Papal Infallibility (White vs Staples)

Alpha & Omega Ministries

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

Comments are disabled.

00:00

On my right, on your left, is James White, an elder in the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

00:06

He holds numerous degrees including from Grand Canyon University, Fuller Theological Seminary, and Columbia Evangelical Seminary.

00:15

He's the author of 15 books, including The Roman Catholic Controversy, The Forgotten Trinity, The Potter's Freedom, and Is the

00:25

Mormon My Brother? He currently teaches for the Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary's Arizona campus, teaching

00:32

Greek, Hebrew, and Systematic Theology, and on the seminary's main campus in the summers, teaching

00:38

Christian Apologetics. He's also a critical consultant on the New American Standard Bible Update.

00:45

As the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a Reformed Christian Apologetics organization, James has engaged in more than two dozen moderated public debates against leading

00:54

Roman Catholic apologists, including Fr. Mitch Pacwa, Robert Sangenes, Patrick Madrid, and Jerry Matitix.

01:02

Dr. White is currently finishing work on his latest book, The God Who Justifies, an exegetical presentation and defense of the doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone.

01:13

Say hi to Mr. James White. On my left is

01:26

Tim Staples, a nationally recognized Catholic apologist. Tim is a former fundamentalist pastor who was received into the

01:34

Catholic Church in 1988. After his conversion, Tim graduated summa cum laude from St.

01:40

Charles Seminary in Philadelphia with a degree in philosophy, followed by graduate studies in theology at Mount St.

01:46

Mary's Seminary in Maryland. Tim is the author of Nuts and Bolts, a practical how -to guide for explaining and defending the

01:55

Catholic faith. He's a contributing author to many national Catholic periodicals, such as Envoy and Lay Witness, and his conversion story appears in the book,

02:04

Surprised by Truth. Tim travels the country speaking at conferences on the many aspects of Catholic belief and has produced over a dozen tape series on Catholic biblical apologetics for St.

02:15

Joseph Communications. Currently, Tim is the director of evangelization for the Catholic Resource Center and is the host of a live call -in apologetics radio program broadcast nationally and around the world via satellite on EWTN's Global Catholic Radio.

02:31

To start our evening with his 30 -minute opening statement, please welcome Tim Staples. Thank you, and I first of all want to thank

02:54

James for coming all the way from Arizona. Thank you also to St.

02:59

Joseph Communications, Terry Barber, and everybody there. Thank you for also all of my friends, co -workers, especially my fiancee for putting up with me for the last week, all night studying and such.

03:13

You understand, I'm sure. But it is great to be here, and for those of you who heard the radio broadcast yesterday and today, you know we have a lot to talk about, and we didn't get to talk about it all on the radio.

03:26

But I want to give a special welcome to all of our separated brethren, our brothers and sisters that are not of the

03:33

Catholic faith, and I want to share with you a little bit. I'm going to be sharing a lot of things that my

03:38

Catholic friends are well acquainted with, but I want to share the gospel, I want to share the truth with our brothers and sisters that have come here.

03:46

And I want to welcome you as we begin this topic, this most crucial topic of papal infallibility.

03:52

What we're here to talk about is yes, papal infallibility, but we're here to talk about the issue of authority.

04:00

And the question is tonight, and the question you will hear me ask many, many times to you as well to my brother on the podium here,

04:10

James White, is this. Who do you trust? Who are you going to rely on when it comes to your salvation?

04:19

Are you going to trust? Are you going to put your trust and faith in your own ability to interpret the scriptures?

04:26

Because ultimately I believe, and I am going to demonstrate, that ultimately there are only two choices.

04:33

You either put your trust in the interpretations as they have been given authoritatively by the one holy

04:42

Catholic and apostolic church, or you are reduced to your own private interpretation.

04:49

That is what I had to come to conclude as a Protestant minister, and believe me I did it with much kicking and scratching about 14, 13, and 12 years ago as I studied to in fact disprove the

05:04

Catholic faith. Let me begin in Matthew chapter 16, a very, very famous passage of scripture that we are all well acquainted with in order to demonstrate my point.

05:16

I want you to realize as we are talking about these doctrines tonight, when we are talking about Matthew 16,

05:22

John 21, Luke 22, and such, these all must be taken in context with all of sacred scripture, and when our

05:33

Lord makes these powerful, powerful words, this statement in Matthew chapter 10, verse 40, where Jesus says to his apostles, if they hear you, they hear me.

05:46

If they reject you, they reject me. Jesus Christ giving authority to the apostles to speak for him.

05:53

That is, I submit to you, infallible authority. When Jesus Christ walked this earth, he did not take a poll, as the man in the

06:03

White House so often does. He did not take a poll to determine what he ought to teach, but he proclaimed, thus saith

06:11

God. In fact, he was God. In fact, in John chapter 5, verse 43, he says,

06:17

I am come in my Father's name. If another comes in his own name, him you will receive.

06:23

Notice what Jesus says, I am come in my Father's name. What does that mean? That means Jesus Christ has come with the authority of the

06:32

Father. That means an infallible authority. This same Jesus, in turn, says to the church, to the apostles, and I'm going to argue their successors as well, the gift of the apostle has not died, it is alive and well in the church today, 2 ,000 years later.

06:51

We believe in apostolic succession, and I'm going to demonstrate that that is taught in scripture and throughout the history of the church.

07:00

But Jesus gave his authority to the apostles so radically so that he could make that statement.

07:05

If they hear you, they hear me. If they reject you, they reject me. Jesus, in Matthew chapter 28, verse 19, called the apostles to go out and to proclaim the gospel to all nations, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever

07:24

I've commanded you, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And notice, in the same context in which he sends them out with apostolic authority, with his authority to speak for him, he says,

07:36

Lo, I will be with you all days, even unto the end of the age. How is he with us?

07:43

He is with us, my friends, because that apostolic gift that Jesus communicated to the apostles is alive and well today.

07:53

Now let's go to the text of Matthew chapter 16, and you all are well acquainted with it, but let me just quote beginning at verse 13.

08:02

You remember, Jesus asked the question, Who do men say that I am? And the apostles respond, Well, some say you're

08:07

John the Baptist, some say you're Jeremiah, Elijah, or one of the prophets. But Jesus says, Who do you say that I am?

08:14

I would suggest to you that is a question that is quite apropos for us today.

08:20

Because notice there was a multiplication of ideas of who Jesus Christ is. How many of you know, if you agree with me, say

08:28

Amen. There are quite a few disagreements today as to just who Jesus Christ is.

08:35

Well folks, Jesus asked the question, but I want you to notice in context who it was who responded.

08:43

It was Peter who responded, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God. And then Jesus responds to Peter.

08:51

And I think we're all well acquainted with it, but I want to really focus in here on some very important aspects of this text.

08:59

Jesus says, Blessed art thou. In fact, there are three crucial statements he makes to Peter. Blessed art thou,

09:05

Simon, son of John. Flesh and blood hath not revealed this to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. Statement number one.

09:12

Blessed are you. Notice it is you, Peter. And then he says, And I say unto you,

09:19

Peter, once again speaking to Peter, I, you are the rock and upon this rock

09:27

I will build my church. Now I'm sure we're going to talk about big rocks and little rocks all night tonight, but suffice to say right now, the fact is there is no difference in meaning between rocks.

09:40

That is an old, and I'm praying James won't try to drag that old one and beat it once again. As most

09:46

Protestant scholars today, modern scholarships such as H .N. Ritterbosch, D .A. Carson, and the

09:52

Expositors Bible Commentary make very clear, there is no question that Peter is in fact the rock.

10:00

Now, are there other interpretations that are allowable? Is there a polyvalent understanding to this text?

10:07

Absolutely. Can we say it is Peter's confession of faith? Absolutely. In fact, the

10:13

Catechism, and please understand this folks, the Catechism of the Catholic Church in paragraph 424 says as much, that it is in fact

10:22

Peter's confession. You see, the Catholic Church understands as the Church Fathers have always understood,

10:29

Scripture can in fact be understood in a polyvalent sense, on the literal level. And then you can take it to a spiritual level.

10:36

So there are other meanings, deeper meanings, spiritual meanings, on the moral, anagogical, analogical levels and such.

10:45

But what is the first and primary meaning of the text? Folks, I believe it is inescapable.

10:51

Jesus is speaking to Peter, in fact I counted seven times the second personal pronoun used.

10:58

You, you, you, you, you, Peter. There is no question that it is Peter upon whom

11:04

Christ builds his church. There is no question. And then he goes on, and I say unto you, again singular speaking to Peter, I will give to you

11:18

Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, that whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

11:24

Now many of my Protestant apologist friends will come back and say, was not a similar authority given to the apostles, all of them, and notice my friends, in union with Peter, Peter as well.

11:37

Yes, we acknowledge that in Matthew chapter 18, verses 15 through 18. One of the classic scriptures that the church has always used to demonstrate that Jesus taught, the church has the final say on matters of faith and morals, as well as disciplinary matters, because Jesus makes it very plain in Matthew 18, 15 through 18, if you have a disagreement with your brother, you take it to your brother and try to settle it.

12:02

If you can't settle it, you take two or three with you and try to settle it, and if you still can't settle it, you take it to the

12:09

Bible, and then you argue, and then you start your own denomination. Oh, I'm sorry, no.

12:15

You take it to the church, and the one who fails to hear the church is to be as a heathen and a publican.

12:24

So there is, and that's not republican, by the way, that's publican. We do not deny that the apostles are given a corporate authority, including binding and loosing, however, it is

12:37

Jesus who gave the keys to Peter, and in a singular way. And folks, what we see throughout the history of the church, are fathers of the church interpreting that text just as Catholics have done, just as you and I as Catholics interpret them today.

12:55

So first of all, the text I believe is clear, and we're going to have some play on this,

13:00

I'm sure. What is going on here? But I want to draw your attention to some context here that I think will help us.

13:08

Because if you go back to Matthew chapter 14, verses 23 through 27, we have a very interesting text here.

13:14

To establish a context. You see, Matthew is writing to a community that was very much involved in a problem of authority.

13:24

Hello, I think we can relate. The problem was, who are we going to listen to?

13:31

We've got these folks like Peter coming along and saying to us, now

13:37

Matthew is written, as we know, both from external sources such as St. Irenaeus, and internal evidence from the text itself was written to a

13:46

Jewish community, Hebrew Christians. And there were many who had a big problem with this

13:54

Johnny -come -lately, St. Peter coming along, and trying to tell them as he did in Acts chapter 15 clearly at the first council of Jerusalem, where Peter presided very clearly.

14:08

The issue was the issue of the Judaizers, which many of you are aware of, I'm sure. The issue was, for these

14:15

Jews, if you're going to be a Christian, you must be circumcised and keep Levitical law, otherwise you cannot be saved.

14:25

And we read in Acts chapter 15, verses 1 and 2, that when Paul and Barnabas had no small dispute with believers in Antioch over this issue, because folks had come down from Jerusalem teaching this heresy, what did they do?

14:40

They went up to Jerusalem, to the first church council of Jerusalem, to consider this question where Peter clearly is at the helm.

14:49

There was much disputing, we read in the first six verses of Acts chapter 15, much disputing at the council.

14:57

If you've read the extracts and sessions of the 21 ecumenical councils we've had over 2 ,000 years, you know there's nothing new under the sun.

15:06

Yes, there is much disputing at times, but I want you to notice that it is Peter who stands up and proclaims the gospel.

15:15

We believe, as the Catholic Church has taught for 2 ,000 years, that by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

15:22

And when Peter spoke, just as we've heard echoed down through the centuries, when Peter spoke, just as we heard at the council of Chalcedon in 451, the council fathers erupted when

15:35

Pope Leo's tome was read concerning the nature of Christ and dealing with the Monophysite heresy.

15:41

They erupted in unison and said, Peter has spoken through Leo. I'm reminded of Saint Augustine when he is dealing with the issue of the

15:51

Pelagians. He writes, two councils were sent to the apostolic sea whence rescripts have come.

16:01

The matter is at an end. The matter is settled. Would to God the heresy would cease as well.

16:08

For 2 ,000 years, folks, popes, that is, the successors of Peter, have spoken just as Peter did at that first church council.

16:16

And you want to know why, folks? Because God loves us and he knows us, doesn't he?

16:22

He knows, as Acts 20, verse 28, Paul warned the Ephesian elders that as soon as I leave there are going to come in wolves, attacking, and they are going to try to lead you astray.

16:35

We read about it in Galatians. We read about it in 2 Corinthians, how once Paul left, they immediately attack.

16:43

Absolutely, folks, Jesus knew and Jesus knows us.

16:50

This is why Jesus has given us an authoritative church that speaks for him.

16:57

You see, now back to Matthew's gospel, in Matthew chapter 14, verses 23 through 27,

17:06

I want to point out something here, and that is this, all over Matthew's gospel, we get a sense of this urgency, this message, that in the first century there is a problem with authority.

17:25

Hence, in Matthew's gospel, in particular dealing with the Jews, we have more of an emphasis on the authority of the church, even using the word ecclesia, as the other gospels do not, even using in much more detailed words the authority of the

17:44

Bishop of Rome. Not that the others do not, certainly John does and Luke does in much detail, but Matthew even more so, and it helps us to understand the

17:53

Jewish backdrop in order to appreciate it. You see, Jesus, all over, if we read in Matthew chapter 20, 21, 22, the parables, for example,

18:05

I'll just choose one, the parable of the husbandman who lends out his vineyard, and he gives it to his workers to tend while he is gone.

18:14

And what happens? He goes away into a far country, and he sends his representatives.

18:20

We know this, that Jesus is speaking about, is the kingdom of heaven, the church, the

18:28

Old Testament people of God that I will refer to, as Stephen does in Acts chapter 7 verse 38, as the ecclesia, the church in the wilderness, as he refers to the

18:39

Old Testament people of God, the church, the called out ones, the kingdom of heaven on earth.

18:47

Notice he says, I sent messenger after messenger after messenger, and you reject, you reject, you reject, until finally

18:54

I send my own son and you kill him. What will the Lord of the vineyard do to those wicked men?

19:00

The Jews themselves respond, he will take that vineyard from them and give it to a people who will do his bidding.

19:07

This, of course, is referring to the Jews, and the fact that there is about to be a change of command, there is about to be a new hierarchy instituted, the kingdom of heaven,

19:19

Jesus says, on this earth, over and over, hence the language in Matthew 16, I give you the keys of what?

19:27

The kingdom. Now notice, I want to emphasize again, his listeners understood fully the notion of kingdom, kingdom, complete with hierarchy.

19:38

Has anybody ever seen a kingdom without a king? Has anybody ever seen a kingdom without provincial rulers, princes, lords, to carry out the bidding of the king?

19:49

Has anybody ever seen a kingdom, certainly the Israelites had not, without a prime minister, as we read about in Isaiah chapter 15, verses 15 through 22, where clearly we see during the reign of Hezekiah, we see there was a prime minister, and for those of you who don't know, there was an office of prime minister under the king, prime minister or as the scripture refers to him as the master of the palace, who had the authority that is referred to in scripture as the key, the key to the house, and he spoke for the king.

20:32

Now in the story as it goes there in Isaiah, we read there was a man named

20:37

Shebna who was prime minister and he was wicked, and God was about to remove him from his place of authority.

20:44

Notice what the scripture says, I will take the key from him, and I will give it to Eliakim, and he shall be a father, notice, papa, father, over the inhabitants of Judah and Israel.

21:00

This is the context in which the Jews were well acquainted. Jesus now, speaking to the apostles, refers to this kingdom and says,

21:10

I am about to give the keys to Peter. Now back to Matthew 14, you thought

21:17

I forgot. Matthew 14 verses 23 through 27, we get a little bit more of the context, notice

21:24

Jesus goes up to a mountain to pray and the apostles go out onto the sea and they are ready to sink, as usual.

