TDB 3 The Conversion of Father Ray Ryland, Part 3

ThornCrown Network

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

00:02

I do a podcast. I'm not interested in your podcast. The anathema of God was for those who denied justification by faith alone.

00:13

When that is at stake, we need to be on the battlefield, exposing the error and combating the error.

00:24

We are unabashedly, unashamedly Clarkian. And so, the next few statements that I'm going to make,

00:30

I'm probably going to step on all of the Vantillian toes at the same time. And this is what we do at Simple Riff around the radio, you know.

00:37

We are polemical and polarizing Jesus style. I would first say that to characterize what we do as bashing is itself bashing.

00:57

It's not hate. It's history. It's not bashing. It's the Bible. Jesus said,

01:07

Woe to you when men speak well of you, for their fathers used to treat the false prophets in the same way, as opposed to blessed are you when you have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness.

01:21

It is on. We're taking the gloves off. It's time to battle. Okay, this is your host,

01:32

Timothy F. Kaufman, and we're back with the Diving Board as we dive deep into history. The purpose of this podcast is to show that Roman Catholic apologists and those who follow them have remained in the shallow end of the history pool while claiming to be deep in history.

01:49

And we are focusing on those Protestants who fall for those shallow arguments and convert to Roman Catholicism while thinking that they too are deep in history.

01:58

We are continuing in this episode with a speech given by Father Ray Ryland, who converted from the

02:03

Episcopalian Church to Roman Catholicism. The video we are analyzing is entitled,

02:09

Papal Authority and the Early Church, and it comes to us from a 2004 conference by the

02:14

Coming Home Network, a ministry founded by former Protestants who have crossed over to Rome, believing that it is the true church.

02:22

The conference is called, Deep in History, based on a statement that Cardinal Newman once made that to be deep in history is to cease to be a

02:30

Protestant. Newman's statement was the inspiration for the Deep in History conference sponsored by the

02:35

Coming Home Network, and in our first two episodes we began to examine the claims of Father Ray Ryland in his journey from the

02:42

Episcopal Church to the Roman Church. We have covered Ray Ryland's claims from a letter of Clement to the

02:48

Corinthians in the 1st century, Bishop Victor's excommunication of the Eastern bishops in the 2nd century, and the alleged submission of Pope Dionysius of Alexandria to Bishop Dionysius of Rome on doctrinal matters and Emperor Aurelian's alleged request for the

03:03

Pope to intervene in the dispute between the Church of Antioch and the heretic Bishop Paul of Samosata in the 3rd century, and finally,

03:12

Ryland's claim that the assembled bishops at Nicaea in the 4th century had convened to confirm the teachings of the

03:17

Bishop of Rome, and that Silvestro of Rome had presided at the Council of Nicaea, and that Josius of Cordoba was his representative there.

03:26

That's a mouthful, and we appreciate everybody paying attention to all the historical details. This week we will cover

03:33

Ryland's arguments regarding the trial of Athanasius, and his claim that Athanasius could not be returned to his

03:38

Episcopal seat in Alexandria until the Bishop of Rome had ruled on the matter. As we have been emphasizing,

03:45

Ryland's arguments require that his listeners stay in the shallow end of the history pool, but we are on the diving board, ready to jump in.

03:52

So let's dive in and go to Ryland's next piece of evidence, the unlawful deposition of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, and the ensuing trial in Rome.

04:02

Here again is Ray Ryland arguing for papal authority because Pope Julius of Rome is alleged to have rescued

04:10

Athanasius from the charges of heresy. Or again, in the 4th century,

04:15

Pope Julius. Pope Julius is the one who really rescued Athanasius. In my readings of church history as a

04:24

Protestant, I always was told about how Athanasius had saved the church from Arianism, and he was a devout and strong advocate of the true faith.

04:35

But without the support of the Pope, he would have gone down and had to stay down. Two councils in the east, two heretical councils, condemned

04:43

Athanasius and evicted him from his seat as patriarch of Alexandria. When he appealed to the

04:49

Pope, Pope Julius I condemned both councils and reinstalled Athanasius in his seat.

04:55

He demanded to know why he had not been consulted beforehand and reminded them of the church's rule.

05:01

This is what he said, Are you 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?

05:11

If then any suspicion rested upon the bishop there, notice thereof ought to have been sent to the church of this place, that is

05:18

Rome. This, that is the councils acting on their way, is another form of procedure, a novel practice.

05:25

What we have received from the blessed apostle Peter, that I signify to you. Okay, this one is a little complex, but it is not hard to dissect.

05:36

I want to provide the key statement from Bishop Julius so that it is fixed in the mind of the listener. Are you ignorant that the custom has been for word to be written first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place?

05:49

This whole episode is about that one sentence and what it means. The events Ryland just described and the statement from Bishop Julius are from around 340

05:59

A .D. and they are related to the tumultuous life of Athanasius of Alexandria and the

06:04

Arians in Antioch who brought charges against him all the way back in 335 A .D. The letter cited by Ryland was from Julius of Rome to the church at Antioch and is recorded for us in Athanasius' work,

06:17

Apology Against the Arians, Part 1, Chapter 2. And what Julius is talking about is not papal or Roman primacy, but rather the

06:24

Eusebians' violation of the appeals process. What he is discussing is Constantine's sweeping judicial reforms dating all the way back to the beginning of his reign in 306

06:34

A .D. The first clue that Julius was not talking about Roman primacy is that he refers repeatedly to the fact that Athanasius' accusers, the

06:43

Eusebians, had in fact already written to him first and had since written to him multiple times and they had been exchanging letters the whole time.

06:53

I want to ask the listener to pause briefly and let that sink in. After acknowledging that the

06:58

Eusebians had in fact already written to him first, Julius reminds them of the custom of writing to us first.

07:05

What is even more baffling is that Bishop Julius of Rome complains that the Eusebians actually did write, quote, to me alone.

07:13

That's from Athanasius' Against the Arians, Part 1, Chapter 2, Paragraph 26, Julius' letter to the

07:19

Eusebians. But he goes on and explains that they should not have written to me alone, but instead the letter should have been addressed to us all.

07:27

Wow, what is going on? There is a custom of writing to us first, in Paragraph 36, and you did send it to us first,

07:36

Paragraph 26. You sent it to me alone, but you should have sent it to everyone,

07:42

Paragraph 35. This otherwise puzzling exchange can by no means be resolved by Ryland's simple summary that there was a tradition of the

07:50

Bishop of Rome settling the affairs of the Church throughout the world. There is actually a much simpler explanation, but it requires that we not settle for life in the shallow end of the history pool.

