The Roman Catholic Controversy Part 11

Papal Infallibility and the Catholic Claim from John 21

You can give us your spirit to grant us insight into the mysteries of your work. Father, help us to approach this topic of papal invalidity.

With a sense of reverence and a sense of sacredness.

As we look at the one who truly inspires all things in sacred scripture, the Lord Jesus Christ, by whom a scripture of a writer is received and spread across the world. Father, bring out and grant us your keys to inspire all things in the world for the good of humanity and the benefit of humanity.

All right, beloved people, we are still in chapter eight of chapter eight, and we're going to take a look at some of the precepts used to justify the doctrine of papal invalidity. And the first verse we're going to look at in depth is in John 21, verse 15 to 17.

And so we have to look at page 113, and the scripture is quoted there. And so all of this is by, it's kind of going to use some, I was looking into some apologetic words from Catholics. On the subject, I'm just going to read to you from,.

Okay, this is a pretty official source, it's not in the Catholic analysis.

The Catholic Catholics, I've shown you before, this is kind of the rule of faith for Catholics. If you are willing to be confirmed in the Roman Catholic Church, if you're reading it through the book, through the skepticism, these are all official, you know, doctrinal units of the Roman Catholic Church.

But what's the next big, best option, I'll tell you about this, is probably the extremely most common, which is catholic .com. Okay, so pretty official in terms of the internet. And here's what they write about this text in particular.

In regard to that, it's an explanation. Now, let's process this first. What do we mean by, or what is supposed to be papal validity? In the context, right, so papal validity means that when the pope is speaking ex cathedra, he's in his papal capacity, he is invaluable.

But this doesn't mean that every single thing that the pope produces, not every word that comes out of the pope's mouth is inherently valuable. Matter of fact, from Catholic history, there's been a number of cases that there's something conflicting in the post.

Pope Benedict was viewed as very moderate,.

Which is to say, conservative, wasn't really.

But in the Roman Catholic world, he was viewed as very conservative. Pope Francis is viewed as moderate, very liberal. Now, the reason why Benedict was viewed as conservative was because he was on the hard line, not necessarily on important doctrinal issues, or even social issues, but on ecclesiastical issues.

He was very conservative as to his ecclesiastical understanding of the Church, meaning that he vested a lot of power and authority within the usual channels of the Church. Versus Pope Francis, who usually usurps his ecclesiastical authority.

And so he's constantly coming to the bar, he's constantly coming to official work at the convent. For instance, when he says that you can't go to heaven, what he actually probably means is that there's an opportunity for them to go to heaven if it's been a time of purgatory, but he doesn't really go to heaven in that.

That's likely what his position would be. But he says a lot of things that maybe can look a little bit liberal, progressive, a little bit, but really the only difference between Pope Benedict and Pope Francis was how conservative are all the other world leaders today, but they do all think of themselves in certain areas.

So this doesn't mean that everything that a Pope says, or a newspaper, or an interview, or even when he's preaching a sermon, doesn't mean that it's a foul, that makes you a liberal Catholic, or something.

Simply put, when an official channels, when doing something in what they refer to as a theater, that's when he is exercising his infallibility. And here's what they say in regards to this text that we're examining from John 21, it's one of the texts, that infallibility, and I know we're looking at Catholicism, this is an apologetic word in regards to the infallibility of the Pope.

The infallibility of the Pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in church teachings as a decree, rather it is a doctrine that was implicit in the early church. What's the difference between implicit and explicit?

Implicit, you kind of have to read between the lines. Say again? Implicit, you have to read between the lines to actually read it, whereas explicit.

You tell your kid, go to your room. Is that explicit or implicit? Explicit. You say nice in your room. Explicit or implicit? Implicit. Implicit, right. Now let's see if these scriptures meet that criteria, that they're very important.

Again, they're using a doctrine that is implicit in the early church. It is only our understanding of infallibility that it has developed in the more through the more time. So they're saying this is something that was already in the scripture, but our understanding of it, and this is the claim, in fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these petrified texts.

John 21, 15, 17, where Jesus tells Peter, feed my sheep. Luke 22, 32, where it says, I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail, in relation to Peter. And Matthew 16, 18, where it says, before Peter, come this rock and build my church.

Let's see if these texts are implicit or explicit, or maybe something else is higher, in relation to the claims of the Roman Catholic Church. So again, on page 113. So they finish writing, sign this up, John, do you love me?