21:33

Jesus comes walking on the water and notice what happens, John says, Peter, it's the

21:40

Lord. And notice John first, upon understanding who it is, if you read the parallel passages in Mark chapter 6 as well, and Matthew chapter 14,

21:52

John immediately turns to Peter, not to everyone else, but to Peter and says, it's the Lord. And Peter says, if it be thou bid me come to thee on the water, he steps out and he does, and I want you to know, he does what no man had ever done before, he walks on the water, no man has ever done before.

22:09

Here the gospel is teaching us something, Jesus is communicating to Peter a unique power.

22:16

He walks out on the water, and then we remember the story, he gets his eyes off of Jesus and he begins to sink, but Jesus reaches his hand out and says,

22:25

Pete, you ain't going under. What does that say to that first century Jewish community that is in the struggle for their very existence?

22:34

It says to them, guys, yeah, Peter is the one, he is the first apostle, according to Matthew chapter 10, verse 2, in the list of the apostles that we've just received in Matthew chapter 10, and we know, by the way, that Greek word protos can have the meaning of primacy, such as prototikos, in referring to Christ as the firstborn in Colossians 115.

23:00

And we know that it has a meaning of primacy here in Matthew 10, because number one, it certainly doesn't mean age, because if Peter was just the eldest, and that's why they put him first in Matthew 10, then why is it that we always have the same listing of apostles, the general order?

23:19

It's always Peter first and Judas last. If it's age, then John should be near the bottom, shouldn't he, he's one of the youngest.

23:27

So it's not a matter of age, and it's not a matter of chronology, because we know

23:34

Andrew was first, according to John chapter 1, verses 41 and 42,

23:40

Andrew was the first. He went back and got his bro, Peter, and said, come on, we've found the

23:45

Messiah. So we have this sense of primacy already in Matthew's gospel.

23:51

Here now, Jesus empowers Peter in a unique way. He begins to sink,

23:57

Jesus says, nope, and he pulls him back up. What a powerful message it is. Then we go to Matthew 17, verses 23 and following, right after the giving of the keys of the kingdom, and what do we see?

24:11

We see the tax collectors coming to the apostles and Jesus to collect the taxes.

24:18

Yes, folks, the IRS was alive and well, but I want you to know, who do they come to, who do the heathens go to?

24:28

The heathens, those outside, know who the spokesman for Christ is. They go right to Peter.

24:34

So it has been for 2 ,000 years, folks, when people want to know what's happening in Christianity, they don't turn on Benny Hinn.

24:42

When they want to know what's happening in Christianity, in fact, the patriarch of Constantinople was in the United States just a few months ago.

24:47

Did anybody hear about it? Yeah, a few. But the bishop of Rome walks outside of the

24:53

Vatican, and everybody knows where he is. Folks, for 2 ,000 years, the world has known where the center of Christianity is.

25:01

So it was in the first century. Even the heathens understood who the spokesman for our Lord was. Does not your master pay the tax?

25:08

And Pete says, Lord, that's a good question, do we? Jesus says, just to point out their hypocrisy, who do men take taxes from, their own people or from foreigners?

25:21

Of course, you don't tax your own people, that's nuts, right? I think the United States has kind of missed it on that one.

25:30

But he says, nevertheless, lest we offend him, go to the sea, cast in a hook, and the fish that you catch will have enough money for both me and you.

25:38

Notice here, once again, Jesus empowers Peter to do something unique, to provide not only for Peter, but for Jesus.

25:48

The clear context, my friends, Matthew chapter 16 cannot be any more clear that Jesus is giving authority to Peter, and he is building his church upon him.

26:02

And we'll have a lot more dialogue on that, I'm sure. But I want to move now to another passage, and that's in Luke chapter 22, verses 29 -32.

26:12

And before I get there, I want to move back real quick. I don't have time to quote, because unfortunately, I'm running out of time.

26:19

In Luke chapter 4, beginning at verse 18, you remember the story, Jesus goes into the synagogue, and what a

26:25

Saturday that must have been. Jesus walks in, the scroll is handed to him, he reads Isaiah chapter 61,

26:32

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, for he hath anointed me. Folks, it was not just by coincidence that Jesus just happened to open that scroll.

26:41

Amen? He read the scroll, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, for he hath anointed me to preach the gospel of the poor, the opening of the eyes of the blind, and all that good stuff, to preach the acceptable year of salvation.

26:53

This day has this been fulfilled in your hearing, and no doubt he caused a little disturbance. I don't know about you, but if I was there on that Saturday, I think

27:02

I would have been moving away from him in a hurry. Who is this guy? The fact is, he gets thrown out of the synagogue, but then he demonstrates who he is by performing miracles.

27:13

Now I want you to notice, he goes out, he performs miracles to prove who he is. But he just happens, once again, of course it's a coincidence, he just happens to go to Peter's house, where he heals

27:25

Peter's mother -in -law. Once again, just a coincidence of course, like when Jesus opened the scroll of Isaiah 61.

27:32

Then Jesus goes and begins to perform miracles, and to proclaim the gospel, and to heal the multitudes until literally thousands press in upon him.

27:43

Until the end of chapter 4 and into chapter 5, what happens? Jesus is forced to step out into the sea, and once again, of course, it's just a coincidence.

27:52

Read your Bible there, in Luke chapter 5, there are two boats there. One just happens to belong to Peter.

27:58

Jesus just happens to step into the bark of Peter. Ever heard that phrase? The bark of Peter.

28:05

And it's from the bark of Peter he proclaims the gospel to the multitudes. And then, right in the midst, and I want you to put yourself back 2 ,000 years, listen.

28:17

Imagine if you're there, Jesus performing miracles, proclaiming the gospel, and all of a sudden he steps out of the bark of Peter, and then he tells

28:24

Peter, not the others, Peter, get in the boat and go fishing.

28:30

Now if you were there, would you say, excuse me, Jesus, what's going on here? Then we turn around and watch Peter go fishing.

28:36

What's up here? Well, Jesus makes it very clear, Peter begins to realize when he goes out and starts fishing,

28:44

I love the line, you know, Lord, we've been fishing all night, we haven't caught a thing. You know, you'd figure that with these apostles being professional fishermen, they might be able to catch a fish once in a while.

28:56

But they go out into the sea, and he brings in a draft of fish so huge that the boat begins to sink, and they have to bring the other boat out to put the fish in it.

29:05

And Peter immediately begins to realize, folks, what's going on here. He begins to realize, for he looks at Jesus and says, depart from me, man.

29:15

In other words, you've got the wrong guy here. I am a sinful man, depart from me.

29:20

I am a sinful man. Then in verse 10, Jesus says, fear not, henceforth you,

29:26

Peter, will catch men. Now we move to Luke, same gospel, Luke's gospel, chapter 22, verses 29 through 32.

29:35

And I want you to notice, and Mr. White points this out in his book in Roman Catholic Controversy, he says that if the apostles knew who was in charge, why is it they're asking the question in Luke 22, which occurs after Matthew 16, why are they asking the question, who shall be the greatest?

29:53

Well, Jesus already answered that question. Well, folks, number one, Jesus also said things like in Mark 13, 34, no man knows the hour that the

30:03

Father is coming to establish his kingdom. Amen? But what do we see in Acts chapter 1? Lord, will you establish your kingdom by now?

30:11

These knuckleheads, you know, it took a while before they realized, and the Catholic Church understands that.

30:17

It took a while before they fully realized. Notice in Matthew chapter 16 it says, I will give unto you,

30:24

Peter, the keys of the kingdom. I will. We understand that Jesus did not empower the apostles to act as his prime minister, as his lords over his kingdom of heaven on the earth in full until after Pentecost, until they were empowered to do so.

30:44

Keep that in mind as we keep reading. Yes, now, in Luke 22, in this same text, they say, who is the greatest among us?

30:53

And Jesus responds, it's the one who serves, hence the greatest title of the Pope, the title that our present

31:01

Holy Father uses so often, the servant of the servants of God. And right after now, the thing that Mr.

31:08

White didn't get to in Roman Catholic controversy is right after that, in verses 29 -32,

31:16

Jesus once again says, knucklehead, I'm telling you who's in charge.

31:22

After he warns, the true leader must be the servant, as Peter will figure out and in fact he will demonstrate when he's crucified upside down.

31:30

Listen, he says, a kingdom, the kingdom that my

31:36

Father has given unto me, I give unto you. As my

31:42

Father has delivered a kingdom, notice the language, a kingdom unto me, I deliver it unto you.

31:47

And then he turns to Peter, and now I want you to notice here, if I had 12 apostles here in the front row, and I were to look down at you, and I'm playing

31:54

Jesus here, and I said, Simon, Simon, now I'm going to pick you out, you're the apostle there, dude, alright?

32:01

And I were to say, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has desired to destroy you all, to sift you all, in Greek it's homos, it's plural.

32:10

He wants to destroy all you other apostles that are over here. But then Jesus makes a statement, I am praying for you,

32:17

Peter, that your faith fail not. When you are converted, strengthen your brothers. What would you other apostles think?

32:24

Hey, Jesus, how about tossing a prayer over my way? You just said, the devil wants to kill me.

32:34

Why do they not object? Because they understand, as the Catholic Church has understood for 2 ,000 years, as the fathers of the

32:40

Church, I will demonstrate later, because unfortunately I'm out of time, have understood for 2 ,000 years, that it is

32:46

Peter, that as the Council of Sardica said in 343 AD, who is the head of the

32:53

College of the Apostles. God bless you. Thank you,

33:21

Tim. And now with his 30 -minute opening statement, James White. We have engaged in a number of debates on the subject of the papacy in the past.

33:39

In fact, only a few years ago I debated Father Mitchell Pacwa on all of the passages that were just raised by my opponent, and I would direct you to that, because I was asked here to debate the issue of papal infallibility.

33:52

And I am going to follow through with what I was asked to do. He was a tortured soul.

33:58

He had done all in his power to stop it. He had written to his own bishop and had denounced the forces who were pushing for the definition of papal infallibility as an aggressive, insolent faction.

34:11

He said to the bishop, I look with anxiety at the prospect of having to defend decisions which may not be difficult in my own private judgment, but may be most difficult to maintain logically in the face of historical facts.

34:26

As a historian he knew better. He knew popes had erred in the past, and he knew the church had never taught such a thing.

34:32

At one point he asked rhetorically of the pro -infallibilist forces, how will they deal with Honorius, for his letters were on the de fide basis.

34:41

He actually voiced a hope that God would intervene supernaturally and shut down the first Vatican Council.

34:51

He hoped Italian forces of independence might seize the Vatican. He wrote, we must hope, for one is obliged to hope, that the pope will be driven from Rome and will not continue the council or that there will be another pope.

35:05

It is sad that he should force us to such wishes. He pointed out that the fourth century church fathers had no idea of such a dogma as papal infallibility, and he prayed to them saying, save the church, oh my fathers, from a danger as great as any that has happened.

35:22

Even after the council announced its decision, he maintained hope. He wrote, I do not and cannot at present accept the definition for the reason as far as I can see, the authority of history and the past against it more than counterbalance the living authority in its favor.

35:39

And he likewise opined, there is a limit to the triumph of the tyrannical. Let us be patient, let us have faith, and a new pope and a reassembled council may trim the boats.

35:50

But his hopes were not met, and he then had to find a way to understand the new definition.

35:57

The result stands, my friends, as a monument to what happens when a man's dedication to a false religious teaching runs him directly into the immovable rock of truth.

36:09

He finally came to decide that the definition of papal infallibility provided by the

36:14

First Vatican Council meant that when a pope speaks ex cathedra, what he says must be in accord with the church.

36:22

And if what he says is not in accord with the universal church, it is not by definition ex cathedra. He wrote, quote, was

36:29

Saint Peter infallible on that occasion at Antioch when Saint Paul withstood him? Was Saint Victor infallible when he separated from his communion the

36:36

Asiatic churches? Or Liberius when in like manner he excommunicated Athanasius? And to come to late times, was

36:43

Gregory XIII when he had a medal struck in honor of the Bartholomew Massacre? Or Paul IV in his conduct towards Elizabeth?

36:51

Or Sixtus V when he blessed the Armada? Or Urban VII when he persecuted Galileo? In other words, if what the pope says is true, it can be ex cathedra.

37:03

If it turns out to be false, it is by definition not ex cathedra. In other words, he can speak infallibly only when he's right.

37:13

Now this circular reasoning comes from none other than the patron saint of so many modern

37:19

Roman Catholic apologists, John Henry Cardinal Newman. What causes a brilliant mind such as Newman's to end up believing something he knows is unhistorical?

37:29

What force can cause a person to say, as long as the pope is right, he's right, as if this is what the

37:36

Vatican Council intended? Almost four years ago, I gave the answer in a debate right here against Mr.

37:43

Staples, sola ecclesia, the ultimate authority of the church over all things, and in this case, even over history, fact, truth, and reason.

37:55

Our time is very limited this evening, as always it is. So let's cut to the heart of the matter. I believe

38:01

God's word is infallible. Paul described it as theanoustos, God breathed.

38:07

I do not believe the pope is infallible. I believe the fact that he teaches, as Christian doctrine, such things as the mass as a perpetuatory sacrifice, transubstantiation, purgatory, indulgences, merits, sacramental forgiveness, the immaculate conception, and the bodily assumption, the idea that one can have eternal life outside of Jesus Christ if one but sincerely seeks after God, as well as teaching his own infallibility, all prove to the person who stands firmly upon the foundation of scripture just how tremendously fallible the pope really is.

38:41

And those are very important issues, for they touch upon the gospel itself. It would be an error for someone to say, see,

38:47

Protestants only have a handful of examples to use, and that proves, in and of itself, papal infallibility.

38:54

We have hundreds of examples, it's just that for the person who has already surrendered to the claims of the pope and the papacy, the majority of examples become irrelevant.

39:05

The pope's claimed authority over doctrinal matters means that such things would be submitted to his decision, not the exegesis of the holy text of scripture.

39:14

So if we desire to warn the followers of the pope of their error, we must turn to examples that demonstrate on the basis of their own system the fallibility of the pope and the papacy.

39:25

Now there is one vitally important point that we must make right at the beginning this evening. For the doctrine of an infallible pope to have any meaning to anyone at all, it must be possible to know now, during our lifetimes, whether the pope is giving sound infallible guidance or unsound, errant guidance.

39:46

If we can't know that now, today, this evening, then what good is it to say that you have an infallible guide in the pope when you admit that he might be leading you into error with his most recent encyclical or pronouncement?

40:00

What good is it to pronounce a guide infallible if he then leads you into error, only to be corrected years or even decades later?

40:08

If you are to make a treacherous trek through the Andes Mountains, for example, you would want a guide who is capable of leading you along the way.

40:17

If you hired a guide who claimed infallible knowledge of the mountain passes, you would be rather disappointed if that guide led you to constant dead ends, requiring you to reverse your path and start all over again.

40:29

And if that guide led you into dangerous situations where your very life was threatened, only to say, oh,

40:34

I now infallibly know that we need to go the other direction, his offering of infallible assurance would not inspire much in the way of confidence, would it?

40:43

In the same way, we will see that in the course of history there were times when following the leadership of the pope led one, even by Roman Catholic standards, into grave error.

40:53

And though later popes corrected the errant guidance of their predecessors, that is little consolation to a person who followed the first pope's allegedly infallible teaching.

41:04

So my argument is rather simple. The facts of history prove that the modern Roman Catholic concept of an infallible papacy developed not from the continuing study of scripture and tradition.

