Further Review of Tim Staples Debate on Papal Infallibility (Prt 2)

2nd Timothy 2 15 be diligent to present yourself approved to God a worker who does not need to be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth

Alpha and Omega Ministries presents the dividing line radio broadcast the Apostle Peter commanded all

Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us yet to give this answer with gentleness and reverence your host is dr.

James White director of Alpha and Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church if you'd like to talk with Dr.

White you can call now by dialing 602 -274 -1360 that's 602 -274 -1360 or if you're out of the

Metro Phoenix dialing area it's 1 -888 -550 -1360 that's 1 -888 -550 -1360 and now with today's topic here's

James White and good afternoon and welcome to the dividing line my name is James White, White, Light, whatever my name is we're live in studio you can tell because if we are recording this we could have just digitally removed that whoops and it would have been just fine but we're live in studio we have survived the experience of being up teaching at the main campus of Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary the past 10 11 or so days and the experience the week before of the debate in Fullerton California which is what we're going to be talking about today and we'll be taking your phone calls later on the program if you want the number it's 602 -274 -1360 in the local

Phoenix dialing area and 1 -888 -550 -1360 if you are outside the

Phoenix dialing area maybe listening on the internet maybe you're in our chat room since I put a topic line up in the chat room right before I left it said listen and so if you're in the chat room and you're not listening you are disobeying channel rules and when

I get back I will kick -ban you for not doing so but be that as it may today I'd like to review some of the events at the

Fullerton debate I am hoping that many of you have already ordered the tapes of the debate they are available audio tapes are available at www .aomin

.org and if you're just tuning in and didn't know about this on Friday night

July 7th there was a debate held at Plummer Auditorium in Fullerton California the subject papal infallibility now back in November of 1996

I had debated Mr. Timothy Staples who at that time was with st. Joseph Catholic Radio and he's now with st.

Joseph communications which also handles such notable folks as Mitchell Pacwa Scott Hahn and other individuals like that and back in 1996 we had quite the rousing debate where I defended sola scriptura and did so in front of a large crowd of primarily

Roman Catholic individuals and prior to doing the program mr. Staples and I were on for two hours with Hank Hanegraaff on the

Bible Answer Man broadcast back in 1996 and I had recognized at that time both the fact that there were some problems in how the crowd behaved and how they were handled by mr.

Staples as well as the use of ad hominem argumentation by mr. Staples I had written an open letter to him which is still on our website and can be accessed at www .aomin

.org and but you know time sort of who heals all wounds and we wanted to arrange a debate with someone on the subject of papal infallibility we have debated the subject of the papacy itself whether the

Bible teaches the concept of a papacy where the Bible teaches the the primacy of Peter and then the creation of an office with successors and that the only possible successor to Peter would be the

Bishop of Rome in his singular office in his singular person and debated that first against Jerry Matitix in December of 1990 out at City of the

Lord here in Phoenix we debated that against Robert St. Genes and Scott Butler at Boston College we debated that against Jerry Matitix at Denver Seminary and Faith Presbyterian Church seven and a half hours of debate between the

New Testament evidence and the patristic evidence on that series with mr.

Matitix I debated against Mitchell Pacwa on Long Island in 1998 and so we have done conservatively let's see that would be seven nine twelve about 15 hours of moderated debate on the subject of the papacy already and so when

I contacted st. Joseph's communications excuse me I uh I said I know we did solo scriptura the opposite of solo scriptura is papal infallibility not just the papacy but the idea that the papacy is infallible in its teaching office that's what undergirds the concept of sola ecclesia that the church is the final and ultimate authority for the believing

Roman Catholic it's not scripture in tradition because it is the church and especially the

Pope that defines what scripture teaches and what scripture is what tradition teaches and what tradition is and therefore it's impossible for the papacy to be held accountable to scripture and tradition because you can't define those things or know what they mean outside the teaching of the papacy so I said let's debate papal infallibility and so that's the the subject if you listened to the

Bible Answer Man broadcasts and and by the way some of you have been going hey you know you mentioned that you did three hours in studio on July 6 the

Tim Staples and we've only heard the first two and I think I mentioned last week via the phone that the third week a third program was by far the most intense and it hasn't aired yet well it's supposed to be then we don't have a firm date yet there's some possibility of July 31st but we're just not certain when it's gonna air but it will air eventually and it will be most interesting for you to listen to that but all through the three hours in the

Bible Answer Man broadcast we kept saying we're gonna be debating the topic of papal infallibility on Friday night and why do

I emphasize the fact that everybody knew what the topic was that it was papal infallibility even during the program

I brought up Bishop Honorius I brought up Pope Honorius the Bishop of Rome and I and I said we're gonna be talking about this tomorrow evening there there was absolutely no reason in the world for Mr.