Or, he said to them, yes, Lord, you know that I love you. He said to them, thank my hands. He said to them, yes, sign this up, John, do you love me? He said to them, yes, Lord, you know that I love you.

He said to them, sign it, shepherd my sheep. He said to them, sign it, John, do you love me? Peter was grieved as he said to them, do you love me? He said to them, Lord, you know all things. You know that I love you.

Which is that, we can draw off this text. One of the things is that this is a clear, you know, talking back to what Peter did in the Gospels and what was that, what did Peter do three times? He died three times.

The nine, he died three times. Now, here is being asked by his Lord three times, do you love me, do you love me, do you love me? And Peter being a hothead when he is, isn't a hothead. Like, he's not sinning through it, right?

He's like a petulant child who's just ambitious. Like, you know everything, right? Like, why am I, like, why are we having this conversation? Lord, you know all things. And he's not sinning less than Jesus.

If Peter was an evildoer, one thing he had to come to law and they're all kind of fooling themselves. And Peter had a little bit of that in themselves as well.

But what's interesting about this text is that.

Peter, the Shepherd, and the Limits of Papal Infallibility

Now we're here, in my view, extra-serving implicit is your aim to remove validity. Can you draw that conclusion anywhere from the text, just by reading it? So if you're in a death trial, 522, what does the conclusion you would like to draw?

Now, that doesn't mean that that's, just because you want to draw that conclusion that it is not right, which is probably clear. But typically, the simple, just baseline reading of the text is usually the right answer.

It's usually the, basically the right answer to the text. So nowhere do we see extra-serving implicit, anything about infallibility of Peter. And it actually is sort of a rebuke to Peter, in a sense, to show that he is, in fact, fallible, part of the impact of the intervention of Jesus Christ.

And so that's why, again, with the three, Bryce, question, the command, do you love me? If you do, feed my sheep, tend my sheep, feed my sheep. It's a subtle rebuke, actually, to Peter, because he denied Christ, now he's saying, do not deny my body, do not deny my people.

Feed them, care for them, shepherd them, pastor them. Because Peter is not a pope, but Peter is a pastor. How do we know that with the text? Feed my sheep, shepherd my sheep. What is a pastor? It is a shepherd, literally what the word pastor means.

It's a shepherd. So he's not the first pope, but he's certainly among the first pastors of the Christian church. In fact, Peter is the one who steps up on the day of Pentecost and preaches the grace sermon that leads to the salvation of 3 ,000 people.

And so Peter is indeed among some of the first pastors of the Christian church, not the first pope. There's nothing here in the text that would implicitly or implicitly make it implicitly Peter's sheep.

Any other questions on this text? Yes. Why does Jesus ask if Simon loves me more than these?

Why does he ask that question? Because in Matthew chapter 16, there's an argument about who's the best amongst the apostles, right? That's where he ends up saying, Jesus loves me more than I am. And so the rebuke is subtle in that he's saying, do you love me more than these?

Remember, you're the one who says that you love me the most, right? And so then, you know, you might as well prove it. Demonstrate your love. And Jesus says, John, if you love me, you will obey me and keep my commandments.

And so he is challenging Peter to rise to the occasion. Any other thoughts or questions on the text from 18 to 13 when we're examining John 21, verse 17 on the papal place? Now, when you examine some of your church fathers on the text, you have people like Sir Alexander, who is a third or fourth century Christian writer.

And he does not view this text as establishing Peter as the person of God. And so, he has a very far-off understanding of this text. In fact, I was just reading the whole quote, and I'll just read the kind of halfway through.

Because he had already been chosen to the apostleship, but because he had fallen from a very good career, he had praised the high Lord, he now feels that he's sick, and he's asked a threefold confession that lays in a scriptural line, so you see that parallel that is drawn there.

Contrasting the fall of the ladder, encompassing the fall of the direction. That's the point of this text. That's the point of this text. And that's the point why, again, Jesus asks those three times, do you love, do you love, do you love?

Do you deny them three times? This is a kind of a compensation for that, and a compensation for the fall of the direction. So, very far-off understanding. So, again, you would draw the conclusion that from the text of John 21, that Peter is the first pope.

Again, a more fabulous argument that he's the most of the first apostles. Clearly, clearly. But is the past the same as the pope? No. Peter, in the past, for reasons of authority, and he's claimed that he's avowal of every pope.

And this is, again, why I was shy when you called him a proposal,.