07:59

So, let's dive in. The letter from which Ryland quoted is

08:04

Julius' second letter to Athanasius' accusers, the Eusebian party, who were Arians, and who had replaced

08:11

Athanasius in the Episcopal seat of Alexandria with an Arian bishop from Cappadocia. As noted a moment ago, before chiding the

08:19

Church at Antioch for violating the custom of writing to him first, Julius acknowledges multiple times that the accusers had in fact already written to him, that is our first clue, and it is an important one.

08:31

Listen as Julius explains to the Eusebians that he has already received and read their most recent letter, delivered by Presbyters Elpidius and Philoxenus, in which nothing was said of the accusations against Athanasius.

08:45

Now citing from Athanasius against the Arians, Part 1, Chapter 2, Paragraph 21, which is

08:51

Bishop Julius' second letter to the Eusebians. I have read your letter, which was brought to me by Presbyters Elpidius and Philoxenus, and I am surprised to find that, whereas I wrote to you in charity and with conscious sincerity, you have replied to me in an unbecoming and contentious temper, for the pride and arrogance of the writers is plainly exhibited in that letter.

09:15

Okay, in the next paragraph, Julius acknowledges that the Eusebians had in fact written a previous letter to that one, and that letter did contain accusations against Athanasius, and was delivered by Presbyters Macarius and Deacons Martirius and Hestius.

09:31

Now citing from Paragraph 22 of that same letter, When the persons whom you,

09:38

Eusebius, and his fellows dispatched with your letters, I mean Macarius the

09:43

Presbyter and Martirius and Hestius the Deacons, arrived here, and found that they were unable to withstand the arguments of the presbyters who came from Athanasius, but were confuted and exposed on all sides, they then requested me to call a council together, and to write to Alexandria, to the bishop

10:02

Athanasius, and also to Eusebius and his fellows, in order that a just judgment might be given in the presence of all parties.

10:09

A few paragraphs later, Paragraph 26, Julius explains that he had been writing back and forth with anyone who had written to him, and in fact

10:18

Eusebius and the other accusers had been writing to him as well, and he had been responding to them. Now let's think through this.

10:25

Julius has been writing back and forth to the Eusebians about the charges against Athanasius, and agreed to write letters to both parties seeking the facts of the case from both sides, and Athanasius' accusers have now written to him again, and Julius is now responding again, having already written both to Antioch and to Alexandria, requesting information regarding the case against Athanasius.

10:49

All of this sounds like a discovery process in a legal proceeding. What on earth is going on?

10:55

The answer is actually very simple. It sounds like a discovery process in a legal proceeding, because it is a discovery process in a legal proceeding.

11:04

But this is nothing Ryland could have understood, because he did not bother looking. Finding it will require that we venture into the deep end of the history pool.

11:13

And that's where we're going to swim now. When Emperor Constantine came to power in 306

11:19

A .D., one of his greatest initiatives was to reform the judicial system of the empire to make it easier for his citizens to obtain justice, while at the same time easing the backlog of cases that he personally had to adjudicate.

11:32

At the beginning of his reign, the court of appeals for the empire was often Constantine himself, and it was burdensome both for him to administer and for Roman citizens to obtain justice.

11:44

To solve the problem, Constantine deputized the governors of the provinces and authorized them to hear cases, and at the same time set up an appeals process that allowed litigants to appeal to a higher court in an orderly process, and ultimately to the imperial court of the emperor as the highest appellate court of all.

12:02

The judge in each case was required to obtain written testimonies of both parties to a dispute, document everything in writing, including his own opinion on the matter, and then forward that decision to a higher court or to the imperial court for a final ruling.

12:17

That piece of information comes to us from the Edicts of Constantine as recorded in a fascinating book by John Noel Dillon from 2012, and it is entitled

12:26

The Justice of Constantine, Law, Communication, and Control. In it,

12:32

Dillon describes the appellate process in great detail. We encourage our listeners to study this fascinating period in history, and a great place to start is with Dillon's book.

12:42

For now, I will cite from pages 215 -218 of his work. Constantine had created a new system of appeal to the imperial court, conducted entirely through official correspondence, in which the appeal consists of a dossier, in the form of a consultation, in which all the pertinent documents are brought by official couriers to the imperial court.

13:05

That's John Dillon, The Justice of Constantine, Law, Communication, and Control, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 2012, pages 215 -218.

13:17

There were several other rulings by Constantine on this new appeals process, and we will introduce our listeners to them, but two of the most important are the rules that the appellate judge is not allowed to consult with the emperor about questions of law and justice during a case, because that would defeat the entire purpose of the judicial reform.

13:35

At the same time, the litigant was not allowed to appeal his case to the emperor while the lower court was still deciding the case, because that, too, would defeat the entire purpose of the judicial reform, and would keep the emperor's court constantly occupied with the legal proceedings of the lower courts.

13:51

I am now citing from the Theodosian Code, as compiled by Clyde Farr in his 2001 translation of the

13:56

Theodosian Code and Novels in the Sermondian Constitutions, which contain the many correspondences between the

14:03

Caesars and the appellate judges. Those letters reflect the expressions of Constantine's legal theory as the new appellate system was being developed.

14:11

Regarding the prohibition against the judge consulting with the emperor, I will now cite from the Theodosian Code, Book 11,

14:18

Title 29, Chapter 1. In view of the fact that there remains to litigants the legitimate choice of an appeal from decision, you must consult

14:27

Our Majesty only concerning a few matters which cannot be decided by judicial sentence, in order that you may not interrupt our imperial occupations.

14:36

That's Constantine, from 313 A .D. That was the rule, saying that the judge is not to ask the emperor's opinion on a case under consideration, because that just puts the burden of judicial analysis back on the emperor, and besides, the litigants always have the avenue of appeal if they do not believe the judge has decided correctly.

14:56

The next citation is from Book 11, Title 30, Chapter 6, prohibiting the litigants from doing the same thing.

15:03

To supplicate the emperor during the pendency of a suit is not permitted, except perhaps in the case of a litigant to whom a copy of the report is denied, or when the transmission of all the documents of the case has been suppressed.

15:17

That's from Clyde Farr, page 323. The ruling was from Constantine in 326

15:24

A .D., saying that a litigant is not allowed to appeal to the emperor while a lower judge is still hearing the case, unless, of course, the judge refused to provide a written report of his decision.

15:35

In fact, the judge could get in trouble for not providing the written report to the litigants, and a point that is quite relevant in our current discussion, the litigants could get in trouble for not responding to the judge's inquiries.

15:46

One significant point that Dillon makes in his book is that since the right of appeal was sacred to Constantine, quote, it was a fundamental principle, for one, that a judge could not try and appeal against his own sentence, unquote.