41:14

Instead, it came about due to political factors such as the preeminence of the ancient Church of Rome as the seat of the empire, the fact that the

41:22

Roman Church was known for supporting monetarily other churches, the movement of the seat of the empire from Rome to Constantinople just before the time of the fall of the

41:31

Western Empire, and especially the production of the medieval forgeries that became the heart and soul of canon law, such as the donation of Constantine and the pseudo -Isidorian decretals.

41:45

Since this is so, it follows that papal infallibility is not only unbiblical, it is also ahistorical.

41:51

We will be able to demonstrate not only errors on the part of popes, but we will be able to likewise demonstrate that the ancient

41:58

Church as a whole had no idea of such a belief, and in fact, numerous ecumenical councils acted directly contrary to such a concept.

42:07

Further, we will see that since there is no way for any living person to be certain that what he or she interprets the current pope to mean is in fact infallible, and what the

42:19

Church in later decades will teach, the entire concept of papal infallibility is likewise useless, since one may follow the pope directly into heresy.

42:30

Now with this in mind, let us turn to the clearest example of papal error, and that is the

42:36

Pope Honorius. Honorius was the Bishop of Rome from 625 to 638.

42:42

In 634, Sergius, who was the Patriarch of Constantinople, wrote to Honorius concerning Sergius's attempts to bring the monophysites, those who assert that there is only one nature in Christ, into the

42:56

Catholic fold. Now Sergius was a monothelite, one who believed that while Christ was indeed one person with two natures, he had but one will, since he believed that the will was a function of the one person, not a function of the two natures.

43:13

Honorius, in responding to Sergius, provides the single clearest example of papal error that violates the definition of infallibility as given by Rome itself.

43:24

Honorius agreed with Sergius clearly in his first letter. There he wrote the words,

43:30

Hathen kai han thelema hamalagumen tu curiu Jesu Christu.

43:36

We confess one only will in our Lord Jesus Christ. Now there is absolutely, positively, no question that Honorius was in fact condemned as a heretic by the sixth ecumenical council which met in Constantinople in the 13th session right near the beginning of that document.

44:06

His two letters, which he had written to Sergius, were ordered to be brought before the council and burned before the ecumenical council as hurtful to the soul.

44:16

In the 16th session, the bishops exclaimed, Anathema to the heretic

44:22

Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius.

44:28

And I remind you, the papal legates did too. In the decree of faith published at the 18th session, it is stated that,

44:37

The originator of all evil found a fit tool for his will in Honorius, Pope of Old Rome.

44:46

The papal legates, representatives of Pope Agatho, made no attempt to stop the burning of the letters and subscribed to every anathema placed upon Honorius.

45:00

The report of the council to the emperor says that, Honorius, formerly bishop of Rome, had been punished with exclusion and anathema because he followed the monophylites.

45:15

In its letter to Pope Agatho, who died during the course of the council, the council says, We have destroyed the fort of the heretics and slain them with the anathema in accordance with the sentence spoken before in your holy letter, namely,

45:31

Theodore of Perun, Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, etc.

45:38

Note that the council believed its action to be in full accord with Agatho's wishes and Agatho's letter.

45:47

The imperial decree that came out from this whole incident speaks of, quote, the unholy priests who infected the church and falsely governed, end quote, and mentions among them, quote,

46:00

Honorius, the Pope of Old Rome, the confirmer of heresy who contradicted himself, end quote.

46:09

The emperor goes on to anathematize, quote, Honorius, who was Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and strengthened the heresy, end quote.

46:21

Pope Leo II confirmed the decrees of the council and expressly says that he too anathematized his predecessor,

46:30

Honorius. So strong was Leo's confirmation that Baronius rejected it, said it had to have been

46:38

Spurius, and even Cardinal Bellarmine tried to say that Leo's words had been corrupted.

46:46

Neither saw, in Leo's words, any softening of the council's act, though some modern

46:52

Catholic apologists have attempted to find in Leo's sentence a ray of hope. Leo anathematizes

46:57

Honorius, quote, who did not illuminate this apostolic sea with the doctrine of apostolic tradition, but permitted her who was undefiled to be polluted by profane teaching, end quote.

47:13

That Honorius was anathematized by the sixth council is mentioned in the next council met only 12 years later at Trollo.

47:21

They specifically repeat it. So too, the seventh ecumenical council declares its adhesion to the anathema in its decree of faith and in several places in the

47:33

Acts the same is said, and they agree with the sixth ecumenical council in condemning

47:38

Honorius as a heretic. Honorius' name was found in the Roman copy of the Acts, even in Rome this is found.

47:45

This is evident from Anastasius' life of Leo II, and the papal oath, listen to this folks, the papal oath taken by each new pope up to the 11th century as he took the chair of Peter states in no uncertain terms every pope who became pope had to, quote, smite with eternal anathema the originators of the new heresy,

48:08

Sergius, et cetera, together with Honorius because he assisted the base assertion of the heretics, end quote.

48:17

Every single pope for 300 years became pope by anathematizing his predecessor,

48:25

Honorius. In the lesson for the feast of Saint Leo II in the Roman breviary, the name of Pope Honorius occurs among those excommunicated by the sixth synod, and the name remains there until the 16th century.

48:41

We would be wise to consider as well that during the deliberations prior to the announcement of papal infallibility at the first Vatican council, the pope, while excluding those who opposed the definition of infallibility from publishing in Rome, allowed those who supported the definition to print their books and have access to the newspapers in the city itself.

49:03

One of those works the pope allowed to be printed in Rome, and in fact had distributed amongst the members of the council while all replies were disallowed, was that of Professor Panacci.

49:15

Panacci firmly advances the assertion that Honorius's letters were ex cathedra, that they were orthodox, and that the council erred being made up primarily of orientals, not westerners.

49:28

Bishop Hefala, a member of the Vatican council, a historian of whom Philip Schaff said,

49:34

Hefala has forgotten more about the history of councils than the infallible pope ever knew, an opponent of infallibility prior to the council, but one who submitted thereafter, not only refuted

49:46

Panacci fully, but had to completely revise his own writings on the subject of Honorius after the decree came out, much like Newman did.

49:56

I hardly recommend the narrative provided by Philip Schaff of how Pope Pius IX utilized everything short of the barrel of a gun to obtain the definition of his own infallibility, and how completely different was this allegedly ecumenical council in comparison with that of Nicaea.

50:13

There is nothing in the history of the first Vatican council that will cause any person to be anything but distrustful of the allegedly infallible pronouncement that came there from.

50:24

Now, Patrick Madrid, in his book, Pope Fiction, erroneously asserts that Pope Leo redefined the language of the sixth ecumenical council.

50:32

He writes that Leo, quote, confirmed the council's decree, but redefined its language regarding Pope Honorius, making it clear that Honorius had not endorsed the monothelitism of Sergius, but had failed in his duty to condemn it.

50:46

Officially, therefore, Honorius was condemned for his negligence, but not for heresy, end quote.

50:51

This is truly imaginative, but it is also utterly untrue. Leo did not alter any wording of the council.

50:58

Madrid is referring to the letter of Leo to the emperor I cited above. He uses the anathema and says that Honorius, quote, permitted her who was undefiled to be polluted by profane teaching, end quote.

51:09

As I noted previously, so strong were his words that some insist they must be forgeries, and even

51:15

Bellarmine said they had been corrupted. But it is self -evident that Madrid's forced reading is in error, for it was not

51:22

Leo's alleged correction that appears in the seventh and eighth ecumenical councils, but the words of the sixth, where Honorius is condemned as a heretic.

51:35

Madrid follows this with a glorious example of anachronistic interpretation of ancient church history in the light of modern

51:42

Roman beliefs when he quotes Warren Carroll's statement, quote, the fact remains that no decree of a council has effect in the

51:49

Catholic Church unless and until it is confirmed by the reigning pope, and only in the form that he confirms it.

51:55

There is no supreme law prescribing how the pope shall designate his confirmation. Pope Honorius, therefore, was never condemned for heresy by the supreme church authority, but only for negligence in allowing a heresy to spread and grow when he should have denounced it, end quote.

52:12

Such is common fare today, but it is utterly without historical merit. You see, the universal church at that time did not believe in the idea that a council had to await the approval of the

52:25

Bishop of Rome. That concept had to wait to find its universal expression in the pseudo -Isidorean decretals almost 200 years yet in the future from the time of the sixth ecumenical council and Pope Leo.

52:40

That a belief first introduced by fraudulent means in the middle of the ninth century would have to be read back into the context of the clear and obvious condemnation of Honorius in the seventh century in a vain attempt to save him is clear evidence of the impossible task facing the defender of papal infallibility.

53:01

Finally, the fact that every possible defense has been offered for Honorius' condemnation proves one thing, none of them are compelling.

53:11

Thus we see why Newman feared the prospect of having to defend decisions which may, quote, be most difficult to maintain logically in the face of historical facts, end quote.

53:23

Now let's go back even farther in church history for our next example of papal error. Let's put this example into a modern setting first so that its full weight can be seen.

53:33

Let's say there was a Catholic theologian, let's call him Tom the Theologian, and let's say Tom got into a fight with the church hierarchy of a particular region, say the bishops of France.

53:44

Well the bishops of France get together, decide Tom the Theologian is a heretic and excommunicate him.

53:50

Tom goes to Rome and talks to the Pope. The Pope writes two encyclicals to the bishops of France and in these encyclicals he says he has carefully examined

53:58

Tom's confession of faith. He says that when Tom read his confession in the presence of the Pope and his advisers, they openly wept at the orthodoxy and soundness of Tom the

54:07

Theologian. The Pope upbraids the French bishops saying they have been hasty, have acted out of turn and he commands them on the basis of his apostolic authority to receive

54:17

Tom back into communion. Now given the modern Roman Catholic theory, what would the

54:22

French bishops have to do? Well what if they responded to the Pope by calling another council, again condemning

54:29

Tom the Theologian as a heretic and saying to the Pope, no way, we will not change our views. And what if they then got the head of the

54:35

United Nations involved in the affair and he then wrote to the Pope telling the Pope that he thinks

54:40

Tom the Theologian is a danger and a heretic? Sound far -fetched? Well wait just a second.

54:46

What if the Pope then reversed himself, abandoned Tom the Theologian and agreed to excommunicate the guy?

54:53

Impossible you say? Well that's exactly what happened long ago. Tom the

54:58

Theologian represents two famous heretics, Pelagius and Celestius. The French bishops represent the

55:04

North African church headed up by none other than Saint Augustine himself. And the Pope who at first defended and then condemned the heretics was named

55:12

Zosimas. The story should be familiar to all of you who read such magazines as This Rock or Envoy.

55:18

If for no other reason than this is the context in which the words of Augustine, so often misquoted by Karl Keating, Stephen Ray and others,

55:27

Rome has spoken, the case is closed. Augustine never said such words.

55:33

Instead in Sermon 131 he spoke from the Bible and the Gospel of Grace. At the end of his sermon he warned his listeners against the error of Pelagianism.

55:41

He then exhorted his hearers not only to go against Pelagianism, but if they were to find someone who would not repent to bring them to the attention of the church.

55:53

It is in that context that he then says that two North African councils have already spoken on the matter and have condemned it.

56:01

Further, those councils sent their condemnations to the Apostolic See, which would be Rome, the only

56:07

Apostolic See in the West, and responses agreeing with the North African action had come back in return.

56:14

Augustine expresses his desire that the matter, which had been refuted in every way possible, would soon come to an end and the heresy would go away.

56:24

Roman Catholic historians have been admitting for centuries now that Augustine never said nor intimated

56:29

Rome has spoken, the case is closed, as so many assert even to this evening. Shortly after Augustine preached that sermon,

56:38

Zosimus became Bishop of Rome. Arrogant and not overly bright on the theological end of things,

56:44

Zosimus was taken in by the confession of Pelagius and Celestius. He ignored the fact that his predecessor had approved the

56:51

North African actions. He wrote a papal encyclical, Magnum Pundus. In the letter he says

56:56

Celestius has convinced him of his unconditional faith. The Pope says that Celestius' faith is

57:02

Catholic and Orthodox. He claims to have maturely examined the entire issue.

57:08

The Pope attacks the two North African councils as inept and destructive. And he closed by saying, quote,

57:15

I urge you to do so as much by the authority of the Apostolic Seat as by the mutual concord that exists between our two churches, end quote.

57:24

He then sent a second letter regarding Pelagius in September of 417, in which he spoke of how he and his advisors had wept at the reading of Pelagius' letter.

57:34

He again upbraided the North Africans, calling them whirlwinds and storms in the church.

57:39

But the North Africans stood firm. So Zosimus tried one more time with an encyclical called

57:45

Cuomoi Patrum. There he simply pulled rank, railing at the North Africans and saying, listen to this, quote, so great is our authority that no decision of ours can be subjected to review, end quote.

57:59

So little did Augustine and his fellow bishops believe the fanciful statement Rome has spoken the case is closed, that even this kind of language could not faze them.

58:09

They stood firm. And when the emperor then wrote to Zosimus agreeing with the North Africans' positions,

58:15

Zosimus knew he was in trouble. At the same time, the Africans gathered in council once again, condemned

58:21

Pelagius and Celestius and wrote a terse cover letter along with their conclusions to Zosimus, informing him in no uncertain terms that they would not submit to his demands.

58:34

Faced with this turn of events, Zosimus did a 180, completely reversed himself, condemned the very men who only a few months before he had called

58:43

Catholic and Orthodox, dried the tears of the eyes of those who had wept at Pelagius' letter, and fell in line with the

58:51

North Africans. These are the simple facts of history, and it is painfully obvious that no one involved in the entire affair believed in papal infallibility except possibly for Zosimus, the bishop of Rome, who ended up contradicting himself.

59:06

And he was proven to be anything but fallible in his theological teachings and his leadership of the church at Rome.

59:13

With only a few moments left, I wish to briefly present one last example of papal error, this one coming from the disastrous effort of Sixtus V and his infallible

59:22

Vulgate. As you may recall, the Council of Trent had defined the Latin Vulgate as the official text for the church.

59:29

The problem was, there was no one Vulgate text, so the Pope in Rome decided to provide the church with a single infallible edition of the

59:36

Vulgate. In 1590, Sixtus V published his edition of the Vulgate. He distributed copies to cardinals and ambassadors.

59:43

The edition included the following papal bull. Listen carefully to what Sixtus says. We weighing the importance of the matter and considering carefully the great and singular privilege we hold of God, and our true and legitimate succession from blessed

59:56

Peter, Prince of the Apostles, are the proper and specially constituted person to decide the whole question.

01:00:02

In this, our perpetually valid constitution, we resolve and declare from our certain knowledge and from the plenitude of apostolical authority, that that Vulgate Latin edition of the sacred page of the

01:00:13

Old and New Testament, which was received as authentic by the Council of Trent, and is, without any doubt or controversy, to be reckoned that very one which we now publish.

01:00:24

Now, history tells us that that was one of the most embarrassing incidents in the history of the papacy.

01:00:30

The edition of Sixtus was a royal mess. Filled with errors, it demonstrated conclusively that while the

01:00:35

Pope thought his alleged succession from Peter gave him the ability to determine the very readings of Scripture itself, such did not translate to the printed page.

01:00:44

The work appeared in April of 1590. The work and its attached apostolic constitution existed from April to August when

01:00:51

Pope Sixtus died. Embarrassed Catholic scholars, including Robert Bellarmine, immediately set to work to attempt to save the day.

01:00:58

Revision work began immediately, and a new edition without any apostolic constitutions was rushed to press.

01:01:05

Bellarmine in his autobiography, a work which was not meant for public consumption, admitted that he returned good for evil regarding Sixtus, in that he advised the new

01:01:13

Pope to attempt to save Sixtus' reputation by putting out a new edition that would continue to have Sixtus' name on it.