Staples to be confused as to what we were supposed to be talking about why do I mention this well because when we started the debate

Mr. Staples of course defending papal infallibility gets to go first and in all of his presentation he never quoted from Vatican 1 which defined papal infallibility he didn't mention

Honorius he didn't mention Liberius he didn't mention Zosimus he didn't mention John the 22nd he didn't mention

Sixtus V he didn't mention any of the standard popes to which we refer who made errors in fact he didn't even define papal infallibility instead as you listen to the tapes and it would be silly for me to in any way shape or form misrepresent this because we're selling the tapes if you listen to the tapes he has 30 minutes and in his 30 minutes he talks about Matthew 16

Luke 22 John 21 and the primacy of Peter in the Gospels in other words he gives a presentation very similar somewhat anyways to the debates that I've done against many

Roman Catholics in the past on the existence of the papacy but without even mentioning the early church just a biblical presentation and even then a very interesting biblical

I was just looking for some stuff in the first tape to to queue up and wasn't able to find what I was looking for in the first tape and it was specifically

I think it's in the rebuttal period we talked about how when Peter pulled the fish up on shore that this must have been

I guess some indication of his power or something because as he put it Peter wasn't on steroids and while we were queuing it up we listened to a section where he talked about how

Jesus was giving to Peter a power when he walked upon the water that had never been given to any man so therefore there's a papacy and and the

Pope is to be followed and obeyed I guess obviously when you start taking that kind of argumentation apart it becomes tremendously tenuous but that's what was presented and as I sat there listening to this

I was absolutely amazed I was amazed especially because the fact that I had purchased from st.

Joseph communications a three tape series on the subject of infallibility was called infallibility versus impeccability but it was a defense of papal infallibility and on the particular

Pope that I spent the most of my time Pope Honorius he had spent a tape and a half trying to defend

Pope Honorius he knows what the issues are but he didn't present them in his opening statement now if you listen to my opening statement from 1996 you will see that I not only define sola scriptura

I say what it isn't and I preemptively answer most of the arguments that I knew

Mr. Staples was going to be presenting that's the advantage of getting to go first you get to define the subject and you get to in essence argue for your side before the other guy gets a chance to start that's the advantage of going first well for some reason mr.

Staples chose not to do so so I got up and I had 30 minutes and I focused upon Pope Honorius I focused upon Pope Zosimus's command to the

North African churches to accept Pelagius and Celestius back into communion even after they had condemned them as heretics and the fact that it was the

North Africans that were right Pope Zosimus that was wrong and one of the main things I emphasized in my presentation was if you can't know today that the guidance you're getting from the

Bishop of Rome is infallible and true what good is the doctrine and I demonstrated that there were periods of time in the past where if you had followed the current teaching of the current

Bishop of Rome you would have been in error and it was only decades or years later that the error was quote -unquote fixed and so if you can't know that what the

Pope is teaching today is infallible if you can't even know whether it's an ex cathedra straight statement or not whether it's from the chair whether it's meant to be taken infallibly or not and no one can know that if you can't know these things then what good is the doctrine what good is the doctrine indeed and so I had 30 minutes

I presented on Honorius Zosimus and very briefly because my time was running out I had to sort of hurry on 6th to 5th and his infallible

Vulgate well mr. Staples gets up and he says well at least

I stuck to scripture in my opening presentation we know what mr. White's tactic is going to be his tactic is going to be to focus on this issue of papal infallibility well that's what the debate was about and so that's what

I was doing now to get to the point where because we're gonna play a whole section of debate for you down the program and I am going to shamelessly shamelessly steal from a famous excellent radio broadcaster in giving you commentary on what took place during the cross -examination period on the debate just a couple of weeks ago and it will be shameless it will not be as good as he does it in fact he warns us amateurs not to try to do what he does but I'm gonna take a shot at it anyways so we're gonna listen to a section of debate but before we do that to understand what happened during the cross -examination you'd understand two things a mr.

Staples was simply out of control during the Bible answer man broadcast at times even though he was given significantly more time to answer questions and to say things than I was in fact if you listen to the broadcast you can listen to him at equip org the first two anyways and same thing happened when mr.

Aiken James Aiken was on the program I get about 40 percent of time and the Roman Catholic gets about 60 percent of time just time it out for yourself actually

I think that's conservative I think it's more like about 65 35 but I expect that because it's a quote -unquote

Protestant program and so to be fair you're gonna give the person who's sort of in the minority the opportunity of saying more so even when

I would speak and this is especially true in the third hour even when I would speak mr. Staples could not keep his mouth shut and when he disagreed with what

I was saying he would simply talk over me and say that's a lie and there's one point in the third hour where Hank Hanegraaff tries to go to the next caller and mr.