16:00

That's from Dillon, page 221. What that means is a judge could not preside in an appeal of his own decision.

16:06

A different judge had to do that. That will become very important to our discussion momentarily.

16:13

So what does this have to do with the accusations against Athanasius? Well, in 318

16:18

A .D., Constantine issued one of the most transformative edicts of his entire judicial reform, and the trial of Athanasius cannot be fully understood without knowledge of it.

16:28

In 318 A .D., Constantine allowed that anyone who wanted to have his case heard by a bishop of the church instead of by a civil officer was entitled to change the venue to have his case heard in an episcopal court.

16:41

This law allowed a litigant to have his case tried in an ecclesiastical court and further required that the civil judge not object to it even though the case had begun in his civil courtroom.

16:53

Now citing from Theodosian Code, Book 1, Chapter 27, Paragraph 1, Judicial Decisions of Bishops.

17:01

Pursuant to his own authority, a judge must observe that if an action should be brought before an episcopal court, he shall maintain silence, and if any person should desire him to transfer his case to the jurisdiction of the

17:13

Christian law and to observe that kind of court, he shall be heard, even though the action has been instituted before the judge, and whatever may be adjudged by them shall be held as sacred.

17:24

That's from Clyde Farr, page 31, a ruling from Constantine in 318 A .D. Later, in 333

17:31

A .D., just a few years before the accusations against Athanasius materialized, Constantine modified the law to allow for a civil case to be transferred to an episcopal court at any time, even if the other party to the suit disagreed.

17:45

Now citing from Sermondian Constitution, 1, from 333 A .D. Therefore, if any man, either as a defendant or as a plaintiff, should have a suit at law, and either at the beginning of the suit, or after the statutory time limits have elapsed, or when the final pleadings are made, or when the judge has already begun to pronounce sentence, and if such litigants should choose the court of a bishop of the sacrosanct law, even though the other party to the suit should oppose it, immediately, without any question, the principles in the litigation shall be dispatched to the bishop.

18:23

That's Clyde Farr, page 477, an edict from Constantine in 333

18:28

A .D. The reason this matters to us is that the initial trials against Athanasius were all civil in nature, not ecclesiastical.

18:38

That may come as a surprise to many because Athanasius' accusers appeared for the most part to conduct their proceedings against Athanasius on theological grounds.

18:48

But when the history of the case is examined, we find that the eastern bishops had proceeded against Athanasius in a civil trial, at which a civil officer, a count, presided, not a church synod at which a bishop presided.

19:02

In fact, that is the constant complaint of Athanasius and his defenders, that the trial against Athanasius had, to this point, been a civil trial.

19:10

We see this from the several descriptions of the trials against Athanasius until this point.

19:17

The Council of Egypt convened to defend Athanasius and complained that the trial of Athanasius at Tyre had been conducted under the authority of a count, a civil officer, and in the presence of soldiers.

19:28

Now citing from that letter, as recorded in Athanasius against the Arians, part 1, paragraph 8,

19:35

How can they have the boldness to call that a council, at which a count presided, which an executioner attended, and where an usher, instead of the deacons of the church, introduced us into court, and where the count only spoke, and all present held their peace, or rather obeyed his directions?

19:55

Julius, in his letter, made similar complaints, and so did Athanasius when he had the trial transferred to an

20:01

Episcopal court. Now citing from Athanasius, History of the Arians, part 2, chapter 11,

20:08

But as soon as Eusebius and his fellows heard that the trial was to be an ecclesiastical one, at which no count would be present, nor soldiers stationed before the doors, and that the proceedings would not be regulated by royal order, for they have always depended upon those things to support them against the bishops, and without them they have no boldness even to speak, they declined to participate.

20:33

We highlight these facts because it is extremely important not only to place the trial of Athanasius in its historical context, but also to highlight the various attempts to adhere to the rigors of Constantine's judicial reforms, and importantly, to show how the accusers were constantly violating those principles.

20:50

The context is the appeals process, as you can see when you read the history of the case, and the communications between Athanasius and his accusers were not only about Arianism, but also about Constantine's judicial reforms.

21:03

For example, when Julius was explaining the validity of a church council in Rome as a venue for judging the merits of the case against Athanasius, the

21:12

Eusebians rejected it, arguing that the judgment of one council could not be overturned by another council.

21:18

Julius corrected them by laying out the appeals process, explaining that Constantine's appellate process predated the

21:24

Council of Nicaea, and in fact had been adopted by the council as the proper means of appealing the ruling of councils.

21:31

I will now cite Bishop Julius's letter to the Eusebians, explaining that by now, the appeals process has long been in place, and the bishops at Nicaea had in fact adopted it as their own.

21:43

As you listen, notice that the context of Julius's argument is the right of appeal, and notice as well that he believed the bishops of Nicaea had adopted the rule that a judge cannot serve again as a judge in an appeal against his own case, because that would be fundamentally unfair.

21:59

Now citing from Julius's letter to the Eusebians, from Athanasius, Against the Arians, Part 1,

22:06

Chapter 2, Paragraph 22. Those who have confidence in their proceedings, or as they choose to term them, in their decisions, are not wont to be angry if such decision is inquired into by others.

22:21

They rather show all boldness, seeing that if they have given a just decision, it can never prove to be the reverse.

22:29

The bishops who assembled in the great council of Nicaea agreed, not without the will of God, that the decisions of one council should be examined in another, to the end that the judges, having before their eyes that other trial which was to follow, might be led to investigate matters with the utmost caution, and that the parties concerned in their sentence might have assurance that the judgment they received was just, and not dictated by the enmity of their former judges.

22:57

Now if you are unwilling that such a practice should be adopted in your case, though it is of ancient standing, and has been noticed and recommended by the great council, your refusal is not becoming, for it is unreasonable that a custom which had once obtained in the church, and had been established by councils, should be set aside by few individuals.

23:19

Julius is, of course, referring to Canon 5 of Nicaea, which specifies that a sentence of excommunication by one bishop should be respected by the other bishops, but that such excommunications are subject to appeal, now citing from Canon 5.

23:34

But let an inquiry be held, in order that there may be proper opportunity for inquiry into the matter.

23:40

And importantly, Julius says that the appellate process had been adopted by the church prior to Nicaea, and then codified into canon law when the council was convened.

23:50

As the council concluded, the decisions of councils and synods are weighty matters, but they are subject to appeal.