01:01:20

He told the Pope to lie and say that the errors in the edition that had already been printed had crept into the first edition through the fault of the printers or some other persons.

01:01:31

Time fails us to go into Liberius' reluctant acceptance of the condemnation of Athanasius, Vigilius' uncertainty in a matter of the three chapters, the relevance of the entire period of papal degradation known as the pornocracy, the persecution of Galileo, etc.,

01:01:45

etc. We can't go into the fact that during the papal schism, both sides, both popes, solemnly anathematized the followers of the other, and no one alive at the time had the foggiest idea who was right and who was wrong.

01:01:58

How useful it would be to go into the vast contrast between the teaching of past popes and the present pope.

01:02:04

For example, Boniface VIII in Unum Sanctum, where he proudly proclaims, "'Furthermore we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the

01:02:16

Roman pontiff,' compare that with what Pope John Paul II said on September 9th, 1998, that every true prayer is inspired by the

01:02:23

Holy Spirit who is mysteriously present in the heart of every person, through the practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and following the dictates of their consciences members of other religions positively respond to God's invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even though they may not recognize him as their savior."

01:02:43

My friends, I do not enjoy focusing upon the errors of the Bishop of Rome. If I never had to deal with the issue of the alleged infallibility of the

01:02:50

Bishop of Rome again, I would be quite happy. However, because the alleged infallibility of the papacy stands in the way of people being able to hear the plain words of scripture and embrace the gospel of God's grace, we must address the issue this evening.

01:03:09

I pray that you will lay aside the traditions that you may have and honestly listen to the facts so that you may know the truth about this issue.

01:03:18

Thank you for having me here this evening. Thank you very much,

01:03:31

Mr. White. Oh, Mr.

01:03:39

White, you've done it again. So many errors, so few, so little time.

01:03:45

I've got 15 minutes to respond to a deluge, which is quite the tactic here.

01:03:52

I'm at a disadvantage. I've got 15 minutes to respond to what it's impossible to respond to, but I will begin with what seems to have taken most of Mr.

01:04:02

White's time. That is the issue of Pope Honorius. I want to note as well,

01:04:08

I stuck to sacred scripture for a reason, because I know there are many people here who believe in sola scriptura, and I believe the scriptures are very plain.

01:04:18

This is one of the issues. The scriptures are, in fact, very plain, more so than many of our dogmas, and that is the authority of the church and the infallibility of the pope.

01:04:29

Unfortunately, Mr. White didn't respond to the biblical text, so I will go to history.

01:04:35

Concerning Pope Honorius and the alleged error, first of all, the two letters that Pope Honorius wrote, the first letter that Pope Honorius wrote in response to Sergius, it is obvious from the writings of men such as St.

01:04:53

Maximus the Confessor, who was the great defender of the diothelite position that we hold as Christians, that is, there are two wills in Christ, said that the pope was not, in fact, in error in his teaching whatsoever.

01:05:12

What in fact occurred is there was a power play going on. Sergius, who was under the thumb of the emperor, was trying to placate the monophysites and the emperor as well, and he wrote a deceitful letter to the pope, and the pope, obviously, if you've read, and I have, the letter, his first response to Sergius, his response, it is obvious that he misunderstood what was being spoken of because his response was, yes, and Mr.

01:05:47

White was very careful to quote him out of context, he said there was one will, absolutely.

01:05:53

However, what was Pope Honorius speaking of? He was speaking about the human will and how that Christ, in Christ, he does not have the lack of integrity that you and I do.

01:06:05

He has the gift of integrity. He did not have to struggle with the flesh as you and I do.

01:06:12

He could not say and did not say with St. Paul, the spirit is willing, wants to, but the flesh is weak.

01:06:20

Hence, the will, that is, the human will of Christ would have never been contrary to the divine will.

01:06:27

Now, after the issue was clarified in Pope Honorius' second letter, what he says is, he is very careful to say that we believe in the faith of St.

01:06:42

Leo the Great and Chalcedon, that there are two natures, one person, but Pope Honorius says very clearly, when it comes to this new language that was being spoken of in the debate, of one operator, two operations, energies, two energies and such,

01:07:04

Pope Honorius said, we will leave that to the grammarians, and that is a quote.

01:07:10

Pope Honorius was simply saying, I do not know, and I think we need to understand something here, the

01:07:17

Pope is not, and the Catholic Church does not claim that the Pope has all knowledge. We simply declare what

01:07:24

Jesus said, as I said in my opening remarks to Peter, you are the rock and upon this rock

01:07:30

I will build my church, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, whatever you, that is singular, bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.

01:07:38

And just as there was succession, and by the way, I did misspeak in my opening remarks,

01:07:44

I quoted Isaiah 15, it's supposed, I meant to say Isaiah 22, 15 through 22 for those of you who are taking notes.

01:07:52

But at any rate, just as in the Old Testament, that gift of the Prime Minister had successors, in the

01:07:59

New Testament, the ministry of the Apostles has successors as well. As Saint Clement of Rome, the third successor of the

01:08:08

Bishop of Rome, plainly indicates in section 44 of his great epistle to the

01:08:14

Corinthians, he says, the Lord knew, and this is why I was thinking about those words in my opening few moments with you, the

01:08:24

Lord knows us. Saint Clement of Rome in the first century says, the Lord knew that there would come strife for the office of Bishop, the

01:08:34

Episcopate, therefore, having perfect foreknowledge, the Apostles made provision that when they died, successors,

01:08:43

I want you to notice that, successors would come and take their place.

01:08:50

This is the historic Christian faith that has always been taught and believed. Saint Irenaeus in book three of his great work against heresies in dealing with the

01:09:00

Gnostics appeals to this argument of apostolic succession when he says, and I quote, all other churches must agree with this church, referring to the

01:09:11

Church of Rome, because of its special preeminence. And then he lists an apostolic succession all the way to his time, the

01:09:18

Bishops of Rome. And he says, this is the faith of the Apostles. This is the

01:09:23

Christian faith. Tertullian in his great work, the prescription against heretics, before he left the

01:09:31

Catholic faith, before he denied the faith and became a Montanist, said if there are any heresies bold enough to, and I don't have time to look up the statement.

01:09:41

I have eight minutes here, but if you want me to, I will, in the Q &A, to plant themselves into claiming apostolic authority, let them unroll their succession of bishops, and I would claim any

01:09:56

Protestant to unroll their succession of bishops back to the bishops, that is, the

01:10:03

Apostles that Jesus ordained. You cannot, you will not, because it is only the Catholic Church and the

01:10:08

Orthodox Churches that have such a succession. According to Tertullian, my friends, that is a basic criterion for the

01:10:15

Christian faith, as St. Irenaeus says as well, as does St. Augustine.

01:10:20

And by the way, Mr. White claims St. Augustine never made the statement that I said.

01:10:26

I quoted from St. Augustine in his sermon number 131, when he said that the decisions of two councils were sent to the

01:10:39

Holy See, that is, the Bishop of Rome, whence rescripts have come, the matter is at an end.

01:10:45

And so we have heard throughout the history of the Church. Now in the case of Honorius, back to Honorius, the fact of the matter is

01:10:53

Honorius in what he said was not heretical whatsoever, in fact, Pope John IV, his immediate successor in writing about the issue, would make that very clear, as well as Pope Martin I, as well as Pope Leo II, as Mr.

01:11:12

White quoted him, and I believe he referred to Dr. Warren Carroll who quotes him as well in his book,

01:11:19

Pope Leo II made it very clear in the condemnation, and I want to emphasize that even our

01:11:41

Orthodox brothers agree that a council is not a council until the Holy Father, that is, the

01:11:46

Bishop of Rome gives his assent. The Holy Father did in fact qualify that condemnation, and he said it was for negligence in not acting because the

01:11:58

Holy Father did not act in the manner he should have, he was condemned. He was condemned as a sinner who failed to feed the flock that he has been entrusted with.

01:12:10

My friends, condemnations are not only for heresy, not only for formal false teachings, we see it in the very words of sacred scripture.

01:12:21

In Acts 5, our first Pope, Peter, condemns

01:12:26

Ananias and Sapphira in no uncertain terms. For what? Conduct, for lying to the

01:12:33

Holy Spirit. In 1 Corinthians 5, St. Paul, referring to a man who had slept with his father's wife, says, excommunicates this one.

01:12:44

For what? Conduct, not for teaching. The council did not say that the

01:12:53

Pope was a heretic for anything that he taught, that is absurd. The next thing that Mr.

01:12:58

White pointed out, at the fourth council of Constantinople in 859, the council fathers made it very clear, if you read the canons, and by the way,

01:13:07

I will quote the canon to you, you probably saw me, I was fishing through my notes trying to find it.

01:13:13

The canon from the fourth council of Constantinople, I believe it's either 14 or 21, makes it very clear that before, and by the way, the

01:13:24

Greek Orthodox do not accept this canon, do not accept this council, and you'll know why if you read the canons, it says, the fourth council says that we must, before a council can be ratified and promulgated, it must have the approval of the

01:13:43

Holy See, that is, the Bishop of Rome. The council makes that very clear, and that's, like I said, our

01:13:51

Greek Orthodox friends, we're working on them, they don't like that one to this day. So it actually makes the statement, lest in the future there be any rash statements made against the elder, the

01:14:05

Bishop of Rome, we must be sure to enforce this. Okay? So, the fourth council of Constantinople did not, now,

01:14:14

Mr. White also made another error in saying that for 300 years, popes condemned

01:14:20

Pope Honorius. What he's referring to is a false understanding of the historical fact that when popes were elected and consecrated pope, they made an oath that they would uphold all of the decrees of the councils.

01:14:39

Of course that's true, but see, Mr. White and some Protestant historians interpret that as, well, we know

01:14:45

Honorius was condemned as a formal heretic, therefore, they're condemning him as a formal heretic, when in fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

01:14:55

Now, he rattled off so many other issues, I'll have to say quickly, Pope Sixtus V, and the famous Latin Vulgate issue.

01:15:05

I encourage you, I'm glad he mentioned the book, it's a pretty good book, I recommend it, Pope Fiction, by my friend

01:15:11

Patrick Madrid. He points out in that book, as is the historical fact, Sixtus V did undertake the translation of the scriptures into Latin to revise the

01:15:24

Vulgate, and he did a lousy job, and no one denies that in the

01:15:30

Catholic Church. He in fact wrote a papal bull, and was ready to promulgate that bull, that would have been very problematic for us.

01:15:38

But folks, what he failed to mention is that Sixtus died before it was promulgated, and that is a historical fact.

01:15:47

This Vulgate was never promulgated until it had been revised.

01:15:54

The next, Galileo issue, I just can't believe we're beating these old dead horses here, but Galileo, folks, number one, we have to understand

01:16:06

Galileo, in context, historically was praised, he was a very good scientist and so forth, but Galileo put his foot in his mouth when he got out of the realm of science where he should have stayed, and he began to say the physical sciences must be,

01:16:21

I should say the scriptures and revelation must be subservient to the physical sciences, and that's when the

01:16:28

Holy Office stepped in and said, Galileo, keep your mouth shut. And guess what? Scientists, to this day, you need to stick to your areas of expertise.

01:16:39

Unfortunately, we don't have any more time to get into more detail. As far as Pope Liberius, oh my goodness, there is so much we can say about this

01:16:48

Pope Liberius issue. First of all, Athanasius, whom Mr. White claims

01:16:54

Pope Liberius condemned, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, St.

01:17:00

Athanasius himself, in his history of the Arians, defends Pope Liberius and says that he was in fact under torture where he gave in.

01:17:11

Now, what he gave in to, my friends, was not something heretical.

01:17:17

The first decree of Sirmium which he signed was not, historically, was not,

01:17:24

I repeat, was not heretical. It said that if anyone says that the son is not like the father in substance and in all things, he is to be anathema.

01:17:38

That is not a heretical statement. What happened was a man named Eudoxius, an

01:17:44

Arian, took and twisted the words because the Holy Father had used a word homoion.

01:17:51

He used that, twisted it into saying that the Holy Father was saying that Jesus Christ was only like the

01:18:00

Father, not one in being with the Father, which Pope Liberius never said.

01:18:05

Now, in fact, if Pope Liberius was the heretic that Mr. White claims, why is it that St.

01:18:13

Hilary and St. Athanasius praise him, Athanasius does, for holding out for two years,

01:18:20

St. Hilary, who was critical of him right after he comes back from his banishment, praises him, they are buddies.

01:18:28

The whole city of Rome welcomes Liberius as a champion of truth and, unfortunately,

01:18:34

I'm out of time. Thank you,

01:18:51

Tim. And we'll have a 15 -minute rebuttal period by James White. I just want to thank both of these men for keeping their eyes carefully on the clock.

01:18:59

They're both doing a great job tonight. Well, I'd like to begin by saying

01:19:05

I'm a little disappointed when you're in a debate and you say your opponent has made errors, you don't just make the statement and then leave it at that.

01:19:13

So many errors. It was said, so many errors, so little time. The reference is made to a tactic that somehow, as if coming here to debate papal infallibility was a tactic on my part.

01:19:23

That's what I was asked to debate and that's what all of the preparatory discussion was about. He then said, well,

01:19:30

I stuck to sacred scripture. Well, I would love to do so, but the topic this evening is papal infallibility.

01:19:38

And it makes no more sense for a Mormon to challenge me to debate the Book of Mormon out of the Bible than it does for a

01:19:44

Roman Catholic to challenge me to debate papal infallibility out of the Bible either, because the Bible knows of neither thing.

01:19:51

So I cannot do what I'm not being asked to do. Now we were told that, we have a quote from Maximus given to us, the confessor.

01:20:02

Maximus was not there when Honorius was around, and I just would like to point something out. Over and over and over again,

01:20:09

I gave you the direct statement to the Sixth Ecumenical Council. Mr. Staples says, it is absurd to say that the council condemned

01:20:17

Honorius as a heretic, yet I quoted you, all the council fathers getting up saying, anathema to the heretic

01:20:23

Honorius. Now if it's absurd to quote them, I only point out that it's absurd because there are some people who have to read history through the lens of their ultimate authority, sola ecclesia.

01:20:38

I can allow the early church fathers to be what they are. I don't have to turn them into anything that's supportive of my position.

01:20:45

I can agree with them when they were in accord with scripture, I can disagree with them when they were not. I do not have to force them into a position where even though they said, the heretic

01:20:55

Honorius, that now we're hearing that that's absurd to say that they said those words.

01:21:01

They did say those words. The Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Ecumenical Councils, Mr.

01:21:07

Staples alleged that I was careful to quote him out of context. That's an allegation of dishonesty on my part.

01:21:15

If that's true, then the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which burned his orthodox letters, must have been doing the same thing.

01:21:22

And the Seventh Ecumenical Council, and the Eighth Ecumenical Council, why are all these Ecumenical Councils being careful to quote him out of context like me this evening?

01:21:31

I wonder why that might be. That's called ad hominem argumentation, and it's not worthy of this topic.

01:21:40

Honorius believed that the will came from the person, rather than from the two natures.

01:21:46

About that he was wrong. And you may excuse his ignorance as a theologian, that's fine.

01:21:52

However, tonight we're debating papal infallibility, and whoops is not an excuse for an infallible source.

01:22:03

Now we had a quotation from Clement of Rome, and I wasn't exactly sure what the relevance was there other than, well, there are these successors, and these successors can say all these things.