But it really is a pope. It's a very large pope, but it's a pope nonetheless.

And so, you have to kind of call it as you see it. Now, because of the fact that Peter was, in fact, a pastor, a shepherd, it's no surprise that the fall of his being sheep is no different than the job of a pastor today.

The job of a pastor today is also to feed, guard, protect the sheep, protect our responsibilities, our duty. And it's not unique to St. Peter by any means. How do we know this? Well, in Acts chapter 20 verse 28, we receive this instruction, to be on guard for yourself and for all the flock.

This is a particular instruction to pastors. Be on guard for yourself and for all the flock. Among which, the ones that are immediate overseers, that are overseers, is oftentimes, sometimes it's related to King James Bishop.

And there are those who would distinguish Bishop Helmer. There are those who say there's no distinction between Bishop Helmer. What am I doing with that debate today? But notice what it says. And I believe that the same, that immediate overseers, and this is one of the reasons why I think this is important, to what?

To shepherd, pastor, the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood. So the overseer is related to the pastor in this text. And this is a responsibility of all pastors, of all worshipers, of all bishops, not just one in particular in a particular room.

The Holy Spirit has made you. That's right. It's like he's in charge. That's right. You know, that, I mean, that's what the Pope is trying to take the place of, right?

There is nothing in the council that establishes that person as an overseer versus an overseer. Right. Any thoughts or questions on that? So we see clearly, yeah. Oh, when Peter says, do you love me more than these?

What was the cross-reference? I believe it was mentioned when the serf picked him up as a son of God. Of who is the greatest among them. So here in text 10, clearly, John, our patron, our Lord, proclaims the teachings of the Holy Spirit to the people of the world.

And it's a confessional stance on the validity of the book. First, let's look at what Scripture actually teaches now again. So when you guys walk in the door, you get to hear this quote. I'm gonna read it again.

And this is from comfort .com. It's a kind of apologetic response to the protestants who are competing for validity. And it says, again, the value of the book is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in church teaching.

Rather, it is a doctrine that was implicit in the early church. Again, we're discussing the two. Explicit and implicit. Explicit, it's a commandment in your room. Implicit, it is your commandment in your room.

And the difference there. And it says, it's only our understanding of the value. It is only our understanding of the value.

That has developed into a more critical system, a more conscious system. This is something that was established.

In the early scriptures, but our understanding of it kind of grew and became more established. It says, in fact, the doctrine of invalidity is implicit in these feature-written texts, John 21, 15, 17, which is what we just read.

Luke 22, 32, which we're reading on the 19th, 16th, 18th, which is another text, and I think Lane, where you have an implicit statement, or at least at the base of the seed, we're building the law for this doctrine of the origin of the human race.

Clearly, from Peter's confession, and from Peter's constant need for correction, even at the cost of, as we see in Acts chapter 10, was Peter always in battle, and he carried on by the bolster to bring forth divine creatures in teaching.

And, of course, in scripture, right?

And so, you know, Catholics would draw that parallel and say, look at what Peter thought was,.

Or said was perfect, clearly,.

But he's still inspired by the bolster. That's the parallel that they were trying to draw. And instead of that parallel, actually, knowing obviously that there's truth to that in relation to Peter, the question is, is that also true of all the other posts, of all the other men who come after Peter?

Let's continue to examine the scripture. Any questions or remarks?

You sound a little bit mythic-y, but I think we have to remind ourselves that it's the text of scripture that's inspiring.

You could say the Holy Spirit carried him along to say that, because it inspired the barren from the Latin, when Dionysus needs to breathe down. That's right, yeah. Scripture is, obviously, the inalienable being of the Christian, again, from a Catholic point of view.

Because they're barren from the Latin. What's that? Because they're barren from the Latin. Yeah, I mean, there's a myriad of reasons as to why they think that. Of course, our thing, our study, is to disprove what's been said to, and to see what is actually true, and of course, scripture.

But in Luke chapter 22, this is the beginning of a very important book, the Galilean, but they say thus, where it says, I assign to some of you the ability as a man of tradition to serve you like me, but I pray for you, that your faith may not fail, and you, when once you have served a man, to strengthen your brothers.

And so, this is a reading here from Luke chapter 22, and it says that Peter's model Lord is mentioned. The Lord warns Peter's family that he's in danger, he replies, yet Peter replies rationally, verse 33, Lord, with you I am ready to go both to prison and to death, so that you can see the brashness of Peter, always wanting to be the hero of the story.