23:57

And importantly, the accused is entitled to have his case heard by another set of judges. Nicaea had simply adopted a part of Constantine's appeals process, codified it as a canon of the church, and Julius is insisting that the

24:11

Eusebians must participate in that appeals process. And remember, the trial of Athanasius is taking place 15 years after the

24:18

Council of Nicaea, and Julius is appealing to a church tradition that predated the council by at least 7 years, since the rights of appeal to episcopal courts were established by Constantine in 318

24:29

AD, and the council took place in 325. And that gets us back to the custom that Julius thought the

24:36

Eusebian party had violated. Remember the part of the Theodosian Code from 326

24:41

AD that prohibited the practice of appealing to the emperor while a lower court was hearing the case?

24:46

By way of reminder, here is Theodosian Code, Book 11, Title 30,

24:52

Section 6. Or when the transmission of all the documents of the case had been suppressed.

25:08

Julius had, in fact, accepted a transfer of the case to an episcopal court, and in his role as appellate judge, he started exchanging letters with the

25:17

Eusebians and the Alexandrians, trying to compile the required documentation from both sides in accordance with due process and Constantine's judicial reforms.

25:27

But then the Eusebians started stonewalling and refused to participate in Julius' adjudication of the case.

25:34

They would neither come to trial, nor provide answers to Julius' questions in their written responses to him.

25:40

This is why Julius complained that after writing to them, their response contained nothing related to the matter of the church at Alexandria, which was the whole point of the inquiry.

25:50

But there was something more. While the Eusebians refused to answer Julius' inquiries, and refused to participate in the council so that the charges against Athanasius could receive a fair hearing, they nevertheless continued arguing their case before the emperor, in plain violation of Constantine's judicial reforms.

26:07

They simply were not supposed to argue their case before the emperor when it was still being adjudicated in a lower court.

26:13

That was against the rules, unless the appellate judge was not cooperating. But Julius had been cooperating, and in fact had been going out of his way to accommodate them, and they had no cause to circumvent the lower court while the trial was still in process.

26:26

This is precisely why Athanasius complained that his accusers proceeded to argue their case in front of the emperor, even while the case was still being heard in Rome.

26:35

Now reading from Athanasius, History of the Arians, Part 2, Chapter 9. Julius, bishop of Rome, wrote to say that a council ought to be held, wherever we should desire, in order that they might exhibit the charges which they had to make, and might also freely defend themselves concerning those things of which they too were accused, whereupon these men, whose conduct is suspicious in all that they do, when they see they are not likely to get the better in an ecclesiastical trial, betake themselves to Emperor Constantius alone.

27:10

Athanasius had legitimately changed the venue to an episcopal court, and the Eusebians were required by law to cooperate, and further, they were prohibited by law from appealing the case to the emperor while that lower court was still hearing the case.

27:24

What they were doing was judicially out of order. And that brings us back to the substance of Julius' complaint.

27:30

Keep in mind what it was that has frustrated Julius in his role as an appellate judge. The Eusebians did not answer his questions regarding their charges against Athanasius of Alexandria, and they continued pressing the matter to the emperor's court, when they were supposed to be cooperating with the process and letting the wheels of justice turn according to Constantine's reforms.

27:50

In that light, Julius' next statement makes perfect sense, because the

27:55

Eusebians had continued arguing the case before the emperor. Now reading again from Julius' letter as cited from Ryland, to be passed from this place?

28:18

If then any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there, notice thereof ought to have been sent to the church of this place.

28:26

Whereas, after neglecting to inform us, and proceeding on their own authority as they pleased, they now desired to obtain our concurrence in their decisions, though we never condemned him.

28:38

It is easy enough to understand what had happened. Athanasius changed the venue to an episcopal court.

28:44

Julius started compiling evidence. The Eusebians boycotted the proceedings in Rome, and continued to bring charges against Athanasius directly to the emperor, in violation of Constantine's reforms, and expected the episcopal court to defer to their civil proceedings.

28:59

The custom the Eusebians were violating was not a custom of having the bishop of Rome settle all church disputes, but rather the custom of the lower court collecting the evidence and drafting an opinion, before sending the compiled documents to the emperor, and they were required to honor that process, and not circumvent it.

29:15

This is an extremely important point, so I will restate it. The custom the Eusebians were violating was not a custom of having the bishop of Rome settle all church disputes, but rather the custom of the lower court collecting the evidence and drafting an opinion, before sending the compiled documents to the emperor, and they were required to honor that process, and not circumvent it, by continuing to argue their case before the emperor.

29:40

The Eusebians had not violated Roman primacy. They had violated due process and Constantine's judicial reforms, that had by then been adopted by the church since long before Nicaea.

29:52

But what happened next is even more interesting. Remember that Ryland argued that Bishop Athanasius had not been restored to his seat until the bishop of Rome exonerated him.

30:03

Again, here is Ryland. When he appealed to the pope, Pope Julius I condemned both councils and reinstalled

30:09

Athanasius in his seat. Well, that is either flatly deceptive, or it is a case of gross ignorance.

30:18

But either way, it is simply false. The emperors received the written report from the council in Rome exonerating

30:24

Athanasius, but without the participation of his accusers, and at the same time received the reports from his accusers, but without the participation of his defenders.

30:34

To hear Ryland tell it, as soon as the emperor received Bishop Julius' report, he immediately exonerated

30:40

Athanasius, dismissed the case, and restored Athanasius to his episcopal seat in Alexandria.

30:46

Well, that is a grotesque revision of history. The emperor did not, I repeat, he did not defer to the opinion of Julius, but instead called yet another episcopal trial to have the matter settled once and for all.

30:59

Now reading from Athanasius, History of the Arians, Part 3, Chapter 15.

31:06

While these things were taking place, a report of the council held at Rome, and of the proceedings against the churches in Alexandria, and through all the

31:15

East, came to the hearing of Emperor Constans. He writes to his brother, Constantius, and immediately they determined that a council shall be called, and matters be brought to a settlement, so that those who have been injured may be released from further suffering, and the injurious be no longer able to perpetrate such outrages.

31:35

Accordingly, they are assembled at the city of Sardica, both from the East and West, to the number of one hundred and seventy bishops, more or less.

31:44

As you can see from the historical record, the emperors did not accept the ruling of either party, but instead called yet another church court to decide the matter once and for all, and that church court was assembled at Sardica, essentially at the boundary between the

31:58

East and West. And the presiding judge in this case was Hosius of Cordoba, as reported by Athanasius in the same chapter.

32:05

In accordance with Constantine's reforms, as we mentioned earlier, Julius could not preside in an appeal against his own ruling, and Julius acknowledged this, so he could not and did not preside at Sardica.

32:17

And once again, the Eastern accusers, seeing again that it was going to be an episcopal trial rather than a civil trial, refused to participate.

32:26

Hosius of Cordoba thus prepared the canons of Sardica and the required documentation of the case, forwarded it all to the imperial court for a final ruling, and only then was

32:35

Athanasius finally exonerated by the emperors. It is a fascinating period in the church, and the listener is encouraged to dive in and understand it thoroughly.