01:22:12

But I would like to point out that in regards to the letter of Clement, Bishop Lightfoot has rightly said, there is all the difference in the world between the attitude of Rome towards other churches that closed the first century, when the

01:22:26

Romans as a community remonstrance on terms of equality with the Corinthians on their irregularities, strong only in the righteousness of their cause, and the feeling as they had a right to feel that these councils of peace were the dictation of the

01:22:38

Holy Spirit, and its attitude to close the second century when Victor the Bishop excommunicates the churches of Asia Minor for clinging to a usage in regard to the celebration of Easter.

01:22:48

Even this second stage has carried the power of Rome only a very small step in advance toward the assumptions of a

01:22:54

Hildebrand, or an Innocent, or a Boniface, or even of a Leo. And so you need to, I encourage all of you, read church history.

01:23:02

Don't just read jurgens. Don't just read quote books. Read the real stuff. Read the original stuff.

01:23:07

You'll find that it's very different than what you're provided in those types of materials. Now we were also told that everyone has always believed what

01:23:18

Rome has taught in regards to Matthew 16 and the papacy and things like that. Let me just mention very quickly that the

01:23:25

Protestant interpretation of Matthew chapter 16 was also held by St.

01:23:32

Gregory of Nyssa, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophilus, St. Hilary, St. Ambrose, St.

01:23:39

Augustine also gave that interpretation, and St. Gregory the Great. To quote just one, John Chrysostom, one of the greatest biblical exegetes of the ancient church, quote, having said to Peter, blessed art thou,

01:23:50

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

01:23:59

Satan. And elsewhere, John Chrysostom also said, upon this rock, he did not say upon Peter, for it is not upon the man, but upon his own faith that the church is built.

01:24:11

And what is this faith? You are the Christ, the son of the living God. You can call that a polyvalent interpretation all you want, but what it means is there is no unanimous consent of the fathers regarding the interpretation of Matthew chapter 16 as has been alleged.

01:24:28

Now when we talk about the claim that a council must have the approval of the

01:24:35

Pope in Rome to be a council, I challenge Mr. Staples, show me anyone at Nicaea that said that.

01:24:42

Show me a Pope that claimed that regarding the council of Nicaea. Pope Sylvester wasn't even there.

01:24:47

He sent his two legates. The old Catholic encyclopedia under the subject false decretals, it's on the web, you can look it up yourself tonight.

01:24:57

Look up false decretals and you know what you'll find? Your own Catholic source saying that the first general statement of this idea that you must have

01:25:07

Pope's approval comes from the pseudo -Isidorian decretals which were frauds.

01:25:14

They were written in 845 and they're fakes. And yes, later Popes and councils depended upon them because it took the

01:25:22

Protestants to come along and prove they were fakes. And all Catholic scholars today agree with the

01:25:28

Protestants that they were. But the vast majority of canon law is based upon the pseudo -Isidorian decretals.

01:25:38

The papal oath is available to anyone, it's in the Libra Diurnus and the quotation that I gave you of the papal oath condemning as a heretic

01:25:49

Honorius is found in the lips of each Bishop of Rome that became the

01:25:55

Bishop for 300 years. Look it up yourself, check out our facts.

01:26:01

Go to the web, go to the sources, track down the encyclopedias and the references in the original sources and look at these things yourself.

01:26:11

There was a lot of laughter and applause about Sixtus V dying, but those who laughed and applauded seemed to forget that what

01:26:18

I mentioned to you was that his infallible Vulgate was printed and distributed in April and he died in August.

01:26:27

What was infallible between April and August? What was his intention in his own words that I quoted to you?

01:26:35

Was it the Pope's intention to say that I by my authority as the Bishop of Rome say that this is infallible?

01:26:42

And are we going to let him off the hook on a technicality? Oh well, you know it wasn't properly promulgated, we didn't get the right signatures.

01:26:48

What did the Pope intend? That's the important issue. Now I want to provide a very cogent example of the problem with papal infallibility authority in the matter of how we have to interpret when the

01:27:05

Pope is allegedly teaching infallibly. It'll be cogent because it speaks directly to what we are doing here this evening.

01:27:11

My appellant this evening, Tim Staples, is not an ordained priest. He is, to my knowledge, a layman. Yet in his tape series on infallibility, he makes it very plain that he considers it heresy to say that the only time you have to obey the

01:27:24

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

01:27:30

Mr. Staples replied with great zeal, and you can pick these tapes up in the back by the way, a little advertisement there, quote, you know, and I almost fell over,

01:27:37

I'm like, have you read anything from the documents of the church? Have you read anything? How about Unum Sanctum, which was written in the 14th century?

01:27:45

It says we are bound not by just what the Pope teaches about faith and morals, but juridically.

01:27:51

Whatever the Pope says, you and I are bound to. If he says tomorrow we're going to say mass in Swahili in the

01:27:57

United States, he has the authority to do that, and we are bound to obey. Have you ever heard this?

01:28:03

I love the papacy, I love the Pope, but only when he speaks ex cathedra.

01:28:08

If he's not speaking ex cathedra, then I don't have to obey him, I can do whatever I want. That is a heresy, folks.

01:28:16

That is a heresy from way back, end quote. Now I can truly appreciate

01:28:21

Mr. Staples' position, however it seems to place him in a difficult position, given what we read in the

01:28:28

Catholic Encyclopedia of 1917 under the topic religious discussions. Here is what we read, quote, it is not then surprising that the question of disputations with heretics has been made the subject of ecclesiastical legislation.

01:28:42

By a decree of Alexander IV, inserted in Sextus De Cratialum, Book 5,

01:28:48

Chapter 2, and still in force, all laymen are forbidden under threat of excommunication to dispute publicly or privately with heretics on the

01:29:00

Catholic faith. The text specifically reads, we furthermore forbid any layperson to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the

01:29:10

Catholic faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication.

01:29:18

This law, like all penal laws, must be very narrowly construed, and I'm still quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia. The terms

01:29:25

Catholic faith and dispute have a technical signification. The former term refers to questions purely theological, like ours this evening.

01:29:34

The latter to disputations more or less formal and engrossing the attention of the public.

01:29:40

There are numerous questions somewhat connected with theology, which many laymen who have received no scientific theological training can treat more intelligently the priest.

01:29:49

But when there is a question of dogmatic or moral theology, and that's what we're talking about this evening, every intelligent layman will concede the propriety of leaving the exposition and defense of it to the clergy."

01:30:03

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

01:30:17

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

01:30:25

Catholics from engaging in disputes with socialists. The point is obvious. If the

01:30:31

Pope is infallible, and if, as Mr. Staples said so strongly on his tape series, Catholics are bound to obey even his juridical pronouncements, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra, then it follows inevitably that Mr.

01:30:43

Staples needs to show us where this decree of Alexander IV from the Sextus Decretialium has been rescinded, or why it is not obviously applicable to what we are doing this evening, or explain why it was once valid for a

01:30:57

Pope to teach this, but it no longer is. And in any situation, Mr. Staples will have to engage in private interpretation of the papal decree.

01:31:07

And what if there are other decrees, likewise relevant, that are simply unknown to us this evening?

01:31:14

This illustrates the problem with thinking that papal infallibility provides the kind of assurance

01:31:19

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

01:31:24

Mr. Staples two options. If he continues the debate, he will need to explain why Alexander IV, whom he would identify as the vicar of Christ and infallible successor of Peter, centuries ago forbade

01:31:35

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

01:31:41

Staples will obey Alexander IV's decree, and I will get the rest of the evening to more slowly and fully explain the reasons for not believing in papal infallibility.

01:31:54

Now, since we are now going to take a 15 -minute break, I, for one, will be looking forward to finding out which direction

01:31:59

Mr. Staples will go. Thank you. Thank you very much,

01:32:11

Mr. White. We're going to have two 12 -minute sessions now. Each of our debaters will be able to cross -examine the other, and what that means, hopefully, we talked about this beforehand, is going to be questions pertaining to the topic this evening, hopefully succinct answers, and it should be pretty lively and I think pretty interesting.

01:32:31

We're going to start with Mr. Staples cross -examining Mr. White, and then Mr. White will have 12 minutes to cross -examine

01:32:38

Mr. Staples. Again, after that, we will have a 10 -minute closing remark from each one, and then a question and answer period.

01:32:46

Again, the microphones are right up here in front. Do not cattle stampede. We don't want any news stories like people dying like they had at that rock concert, wherever that was a few days ago.

01:32:56

We're not going to have time for a lot of questions, but we'll try to get in as many as we can, and the rules for the question and answer period are as follows.

01:33:04

To ask your question, you have 30 seconds. I've got the stopwatch, and I also will wave at the sound man in the back if you go over 30 seconds or if you get too heated or boisterous or anything like that.

01:33:16

Obviously, passions can run pretty high at an event like this. We want to try to do all things in Christian charity, so if you do get up to the microphone, take a few deep breaths before you ask your question.

01:33:26

And then our presenters will have 60 seconds. Whichever one it's directed toward will have 60 seconds to answer the question, and then the other person will have 30 seconds to respond if desired.

01:33:37

So now, Tim Staples has 12 minutes to cross -examine Mr. White. Mr. White, first,

01:33:45

I think I should respond to what you said, because it'll only take five seconds. As far as the matter of not being able to speak and present the

01:33:56

Catholic position, that's a matter that's hundreds of years old. There's a new code of canon law and a new catechism.

01:34:02

It's a juridical matter, not a matter of dogma, and those matters change.

01:34:11

And the catechism in the Catholic Church says that we as Catholics, all of us, as does the decree on the laity in Vatican II, says that all

01:34:18

Catholics have both the right and the duty to defend the Catholic faith. So at any rate, now

01:34:25

I've got to, please, no, no, no, no. Now, a question for you is, we believe as Catholics that the

01:34:32

Bible establishes very clearly that the Scripture is the infallible, inspired

01:34:37

Word of God. We agree on that. However, my question for you is, how do we in fact know, let's say, for example, the

01:34:48

Epistle to the Hebrews? To this day, we do not know who wrote it, Mark's Gospel, Luke's Gospel, who are not written by apostles.

01:34:57

How do we know that those books should be included in sacred Scripture? How do we know, in fact, that we have 27 books of the

01:35:05

New Testament if sola scriptura is the principle whereby we determine all of our dogmas and doctrines?

01:35:16

I think that shows a fundamental misapprehension of the nature of the canon. The canon is not something that the Church creates by her authority.

01:35:22

The canon exists because of the work of inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And just as the Holy Spirit in the

01:35:28

Old Testament and during the period of time between the Old and New Testaments was able to guide the people of God to a passive recognition of what

01:35:36

God had inspired, so much so that Jesus could hold men accountable to the

01:35:41

Scriptures without any infallible source for them to go to to know what those Scriptures were, the same thing happens in the

01:35:49

New Testament. I think this is clearly evident in the fact that in the differences that you and I have over the issue of the canon, that the canon that I hold to is the same canon that was held to by Jesus and the apostles, by Athanasius, by Origen, by Jerome, and interestingly enough by Gregory, the great bishop of Rome as well, the first of the great medieval popes.

01:36:10

You didn't answer the question, though. Perhaps you didn't hear it. Let me rephrase it. I heard it fine, sir.

01:36:15

You don't need to suggest that. Let me rephrase it. How do we know that we have 27 books of the

01:36:24

New Testament, not 28, not 29, not 25? For example, we have men, fathers of the church, early

01:36:32

Christian writers as well, that deny certain books of the Bible that you and I accept, say

01:36:38

Origen, who said 2 Peter is doubtful, say Eusebius, who said

01:36:44

Revelation is spurious, said other books were doubtful like 2 Peter, and other books of the

01:36:52

New Testament, Hebrews, I believe 2 and 3 John. My question is, now we as Catholics understand that tradition precedes sacred scripture, just as in the

01:37:03

Old Testament, the family of God existed 430 years before the scriptures began to be wrote down.

01:37:11

Now we understand that tradition precedes, and then you have an authority that declares what the books of the

01:37:17

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

01:37:24

Bible are the books of the Bible? Again, I heard your question just fine. I pointed out that it was based upon a misapprehension of the nature of the canon.

01:37:31

Seemingly, you seem to feel that there is a need for an infallible authority to define the canon of scripture.

01:37:36

Some authority. Sir, this is supposed to be question and answer. You're asking me questions, and I give you answers.

01:37:42

I'm just asking for an authority. Sir, let me finish my answer, please. I believe that since the

01:37:48

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

01:38:02

And that is, I believe God has a purpose in inspiring that which is Theanustos, and that God will not allow the purpose, which is the edification of his people, to go amiss and to go without fruition.

01:38:14

And therefore, God has led his people to recognize, not through the use of an infallible authority or some authority external to scripture, but through his guidance of his people in a passive way to recognize that which he has inspired, which is

01:38:28

Theanustos. Okay, and what is your biblical proof for that? The biblical proof is found, for example, in the fact that in Matthew chapter 22, the

01:38:36

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

01:38:44

God has spoken to them. From the premise of your question, they should have responded and said, oh, but we don't have an infallible authority to tell us what is and is not scripture, so you can't hold us accountable.

01:38:54

Since they did not, the very premise of your question is flawed and in error. Actually, Mr. White, no.

01:39:00

My question was, what was the authority by which the people, let's say, 50 years before Christ, what was the authority they had in order to determine what the canon was?

01:39:18

It's obvious to me that the authority must be outside of the scriptures because the scriptures themselves don't tell us.

01:39:26

There is no divinely inspired table of contents. That was another question.

01:39:32

You asked a question, and I will now answer that. My next question is this. Sir, you asked me a question, and the error of your statement was that you continue to ask for an authority outside of thus saith the

01:39:42

Lord, and since scripture is God speaking, you are asking for an authority above that which

01:39:48

God says, and that is not what the scripture teaches, sir. I'm asking if we have disagreement among the fathers of the church, which is a historical fact.

01:39:58

There was disagreement among the church fathers for hundreds of years, as you pointed out, which screams of the necessity, the obvious necessity, for a church, hence

01:40:09

Jesus gave us one in Matthew 18, 15 through 18. Is that a question, sir? There's no sense in going over it again because I just don't think you're seeing things.

01:40:18

Okay, the next question is this. St. Athanasius, in his

01:40:27

History of the Arians, Part 4, Section 42, says, referring to Bishop Hosius, while he is in his own place, the rest also continue in their churches, for he is able by his arguments and his faith to persuade all men against us.

01:40:42

He is the president of councils, and his letters are everywhere attended to. He it was who put forth the

01:40:48

Nicene Confession and proclaimed everywhere that the Arians were heretics, referring to Hosius, who, according to St.

01:40:56

Athanasius, presided at the councils of Nicaea and Sardica.

01:41:03

Now if he did, in fact, and by the way, in De Fuga, Section 5,

01:41:10

Athanasius goes on to say, when was there a council held in which he did not take the lead? And Sozomen, in his

01:41:18

History, Book 3, Chapter 12, says, similarly, that Hosius and Protagonus, who was

01:41:24

Bishop of Sardica, presided at that council. Why is it that if the

01:41:30

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

01:41:37

Hosius, at Sardica, which Athanasius said he presided at, why does he then, and I quote from Sozomen's, now this is a 4th century historian, not a 19th century

01:41:50

Protestant historian, from the 4th century, he writes, fearing perhaps lest they should be suspected of making innovations upon the doctrines of Nicaea, they appealed to Julius.

01:42:02

Why do they appeal to Julius, if Hosius is the presider? Wow. I'm not sure what the question is, but I will tell you this, that at the

01:42:15

Council of Nicaea, Hosius, it is often said, was representing the Bishop of Rome. If you're making that statement,

01:42:21

I would say to you that that is actually in error. Secondly, there were many appeals made to many of those who sat in the apostolic sees, which included

01:42:29

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

01:42:36

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

01:42:46

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

01:42:53

Roman Bishop as the infallible vicar of Christ. Okay, next question.