He says, to which the Lord replies, that Peter will be in God's mind, he replies. For MacArthur, this is a sight that the pastor is confirming once again, the brilliance of Peter. Some have even gone so far as to say that the Lord's prayer for Peter, for Peter's faith, extends to Peter's successors, the Bishop of Arnold, so that their dogmatic teaching are in Arnold.

I don't see this at all. In the text. I'm puzzled to be divided because I'm looking at the text. And I'm being genuinely repressed by their assertions here. It is almost as brash as some of the things made,.

The things made by John's witnesses and other cults.

In regard to their authority. So for instance, there is a group of those I keep forgetting the name, but I've encountered them at least two or three times in my life,.

Who preach the gospel of Mother God. You've heard of it by the scripture? And so there's Mother God.

And Mother Kareem. And the scriptures teach that God is made up of the Father, Son, and God the Father, okay? And they base this off literally, and one of them is our mother, is Jesus Christ.

And from that, they've done this huge job to change the Godhead.

And that's bold. And that would require a lot of two verses of scripture that are very vague, not even on the theological subject that they're thinking it is. And they do this huge job. And I feel like that's what we're counting churches in in relation to people of authority here.

They're taking a text that is unique to an individual at a unique point in time, here, right before the suffering of Christ, and they say, well, this actually was this, and they balloon this as something that is way bigger.

And that is a hallmark of interfaith. They will take a scripture that is sometimes vague, sometimes not very well understood, and they will make a huge doctrinal dogma out of it. And so that is a very strange thing.

It's like the Mormons do with the baptism of the dead. Oh, yeah, it's very contemporary. Yeah, there's one text of scripture in 1 Corinthians 13, where Paul mentions baptism of the dead. And they say, well, there you go, because we're baptized dead people.

I'm now dead, and you all are dead. And so the baptism of the dead is not the actual dead people, but those who are spiritually suffered from Christ, who are now alive in Christ, which is the whole topic of 1 Corinthians 13, is the resurrection of Christ, and our joining in him in that resurrection.

And so, again, just really bad imperatives and exegesis all around when it comes to the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and especially Roman Catholics, especially when we're talking about people, God-related people, authority.

So this is a text that just leaves me perplexed. I guess their reasoning is, and I agree with you, Catholic apologists, is that this conversation between Jesus and Peter, Jesus is singling out Peter, specifically here, and he's calling him, saying, you know, saying he's wanting his foot to be like wheat, and I'm praying that they may not fall.

And the reason for that is, as was explained by James Lane, because he's about to die in three days. So why this special conversation with Peter? Again, we want to talk about the special. What does John, the disciple, say of himself in the Gospels?

That's right. So, you know, Peter's always like, no kidding, no kidding, no kidding, right? But Jesus, you know, according to John, John says, well, I'm actually excited that Jesus loved me, right? You know, how else is this a question when I was the only, you know, that had his heart?

And so, you know, the people know this when we have kids, you know, and every father and every mother should have said this, okay? I love you all the same. Right? And it's true. We should love our children the same.

But you know, the problem with that is, sometimes we love them a little bit differently, because none of our kids are the same. And some kids need a different approach, love, care, discipline. Because I don't think it's readable.

I think that's how Christ views us, and that's the way he viewed his disciples. He viewed them all different. He loved them all, of course. But John said, hey, there's a special relationship here that was maybe just a little bit different.

And Peter also wants that, and I think he's oftentimes jealous of that, because he's the one, I think, very likely to argue amongst who was the greatest Apostles. But again, this is a far cry from what the Catholics can't claim.

And I would say that this is among any group that claims to be the true church, or making a claim of authority. And so, to know whether a church is true or not, one must claim, one must look at everything as authority.

And if those claims are not backed up by scripture, and they're found to be untrue, then by virtue, the church is untrue. So it's very dangerous when a church says, we alone are the true church because of X authority.

And so it's a very dangerous thing. We don't claim to be the only true church. Yeah. That'd be pretty moral. Now, do we claim to be part of the true church? Yes. There's a difference there. Because the level of exclusivity and authority that we're claiming are different volumes here.

We say, hey, we're part of the true church. We are making a pretty bold claim. But if we said, hey, only this church, with 300 members, is the true church, that is blasphemous. Because Christ's church is not limited to one's claiming authority rather than the scripture claiming authority.