Staples will not stop talking he talks over Hank and he talks over the caller to try to finish his point he will not stop talking well this caused myself

Warren Smith who traveled over with me hi Warren don't drive off the road and Eddie Dalkour our friend from Southern California who were in the studio we're talking afterwards and we go man this does not bode well for the debate because in a debate you have to follow the rules and especially in the cross -examination period you've got to follow the rules and so before the debate started

I said to Jerry Usher who was the moderator of the debate I said mr. Usher I have some concerns last time mr.

Staples couldn't follow the time limits and if you listen to the tape you'll hear the time going off and mr.

Staples just keeps right on a rolling I said I want strict adherence to the time limits secondly

I don't think you can handle the cross -examination that we've designed and what was the cross -examination the cross -examination was the free -flowing scholarly kind of cross -examination where the person asking the questions only asks questions you don't argue you don't make statements you ask questions on the subject of the debate and specifically on the issues that have already been raised that's what cross -examination is supposed to be the person responding does not filibuster they do not avoid the question they give short concise question and responses to the questions that are asked and I said to mr.

Usher I do not believe that Tim Staples is capable of doing this I was very upfront I was very straightforward and he said well we will talk with him before the debate begins mr.

Staples got there about 20 minutes before it was to begin we had a huddle mr. Staples myself and Jerry Usher we met behind the stage back behind the curtains and I again voiced my concern and mr.

Staples even though I said now did you all watch the debate with Mitch Pacwa did you see how we did the question answer yes we watched that I said that's how it needs to be done mr.

Staples said he would abide by the rules I'm a standing not two feet from him he looks at me and says

I can do it that's what I'll do now why is that important well once we start playing some sections you'll see why now the second thing you need to understand to really understand the question answer period especially the first few minutes is what happened at the end of my rebuttal period at the end we each had 15 minute rebuttal periods and at the end of our 15 minute rebuttal periods we took a 15 minute break and the question answer period began right after the 15 minute break so right before the breaks to start now

I've got the last word because I'm the one denying so mr. Staples went first then I went second both in our presentations and on our rebuttals so right before the end and if you're listening last week you heard this right before the end of my period presented something and I have my debate notes right in front of me and I'm gonna read you what it says it takes four minutes and 45 seconds by the way but I'll probably read it a little bit faster than I did before because I want to get all this stuff in here's what

I said I would like to provide a very cogent example of the problem with papal infallibility authority and the matter of how we have to interpret when the

Pope is allegedly teaching infallibly it will be cogent because it speaks directly to what we are doing here this evening my opponent this evening mr.

Tim Staples is not an ordained priest he is to my knowledge a layman yet in his tape series on infallibility he makes it very plain that he considers it heresy to say at the only time you have to obey the

Pope is when the Pope is speaking ex cathedra in responding to a priest who said that to him mr.

Staples replied with great zeal quote and here's Tim Staples from his own tape series quote you know

I almost fell over I'm like have you ever read anything from the documents of the church have you read anything how about unum sanctum which was written in the 14th century it says we are bound not by just what the

Pope teaches about faith and morals but juridically whatever the Pope says you and I are bound to if he says tomorrow we're gonna say the mass in Swahili in the

United States he has the authority to do that and we are bound to obey have you ever heard this

I love the papacy I love the Pope but only when he speaks ex cathedra if he's not speaking ex cathedra then

I don't have to obey him I can do whatever I want that is a heresy folks that is a heresy from way back that's what he says unquote so he says it's a heresy to say you only have to obey the

Pope and he's speaking ex cathedra then I continue with my notes I can truly appreciate mr. Staples position however it seems to place him in a difficult position given what we read in the

Catholic Encyclopedia of 1917 under the topic religious discussions here here's what we read quote it is not then surprising that the question of disputations with heretics has been made the subject of ecclesiastical legislation by decree of Alexander the fourth inserted in Sextus Decretialum book 5 chapter 2 and still in force all laymen are forbidden under threat of excommunication to dispute publicly or privately with heretics on the

Catholic faith the text reads quote we furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute either private or public concerning the

Catholic faith whosoever shall act contrary to this decree let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication unquote continuing with the

Catholic Encyclopedia it says this law like all penal laws must be very narrowly construed the terms

Catholic faith and dispute have a technical signification the former term refers to questions purely theological the latter to disputations more or less formal and engrossing the attention of the public there are numerous questions somewhat connected with theology which many laymen who have received no scientific theological training can treat more intelligently than a priest but when there is a question of dogmatic or moral theology every intelligent layman will concede the propriety of leaving the exposition and defense of it to the clergy and quote and I continue with what

I said the article goes on to lay out the limitations in which even clergy must function and documents this decree is fully relevant to our debate this evening as Rome had likewise forbidden even priests from engaging in debates on theological topics with those the

Reformation and even as recently as less than a century ago Rome had cited these decrees to forbid

Catholics from engaging in disputes with socialists the point is obvious if the Pope is infallible and if as mr.

