction over the whole church?

Why when we see all these issues in the New Testament, is it that individuals can say, well, but that's just an argument for some silence.

And yes, when the pastoral epistles are written, yes, they talk all about how the church is to be formed and offices in the church.

But the issue of the papacy just didn't come up. It was assumed. Why is that?

It's because of what I said last year. There are two positions in this debate. I believe in sola scriptura, that the scripture is the sole and fallible rule of faith for the church.

The only other position when debating this issue with Roman Catholicism is sola ecclesia.

The church as the final and absolute authority in matters of faith.

And I believe the reason that individuals can look back at the history of the church and not see it for what it was, not see it the papacy as a gradual development, that it is contradicted by numerous things all the way through the history of the church is because they've been told what to see by their ultimate authority.

And who is the ultimate authority? It's the Pope himself. I do not believe that if you take seriously the authority of the

Roman see that you can then in a dispassionate manner examine the evidence because Rome has already told you this is what we've always believed and this is what you are to believe.

But my friends, we cannot allow that kind of circular argument to be the foundation of our religious faith.

Every six months I go to Salt Lake City and I witness to a whole mess of folks who have a very strong belief that the man who gathers with them up there in Salt Lake City who they call a prophet is a prophet from God.

And there is nobody in this room unless you happen to be LDS who would accept the argument that the prophet is the prophet because the prophet says he's the prophet.

That's not going to carry the day. In the same way just because Rome says well, this has been the universal faith of the church you cannot then look at all of the fathers like John Chrysostom who says

Jesus did not establish his church upon Peter the man but in opposition to that.

See, he wasn't one of those that you could say well, he sort of fits into both categories. He didn't. He specifically denied it was upon Peter.

It was upon his confession of faith and yet what happens when we ask questions about that?

What happens when we've asked the question can you show me anybody in the early church that understood

Matthew 16 in exactly the way Vatican I says has always been believed and so far I haven't heard anyone.

I've heard someone say well, he said something nice about Peter. That doesn't make it relevant to the

Bishop of Rome. He said something nice about the Bishop of Rome. Okay, that's fine. It doesn't mean that only the Bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter.

My friends, we're talking about final and absolute authorities here and this is irrelevant to every single person sitting in this room because the claim of Rome is here you have the very vicar of Christ on earth infallible in his pronouncements and he may well

I don't know whether he's going to or not to but he may well define as a dogma of the Christian faith to be accepted de fide by faith that Mary is co -redemptrix, mediatrix and advocate for the people of God and bind that upon your conscience.

That's vital. That's important because when someone comes to me and asks me what is the Christian faith? I have a finished book

I can point them to. I don't have to say well, right now it's this but next week there may be another element de fide a belief that no one in the early church believed.

Go back and look at the debate on Mary that we did but if we invest in a particular human person in a church that did not even have a singular bishop until the middle of the second century absolute authority and jurisdiction over the

Christian people then the walls have come down. There is no way to guard against any type of teaching whatsoever and I would submit to you that doctrines like the immaculate conception the bodily assumption of Mary which have been defined on the basis of this alleged authority illustrate for us what happens when you both deny sola scriptura and embrace sola ecclesia.

The issues are vital and they have been laid before you tonight I think very clearly. Someone asked does anyone know who wins the debate?

You are the judges. That's your responsibility. I know we live in a society today that says oh no don't tell anybody they've got responsibilities.

I'm telling you right now you have a responsibility to work through this issue. But I'm a busy person well eternity is a long time.

So work through the issues. Thank you for being here this evening. We're going to have about 25 minutes for questions.

So why don't you all fool me at least try to fool me and ask questions or at least phrase your statements in the form of a question like a lawyer does.

I have a question for Mr. White.

First of all God bless you. I love you in Jesus. Thank you. And I'm one of those troublemakers that started those parties with my husband.

So this is kind of interesting to be asking him questions. When I had those parties

I was not a Catholic but I have returned in the last year and a half to the Catholic Church to a family headed by the

Holy Father and I am just thrilled. Now you did say before that this was a continuation of last year's debate.