01:42:59

Since I have to make it a question, I'm not allowed to say that all Christians, both Orthodox and Catholic, understand that the

01:43:06

Roman Pontiff must give his assent to councils in order for them to be a council. But at any rate -

01:43:13

Many Roman Catholic historians disagree with you soundly on that issue. My next question is this, if it is true, what you say about the condemnation, now we need to understand that the nature of the condemnation, as I said,

01:43:26

Pope Saint Leo II made very clear concerning Honorius, was not because of a formal heresy that he taught, but was because of his negligence, his actions, his sin in his negligence.

01:43:39

Now, if it's true, however, that Honorius was a heretic in the sense that you want to say that he is, that he was a formal heretic, why is it that Pope Agatho and his letter was read at the

01:43:57

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

01:44:08

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

01:44:20

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

01:44:28

Christian faith from her founders and it goes on. Now, if Saint Agatho makes this statement at the

01:44:35

Council, then in the fourth Council of Constantinople, we have in the Canons, if you read

01:44:40

Canons 7 -21, the Fathers there make it very clear that in the future we must be sure, lest there be any outrageous statements made again against the

01:44:52

Bishop of Rome, that the Bishop of Rome first be appealed to. Why is it that you continue to hold to, or why is it that you say that these men believed that Pope Honorius taught heresy in a formal sense?

01:45:11

Now again, I want to emphasize, guys, we acknowledge the Pope sinned by his negligence, according to Saint Leo II in his ratification of the

01:45:21

Council. But the question is, given all of these facts, Pope Saint Agatho and the fourth

01:45:27

Council of Constantinople in her Canons, how can you hold to the fact that Honorius taught formal heresy?

01:45:34

We're out of time. I would be glad to respond to that five -minute assertion.

01:45:42

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

01:45:49

I'd like to point that out. How's that? Because you're not asking questions, you're making statements. I asked a question. And I will be glad, yeah, at the end of five minutes.

01:45:57

I would be glad to point out, first of all, Leo did not change the wording of the

01:46:03

Council. You have never quoted Leo in saying that Honorius was not condemned for heresy.

01:46:10

You have not dealt with the words of the sixth Council. You have not dealt with the words of the seventh Council.

01:46:15

You have not dealt with the words of the eighth Council or the Trollan Council. And your quotation of Agatho, sir, is glaringly out of context.

01:46:23

I would invite anyone, the whole letter, Pope Agatho's letter is available in the last volume of the

01:46:30

Early Church Fathers set. Read the whole thing and ask yourself one question. Ask yourself one question.

01:46:37

Does Agatho ever once mention Honorius? Answer, no.

01:46:43

And the sixth ecumenical Council in writing to Honorius, is there a reason for you holding that up, sir?

01:46:51

Sure. Okay. Can I start my 12 minutes now? Yeah, I was going to say, you don't need to respond to his. Okay. All right.

01:46:56

All right. You have to answer the question. Well, in fact, I will right now.

01:47:02

All right. Hold on. Stop the clock then. You don't have to if you don't want to.

01:47:08

Well, I understand that. This is what I was expecting. Let me ask you a few questions. Mr. Staples, does

01:47:14

Pope Agatho use the name Honorius in his letter, yes or no? He says, can

01:47:20

I quote him? You just did. Can you answer the question, yes or no? Does Pope Agatho make reference to Honorius in his letter to the sixth ecumenical

01:47:27

Council, yes or no? No. He says the Bishop of Rome. And so the answer is no, sir.

01:47:34

Peter's faith, the apostolic pontiffs, and my predecessors. That means he doesn't use the name.

01:47:41

Okay. Thank you. He does include Pope Honorius. Okay. May I continue? Mr. White, you can't. May I continue, sir?

01:47:48

Did the sixth ecumenical Council write to Pope Agatho and say the following words?

01:47:55

We have destroyed the fort of the heretics and slain them with anathema in accordance with the sentence spoken before in your holy letter, namely,

01:48:05

Theodore of Perun, Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, et cetera. Did the

01:48:10

Council say that? Yes. And does that say that they have anathematized

01:48:15

Honorius as a heretic, sir? They've condemned him. Yes. They used the word anathema.

01:48:22

That's right. Okay. Let me ask you as well, sir. In the 13th session of the sixth ecumenical

01:48:28

Council, is there a condemnation found of Honorius? Yes. Were his letters burned before the sixth ecumenical

01:48:36

Council as being hurtful to the soul? That I don't know. It's irrelevant. The fact is he was condemned for his actions, not for his teaching.

01:48:45

Yes. So his letters were actions or were they teachings? His letters were teachings.

01:48:51

Okay. Thank you. That indicated his negligence. In the 16th session, the bishops exclaimed anathema to the heretic

01:49:00

Honorius. Is that true or false, sir? That is true. Is this an ecumenical Council, sir?

01:49:05

Yes, it is. Are ecumenical Councils infallible, sir? When they are ratified by the Pope.

01:49:11

That had not been yet. Could you please show me a single individual, excuse me, could you show me a single canon existing before the sixth ecumenical

01:49:19

Council that says that Councils are not proper Councils until ratified by the

01:49:25

Bishop of Rome? A canon? Yes, sir. Any statement of any Council at all of the first five ecumenical

01:49:34

Councils, the one that preceded the sixth, which one of those Councils told us that they cannot be true

01:49:40

Councils until ratified by the Bishop of Rome? Well, they don't have to, James. So you would say that you don't know of one?

01:49:46

You don't have to, James. It's like asking, where in the Bible do we have a list of the 27 books, therefore we can't have them.

01:49:54

It's irrelevant. If you are saying, it is your assertion, sir, Mr. Staples, it is your assertion that the members of the sixth ecumenical

01:50:04

Council believed, as you, that the Pope is infallible and that their

01:50:10

Council was dependent upon the authority of the Pope to be a valid Council, is that your assertion?

01:50:15

That's right. But when I ask for any statement by any Council that preceded them or the sixth ecumenical

01:50:23

Council itself, are you saying you just don't need to do that? No, not that you don't need to do that, but what we see is in action, all of the

01:50:33

Councils, as both our Greek Orthodox brothers and Catholics, all reputable historians, anyone who would honestly examine the facts, know that this is the lived faith of the

01:50:44

Church. You don't have an ecumenical Council until the patriarchs. Why do Roman Catholic scholars such as, sir, you've answered the question, sir, you've answered the question.

01:50:54

Why do Roman Catholic scholars such as Merdinger, Klotz, and others disagree with you? Are they not at teaching at the

01:51:01

Catholic University, American Catholic University, they are not true scholars? Is that the problem? Well, we do have some problems with some folks who call themselves

01:51:10

Catholics. But what I want to emphasize here is we need to take a look at history.

01:51:15

And the historical facts are very simple. Whether you look at the statements of St.

01:51:21

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

01:51:30

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

01:51:36

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

01:51:43

Council of Sardica as authoritative and said that you can appeal to Rome. Thank you, sir.

01:51:49

Are you aware of the Pseudo -Isidorean Decretals, sir? Yes. Are you aware that they were...

01:51:54

Yes. And you're aware they were written 200 years before the split with the East? They are false. Are you aware they were written 200 years before the split with the

01:52:02

East? Sure. And as a result, when you say that the East agrees with what they said, all of them go back to the same false decretals, correct?

01:52:12

No. Okay. In fact, we have modern Orthodox as well as Russian Orthodox who acknowledge the

01:52:23

Council of Sardica, not based on any pseudo -decretals, but on history.

01:52:28

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

01:52:35

Council of Constantinople, said the following, that we confess in the

01:52:41

Lord Jesus there is one will and that there are two natural wills or volitions and two natural operations, and condemned by a just sentence those who adulterated the true doctrine and taught the people that in the one

01:52:54

Lord Jesus Christ there is but one will and one operation to wit, Theodore, Cyrus, Honorius of Rome, Sergius, et cetera, et cetera.

01:53:04

If you're right, and all the church believed that it was Leo's letters that corrected the sixth ecumenical council, why is it that 12 years later another council condemns

01:53:16

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

01:53:21

Lord Jesus Christ there is but one will? The Council of Trullo is not an ecumenical council, number one.

01:53:28

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

01:53:37

Catholics acknowledge, and Orthodox, are not, local councils do not have binding authority on the universal church.

01:53:49

Would that include Hippo and Carthage? That's right. Hippo and Carthage, yes, included. The second

01:53:54

Nicene Council is ecumenical, right? Yes, the seventh ecumenical. Which council?

01:54:00

The second Nicene, the seventh ecumenical council. We affirm that in Christ there be two wills and two operations according to the reality of each nature, as also the sixth synod held at Constantinople taught, casting out

01:54:12

Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, and those who agree with them, and all those who are unwilling to be reverent.

01:54:18

Could you explain why this seventh ecumenical council, which is ecumenical, likewise somehow did not know about Leo's words and did not make a correction in their wording so as to reflect

01:54:29

Leo's infallible guidance? I want you to notice the words. He was not, the second council of Nicaea did not condemn him as a heretic.

01:54:38

He was, once again, condemned for his negligence. In fact, the word there, heretic, was not even used, but we have to remember

01:54:46

Pope Leo II in ratifying the council made it very clear what he was condemned for.

01:54:52

He was condemned for negligence. Could you quote exactly what Leo says and explain why it is that these words do not mean that Honorius was a heretic?

01:55:05

Leo anathematizes Honorius, who did not illuminate this apostolic sea with the doctrine of apostolic tradition, but permitted her who was undefiled to be polluted by profane teaching.

01:55:16

Could you tell me where in this letter he corrects? He says the sixth ecumenical council was wrong.

01:55:22

He was not a heretic. Instead, he was merely negligent. Could you show us those words where he says that, or is that just your interpretation of his words?

01:55:30

You read the words. He said very clearly there. Did anybody hear him condemned?

01:55:36

So let me ask you. I'm just wondering, because let me answer the question. What Pope Leo II said very clearly is he permitted the faith to be stained by his negligence, not by teaching overtly heresy.

01:55:55

But where does he say that, sir? I'm sorry. Has the church ever infallibly interpreted

01:56:00

Leo's words, or is just this your private interpretation of this that goes against the interpretation of many

01:56:07

Roman Catholic scholars who have studied history for longer than you and I have been alive together? Well, James, that's simply not true.

01:56:14

If you're claiming, if you're going to grab a few historians from a

01:56:20

Catholic university or something who might say, I don't see it. When you make an assertion like that, it's hard for me to respond to it.

01:56:28

How about Bishop Hefala? I don't know him. Bishop Hefala is one of the greatest church historians you've ever had.

01:56:35

He was a bishop at the First Vatican Council. He has a five -volume church history. But see, here's the problem.

01:56:41

What is the official, what is the formal teaching of the Catholic Church, and what did Leo say? Not what

01:56:47

Bishop Hefala said. What did Leo say? And I think everyone here, I trust you to be able to hear, and I encourage you to read what

01:56:55

Leo said, exactly what James White said. He permitted the faith to be stained.

01:57:01

That's in his inaction, in his negligence. That has nothing to do with him denying, and in fact,

01:57:08

I would encourage you as well to read the actual letters of the Pope himself.

01:57:14

Both responses to Sergius, and you will see that he in fact wasn't a heretic. Mr. Staples, Agatho, that you quoted earlier, said that the

01:57:21

Roman Church had never been defiled by profane teaching. That's right. Was Leo contradicting Agatho? Was who?

01:57:26

Was Leo contradicting Agatho? Agatho said it was never profaned by false teaching. Leo says that Honorius allowed it to be profaned by false teaching.

01:57:34

Which one is the true one? They're not contradictory because Pope Leo says, now listen,

01:57:40

Pope Leo did not contradict. He said that he permitted the faith to be stained.

01:57:47

Pope Saint Agatho says that there has never been heresy taught.

01:57:53

There has never been any false teaching from the Bishop of Rome in an authoritative way.

01:57:58

They agree with each other. Mr. Staples, if you were the courier who carried the three letters of Zosimas to the

01:58:04

North Africans, and you read the Bishop of Rome by his apostolic authority, commanding the

01:58:10

North Africans to embrace Pelagius and to accept him as Catholic and Orthodox, and as a result embraced

01:58:17

Pelagianism and then died, you are following the directions and guidance of Pope Zosimas.

01:58:26

And yet, Pope Zosimas, during that period of time, would have led you into error. Is that true or false? That is an entire misrepresentation of the historical fact.

01:58:36

How so, sir? Because first of all, the Pope before Pope Zosimas... I said that, yes.

01:58:43

Condemned Pelagianism. Yes, he did. He died. The new Pope, Zosimas, the actual condemnation had only happened a couple of months, a few months before.

01:58:56

And in those days, folks, we have to remember, there were no fax machines back then. Communication was poor.

01:59:03

And he wanted to inquire, because remember, a condemnation of someone is not an infallible act of a

01:59:12

Pope. A future Pope can lift a condemnation on someone. Now, he sent, and rightly so, people to inquire as to the truth.

01:59:23

And what he failed to mention is Pope Zosimas condemned Pelagianism after he inquired.

01:59:30

All right, thanks to both of these gentlemen. So this is my closing 10 minutes?

01:59:43

Yes. Well, unfortunately, we don't have enough time to get into all that Mr.

01:59:51

White has asserted. I will point out just briefly in my closing remarks, though, I want to thank all of you for coming.

01:59:57

And it is my prayer that the Lord Jesus Christ will illuminate each and every one of you so that you might know and be able to rejoice in the fullness of the truth that we have in the one holy

02:00:08

Catholic and Apostolic Church. You're using up my time, all right.

02:00:20

I want to respond, though, quickly, there were so many things that Mr. White misrepresented in Pope Victor I and his famous threat to the

02:00:31

Eastern churches in the late second century to excommunicate the entire East over the

02:00:36

Quarto Deciman dispute. St. Irenaeus historically appealed to, he did not rebuke, he appealed to Pope Victor asking him not to do this.

02:00:49

Please do not do this. This is an early evidence, not as Mr. White claims, that the

02:00:55

Pope does not have authority. This is an obvious example of the juridical authority of the

02:01:01

Bishop of Rome over the Eastern churches. The matter from St. Irenaeus' perspective was not whether the

02:01:08

Pope could do it or not. He was saying, please don't do it. As far as St. Paul that Mr.

02:01:14

White mentioned, St. Paul, who at Antioch, according to Galatians chapter 2, rebuked

02:01:24

St. Peter. The Catholic Church has never had any problem with this, and I want to make it clear here, unfortunately

02:01:30

I probably should have done this in my opening 30 minutes, but please understand the

02:01:36

Catholic Church does not teach the Popes are impeccable, they are infallible.

02:01:41

That is, in the case in Galatians chapter 2, the Pope was not living up to his own teaching.

02:01:49

And I would just cite for you a great example of a Pope that does,

02:01:55

I mean, I'd like to add to what my friend here has said.

02:02:02

I mean, we had a Pope who, not only was he rebuked by St. Paul, but he denied even being a

02:02:09

Christian whatsoever. He denied being a follower of Christ. And yet, Mr.

02:02:14

White and I both agree, he wrote two infallible, inspired books of the

02:02:20

Bible. And that is Peter. You see, impeccability, a person who is a sinner, like King David who sinned, can still write the

02:02:29

Psalms, the infallible, inspired word of God. And this is what we have for 2 ,000 years with the bishops of Rome.

02:02:38

Mr. White also threw out examples like, did the 4th century have any clue as to the bishop of Rome having the authority that the

02:02:48

Catholic Church teaches? I would like to challenge you to read, not what some

02:02:54

Philip Schaaf may say or some 19th century historian will say, but I would encourage you to read the statements from St.