Staples said so strongly on his tape series Catholics are bound to obey even his juridical pronouncements even when he is not speaking ex cathedra then it follows inevitably that mr.

Staples need to show us where this decree of Alexander the fourth from the sexist decree she alum has been rescinded or why it is not obviously applicable to what we are doing this evening or explain why it was once valid for a

Pope to teach this but it no longer is and in any situation mr. Staples will have to engage in private interpretation of the papal decree and what if there are other decrees likewise relevant there is simply unknown to us this illustrates the problem with thinking that papal infallibility provides the kind of assurance

Roman Catholic apologists often assert that it does indeed it has been suggested to me that we offer mr.

Staples two options if he continues the debate he will need to explain why Alexander the fourth whom he would identify as the vicar of Christ and infallible successor of Peter centuries ago for bad

Catholics from doing what he himself is doing tonight in the exact same context and the other option is that mr.

Staples will obey Alexander the fourth decree and I will get the rest the evening more slowly and fully explained the reasons for not believing in papal infallibility since we are now going to take a 15 -minute break

I for one will be looking forward to finding out which direction mr. Staples will go now we take a break and then we're doing cross -examination cross -examination is not a rebuttal period the only period in which mr.

Staples by debate rules would have a time to respond to this would be during his final closing statement however that's not how it went so mr.

Pierce if you would be so kind as to know the table test 12 minutes to cross -examine mr.

White mr. White my first first I I think

I should respond to what you said stop the tape that's a pretty good impersonation mr.

Staples this is the cross -examination period it is not a rebuttal period it is not time for you to respond to what has been said in the previous parts of the debate it is cross -examination you're supposed to be asking questions if he insisted on having a rebuttal period then what would have been fair would have been for him to go to the moderator say look

I need to have a minute or two minutes to respond to what was said right before the break and then what would have been fair to give me the exact same period of time to respond to what he said that's what debates are all about mr.

Staples that's how it's supposed to be done but that's not how it was done let's continue with the tape and as far as the matter of not being able to speak and present the

Catholic position that's a matter that's hundreds of years old there's a new code of canon law and a new catechism that's a matter of jurist it's a juridical matter not a matter of dogma and those matters change and the catechism the

Catholic Church says that we as Catholics all of us as does the decree on the laity in Vatican to says that all

Catholics have both the right and the duty to defend the Catholic faith so at any rate stop the tape stop the tape you hear the people that's wonderful that's wonderful well he could have said the

Pope is cool and they would have given him a standing ovation at the same time but mr.

Staples since you didn't want to give me the same amount of time that you took to provide rebuttals let me point out to you that's not an answer you say there's a new code of canon law how do you know that are you an infallible interpretive canon law the new encyclopedia of the

Catholic the old encyclopedia the Catholic Church says that that was still in force in 1917 are you saying there's a new canon law since 1917 if there's a new canon law then what happened the old canon law if it was infallible back then is it infallible now aren't you just engaging in private interpretation let me let me mention something

I don't think mr. Staples had ever heard of the decree of Alexander the fourth and so we get a a basically an impromptu interpretation how does he know that's right did he contact

Rome I didn't see him on a cell phone numbers to get into Italy how does he know that he's right about that Catholic apologists are constantly doing this issue of private interpretation and how are we supposed to know they're right and if these things are dogmatic and if these things are relevant to the very salvation of our souls why should we follow them we should have we should have

Pope John Paul online every night for live chat so that people can get their infallible guidance on understanding these things if of course the arguments that are being presented are valid okay well let's let's hear what the first question now remember we're supposed to be asking concise questions let's hear mr.

Staples first question I got a no no no I got now a question for you is we believe as Catholics that the

Bible establishes very clearly that the scripture is the infallible inspired

Word of God we agree on that however my question for you is how do we in fact know let's say for example the epistle to the

Hebrews to this day we do not know who wrote it Mark's gospel Luke's gospel who are not written but they are not written by Apostles how do we know that those books should be included in sacred scripture how do we know in fact that we have 27 books of the

New Testament if sola scriptura is the principle whereby we determine all of our dogmas and doctrines stop the tape stop the tape stop the tape not only did that take 50 seconds almost an entire minute to ask but it seems that mr.