So one of my questions is why are we having this debate because I remember sitting here last year when you did admit when

Jerry Magnatex kind of pushed you to the wall that you couldn't point out in Scripture where the

Scriptures support the Sola in Sola Scriptura. So I'm not quite sure why we're here actually because I thought that issue was settled.

Now. Okay I'm going to excuse me I'm going to respond I'm going to respond to that. That's that's the question.

I'm going to I'm not sure why this isn't working. Can you? Can't hear me at all

I guess. Well I'll speak up real loudly then. There we go. Someone's turning it up. That's all right. This one's working now. Obviously I do not believe that the issue was settled last week or last year.

There it goes again. There we go. Okay we're still on. I do not believe that the issue was quote unquote settled because I presented a tremendous amount of information that demonstrates why we believe in Sola Scriptura because it is that which is

Theanustos it is that which is God breathed I asked Mr. Medetix to show us where you could find anything that was

Theanustos outside the Bible and he was not able to give us that. So the issue the reason I have said that this is a continuation of last year is that this last year

I defended my ultimate authority now we see the other ultimate authority both sides are being presented to us so we can weigh them and understand what what the results of accepting both sides would be.

So we're here because now we're getting an opportunity to apply the same standards to the arguments that Roman Catholicism uses for the papacy that were used against Sola Scriptura last time.

I actually thank you for mentioning the God breathed part because it just occurred to me and I wanted to ask you this is my second and final question.

Did you want to say I'm sorry, Mitch? I was going to say that I think you only have to have one question per person because otherwise people won't get it.

Oh is it? Okay, okay. Yes, thank you. I'm sorry can I ask a second part of the question?

This was really a one part question but he answered the first part first. Because God breathed and this is very very quick I do want to say are you not saying with saying that Scripture is

God breathed and therefore that is your sole authority are you not doing what you say the Catholic Church does and what the

Latter -day Saints do by claiming that some person says something when you say a book says it's

God breathed and to me that's the same argument. Yes. Be glad to in the words of the

Lord Jesus Christ Matthew 22 31 have you not read what God spoke to you saying

I am the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and God of Jacob my view of the Scriptures by God's grace is the same view that Jesus Christ enunciated there that when you read the words of Scripture you are hearing

God speaking to you and when you say when you say wait wait wait and when you say am

I not doing the same thing I point out something to you when God says I am God what higher authority does he refer to to prove that point there has to be an ultimate authority it must be in what

God himself says and that's why it's in the Scriptures go ahead 30 seconds wait a minute he can come if like 30 seconds okay you can respond right and first of all

I want to make sure that every Protestant here and certainly every Catholic knows we Catholics also believe that the

Scriptures are God breathed and that God speaks to us in those same words and that is always true that when we deal with this we do want to we always seek the

Scriptures that's what we want to go back that's what we look for and you know I don't and that we don't know that they're

Scriptures we don't know that these books are the ones given to us by the apostles except because of the tradition given to us by the apostles and their successors the bishops including the

Bishop of Rome okay my question is for Priest Mitch I hope that wasn't meant disrespectfully would you refer to Matthew chapter 16 yes and the keys of the kingdom yes in the same context when

Jesus is talking to disciples he tells them about that he's going to go to Jerusalem and be crucified and Peter then speaks out again and tells

Jesus that that should not be Jesus then turns around and talks to Peter and he says to him in the same context as he's talking to Peter about the keys he says get behind me

Satan he calls Peter Satan for you he's talking to Peter you are not on the side of God but on the side of man actually what he says is you are not thinking the things of God but the things of men if Peter is the vicar of Christ would this make

Peter also the vicar of Satan calling Peter Satan he's saying you're on the side of man sure you're not on the side of God the reason that I would say no is because Peter was somebody redeemed by Jesus Christ from the side of Satan and that while he's there speaking why is he calling

Peter let him answer the question please what he's when he calls Peter here's

Satan Peter is absolutely wrong dead wrong and it's only the redemption of Jesus Christ on the cross and his glorious resurrection from the dead and the reconciliation after Peter has left of course after the denials etc

Peter was wrong but he's redeemed by Jesus Christ and we trust in that redemption by Christ right and that it's after this that the vicar of Christ is