32:44

It is certain, however, that Ray Ryland had no idea of the historical, literal, or judicial context of the case when he concluded that there was a custom of all disputes being handled by the

32:54

Bishop of Rome, and that it was the Bishop of Rome who finally exonerated Athanasius. His assessment is plainly false.

33:01

Athanasius was exonerated based on the rulings of Hosius of Cordoba at the Council of Sardica, not by the rulings of Julius at the

33:09

Council of Rome. Roman Catholics, in an attempt to imbue the Sardica Council with Roman authority, have since claimed that the

33:17

Council was urgently called by Julius of Rome, and he commissioned Hosius of Cordoba to preside at the trial, and yet there is no evidence for this claim anywhere in the historical record.

33:27

The Catholic Encyclopedia, in its entry under the Council of Sardica, states that Sardica, quote, was convoked by the emperors

33:35

Constans and Constantius at the urgent entreaty of Pope Julius, unquote, based on no historical evidence at all.

33:43

Listen to what Athanasius wrote, A report of the Council held at Rome, and of the proceedings against the churches at Alexandria and through all the

33:51

East, came to the hearing of the emperor Constans. He writes to his brother Constantius, and immediately they both determine that a council shall be called, and matters be brought to a settlement.

34:03

There is nothing, nothing about the Bishop of Rome requesting another council.

34:09

The Roman Catholic reconstruction of the trial of Athanasius is simply an intricately woven lie, nothing more.

34:16

Bishop Julius had served as an appellate judge in accordance with Constantine's judicial reforms, and in accordance with those reforms, forwarded his findings to the emperor.

34:25

The emperor found them wanting, because there was nothing in it from the opposing party, and simply decided that this was insufficient for making a final ruling and called yet another council.

34:36

The emperor simply did not rely on Julius' argument in order to exonerate

34:41

Athanasius. Now to give you some additional context, the Council of Sarnica, under the presidency of Bishop Hosius of Cordoba, also codified some of the more relevant aspects of Constantine's judicial reforms as they apply to Athanasius and his accusers.

34:56

For example, in Canon 7, Hosius proposed a decree that bishops stop going directly to the emperor.

35:02

He said, "...our importunity and great pertinacity and unjust petitions have brought it about that we do not have as much favor and confidence as we ought to enjoy, for many of the bishops do not intermit resorting to the imperial court."

35:20

Notice that the council recognized the whole purpose of the appeals process, which is to not bother the emperor with every trifling disagreement that arises within the church.

35:30

Additionally, there was some discussion at the Council of Sarnica about whether to commemorate Julius' participation in the trial by requiring appeals to be forwarded to Julius of Rome.

35:40

You can see these discussions in Canons 3, 4, and 5. But Canon 5 clarifies that an appellant may request that the bishop of Rome intervene, but does not require it.

35:50

Canon 9 then clarifies that any bishop of any province can send his petitions to the emperor as long as he sends it first to the bishop of the metropolis of his province, and the bishop of the metropolis can evaluate it and forward it to the emperor.

36:04

In other words, someone in Syria would forward the petition first to Antioch, then to the imperial court, and would refrain from arguing his appeal before the emperor while the metropolitan of Antioch was hearing it.

36:18

Someone in Egypt would forward the petition first to Alexandria, then to the imperial court, but would refrain from arguing his appeal before the emperor while the metropolitan of Alexandria was still hearing it.

36:30

Someone in Numidia, in northern Africa, would submit his petition through his metropolitan in Carthage, then to the imperial court, and would refrain from arguing his appeal before the emperor while the metropolitan of Carthage was hearing it.

36:43

And importantly, someone in Italy would submit his petition through the metropolitan in Milan, which was the metropolis of Italy at the time, and then to the imperial court, and would refrain from arguing his appeal before the emperor while the metropolitan of Milan was hearing it.

36:59

There were only two exceptions to the rule. First, if a bishop had friends in the emperor's court, and he can manage to secure an audience without bothering the emperor too much, he may reproach the emperor directly.

37:12

And second, if someone decides not to advance his appeal through his own metropolitan bishop, but decides instead to come to Rome, the bishop of Rome must preside as his appellate judge, and the appeal would thenceforth be sent to the emperor for final approval.

37:25

Notice again that the emphasis was focused on not disturbing the emperor too much, and canonically, to exonerate what

37:32

Athanasius had done. Now citing from Canon 9 of the Council of Sardica, Bishop Hosius said,

37:39

This also, I think, follows, that if in any province whatever, bishops send petitions to one of their brothers and fellow bishops, he that is in the largest city, that is, the metropolis, should himself send his deacon and the petitions, providing him also with letters commendatory, writing also, of course, in succession to our brethren and fellow bishops, if any of them should be staying at that time in the places or cities in which the most pious emperor is administering public affairs.

38:10

But if any bishops should have friends at the court, and should wish to make requests of them as to some proper object, let them not be forbidden to make such requests through his deacon, and move these, that is, his friends in the court, to give their kind assistance as his desire.

38:27

But those who come to Rome ought, as I said before, to deliver to our beloved brother and fellow bishop

38:32

Julius the petitions which they have to give, in order that he may first examine them, lest some of them should be improper, and so, giving them his own advocacy and care, shall send them to the court.

38:43

So here, in a sentence, is the ruling of the Council of Sardica. Any metropolitan may hear an appeal and advance it to the emperor's court, or any bishop with a friend in the court may advance an appeal to the emperor, but those who come to Rome should have the bishop of Rome compile the dossier and forward it to the imperial court.

39:02

That is not papal primacy. That is simply the primacy of due process. So let's summarize.

39:08

When Bishop Julius of Rome complained that the Eusebians had violated the custom of writing to Rome first, so that a just decision could be advanced from the church of this place,

39:18

Julius was not invoking a custom that it was a requirement to write to Rome first to settle disputes, but rather that it is a custom, once an appeal has been made, to allow that appeals process to work through the system and not keep on trying to argue the case before the emperor, while the lower court was still hearing the appeal.

39:35

The Eusebian error was not in failing to recognize a fictitious Roman judicial primacy, but in failing to honor the explicit requirements of Constantine's judicial reforms and the canons of Nicaea that codified them.

39:47

Due to their refusal to cooperate with the appeals process, the emperors received a one -sided report from the council of Rome and another different one -sided report from the eastern bishops, neither of which was sufficient to make a decision, and therefore the emperors convened the council of Sardica to hear the case again.

40:02

The Eusebians did not participate in that council either, and the emperor finally exonerated Athanasius based on the decisions of Sardica, Bishop Hosius of Cordoba presiding.