02:03:06

Irenaeus, to read the statements, as I did as a Protestant, that clearly teach the bishop of Rome has a special place of preeminence.

02:03:15

And this, my friends, is the rule. This is the rule for 2 ,000 years that when the bishop of Rome speaks, as Augustine says, when he puts his foot down,

02:03:27

Papa has spoken, the question is settled. Now, I'd like to refer to St.

02:03:33

Cyprian in the very, very plain words he writes, and I quote,

02:03:40

There is one God, and this is 250 AD roughly, there is one

02:03:45

God, one Christ, one church, one chair, founded on Peter by the word of the

02:03:52

Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood.

02:04:00

We could go, now that's his epistle 43 to all his people in Africa. I could go on to read his

02:04:07

On the Unity of the Catholic Church, where he makes similar statements. Mr. White will respond,

02:04:14

I will prophesy. He will try to blow a smoke screen here to say, well,

02:04:19

Cyprian didn't acknowledge, Peter, that the bishop of Rome had any other authority than any other bishop. He will no doubt refer to the

02:04:26

Seventh Council of Carthage, where the bishops there say, we do not have any bishop of bishops.

02:04:34

We are all on an equal level. Yes, that's the bishops of Carthage. In Carthage, there is no bishop of bishops.

02:04:40

They are all on equal footing. However, the bishops in Africa repeatedly appeal to the bishop of Rome, and I would encourage you to listen to the words of Cyprian, not the words of Mr.

02:04:53

White, who will claim that all bishops sit on the chair of Peter, and that's what Cyprian says. Listen to what

02:04:58

Cyprian says. He says, though all the other bishops are certainly that which

02:05:05

Peter was, the Lord, and he just happens to quote John 21, he says,

02:05:11

Jesus says to him after his resurrection, feed my sheep. On him he builds the church, to him he gives the command to feed the sheep, and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, he founded yet a single chair.

02:05:27

Notice there is a distinction there. And I think you're intelligent, I know you are, enough to see there is a distinction between the rest of the apostles and Peter.

02:05:37

Peter has this unique authority, and this is what we see for 2 ,000 years of Christianity.

02:05:43

Now unfortunately, we are coming to a close here, but I want to finish with the words of our

02:05:49

Lord in John chapter 21. And I want to give a little bit of perspective in the context, because as you heard in my opening statement,

02:05:59

I love sacred scripture. I stick with sacred scripture as much as possible, because I love sacred scripture.

02:06:07

In John chapter 21, we see the apostles after the resurrection, and they are on the shore, and I love the statement, when

02:06:15

Peter makes the statement, I go a fishing. And the other six apostles that were there say, we will go with you.

02:06:24

Now I don't know if you guys remember, I was talking to you all earlier, Jesus said, Satan is going to try to destroy you and sift you, but I'm only praying for him,

02:06:33

Peter, right there. By the way, what's your name sir? No, it's not, it's Peter. Peter, I'm praying for you, when you are converted, strengthen your brethren.

02:06:43

The apostles say, I'm going with you in John chapter 21. And they go out fishing. Now suddenly on the shore,

02:06:50

Jesus appears. You remember that? John, once again, John is the one who says, hey, there's the

02:06:56

Lord, first to Peter, there's the Lord. And what does Peter do? He dives in the water, he swims for the shore.

02:07:03

Now I want you to notice guys, something incredible happens here, in context.

02:07:09

You see, before they went out on the sea, that man on the shore told them to go out and go fishing, and guess what they said to him?

02:07:18

Do you remember what we said in Luke chapter 5? They say it again in John 21, Lord, we haven't caught anything all night.

02:07:25

And he says, go on out there and go fishing. They go out fishing, and what happens? When they catch a haul so big, the net almost breaks, 153 fish.

02:07:37

It takes all six of the apostles to drag that net to the shore, all six of them.

02:07:43

But then notice what happens. When the net gets to the shore, my Protestant friends, I want you to read this text when you go home tonight.

02:07:50

When they drag the net, now you know fish in the water, there's a buoyancy there, fish are lighter.

02:07:56

I come from Virginia, I know of which I speak. I used to go fishing with my daddy.

02:08:01

Now, when you have fish in the water, there's buoyancy there. They're dragging this net full of fish to the shore, all six of them.

02:08:09

But suddenly when they get to the shore, Jesus speaks to Peter. He says, bring of the fish that you have caught.

02:08:16

And Peter walks in the water, and he snatches all 153 by himself, boom, onto the shore, up out of the water and onto the shore.

02:08:26

Now folks, is that text there to show us that Peter was on steroids? No. That text is there to show us he is the fulfillment of the prophecy of John 10, verse 16, when

02:08:37

Jesus said, others I have that are not of this fold, referring to the Gentiles, them

02:08:43

I also must gather, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. Yes, Jesus is the one shepherd, 1

02:08:49

Peter 3 .20 says, but it is that one shepherd, Jesus, who makes Peter his visible shepherd on this earth, not taking away from the shepherdness of Jesus, but establishing it visibly on this earth.

02:09:03

And it's immediately thereafter that Jesus asks the questions of Peter, do you love me?

02:09:08

Do you love me? Do you love me? And Peter responds, I love you, and Jesus says, feed my sheep, feed my lambs, feed my sheep.

02:09:20

The church, along with St. Cyprian and the fathers, have always understood this to be Peter and his successors, the bishops of Rome.

02:09:28

God bless you. Thank you,

02:09:52

Tim. And with his final remarks, another 10 minutes for James White. I truly enjoy the opportunity of being in the minority, because it's my desire that there are those amongst you who will listen, and who will leave this place, and who have heard what we've had to say this evening, and will go, you know,

02:10:11

I need to check those facts out, because I already met one person down here who said, you know what, I was once a Catholic, and I checked history, and I found out what the real truth of the matter was.

02:10:21

There are facts that need to be corrected here. We were just told by Mr. Staples that Zosimas condemned

02:10:27

Pelagianism after he inquired. Please folks, go read the information.

02:10:33

Go read Catholics. Go read Merdinger Rome and the African Church in the time of Augustine. You don't have to read Philip Schaaf.

02:10:39

Go read it yourself, and you'll discover that Zosimas commanded by apostolic authority the churches of North Africa to give in and accept

02:10:47

Pelagius, and it wasn't until the North African churches, including Augustine, said, no sir, we will not do so, and the emperor likewise said he's a heretic, that all of a sudden

02:10:59

Zosimas reversed course, and allowed the condemnation of Pelagius to go on.

02:11:05

Secondly, we were just told about Cyprian. Klaus Schatz, papal primacy, he's a

02:11:11

Jesuit, received his doctorate at Rome's Gregorian University in 74, and since 75 has taught church history at the

02:11:17

St. Georgian School of Philosophy and Theology in Frankfurt, Germany, and for some reason, his whole discussion of Cyprian mentions the fact that Cyprian does believe that all bishops sit upon the seat of Peter, and instead of a smokescreen from me, this

02:11:32

Jesuit recognizes that the church in North Africa, the council that was quoted, wasn't just talking about them, in fact it was a direct response to Stephen, bishop of Rome, that Cyprian and his followers rebuked.

02:11:46

That's just another fact. Alexander IV's decree, we were just told, it was just juridical and it's been changed.

02:11:55

Who changed it? It was used in 1902, when was it rescinded? Or did we just get, well, was it

02:12:02

Tim Staple's fallible interpretation of it? Is he certain of that? Is he certain that his interpretation of the

02:12:09

Catholic Catechism allows him to ignore that papal decree? Are you certain?

02:12:14

How do you know? Have you talked to the Pope about it? Is your priest infallible if you've talked to him about it?

02:12:22

I bet there's no one in here who's written a letter to Rome and gotten an infallible decree from the Roman Pope as to, so you could be in error, couldn't you?

02:12:29

You might be under the fetters of excommunication and not even know it. What a fascinating thing. The debate began by Mr.

02:12:38

Staple saying, the choice is between your own ability to interpret the scriptures and the church. No, my friends, here's what it is.

02:12:46

The choice is between your responsibility to interpret what God has given you in his scriptures and your own ability to interpret the ever -changing, self -contradicting volumes of papal decrees and cyclicals and conciliar decrees.

02:13:01

That's the difference. None of you sitting here this evening can infallibly interpret all of that stuff.

02:13:08

And that's the problem, my friends. You see, you cannot avoid your duty this evening. You will be the one held accountable for what you believe.

02:13:16

No man can bear your responsibility before the throne of God. I cannot convince the mind that is unwilling to listen to facts and reason, but I can, out of love for God and love for his truth, warn any and all who have embraced a deception a falsehood.

02:13:32

And that is why I'm here this evening. It is an act of love for God, love for his truth, and love for my fellow man that has brought me to this place this evening.

02:13:40

We have seen that those who desire to believe in papal infallibility labor hard and long at finding ways to maintain that belief, even when the facts are clear and compelling.

02:13:50

I assert that unless one had already embraced the theory of papal primacy and infallibility, that the excuses and defenses offered this evening would not even suggest themselves, let alone provide a compelling argument for faith and infallibility of the

02:14:05

Bishop of Rome. Let's review what we've seen thus far this evening. A guide that leads you down the wrong path is not an infallible guide.

02:14:14

A guide that leads you to jump off of a cliff is not an infallible guide. A guide that has to constantly double back and make corrections in his guidance is not an infallible guide.

02:14:24

Whoops is not a valid excuse for one who claims to be infallible. We made a mistake, we are going back, and we're going to go back and take a second shot at this does not work when you are telling folks that they have to believe everything you have to say when you dogmatically define it to be right with God.

02:14:41

In light of this, we have seen how Zosimus had to say whoops when Augustine and the North African bishops corrected him and refused his direct command as Bishop of Rome to accept

02:14:52

Pelagius and Celestius back into communion. He reversed himself in his mature examination, upon which he had commanded by the authority of his apostolic see, the

02:15:02

North Africans, to reverse course. Instead, he reversed course and contradicted everything he had said before.

02:15:09

Who here was the infallible guide? Zosimus or the North African bishops led by Augustine?

02:15:16

We have seen how the entire papacy had to say whoops with reference to Honorius who is condemned by not one, not two, but three ecumenical councils and every pope who took the oath of papal office for the space of 300 years.

02:15:29

We saw how Pope Leo likewise anathematized Honorius and said that he had permitted her who was undefiled to be polluted by profane teaching and he not once said that the sixth council was wrong or I'm correcting them.

02:15:41

If someone had followed the understanding of the Bishop of Rome during those years, they would have embraced formal heresy.

02:15:49

We have likewise seen how Cardinal Bellarmine had to come up with a lie to cover for sixths to fifths not quite as infallible as we thought

02:15:55

Vulgate a whoops of biblical proportions. In each of these instances, we have seen that it would have been impossible on the grounds taken by Rome today to know if the pope was speaking the truth or not while he was speaking.

02:16:11

Finally I reiterate what I believe is an inescapable argument against belief in the infallibility of the pope.

02:16:17

You can't have any confidence that the interpretation you hold this evening of the current pope's teaching is actually right.

02:16:23

You may understand Ut Unum Sint or Veritatis Splendor or Redemptoris Mater one way, but history teaches you one thing without contradiction.

02:16:31

Fifty years from now or a hundred years from now, the understanding of the same documents, the same doctrines may be substantially different than it is today.

02:16:40

You may accept the papal teaching today as authoritative that will not only be abandoned in the future but may be contradicted in the future.

02:16:46

A person who accepted the doctrinal content of Honorius' first letter to Sergius and died in that state would find himself anathematized by the next three ecumenical councils.

02:16:57

Remember Honorius' heretical letters existed for more than 45 years before the official contradiction and correction of their error.

02:17:07

A person who accepted Zosimus' considered and careful conclusion in his encyclical

02:17:13

Magnum Pondus as Bishop of Rome that Pelagius and Celestius were Catholic and Orthodox would likewise take heresy into his very soul.

02:17:21

The simple fact of the matter is you don't know that what you think the pope is currently teaching is what he is teaching and what's more, you have no way of knowing if what he really is teaching today will be considered orthodox and proper a hundred years from now.

02:17:37

And so I urge you to consider the contrast between the uncertain guide that is the

02:17:43

Bishop of Rome and the certain guide that is God's Holy Word. While the Bishop of Rome is subject to ignorance, political intrigue, abuse of power, sin, greed and lust, the

02:17:53

Scriptures are subject to none of these things. The Scriptures have never led anyone into Arianism, Pelagianism or Monothelicism.

02:18:01

Only men's own traditions, lust and sin have caused them to reject God's truth in the

02:18:07

Scriptures and enter into error. The fault has always been that of man, never that of the infallible guide that is the inspired and holy

02:18:14

Word of God. No matter how challenging the exegetical task of understanding even the most difficult passages of Scripture, in comparison with attempting to sort through the maze of Roman history, the volumes of papal encyclicals and tomes of canon law, the numerous false decretals and forgeries, the reversals and clarifications and canons and decrees and everything else

02:18:38

Rome offers, the exegetical task of understanding Scripture is nigh unto simplistic.

02:18:45

Give me Romans 8 any day over the code of canon law. Thank you.

02:18:50

Good night. Thank you

02:19:08

Mr. White. Okay, it looks like we're going to end up only about 30 minutes off schedule tonight, which isn't too bad.

02:19:19

And I see that we have a few eager souls all ready to ask some questions.

02:19:25

So again, here are the ground rules for the questions. Pay very close attention. There will be no tolerating any kind of outbursts or attacks on either one of our fine debaters up here.

02:19:37

Again, take a deep breath. I really sense a spirit of God here tonight.

02:19:43

So let's act that way. Let's be charitable. Let's take a deep breath if we need to. And we'll get to as many of your questions as we can.

02:19:50

We're going to stop at 1030. So that's 35 minutes from now. You have 30 seconds to ask your question.

02:19:57

State to whom you are addressing your question. And then that person will have one minute to answer.

02:20:03

And then if desired, the other debater will have 30 seconds to respond. Let's start on this side, please.

02:20:12

This is a question for Mr. White. As I studied with Protestants in the past, as I was one for a while, being that every

02:20:24

Singularity Church father, such as Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin, Martyr, Irenaeus, all the way down to Athanasius, Augustine, and about 50 others that I've studied were

02:20:35

Catholic Christians, most of them bishops and priests. Could you help me possibly to show me somebody in the early church that taught the real absence of Christ in the

02:20:49

Eucharist, or who denied what all of the early church fathers taught regarding the

02:20:56

Eucharist? Thanks. The early church fathers, in general, taught what is called the presence of Christ.

02:21:06

It is the great error of a thousand years after Christ to understand real presence to mean transubstantiation.

02:21:13

That is a doctrine that was unknown to the early church. That was a doctrine unknown to the early church.

02:21:25

A spiritual presence was just as real to them. They did not have the Aristotelian categories of accidents and presence to understand, accidents and substance to even begin to understand the concept of transubstantiation.

02:21:38

And I would point out that you will not find, until a thousand years after Christ, anyone constructing tabernacles and things in which to put consecrated hosts to worship them.

02:21:48

Why? Because they didn't worship them. They did not worship them because the concept of transubstantiation was foreign to the early church.

02:21:57

And I would suggest you look deeply at what Augustine says about the physical body of Jesus Christ in regards to that particular issue.

02:22:06

And I have 30 seconds? Okay. Real quickly, I think this is another example of the historical distortions you've been hearing all night.

02:22:15

I want to, once again, rather than read from a historian as James has, I want to read from the actual source.

02:22:22

Let me quote to you Saint Ignatius of Antioch, writing in 110 A .D., who was a companion of some of the apostles.

02:22:31

He says, they abstain, referring to the Gnostics, who denied Jesus had a real physical body.