Staples went into a time warp that was the topic of the debate in 1996 and if you listen to the tapes you'll discover that he already asked that question in 1996 the topic today is papal infallibility not the canon of scripture

I would be happy to debate these Catholic apologists on the canon of scripture

I would be happy to have the time to actually develop the concept defend the concept and point out to people hey you know what you don't have any meaningful answers to the issue of the canon saying well the

Pope told me is not a meaningful answer to the issue of the canon and I had to point out over and over again that for example

Pope Gregory the Great had a different canon as them than the modern Roman Catholic Church if any of you are interested we did a debate at least on the

Apocrypha against gerrymatics at Boston College in 1993 we make that available so you can you can debate issues the canon

I think quite successfully with Roman Catholics but that's not the subject of the debate is it it's papal infallibility and so the first question and we were already about two minutes into the cross examination period okay two minutes into it and the first question so far has not even touched on the subject of debate we've had a rebuttal period and then we've had a 52nd giving of a question by mr.

Staples that is not even on the subject of the debate itself and it's only gonna get worse folks so we're gonna take a break and then we'll be right back here on the dividing line 1 -888 -550 -1360

I'd like to at least try to get through his questions and answers and maybe mine so we're gonna be a little quick on the on the calls but if you'd like to call in now now's your time to do it we'll be right back and welcome back to dividing line we are listening to the cross examination period during the debate held in Fullerton and let's go right back to it with my response to mr.

Staples a fundamental misapprehension of the nature of the canon the can is not something the church creates by her authority the can exists because of the work of inspiration the

Holy Spirit and just as the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament and during the period of time between the

Old and New Testaments was able to guide the people of God to a passive recognition of what

God had inspired so much so that Jesus could hold men accountable to the scriptures without any infallible source for them to go to to know what those scriptures were the same thing as it happens in the

New Testament and I think this is clearly evident in the fact that in the differences that you and I have over the issue of the canon that the canon that I hold to is the same can that was held to by Jesus and the

Apostles by Athanasius by origin by Jerome and interestingly enough by Gregory the great bishop of Rome as well the first of the great medieval

Popes okay you didn't answer the question though let me perhaps you didn't hear it let me read I heard it fine so you don't need to suggest that let me rephrase it how do we know that we have 27 books of the

New Testament not 28 not 29 not 25 for example we have men fathers of the church early

Christian writers as well that deny certain books of the Bible that you and I accept say origin who said second

Peter is doubtful say Eusebius who said revelation is spurious said other books were doubtful like second

Peter and other books of the New Testament Hebrews I believe second and third

John my question is now we as Catholics understand that tradition precedes sacred scripture just as in the

Old Testament the family of God answer the family of God existed 430 years before the scriptures began to be wrote down we understand that tradition precedes and then you have an authority that declares what the books of the

Bible are I'm asking you what is your who is your authority for declaring which books of the

Bible are the books of the Bible again I heard your question just fine I point out it was based upon a misapprehension of the nature of the canon seemingly you seem to feel that there is a need for an infallible authority to define the canon of Scripture and I saw before you sir this is supposed to be question answer you're asking me questions and I give you answers and authority sir let me finish my answer okay

I believe that since the Lord Jesus Christ could hold men accountable for what the scriptures were without any infallible authority that I have the exact same foundation that the person living 50 years before Christ had for knowing that Isaiah was scripture or Deuteronomy was scripture and that is

I believe God has a purpose and inspiring that which is the honest us and that God will not allow the purpose which is the edification of his people to go amiss and to go without fruition and therefore

God has led his people to recognize not to the use of an infallible authority or some authority external to scripture but through his guidance of his people in a passive way to recognize that which he has inspired which is the honest us okay and what is your biblical proof for that the biblical proof is found for example the fact that in Matthew chapter 22 the

Lord Jesus holds men accountable for what God has spoken to them in scripture he said that what is what they read in scripture is what

God has spoken to them from the premise of your question they should have responded and said oh but we don't have an infallible authority to tell us what is and is not scripture so you can't hold us accountable since they did not the very premise of your question is flawed and in error actually mr.

white no my point my question was what was the authority by which the people let's say of 50 years before Christ what was the authority they had in order to determine what the cannon was it's obvious to me that the authority must be outside of the scriptures because the scriptures themselves don't tell us there is no divinely inspired table of contents but anyway no that was it that was another question you asked a question and I will now answer that my next question is there you asked me a question and then the error of your statement why did you continue to ask for an authority outside of the stop the tape did you hear what he said there

I didn't ask you a question in other words he's admitting that what he had just said for 30 seconds wasn't a question he was arguing a point folks this is the same man who stood two feet from me and said