40:12

Thus, it was Hosius at the council of Sardica, not Julius at the council of Rome, that ultimately rendered the verdict that caused the emperor to exonerate

40:20

Athanasius and restore him to his episcopal seat. And that same council codified the law that appeals must be advanced through the metropolitan of a diocese, except for the two special cases identified in Canon 9.

40:33

The ruling at Sardica, far from recognizing Roman judicial primacy, instead only established that Athanasius had not violated any appellate rules by seeking refuge in Rome.

40:43

That's it. There's no papal primacy to be found in Julius' statement. Are you ignorant that the custom has been for a word to be written first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place?

40:54

The just decision would be passed from this place, because that happened to be the court of appeal and it was forwarded to the emperor for a final ruling, and in this case, the emperor did not find it satisfactory and called yet another council, and then made his decision on the ruling of another bishop, not the bishop of Rome.

41:13

And Reilly would have known that if he had been truly deep in history. But wait! Our listeners might object.

41:20

If the custom the Eusebian party was violating was the custom of adhering to Constantine's judicial reforms, then why would

41:28

Julius say that the church had received this custom from Peter? Why, indeed, didn't

41:33

Julius really say that he'd received this custom from Peter? Again, here is Reilly making the claim.

41:40

And this is what he said. Are you 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?

41:51

If then any suspicion rested upon the bishop there, notice thereof ought to have been sent to the church of this place, that is

41:58

Rome. This, that is the councils acting on their way, is another form of procedure, a novel practice.

42:04

What we have received from the blessed apostle Peter, that I signify to you. Okay, what

42:10

Reilly has done here is abbreviate Julius' statement to make it sound like he is invoking a custom received from the apostle

42:16

Peter. But listen carefully to what Julius actually wrote. Now quoting from the same section, except without the abbreviation.

42:26

And why was nothing said to us concerning the church of the Alexandrians in particular? Are you ignorant that the custom has been for word to be written first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place?

42:37

If then any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there, notice thereof ought to have been sent to the church of this place.

42:44

Whereas, after neglecting to inform us and proceeding on their own authority as they pleased, now they desire to obtain our concurrence in their decisions, though we never condemned him.

42:55

Not so have the constitutions of Paul, not so have the traditions of the fathers directed. This is another form of procedure, a novel practice.

43:03

I beseech you, readily bear with me. What I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed apostle

43:10

Peter, that I signify to you. From that point forward, Julius actually invokes something the apostle

43:17

Peter really did say, and we'll return to that in a moment. Now listen carefully to Reilly's abbreviated citation, carefully constructed and abbreviated to make it sound like the custom of writing to Rome came from Peter himself.

43:31

Again, here is Reilly making that claim. If then any suspicion rested upon the bishop there, notice thereof ought to have been sent to the church of this place, that is

43:42

Rome. This, that is the councils acting on their way, is another form of procedure, a novel practice.

43:48

What we have received from the blessed apostle Peter, that I signify to you. If you read

43:54

Julius' letter carefully, Julius had actually invoked four authoritative sources, not just one.

44:00

And once those four authoritative sources are identified, it is clear that Julius was not saying that the custom of writing to Rome first is an apostolic tradition received from Peter.

44:10

In fact, we can identify exactly what Julius believed he had received from Peter, and it was not the custom of writing to Rome first.

44:18

Julius wrote in his letter that the Eusebian accusers, in their failure to follow due process, and in their adjudication of the case against Athanasius, had violated four authoritative precedents.

44:29

First, the church's adaptation of Constantine's appellate reforms. Second, several of Paul's teachings about persuasive speech and eloquence and the ordination of bishops and not letting the sun go down on their wrath.

44:43

Third, the council of Messiah's acceptance of judicial inquiry in Canon 5.

44:48

And fourth, Peter's admonition that bishops are not to lord their authority over the sheep. We'll identify each one in Julius' letter.

44:56

We will include a link to Julius' letter in the show notes, and it is very important that our readers go to that letter and read the entire thing.

45:04

What is interesting about Julius is that his references to authoritative sources are almost always conversational without explicit citation.

45:12

Whether he refers to the council of Messiah, Paul's letters, Peter's letters, or Constantine's reforms, he rarely cites his source explicitly because he expected the reader to be familiar with that context.

45:23

So when he cites these four authorities, we have to be familiar with what he has written in his letter and how he made those references.

45:30

We have already identified the first authority through our analysis of the church's custom of adhering to Constantine's appeals processes that predated

45:38

Nicaea, and in particular, the prohibition of appealing to the emperor while a lower court was still hearing the case.

45:44

The Eusebian appeal to the imperial court while obstructing Julius' discovery process was an implicit rejection of Constantine's rules of appeal.

45:53

We can also identify the third authority, the tradition of the fathers, because throughout the letter,

45:59

Julius has invoked the council of Nicaea, which accepted that appeals process implicitly. Julius, of course, is referring to canon 5 of Nicaea, which authorizes judicial inquiry into the rulings of one council by another council, which is the church's adaptation of Constantine's appellate reforms.

46:14

That is what Julius meant when he said that the Eusebians were being novel in their claim that their excommunication of Athanasius was not subject to review and that they had acted lawfully when the bishops of Antioch appointed a new bishop in Alexandria, which was not under their provincial authority.

46:30

The behavior of the Eusebians was an implicit rejection of Nicaea, and Julius saw that as a rejection of quote, the tradition of the fathers, unquote.

46:38

But what of the second and fourth authorities that Julius cites, that is, the constitutions of Paul and that which, quote, we have received from the blessed apostle

46:47

Peter, unquote. Well, Julius has been citing the apostle Paul throughout the letter, but again, as noted, he does this conversationally without citation, but it is clear that he is citing scripture.

47:00

For example, notice in paragraph 21 of the letter, Julius invokes 1 Corinthians 2 .1

47:06

and 2 Corinthians 11 .6 and Ephesians 4 .26 when he rebukes the Eusebians, but does not actually cite the epistles themselves.

47:14

Now reading from paragraph 21 of Julius' letter. Now, if the author of it wrote with an ambition of exhibiting his power of language, such a practice surely is more suitable for other subjects.

47:26

In ecclesiastical matters, it is not a display of eloquence that is needed, but the observance of apostolic canons.

47:33

But if such a letter was written because certain persons had been aggrieved on account of their meanness of spirit toward one another, it were better not to entertain any such feelings of offense at all, at least not to let the sun go down upon their vexation.