Christ is the head of this church. So again, we're examining, in a novel page, we've got several verses, too, you can look at as well, in regard to the big one being Matthew 16. Actually, I want you to just turn to your bibles.

The text comes up often in the church. We have a very unique understanding of the propitiation of this verse.

And so through Matthew 16,.

He asks, it's like, people say that the Son of Man is. As some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, others say Jeremiah or one of the prophets. He said to them, saying, it comes up here, some say that you are John the Baptist, who was just beheaded not that long ago, but we're clearly too mistaken.

Some say that you're, there's an expectation of Elijah returning that you're not a prophet. There's that expectation. And then it says, again, you are, I read to them, there's a group of Christians who believe in re-relation.

You've heard of that? So obviously, associated with these sort of religions. And there are so many of the Christians that they would say, well, the scriptures actually teach a re-relation in these texts.

I don't think that's what the text is pointing to. That's per se. This is a true thought. Clearly, people had some wrong expectations is what I thought of this. People had some really weird eschatology.

And so what's the difference? Right? People have some really weird eschatology. I'm researching, and my wife is traveling in the South right now. You know how hard it is to find a church in the South?

You would think otherwise.

It's hard out there to find a good church.

And so, you know, one church in the South sounds pretty good, but then they're like, okay,.

Stick with it. First thing, we believe in re-relation and rapture. This isn't like this, or this, the first year. You know, I still, you know, I don't get it. But, you know, bad eschatology has been around.

Pretty bad eschatological expectations that some people have. Jesus is beyond baptism, or Elijah, or whatever. But Jesus has said, it's sort of hardly a matter. It isn't correct. This bad eschatological understanding of rapture gets the heart of the issue.

Who do you say that I am? In the sign of Peter, my, he, you are the Christ, the Messiah, the Messiah, the Messiah, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered, Blessed are you, son of our Lord, for flesh and blood have never revealed this to you.

My Father who is in heaven. So again, this is a pretty unique statement, because Jesus praises us all. Peter's confession, and blesses Peter. And says that his understanding was not drawn from, pretty powerful statement in regards to Peter's confession.

And I tell you, you are Peter. Last week I talked about the.

Different degree words that were used here. Petros, Petros, Little Rock, Big Rock.

And then I reached out to, you know, when you brought us up, we're gonna reach out and increase all that interpretation so that people feel like that is more or less a grammatical reason for distinction.

And I say obviously that one is a description, so there's an obviously grammatical difference, but it's also a theological difference in that as well that Jesus is drawing. So I believe in the various, the potential use of the language, you are Peter's small stone.

And on this rock, rock, you know, I believe in the church, Petros, Petros, the distinction that's there. And so you are Peter's small rock. And on this rock, as a matter of fact, we just put it up here because of the theory words for Peter, the rock sounds similar, but that's a different thing.

You know, but the rock that Jesus says, you are Peter's small rock. And on this rock, literally you can translate it as rock mass. It's not just like a rock, it's like a mountain, it's like huge. So he's not saying that Peter is that huge rock mass, rather he is a small piece of that overall rock mass.

And it says that you are, word of action. And it says, I believe I was at only the mouth of a cave that was known as the ocean, but I think it's still within the earth. And so Jesus is making a pretty bold theological claim here, in front of what was viewed as the redeems of Hades.

And so he says, you are Peter, who was talking about the winter, and the gates were cut off. Hades shall not prevail against it. And he says, I will give you the key, and wherever you bind her, she'll be bound to that, wherever you loose her, she'll be loosed to that.

And he told, he strictly charged us to tell him the key was. Well, this is a pretty important text. This is where it basically all boils down to, it all boils down to, is who has the keys of the kingdom?

Right? Who has the power to loose and bind? Now, clearly what is not, which don't deny the cross of Calvary, is that Peter had these keys. Like, we can't deny that. Now, the question is, does Peter now hold an office that is distinct from the other apostles, that is out of the way of the other apostles, and does he alone have these keys, and are these keys transferable only in an office?

You see where the problem begins? If we make this an exclusive mandate and authority and power vested in Peter, then it's a lot of silence because no where else in scripture do we see these keys expressly conferred from Peter to then another person, or to the pope, and then now it's a succession of popes.

You know, we don't see even a hint of that in scripture. So what is the scripture actually saying here and what can you do? Well, again, what's the main point? What's the headline that usually follows this paragraph, or that institution before this paragraph?