I will abide by the rules of cross -examination I will ask succinct questions

I will expect succinct answers the exact same individual who upon standing behind the podium in front of his his followers all of a sudden what was said only if you know an hour or two hours beforehand somehow gets forgotten let's continue and since scripture is

God speaking you were asking for an authority above that which God says and that is not what the scripture teaches

I'm asking if we have disagreement among the fathers of the church which is an historical fact there was disagreement among the church fathers for hundreds of years as you pointed out which screams of the necessity the obvious necessity for a church and Jesus gave us one in Matthew 1815 to 18 is that a question sir and there's no sense in going over it again because I I just don't think you're seeing things ok the next question is this

St. Athanasius in his history of the

Aryans part for section 42 says referring to Bishop Hosias while he is in his own place the rest also continue in their churches for he is able by his arguments in his faith to persuade all men against us he is the president of councils and his letters are everywhere attended to he it was who put forth the nice thing confession and proclaimed everywhere that the

Aryans were heretics referring to Hosias who according to St. Athanasius presided at the councils of Nicaea and Sardica now if he did in fact and by the way in day for the section five

Athanasius goes on to say when was there a council held in which he did not take the lead and his history book 3 chapter 12 says similarly that Hosias and protagonists who was

Bishop of Sardica presided at that council why is it that if the

Bishop of Rome did not have authority over or the final word on these councils why did

Hosias at Sardica which Athanasius said he presided at why does he then and I quote from Sozomans now this is a 4th century historian not a 19th century

Protestant historian from the 4th century he writes fearing perhaps less they should be suspected of making innovations upon the doctrines of Nicaea they appealed to Julius why do they appeal to Julius if Hosias is the presider that took a minute and 40 seconds

I didn't say to stop you ruined the whole effect I'm not sure what the question is but I will tell you this that at the council of Nicaea Hosias it is often said was representing the

Bishop of Rome if you're making that statement I would say to you that is actually an error secondly there were many appeals made to many of those who sat in the apostolic sees which included

Julius many issues were referred to many bishops you have the Roman deacons referring issues to Cyprian and calling him

Pope a hundred years earlier that does not in any way shape or form mean anything outside the fact that you cannot provide a quotation from Athanasius where he says that the

Nicene Creed depends for its authority and its foundation upon the statement of the

Roman Bishop is the infallible vicar of Christ next question since I have to make it a question

I'm not allowed to say that all Christians both Orthodox and Catholic understand that the

Roman Pontiff must stop the tapes that do you hear that do you hear that he knows he's not even making a pretense he knows well

I know that I'm not supposed to actually say this however I'm not supposed to say that and then

I mean over the radio you may not be able to hear it but I'm it through the headphones and you can hear in the background you can hear people laughing you can hear people laughing because it's so obvious that there's absolutely no concern whatsoever for what's what's going on as far as what is supposed to be being done but let's let's let's continue on this is in order for them to be a council but at any

Roman Catholic historians disagree with you found Lee on that issue my next question is this if it is true what you say about the condemnation now we need to understand that the nature of the condemnation as I said

Pope st. Leo the second made very clear concerning on Aureus was not because of a formal heresy that he taught but was because of his negligence his actions his sin in his negligence now if it's true however that on Aureus was a heretic in the sense that you want to say that he is that he was a formal heretic why is it that Pope Agatho and his letter was read at the

Council of Constantinople in the fourth session where he says this is the rule of the true faith which the spiritual mother of your most tranquil Emperor the

Apostolic Church of Christ has both in prosperity and adversity always held and defended this church by the grace of Almighty God has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition that is the

Roman Church nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations but from the very beginning she has received the

Christian faith from her founders and it goes on now if st.

Agatho makes this statement at the Council then and then fourth Council of Constantinople we have in the canons if you read canon 7 through 21 the father's make it very clear that in the future we must be sure unless there be any outrageous statements made again against the

Bishop of Rome that the Bishop of Rome first be appealed to why is it you continue to hold to or why is it that you say that these men believed that Pope on error on Aureus taught heresy in a formal sense now again

I want to emphasize guys we acknowledge the Pope yeah guys sinned by his negligence according to st.