47:48

The apostolic canons to which he refers are 1 Corinthians 2 .1, which says,

47:54

When I came to you, I came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, and 2 Corinthians 11 .6,

48:00

which said, But though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge, and Ephesians 4 .26,

48:12

In Julius' mind, the Eusebian response had violated those apostolic canons.

48:18

And again in paragraph 30, Julius invokes the canons of Nicaea and the apostle Paul to condemn the behavior of the

48:25

Eusebians, now citing again from Julius' letter, and so many bishops were in unanimity with Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria, Gregory should be sent there, a stranger to the city, not having been baptized there, nor known to the general body, and desired neither by presbyters nor bishops nor laity, that he should be appointed at Antioch and sent to Alexandria.

48:54

But the bishops of the province ought to have ordained one in that very church, of that very priesthood, of that very clergy, and the canons received from the apostles ought not thus to be set aside.

49:05

Well, according to Paul, that is in Titus 1 .5, bishops were to be ordained in each city, not sent into them.

49:13

And according to Canon 4, bishops were to be appointed by the bishops of the province, and not by those outside the province.

49:19

That is why Julius would refer to both the canon of the church and the apostolical tradition, because he was referring both to Paul's teaching about the ordination of elders in each city, and Canon 4 of Nicaea, which said the bishops were to be appointed by the bishops of the province, not outside the province.

49:35

Again, notice that Julius invokes the conciliar and apostolic authorities in passing without explicit citations, but it is easy enough to discover them if his letter is read in context.

49:45

There are many other such appeals to Nicaea and the apostle Paul throughout the letter, but so far, no mention of Peter until the very end, and this is why it is important to examine

49:54

Julius' letter thoroughly instead of simply abbreviating it as Ryland has done. When Peter is finally cited, it is very clear from the context what scripture

50:04

Julius is invoking. Let us now return to paragraph 35 of Julius' letter, picking up with the invocation of the apostle

50:11

Peter, and we ask the listener to attend to the clear invocation of 1 Peter 5 verses 1 -3, which commands that the bishops not lower their authority over the sheep.

50:22

Now citing paragraph 35, picking up where Ryland left off. I beseech you readily bear with me what

50:30

I write is for the common good for what we have received from the blessed apostle Peter that I signify to you and I should not have written this as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men had not these proceedings so disturbed us.

50:45

Bishops are forced away from their sees and driven into banishment while others from different quarters are appointed in their place.

50:54

Others are treacherously assailed so that the people have to grieve for those who are forcibly taken from them while as to those who are sent in their place they are obliged to give up seeking the man whom they desire and to receive those they do not.

51:09

There is only one reference to Peter in his entire letter and when Julius invokes Peter it is in the context of the apostolic prohibition of bishops lording their authority over the sheep and the requirement that the bishops oversee those who are among them and not actually be imported from one province to another to take over another church that does not belong to them.

51:31

This is a plain reference to 1 Peter 5 2 -3 which reads feed the flock of God which is among you taking the oversight thereof not by constraint but willingly not for filthy lucre but of ready mind neither as being lords over God's heritage but being examples to the flock.

51:49

If you read through Julius' letter you will find that he repeatedly makes references to the word of the church referring to the scriptures the rule of the church and the canon of the church referring to the canons of Nicaea apostolical tradition, the canons received from the apostles, the constitutions of Paul, the regulations of the apostles and the traditions of the fathers.

52:08

Each time he cites them it is a simple matter from context to determine whether he is speaking of a citation from the gospels from Paul's epistles, the canons of Nicaea or a custom which had once obtained in the church and had been established by the councils, which is a reference to Constantine's episcopal courts established in 318

52:27

AD and Nicaea's adaptation of Constantine's appeals process in Canon 5 in 325

52:32

AD. So when we finally get to a reference to that which we have received from the blessed apostle

52:37

Peter and it is followed immediately by an admonition against shepherds trying to feed the flock of God which is not among you and lording their authority over the flock, it is quite obvious that Julius is referring not to an appellate custom received from Peter but to Peter's explicit instruction that the shepherds ought not treat the sheep as the

52:56

Eusebian bishops had been treating sheep that did not even belong to them. Our point is simply that when

53:02

Julius is read in context it is clear what apostolic canons he is invoking when he invokes

53:07

Paul and Peter and it is also clear what custom he is invoking when he appeals to the custom of staying away from the imperial court during an appeal as specified in Constantine's Judicial Reforms and the

53:19

Tradition of the Fathers as stated in Canons 4, 5, and 6 of Nicaea. Likewise it is easy enough to discern what constitutions of Paul Julius has invoked throughout his letter because everything he attributes to Paul or calls apostolic tradition, the canons received from the apostles or the constitutions of Paul, the regulations of the apostles, can be found in their epistles.

53:40

So there is no need or ground or justification for abbreviating Julius' statement and simply assuming, as Ryland did, that Julius believed the custom of writing to Rome had been received from Peter.

53:51

The one thing Julius attributes to Peter by way of an explicit reference to him is the scriptural imperative of leading the flock responsibly and not trying to take over sheep of another pasture and not doing it for money or prestige which aptly serves as the basis for Julius' concluding remarks about the behavior of the

54:08

Eusebian bishops. Ryland was only able to force Julius to invoke Petrine authority for a custom of writing to Rome by abbreviating

54:16

Julius' statement to make it sound like he invoked Peter immediately after the custom of writing to Rome.

54:22

But he left out two other sources of authority that had been invoked first that is Paul and Nicaea and thus made

54:28

Julius appear to say that the custom of writing to Rome came from Peter something that Julius actually did not say.

54:34

So, let me conclude this episode by thanking the listener for paying attention to the tedious legal recitations from Emperor Constantine and also

54:43

Julius' long and winding letter of complaint against the Eusebians and this obscure period in church history when the churches were conscripted by the emperor to hear cases and adjudicate them.

54:54

It is not light reading, but it is important if you wish to be deep in history to be familiar with it.

55:00

Clearly, Father Ray Ryland was oblivious to this history and he remained in the shallow end of the history pool to make his arguments for papal authority in the early church.

55:10

So, where does that leave us? Ryland makes a lot of other arguments from later centuries and we won't interact with those particular arguments.

55:17

We concede Roman primacy only from the latter fourth century and beyond, which is why we are only interacting with Ryland's fallacious arguments from the first three centuries.

55:26

Let's quickly revisit the errors and misrepresentations of Ryland in his arguments for Roman authority which are in fact the basis of his conversion to Roman Catholicism.

55:35

He argued that the Corinthians wrote to Rome for help when they could have appealed to John or some other church nearby, an argument that falls apart once you realize that the early churches all wrote to each other and all asked advice from each other.

55:48

In fact, the church at Philippi wrote to Polycarp of Smyrna for help in the second century and the churches at Rome and Lyons wrote to Carthage for help on similar matters in the third century.