Peter declares he is the Messiah. Peter makes the confession of faith, right? So is the point here Peter, or is it the confession that Peter makes? Okay, it's the confession. The whole point of the text is that you are here, and you are a piece of kingdom.

The point here is that you are the Christ, the son of the living God. That's what the emphasis is, okay? That's the main idea. You know, if you're taught in rare earth comparisons in grade school, when you write a paragraph, you put the main idea kind of in the middle, okay?

That way you won't really grasp the long-term meaning of the paragraph.

You see, it can be, for example, if you want to say, if you want to find out.

Right, right. Yeah, I'm definitely not saying that whatever addition to the scripture that this would only be right. But what's interesting is that almost every guideline agrees that the point of this is going to be the confession.

This is the confession that Peter is making. And so ultimately here, what's at significance here is not Peter, but rather the confession that Peter makes. So then to whom are the keys of the key? It is all those who make that.

All those who make that same-like confession shared in the kingdom of the Lord. That is different, obviously, from what Calvin stands for, which says not only, this is conferred to Peter, and only his successor is going to pass.

Then the argument is going to be on both sides. Where's the beef? Where's the doubt? Who is right? What does the scripture say about his tolerance? So I will ask you the question, and I will have you prove to me that this is not about hosts.

How can you demonstrate that in the scriptures?

What is scripture? What is scripture? All the way, all the, you know, how the church got started, Peter was never put in a position of being the, in a way, the barrister that he had. It's not like everything stopped and he was now in charge.

Yeah.

Yeah, there were always councils and we were always talking together. Yes. Or in those groups. That's right. Yeah. Yes. John? No, I just want to clarify what you said. It hit the nail on the head.

It's not that Peter's being emphasized. The Lord Jesus is being emphasized, and the confession is the point. When I think about what you're saying, it seems that the Catholics have taken that and just reversed it.

They've somehow put Peter as the emphasis here, and they hint special object. Jesus has always been the special object of our faith. It's never been transferred to any man. And to make some, to do that, it's just so wrong.

It's like, yeah, it's, and another thing, too, the idea that you pointed out, that the church being built on the rock, it's, in context, it rings true what you were saying, that it's talking about that rock and what that represented to those people during that time, and what they viewed that mountain, that rock, as the gates of hell, literally.

So that had a contextual ramification to the people, to the citizens of that space. They knew that rock.

That's, ooh, don't go near there.

And the idea of the words here is, it's kind of misleading. The gates of hell will not prevail against it. But it's almost as if Satan's put in a position of, we're put in the, Satan's put in the position of.

Here's where I decided, write it and bring it back to India. It wasn't Peter. Yeah. It was James. Actually, I don't know what his position is. The quote, it goes up to no object of authority. Right. He seems somehow exquisite to James.

And James is likely the pastor of the church in Jerusalem. And the church in Jerusalem, her father was the leader of the church in Jerusalem. And that obviously changed the church's history after the destruction of Jerusalem.

So, a few more quotes to add to that. I just found that, you know, Pete. That's right, that's right. Bill, Bill. You know why, you know why. It has, you know, some similarities to the passage in regards to Peter's confession that begins the ministry as well, but this is not about popes, or Peter having some special authority.

And, I mean, again, that's sort of, if you look at verse 18, chapter 18 of Matthew, it goes on to say, truly, I say to you, whatever you find on earth shall be found in heaven. Whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Again, I say to you, two of you agree on earth, on anything, and I say to you, judgment on my Father in heaven. Or two or three are gathered in my name, that am I among you. And the audience here, the disciples, is not just Peter.

Right. That he's talking to here by saying, you guys are able to find anything on earth, you know, in heaven.

And the context is also, this is Church of the Supremacy of Christ, right? This is in the context that establishes the formality of church members to buy and loose, and it happens to be a dream. This is the exact language that we use to use Peter in his kingdom, and he says he has that in Matthew 16.

So from the context of Matthew 16, Matthew 18, it's very clear that this is not only that it is unique and uniquely to.

Both brothers and sisters, and most of all to other brothers and sisters who haven't come to confession. So it's, you know,.

This is the text, the right to go here. This is the text that demonstrates the key to the kingdom of all of our brothers and sisters.

Yes. I don't believe this, but I'll put it in front of the prayer. But also, I've interpreted that Jesus was, like he was asking the question, who do you use? Yeah, I don't know. He was speaking to the disciples, the 12 apostles, right?

And that, that he's talking about the apostles being the foundation, and then the New Testament elsewhere does include the apostles.