Leo the second in his ratification of the council but the question is given all of these facts seen

Pope st. Agatho and the fourth Council of Constantinople in her canons how can you hold to the fact that on Aureus taught formal heresy stop the tape what was that three minutes three minutes of reading stuff and reading statements and I mean not even trying to act like there is there there is a cross -examination period going here

I actually stood back from the from the podium I went stood back next to what I should have done you know how y 'all sit back go off if I just thought about what

I should have done I should have sat down I said should sat down my desk and when it came time for when he finally got done

I could have looked over oh is there a question there that's what I should have done are you gonna say something could

I have objected if I had a moderator the next debate we're gonna do on Long Island on purgatory we're going to have a moderator who will be actively involved in controlling everything a trained debate judge moderator who will shut you up if you break the rules he will say no sir that's not a relevant topic please continue on he will he will control the debate for both sides and that's gonna make a big big difference

I can guarantee you that but it's not even making a semblance of trying here so let's finish up with his stuff I would be glad to respond to that by the way by the way that had exhausted his time the 12 minutes were up he went all the way past the 12 minutes asking that question so here he's asking a question allegedly

I have no time to respond to it so that's what I was asking the moderator what are we gonna do not or I said you don't have to answer because he used up all his own time go ahead

I would like to point out that this mr. Staples you have violated our agreement on these questions egregiously over the past 12 minutes

I'd like to how's that because you're not asking questions you're making statements I asked and I will be glad yeah at the end of five minutes

I would be glad to point out first of all Leo did not change the wording of the council you have never quoted

Leo in saying that honorius was not condemned for heresy you have not dealt with the words of the sixth council you have not dealt with the words the seventh council you have not dealt with the words the eighth council or the trolling council and your quotation of Agatha sir is glaringly out of context

I would invite anyone the whole letter Pope Agatha's letter is available in the last volume of the early church fathers set read the whole thing and ask yourself one question ask yourself one question does

Agatha ever once mentioned honorius answer no and the sixth ecumenical council in writing to honorius is there a reason for you holding that up sir sure okay you need to understand what's going on here mr.

Staples stands in front of the audience and he's holding a photocopy of Agatha's letter and he's just holding out in front of the audience just see see

I've got it right here got it right here that's what's going on there can I start my 12 minutes oh yeah okay okay all right all right well

I was in fact I was there's the crowd there's a go ahead and stop it there for a second there's the crowd there's the Catholic crowd you didn't answer the question they don't see the time frame and evidently don't have any concern about the fact that their champion has been violating the time frames all over the place in fact

I'd like to thank spin stir in our in our chat room spin stir took the time to listen to these these cross -examinations and he informed me this morning that if you include one section where I insisted on giving an answer mr.

Staples asked in 12 minutes five questions five questions in 12 minutes now in the next section we're going to play we have to start pretty quickly to hear my entire cross -examination if you don't include yes or no sir if you not include repetitive questions our friend in California who counted them counted 31 questions will be asked of mr.

Staples that's the difference between obeying the rules and debating and filibustering and posturing for your audience so here now is my 12 -minute cross -examination of mr.

Staples stop the clock you don't have to well I understand that this is what

I was expecting let me ask you a few questions mr. Staples does Pope Agatho use the name

Honorius in his letter yes or no he says can I quote him you are you just did can you answer the question yes or no does

Pope Agatho make reference to honorius in his letter to the six ecumenical council yes or no no he says the

Bishop of Rome and so the answer is no sir leaders faith the apostolic pontiffs and my predecessors that means does he say use the name okay thank you he does include

Pope Honorius okay may I continue you can't may I continue sir did the six ecumenical council write to Pope Agatho and say the following words we have destroyed the fort of the heretics and slain them with anathema in accordance with the sentence spoken before in your holy letter namely

Theodore of Perrin Sergius Honorius Cyrus etc did the council say that yes and does that say that they have anathematized

Honorius as a heretic sir they've condemned him yes they used the word anathema that's right okay let me ask you as well sir in the 13th session of the sixth ecumenical council is there a condemnation found of Honorius yes were his letters burned before the ecumenical the sixth ecumenical council as being hurtful to the soul that I don't know it's irrelevant the fact is he was condemned for his actions in the sixth for his teaching yes so his letters were actions or were they teachings his letters were teaching okay thank you indicated his negligence in the 16th session the bishops exclaimed anathema to the heretic

Honorius is that true or false sir that is true is this an ecumenical council sir yes it is our ecumenical councils infallible sir when they are ratified by the

Pope that had not been yet please show me a single individual excuse me could you show me a single canon existing before the sixth ecumenical council that says that councils are not proper councils until ratified by the

Bishop of Rome a canon yes sir any statement of a of any council at all of the first five ecumenical councils the one that preceded the sixth which one of those councils told us that they cannot be true councils until ratified by the

Bishop of Rome well they don't have to James so you you would say that you don't know of one you don't have to James it's like asking where in the book of the where in the

Bible do we have a list of the 27 books therefore we can't have them it's irrelevant if you are saying it is your assertion sir mr.