55:57

This was common back then. There are many other such examples of churches writing to each other and responding to each other, but Ryland is focused on one as if it was unique and exceptional, but it is not.

56:09

Ryland also said Clement expected the Corinthians to obey the words spoken by Christ through us, but in fact

56:15

Clement had said, quote, by him through us, referring not to the Son, but to the

56:20

Father and from the context Clement was simply referring to the scriptures he had cited in the previous paragraph, that the warning threats pronounced by wisdom on the disobedient should be attended to by the erring presbyters in Corinth.

56:33

And Ryland also said Clement claimed his letter was written through the Holy Spirit, but we showed from his letter that Clement believed the scriptures are the true utterances of the

56:41

Holy Spirit and Clement did not say and never would have said that his own letter was scripture.

56:47

From there, Ryland went on to Victor, bishop of Rome, claiming that nobody denied that Victor had the right to establish the date of Easter and to excommunicate the

56:55

Eastern bishops, and yet we showed that the Asian bishops regarded their own position as apostolic and regarded

57:01

Victor's threats as the words of a mere man. Meanwhile, the Western bishops sternly rebuked Victor for his presumption.

57:08

Ryland also claimed that Dionysius of Alexandria deferred to Dionysius of Rome on doctrinal matters because he was the bishop of Rome, but we show that Dionysius of Alexandria had been writing on doctrinal matters to Dionysius of Rome in terms of utmost admiration and respect, while Dionysius of Rome was still but a presbyter and did not hesitate to criticize other bishops of Rome directly on their position on baptism, showing that Dionysius of Alexandria was no proof of papal authority at all.

57:36

Next, Ryland claimed that the church at Antioch was unable to get rid of Paul of Samosata until the bishop of Rome got involved, and then he was, quote, out of there, unquote, but what we showed from the historical data was that Paul had already been kicked out of the church by the congregation of Antioch, and a new bishop had in fact been elected, and then

57:55

Paul of Samosata was evicted from the church building, according to Eusebius, by the worldly power, that is to say, by the emperor, not by the ecclesiastical power, and in fact the bishops of Italy and Rome were not even involved in the decision.

58:09

Ray Ryland also argued that Bishop Sylvester of Rome presided at the Council of Messia through his legate,

58:15

Hosius of Cordoba, for which there is not a hint in the historical record except by way of a legend that emerged in the latter part of the 5th century, by which time the early centuries were being reinterpreted through the lens of Roman primacy.

58:27

In the contemporary data, there is no evidence to be found, and church historian Eusebius simply said that Constantine had convened the council, and that the bishop of Rome was absent and represented by his presbyters, and as we noted,

58:41

Hosius was a bishop, not a presbyter. Finally, Ryland claimed that Athanasius was not exonerated until the bishop of Rome got involved, but we showed from history that it was upon the ruling of Hosius of Cordoba at the

58:53

Council of Sardica, not upon the ruling of Julius of Rome, that Athanasius was finally exonerated.

59:00

Ryland also claimed that it was an apostolic tradition from Peter for all churches to write to Rome to have disputes resolved, but upon inspection,

59:07

Julius was only referring to the appellate reforms of Constantine that required disputes to be handled in an episcopal court before the case could be argued before the emperor.

59:16

What Julius actually claimed to have from Peter comes to us from the scriptures, namely that the bishops ought to tend to their own sheep and not lower their authority over the flock.

59:25

In other words, all the arguments from Fr. Ray Ryland on papal authority in the early church are ignorant misrepresentations and even fraudulent.

59:33

There was no papal Roman authority in the early church, and as we mentioned at the beginning of the first episode, it was not until the latter part of the 4th century that the idea of a centrally located religion based in Rome became a part of the common vernacular.

59:48

Lacking evidence for a Roman Catholic church any earlier than that, Roman Catholic apologists pretty much invent the continuity that would have been necessary to prove apostolicity, and that is exactly what

59:59

Fr. Ray Ryland did in his speech in 2004 at the Deep in History conference. In reality,

01:00:06

Ryland had never even ventured out of the inflatable kiddie pool. His ignorance of history and his ambitious imagination is all that he demonstrated in his talk.

01:00:15

We will conclude this third episode of the Diving Board on a somber note. We do not wish to ridicule

01:00:20

Ryland or criticize him beyond his historical errors, misrepresentations, and legends, but we do need to highlight them in order to show the desperation to which the former

01:00:29

Protestant will resort in order to justify his decision to join Roman Catholicism. Ray Ryland died

01:00:36

March 20, 2014, and we cannot help but to extend our condolences to his family and friends, but we also cannot withhold a final remark on his lamentable spiritual condition at his passing.

01:00:48

Ray Ryland believed he had plumbed the depths of history to discover the true religion Christ founded upon the rock.

01:00:55

The fact is, Ryland's assessment of history was hopelessly shallow and revisionist, and he either fell for the shallow arguments of others or willingly participated in the creative revisions of history so that he could overlook the lie of the origins of Roman Catholicism and create a fiction of his own imagination to justify the ancient origins of the novel religion we call

01:01:17

Roman Catholicism. We call his error the presumption of apostolic continuity, and it is the centerpiece of the

01:01:24

Roman argument, but it is a lie, and Ryland rejected the truth of Christ and exchanged it for a hopelessly flawed, fabricated, fictitious account of history, and went to his grave believing it.

01:01:36

But he is not alone in his error, and he perished apart from Christ. Please do not fall for Rome's deluded presumption of apostolic continuity, so magnificently displayed by the late

01:01:48

Father Ray Ryland in his 2004 talk on papal authority in the early church. Don't fall for the lie.

01:01:55

We will return soon with another podcast on the shallow historical basis of Protestants who convert to Roman Catholicism thinking that they are deep in history, when in fact they have not even begun to swim in the deep end of the history pool.

01:02:10

Until then, this is Timothy F. Kaufman, podcasting from the diving board. We'll see you next time.

01:02:20

Hello, this is Tom Giuditis, president of the Trinity Foundation. Thank you for listening to Semper Reformanda Radio.

01:02:27

For more information on the Trinity Foundation, please visit our website at www .trinityfoundation

01:02:35

.org There you can read, download, and or print over 300 articles or listen to over 200

01:02:43

MP3 audio lectures. And check out our over 65 titles of books and other media.

01:02:50

And if you are between the ages of 16 through 25, you can enter our 2018

01:02:55

Christian Worldview Essay Contest on the topic of the book, The Emperor Has No Clothes, Richard B.

01:03:02

Gaffin, Jr.'s Doctrine of Justification, by author Stephen Cunha. Thank you and remember, the