Satan on the side of man right and that after this is when Jesus redeems him okay that's the only kind of guy

Jesus redeems are sinners I would just simply point out in regards to that particular passage as it demonstrates to me the impetuosity of Peter Peter was a very impetuous speaker he's one who on the mount of transfiguration says hey

God this is great let's build a tabernacle for Jesus Elijah and Moses and Luke is very kind to say he didn't know what he was saying so he is very impetuous he speaks up first but unfortunately frequently the fact that he speaks up first is used by Roman Catholic apologists as an evidence of his primacy rather than his impetuosity

I'm going to ask the moderator's approval to actually let Father Pacwa answer that question because I think it's really more addressed to him and then

I'll comment on it afterwards if that's okay if you don't want to I'll take the whole minute and a half

I'll comment all I want on it but I'm not sure that I don't understand how it's a question to me okay all right

I'll be glad to I just didn't want you to feel like that was unfair I obviously believe that exactly what

I said at the end that sola ecclesia is a circular system that if you accept papal primacy as your starting point then you're going to see in tradition what you want to see in tradition you're going to see in the

Fathers what you want to see in the Fathers you can see in the Bible what you want to see in the Bible and you're not going to see these clear passages that I think

I have succeeded in presenting that demonstrate that what Vatican I said what Satus Cognitum said simply are untrue to both history and to the text of scripture and yes when you raise the issue of tradition we can't go back and redo last year's tapes you're going to have to go and listen to those yourself we discussed tradition we discussed the role of tradition but obviously

I think that when you're looking at Matthew chapter 16 the only way that you can actually look at someone and say this is what it teaches and it teaches it with such clarity and Vatican I said this is a clear doctrine of scripture

I don't think it's not a clear doctrine of scripture to me and what makes it a clear doctrine for some people is that you allow this idea of tradition and it's a selective tradition it's not the tradition of John Chrysostom it's not the tradition of Augustine it's not the tradition of the early church but it's a later tradition to become the grid through which you read the entire

Bible and that is how you end up finding those things there that to be perfectly honest with you were never a thought of the original writers of the

Bible and I would respond that a it is a tradition of John Chrysostom for instance who said that Peter so washed away that denial as to be even made the first apostle and to have the whole world committed to him and the same

John Chrysostom in his commonly on 2nd Timothy 3 .1 who says that Peter the leader of the choir the mouth of the apostles head of that tribe ruler of the whole world the foundation of the church the ardent lover of Christ that that tradition is something that I'm not always as aware of but certainly want to keep on learning more about and understanding the whole basis of everything else that we have in scripture and the church next because you

I know it was okay for Paul but that's all right this question is regarding a statement you made you said that the church was established on the rock of Peter yes sir okay by Jesus by Jesus according to Ephesians uh what is it chapter 2 yes verse 19 down now therefore you are known yes as the saints the members of the foundation of the apostles yeah okay and prophets

Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone in whom the whole building being fitted together grows into a holy temple in the

Lord in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the spirit yeah that was the first one of the first quotes

I used what's your question no the question is you're saying that Peter he's the essential he's the cornerstone no

I didn't say that I didn't say he was the cornerstone as a matter of fact

I read that passage at the beginning of my comments well we both interpret it very differently well I know that that's over here okay reading that passage how do you what do you think

Peter is then that I believe wholeheartedly that the apostles and prophets are the foundation as I said at the beginning but that the chief of those apostles as John Chrysostom and others and most importantly not because of them but because Jesus says so that Peter is the chief of those and that of the of those wait who says he's the chief

Jesus one who says he's the chief he doesn't say the word he's the chief but he's the one he says you are the rock and by so singling out

Saint Peter makes him distinct from the others but he doesn't with every single one of us every every true born -again christian is a rock yeah but every true born -again christian is okay thank you we have to keep these questions shorter because we have to fit every one yeah yeah yeah it's so do you

I did finish that then go ahead just a point the texture I'm sure you're thinking of is first Peter chapter two right they were all living stones where you know we are again

I don't deny that I said that and I believe that because it's in scripture and it's and my pope teaches it because it's in scripture and we love that because it's in scripture so we don't we just don't see that it's either or that yes