Staples it is your assertion yes it is your assertion that the members of the sixth ecumenical council believed as you that the

Pope is infallible and that their counsel was dependent upon the authority of the

Pope to be a valid counsel is that your assertion that's right but when I asked for any statement by any council that preceded them or the sixth ecumenical council itself are you saying you just don't need to do that no not that you don't need to do that but what what we see is in action all of the councils as both our

Greek Orthodox brothers and Catholics all reputable historians anyone who would honestly examine the facts know that this is the lived faith of the church you don't have an ecumenical council until the patriarchs why do

Roman Catholic scholars such as Rome sir why do I'm until you've answered the question sir you've answered the question why do

Roman Catholic scholars such as Merdinger Klotz and others disagree with you are they not at teaching at the

Catholic University of America American Catholic University they are not true scholars is that the problem well we do have some problems with some who call themselves

Catholics but what I want to emphasize here is we need to take a look at history and the historical facts are very simple whether you look at the statements of st.

Athanasius concerning Nicaea and Sardica which was the president of yet he appealed to the

Bishop of Rome as and I find it interesting that even the Eastern Orthodox to this day acknowledge the

Council of Sardica or at least up until the year 1024 acknowledged the

Council of Sardica okay thanks authoritative and said that you can thank you sir thank you sir are you aware of the

Pseudo -Isidorean Decretal sir yes are you aware they were yes and you're aware they're written 200 years before the split with East they are false are you aware they're written 200 years before the split with the

East sure and as a result when you say that the East agrees with what they said all of them go back to the same false decretals correct no okay in fact we have modern

Orthodox as well as Russians Russian Orthodox who acknowledged the

Council of Sardica not based on any pseudo decretals but on history could

I ask you why it is that the Council of Trullo which met 12 years after the

Council of Constantinople said the following that we confess in the

Lord Jesus there is one will and that they we I'm sorry but there are two natural wills or volitions and two natural operations and condemned by a just sentence those who adulterated the true doctrine and taught the people that in the one

Lord Jesus Christ there is but one will and one operation to wit Theodore Cyrus Honorius of Rome Sergius etc etc if you're right and all the church believed that it was

Leo's letters that corrected the Sixth Ecumenical Council why is it the 12 years later another council condemns

Honorius as a heretic and in fact having taught the people then the one

Lord Jesus Christ there is but one will the Council of Trullo is not an ecumenical council number one

I'm not aware of that that you just read from the Council of Trullo however I do know it's not one of its 21 ecumenical councils and what all

Catholics acknowledge and Orthodox are not local councils do not have binding authority on the universal church would that include people in Carthage that's right okay thank you in Carthage now this the second

Nicene Council is ecumenical right yes the seventh ecumenical which council the second

I see the seventh ecumenical council yes we affirm that in Christ there be two wills and two operations according to the reality of each nature as also the sixth synod held held at Constantinople taught casting out

Sergius Honorius Cyrus and those who agree with them and all those who are unwilling to be reverent could you explain why this seventh ecumenical council which is ecumenical likewise somehow did not know about Leo's words and did not make a correction in their wording so as to reflect

Leo's infallible guidance I want you to notice the words he was not the second Council of Nicaea did not condemn him as a heretic he was once again condemned for his negligence in fact the word their heretic was not even used but we have to remember

Pope Leo the second in ratifying the council made it very clear what he was condemned for he was condemned for negligence could you quote exactly what

Leo says and explain why it is that these words do not mean that Leo Honorius was a heretic who did not illuminate this apostolic see with the doctrine of apostolic tradition but permitted her who was undefiled to be polluted by profane teaching could you tell me where in this letter he corrects he says the sixth ecumenical council was wrong he was not a heretic instead he was merely negligent could you show us those words where he says that or is that just your interpretation of his words you read the words he said very clearly there did anybody hear him condemned so let me ask you

I'm just wondering because I let me answer the question what Pope Leo the second said very clearly is he permitted the faith to be stained by his negligence not by teaching and if you not by teaching overtly heresy okay but where does he say that difference where do

I I'm sorry is that has the church ever infallibly interpreted Leo's words or is just this your private interpretation of this that goes against the interpretation of many

Roman Catholic scholars who have studied history for longer than you and I have been alive together well I'm afraid that is the end of our time let's go ahead and stop that that's the end of our time it was a fascinating time how can you get this debate www .aomin

.org is where you need to go to order it online www .aomin .org if you have anyone considering the claims of Roman Catholicism that's where you need to go to get this debate and many others thanks for being with us today on the dividing line we will be taking your calls next week thanks those who called we just couldn't get to you because I talked too much but anyways thanks for being with us today

God bless we back next week the dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries if you'd like to contact us call us at 602 -973 -0318 or write us at P .O.

Box 366 Phoenix Arizona 85069 you can also find us on the worldwide web at www .aomin

.org that's www .aomin .org where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks join us again next