Peter is the rock on which he built the church the apostles are the all the apostles together are that foundation but Peter is obviously set apart and all of us are living stones in that temple and we believe that wholeheartedly as a matter of fact we use those same readings and profess it in our liturgical prayers

I would just simply point out that when Paul identifies those who are in the church he says first apostles then prophets not first the pope and then the apostles again this is this cannot be identified as an argument from silence

Paul says the ultimate office in the church is apostle and secondly in regards to what was just said about John Chrysostom it came right out of here there is the

Peter syndrome in glowing colors nice word about Peter that does not mean that Chrysostom believed that the bishop of Rome was the successor of Peter and the ruler of the church excellent example of why this resource is one of the poorest that I know of in English today next question oh yes so my question is next year's debate will be that's fine okay it's next to the word trinity no no no no the word of course we know that the word purgatory is not in heaven and now heaven in heaven we know that it's obviously not in heaven if they were in heaven they wouldn't be in purgatory it's not in the bible neither is the trinity and neither is sola scriptura and a lot of other things but the issue it is just like the reality of the trinity is in the scriptures we believe that when

Jesus went down to preach in the prison to the souls that were there from the time of the flood and that that we assume that he preached because it did them some good and we assume that they were not in in the inferno hell

Gehenna that's for the damned nor were they in heaven yet Christ hadn't opened it it's this other place and the fathers of the church

Augustine and Origen and others teach about this place in which you know we have a cleansing of our sins in other words when we die if you have any kind of vengeance any kind of lust or gluttony or any other sin you can't bring that into heaven it gets cleaned and purified and we don't say how long it is or exactly how

God does it but it's God's doing it it's not our doing it on our own it's the merits of Christ that we can't earn in any way in purgatory and it's only for the redeemed it's not a second chance and so we believe that concept and we also use

Matthew 5 verse 26 to help explain the idea that you have to stay there until you pay the last penny the council of Florence the council of Trent both dogmatically define that the action in purgatory is your own suffering called sadaspatio where you gain merit in God's sight by your own suffering

I have never found any dogmatic statement of the Roman Catholic Church that has ever said that is the application of the merits of Christ to you that brings about your cleansing in purgatory

I've never found a one and I'd like to find out where that is if that's what is being taught Father Paco was exactly right nothing unclean will enter into heaven that is why the only way any one of us will ever stand before the

Holy God is clothed solely completely and only in the righteousness of another and that's

Jesus Christ not my own we cannot stand before a

Holy God with a mixed merit of Christ Mary the saints and our own sufferings that will not avail before a

Holy God and the council of Trent said that purgatory was for those who left this life in a state not justified but not yet fully purified there is no person who is justified who does not have the righteousness of Jesus Christ and hence you are fully purified by his work in your place

I don't think so next question at least give me my doctorate if you're going to insist on it go ahead brother okay you mentioned something about bishop of bishops does it sound like semantics what would be the difference between saying they took the title didn't take the title bishop of bishops and claiming to be universal bishop that's a good question frankly

I'm not sure because I'm not a canon lawyer I don't you know there's some of those things that I know that they rejected it and I'm not sure of all the implications

I just admit that I'll try to stay very brief

I don't think there is any meaningful difference and I believe that the claim that the bishop of Rome has an authority different than all other bishops is a claim to have that final jurisdiction and it is an assertion that is not supported by church history or by the bible yeah it certainly would be and I would agree that it's certainly universal bishop has the authority is a claim to that jurisdiction but there you know oftentimes there are subtle differences in these terms and I'm not always sure of them because again that's modern history

I don't know okay the next question but please make it brief you allow at least of looking carefully at your beliefs and I'm just wondering why it seems assuming

I've heard you correctly tonight why it seems that you and the catholic tradition itself leans so closely to the silences and the assumptions when you have clarity of scripture

I'm wondering wouldn't it be preferable as a christian to lean more towards scripture clarity than silent tradition instead of building dogma that is in fact as you quoted in your opening statement that the foundation of the church is the apostles and the prophets and Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone now if we look at a foundation a physical foundation what do the rest if Peter is analogous to a primary rock which one of those rocks does he possibly represent if they're all the same okay thank you that's a good question okay first of all you know me when we talk about Christ there as the cornerstone it also can mean the keystone that the greek term there has it doesn't necessarily mean a rock that's on the corner like we think of a cornerstone that it can also be a keystone that holds the building together so uh because that in either way you know it's certainly it's much more dynamic than just Christ being on the corner he's what holds the whole church together and he's the center he's the focus and everything has to hinge on the person of Jesus Christ now in terms of the foundation sure you're going to have a you know a foundation but that that text doesn't say for instance as your question assumes that all the foundation stones are the same doesn't say that that is an argument that is not just you can't use from the text and what we understand is that yes the apostles are the foundation stones with the prophets and that Christ has built it on them because from them we have knowledge about him but among those apostles he has selected out

Peter of all of them he's he's the one with the keys he's the one with the power to bind and to loose he's the one against on whom

Jesus especially bases his church and that while again it's called

Peter Syndrome these different texts that point out the role of Saint Peter as the head of the apostles by Chrysostom and the other fathers of the church are in the context that all bishops are successors of apostles and if the successor of Saint Peter the logic of it is if they recognize that Peter is the head the

Koropheus in Greek and if the and if he the

Sea of Rome continues that same Petrine authority then they too share in that same prominence that Saint Chrysostom and other saints mention and that's how we deal with it not as a silence but we take that as the evidence the

New Testament very plainly teaches that God gave apostles and prophets and teachers to the church the very fact that it never says he gave a pope or gave

Peter that primacy is very very plain the early fathers when they talk about the keys they recognize that the power of binding and loosing and the power of the keys are the same they do not make the distinction

Peter only has the keys and everybody else does not that again is a later development that has to be read back in anachronistically through yes the

Peter syndrome next question please yes my question I have a question

Mr. White I believe your name is sir yes sir in your closing statement you said that we meaning you as a

Christian yes have a perfect or complete book something to round back yes

God's perfect word I don't know how you would address the statement made by Jesus in John chapter 16 verse 13 where he says to his disciples

I have yet anything to say to you but you can have freedom now I'll be it when he the spirit of truth has come he will guide you into all truth for he shall not speak of himself or whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak implying that there's some new revelation that's going to be given by God to someone who's able to hear and articulate that revelation and I'll be glad I'll be glad to answer that and then if I guess

I guess you have two questions who do you believe is this person who could hear this revelation by the way excuse me do you have someone in mind who could hear this new revelation?

well I know that it's not the the angel

I mean the spirit the holy spirit who appeared on the day of Pentecost because John in John chapter 20

John chapter 20 and 21 said that Jesus said his disciples right there after the resurrection received the holy ghost and he knows nothing about the day of Pentecost well actually okay now

I understand where you're coming from you believe that's Muhammad then right? well now that's another issue I'm just asking oh

I think no I understand the I believe terrible misuse of John 14 through 16 to try to smuggle a prophecy of Muhammad into the bible the prophecy what

Jesus what Jesus is talking about is of course the rest of the new testament I mean Paul and the apostles were rather busy there for a while and there is a tremendous amount of revelation everything about the church comes after the ministry of Jesus Christ everything you find in Ephesians so on so forth

Jesus talks about the church maybe twice it is the apostles who bring these things out and it is the holy spirit no matter how many changes people try to make to the text it is the holy spirit who brings these things about you're misunderstanding

Jesus' words when he says receive ye the holy spirit that is a future command that does not mean that it's not the holy spirit who comes upon them in Pentecost so it is the holy spirit who will bring about the rest of the new testament that is what he is referring to there it is done by the holy spirit it has nothing to do with someone who comes on about 500 years later just as the

Lord Jesus Christ said I do nothing but what I see the father doing I speak no words but what I hear the father speaking of course that is exactly how the divine persons within the trinity work doctor speaking about anyone who would preach another gospel other than the gospel which he himself preached even if it's an angel from heaven and we know that angels coming from heaven are only sent by God so therefore he's got angels from heaven we know that Jesus was on the cross and the angel came from heaven and strengthened him you know it's not satan that's sending that angel no we don't as a matter of fact