02:22:36

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our

02:22:43

Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father in his goodness raised up again.

02:22:57

If the Pope and the Catholic Church are false and wrong, and according to Mr.

02:23:07

White's standards about the canon, no need of authority, and also

02:23:13

God guides his people, if I write a second Bible and claim to be guided by the

02:23:19

Holy Spirit, can you condemn me? Number one. And if you do, with what authority will you do it?

02:23:26

Scriptural authority, sir. God has inspired his word, and he has a purpose in giving his word, and it is a mockery of the sovereignty of God to think that he could inspire that which is a light to our feet, a guide to our path, and then cause it to be lost, and that he would not have the capacity outside of creating an entire new authority structure unknown in Scripture, of leading his people to recognize his word.

02:23:52

I would ask every Catholic in the audience to tell me, how did a man who lived 50 years before Christ know that Isaiah and 2

02:24:01

Chronicles were Scripture? Obviously they did because of the fact that Jesus held them accountable to Scripture.

02:24:08

They did not have an infallible magisterium. If you say it was the Jewish people, the Jewish people reject your canon. They did not embrace the

02:24:13

Apocrypha. So what was their infallible authority? And if they could know what Scripture was without this alleged external infallible authority, then my question to every

02:24:22

Roman Catholic is, why can't I do that today if they could do it back then? Okay.

02:24:28

My response. I think, once again, we had

02:24:34

Mr. White just dancing a jig around the question. The fact is, you cannot answer the question of how you know the canon is inspired apart from the existence of sacred tradition.

02:24:49

The way that the Jewish people understood which books of the Bible were the Bible did not come from the

02:24:54

Bible itself alone. It came from an adherence to sacred tradition, just as in the

02:25:01

New Testament we're taught we adhere to sacred tradition as well. And I'd urge you to read 2

02:25:07

Thessalonians 2, verse 15. All right. We'll go to this side. Please state for whom your question is and try to make it in 30 seconds.

02:25:15

My question is for Mr. White, and it's a real simple question. Are you infallible? No, sir.

02:25:23

Let's go on to the next one. Sure. That's all? Okay.

02:25:29

Well. Give me 30 seconds. Well, you know what? I think it's a very pertinent question because the fact is, as I said in my opening remarks,

02:25:41

Jesus Christ, when he walked this earth, was infallible. He did not speak the traditions of men rooted in the authority of men and men's ability to interpret.

02:25:51

He proclaimed the word of God and he gave authority to his church to do the same.

02:25:56

The true church of Jesus Christ must be infallible because the true church of Jesus Christ speaks the word of God.

02:26:08

My question is for Mr. White. The question is, if the Holy Spirit is all -powerful and could guide the authors of sacred scripture into transmitting

02:26:17

God's word to us without any error, why wouldn't God use a church down through the ages to interpret

02:26:23

God's word without adulteration, without any error, so that we might receive it? He would call this church the pillar and foundation of truth, as we see in 1

02:26:31

Timothy and also in Hebrews 13, 17. We have to obey and submit to this church.

02:26:37

Why would God command us to obey and submit to a church when it could teach error? If God could keep a church from teaching error, why wouldn't he do this?

02:26:44

This might seem... Very good question. Let me answer. First of all, the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

02:26:50

A pillar and a foundation hold something else up. Right now, there is a roof being held up above our head by a pillar and a foundation and you're all very glad that it's working quite well.

02:26:59

But that doesn't make the pillar and the foundation the roof. The church holds up the truth and the church establishes fallible men as elders in the church to teach and preach

02:27:08

God's infallible word. I'm not infallible, he's not infallible, you're not infallible.

02:27:14

Anybody who thinks they are infallible is self -deceived. And the

02:27:20

Apostle Paul, when he spoke to the Ephesian elders and said there are going to be false teachers coming up in the church, said, this is not to be considered unusual.

02:27:30

They're going to come up from the leaders of the church. And he did not say to the Ephesian elders, all right, what you need to do is you need to follow the

02:27:36

Bishop of Rome. What he said is I commend you to God and to the word of his truth, which is able to bring you salvation.

02:27:49

My response? Can I respond? Okay. First of all,

02:27:57

Mr. White quoted 1 Timothy 3 .15 and said the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Amen. And he claims that means that it has to hold something else up.

02:28:07

And therefore, that's not saying that the church is authoritative, it's not saying it's infallible or anything like that.

02:28:13

Well, the fact is the scripture also says that Christ is the foundation in 1 Corinthians 3, verse 11.

02:28:19

Does that mean Christ is not infallible? Does that mean he holds something else up as well? No. The fact is the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

02:28:29

Okay. So far, all of our questions have been for Mr. White. We certainly encourage questions for Mr. Staples as well.

02:28:35

Come on, come on. Gentlemen, as an

02:28:41

Anglican, I have the glorious situation of thinking that you are both wrong and hence I will address my question to each of you.

02:28:50

First to Mr. White, what is the source of your hermeneutical principles, scripture or something else?

02:28:57

Secondly, is scripture probably infallible or absolutely infallible? If the latter, do you have absolute or probable evidence for that proposition?

02:29:07

There can only be one question, right? I didn't mention that in the beginning. The booklet says questions, plural.

02:29:13

Right, and I see many questions lined up here. But is that an infallible interpretation of the booklet?

02:29:19

That's not to embarrass you, it's just that we do want to get to as many as we can. I understand. So we'll get to the questions you ask, that's fine.

02:29:25

To Mr. Staples, if I may put this on the floor and then you. How about if we let Mr. White respond to your first question?

02:29:32

Thank you. As I understand the question, you're asking what is the source of the hermeneutical principle.

02:29:39

And I'm assuming what you mean by that is why do you believe that you interpret scripture in the light of its context and its language?

02:29:45

Because that's how God made us and that's how God communicated to us. And therefore, that is why he has communicated to us in such a way that Peter says there are things in Paul that are difficult to understand, so the untaught and unstable distort them to their own destruction.

02:30:03

That means, without question, that if a person is taught and stable, that they can rightly divide the word of truth and rightly understand it.

02:30:11

And it does not require us to therefore create an infallible office in the Bishop of Rome, an individual that, interestingly enough,

02:30:18

Mr. Staples said was mentioned in the text of scripture, but as you know, is never mentioned in the text of scripture anywhere, because Roman Catholic historians tell us there was no single

02:30:27

Bishop of Rome until around the year 140. And that is, up to that point, they did not have a monarchical episcopate.

02:30:34

Once again, we have, and folks, again, I encourage you to read the history. We've had so many just blatant distortions and I can't respond to them all, but here's another.

02:30:45

It reads St. Irenaeus is against heresy. He disagrees with Mr. White. He lists the

02:30:51

Bishops of Rome all the way back to Peter. St. Augustine, in his work against the

02:30:56

Donatists, lists the Bishops of Rome back to Peter, singular bishops. That doesn't mean there were not also elders, absolutely.

02:31:04

But there you have it. Well, 2 Peter 3 .15, he mentioned, always stopped by the clock.

02:31:12

Since I did not mention before the one question limit, we will allow you to ask one other question to Mr. Staples, please, and make it brief.

02:31:19

Thank you. To Mr. Staples. Do you have infallible evidence or probable evidence for the papal theory?

02:31:27

If you give scripture as an example, do you have infallible or probable evidence for scripture?

02:31:34

Yes. Well, first of all, I have infallible certainty on both because it is a historical fact that Jesus Christ established his church, founded it upon the apostles according to Revelation 21 .14,

02:31:49

Ephesians 2 .20, the foundation of the apostles, Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone,

02:31:55

Peter being the rock among those twelve. And it is through the church that I have this certainty that the scriptures are in fact inspired because historically it is a fact that as St.

02:32:08

Augustine said, unless it were the Catholic, I would not have the scriptures, I would not accept the scriptures were it not for the

02:32:15

Catholic church that moved me. That is a fact, that is a historical fact that I had to come to realize.

02:32:22

I have 20 seconds. As a Protestant minister now, I would add that point because Mr.

02:32:28

White said earlier, I cannot see how anyone would study and come to be Catholic by examining the evidence.

02:32:36

Folks, that is exactly what I did 14 years ago and that is why I am Catholic and I encourage you to do the same, to study.

02:32:43

Thank you. I believe that the use of Augustine and the way he has been used is a gross misrepresentation of him, since we are into this gross misrepresentation stuff, since that seems to be what everyone is saying.

02:32:58

If you will look at that passage and compare it with, for example, Augustine's clear teaching on the foundation of the church, you will find page after page after page of Augustine saying the church's foundation is scripture.

02:33:12

Don't show me the church out of any other source but the scriptures. Good question so far.

02:33:20

I appreciate everybody's calmness and collectedness. My question is for Mr.

02:33:26

White. Without referring to any authority outside of the scriptures, how can

02:33:31

I know what the scriptures are and will my answer to the question be infallible? No sir, because you are not infallible and I am not infallible.

02:33:40

And again, I refer you to the exact same situation. This is the favorite Catholic question.

02:33:45

Sadly, it amazes me that so many people find it to be so compelling. Because what the

02:33:51

Catholic is saying here, and I addressed this in my attempted cross -examination period with Mr.

02:33:56

Staples, I addressed that so I want to just point something out to you since it's the common Catholic claim.

02:34:02

You have no more certainty in saying that you know the canon is true by simply saying the

02:34:08

Pope tells me so than I do. In point of fact, you have less because Pope Gregory contradicted what you believe.

02:34:16

So which Pope are you going to believe? Simply moving the question of infallibility back one step and saying, well the church gives me infallibility, accomplishes absolutely nothing to the person who really wants to know the truth.

02:34:28

The simple fact of the matter is, if you can't answer the question, and no one has answered the question thus far, Mr. Staples has tried to answer the question but I'm out of time and I can't continue the thought.

02:34:37

Well it's a very good point that you make and good question because you see, the fact is historically it is the

02:34:45

Catholic Church that gave us the Bible, that's a fact. Now Martin Luther himself acknowledged that, we would not have the scriptures were it not for the

02:34:53

Catholic Church that gave them to us, first of all. Now as far as his point concerning Pope Gregory, that's a great point for our side, because absolutely

02:35:02

Gregory had some problems with the Deutero -canonicals to be sure, but what does that tell us?

02:35:07

Well first of all, remember everything that popes and local councils say is not infallible, the canon was not declared infallibly until 1442 at the

02:35:17

Council of Florence. My question is for Mr.

02:35:24

Staples, first a very brief statement and then my shorter question.

02:35:30

Wouldn't it be better for the Roman Catholic Church to preach Christ and him crucified rather than preaching herself and her infallibility?

02:35:42

Is that your question? You might be building a kingdom here in this age but not in the age to come.

02:35:50

Now my question. Well that's your first question I need to respond to. How would the infallible pope answer these?

02:35:57

Hold on, you can't do that because I'm going to forget the first question. Let me answer the first question first.

02:36:03

I want to make it very clear folks that anyone, and it's obvious sir, that I would challenge you to read any of the encyclicals.

02:36:10

How about The Redeemer of Man by Pope John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis. Have you read it sir?

02:36:17

If you do, you will read all about the fact that the

02:36:23

Catholic Church's principle reason for existence is to preach Jesus Christ and him crucified.

02:36:40

Mr. Staples, I'm a former Roman Catholic priest. Now my question, how would the infallible pope answer these?

02:36:54

What is the gospel, the good news, and what must I do to be saved?

02:37:03

The Catholic Church teaches that the gospel is all that Jesus Christ through his church reveals or teaches to be revealed by God.

02:37:16

That is the gospel of Jesus Christ. And what must you do to be saved? You must give full assent of your, and this is a tough one,

02:37:25

I know for modern day America, this is why I believe Catholicism will never be all that popular in America because it's so radically counter -cultural.

02:37:36

Protestantism says you demand, you demand, you interpret the scripture.

02:37:42

The Catholic Church says you give full assent of your intellect and will to the teaching authority that Jesus Christ has placed over you.

02:37:50

And that is a humbling thing. Just as the apostles had to give full assent of their intellect and will to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

02:38:02

We're going to give Mr. White one minute to respond. Hold on, reset the clock please, since he didn't get his 30 seconds to respond to the first answer

02:38:10

Tim gave there. Oh, I'm sorry. Two issues. When we say that Rome teaches

02:38:15

Christ crucified, I point out to you that Rome teaches that Christ's one sacrifice is represented in the mass as a perpetuatory sacrifice over and over and over again.

02:38:25

And that the book of Hebrews teaches us with plain clarity, with plain clarity, for those who have ears to hear, that Jesus Christ's one death perfected for all time those for whom it is made and he is seated at the right hand of the

02:38:43

Father and he never goes anywhere from there. Secondly, secondly, when it's asked what

02:38:51

Rome teaches is a bodily assumption, Mr. Staples admitted yesterday on the Bible Answer Man broadcast that the bodily assumption is a part of that gospel.

02:38:58

There was not a single Christian for the first 500 years of the Christian era that ever believed that was part of the gospel.

02:39:04

The gospel's been changed. Okay, please state who your question is for. Yes, I have a question for Mr.

02:39:12

White and I welcome comments from Mr. Staples. Mr. Staples said that Jesus told

02:39:21

Peter, you are the rock and on you I build my church.

02:39:28

But he had to add also that Jesus said, and the gates of hell will not prevail.

02:39:36

Now we know that for a thousand years there is one church.

02:39:43

Then we have the Schism, 1056, very brief.

02:39:49

And then for another 500 years we have two churches. So 1500 years after Jesus comes

02:39:58

Luther and we have the reform and we have lots of other churches. Now when

02:40:03

Jesus said, the question is, we need to have a direct question, very direct. When Jesus said, and the gates of hell will not prevail, did he lie that for 1500 years that church that existed was wrong?

02:40:19

Thanks be to God, no he did not. Thanks be to God he did not because the

02:40:25

Roman Catholic Church did not exist when he said that it did not exist for many hundreds of years. There was no one who would have even understood what the phrase

02:40:33

Roman Catholic meant. It is absolutely untrue that individuals would have viewed themselves as being

02:40:39

Roman Catholics. Jesus' promise was absolutely fulfilled. He has been building his church.

02:40:45

He continues to build his church. And the simple fact of the matter is, the era of Roman Catholicism is thinking that Christ's work of building his church is focused upon the

02:40:54

Bishop of Rome and the city of Rome. That is not the biblical teaching and I would like to point out that it was not a misrepresentation of history.

02:41:01

It is a fact that Roman Catholic scholars admit and all night we've been hearing, well don't listen to the

02:41:07

Protestants, those bad Protestants. All I said was even Roman Catholic scholars admit that historically we can demonstrate from Clement's letter and others that there was not a single

02:41:17

Bishop in Rome until about 140. The evidence is clear, therefore that position cannot hold up.

02:41:27

I would respond, I think that was a very, very insightful question because the fact is, if I can make this point quickly,

02:41:36

I mentioned this on the radio that Lorraine Bettner in his work on predestination acknowledges, as anyone who would honestly look at the

02:41:43

Fathers does, that the Fathers of the church did not teach this. He claims Augustine was the first man who got this quote unquote revelation.

02:41:50

The fact is Augustine knew nothing of Calvinism, but the fact is, if that is true, then the gates of hell did prevail for 300 years because nobody had a clue, even according to a

02:42:02

Calvinist like Bettner, about the truth of justification. Mr.

02:42:08

Wyatt, was Joseph in the Old Testament given the infallible gift of interpretation of dreams?

02:42:17

And why is it so hard for Protestants to consider that God could give a man or men the gift or charism of infallible interpretation of Scripture?

02:42:27

Joseph was given the ability to interpret dreams and God had a purpose in Joseph's so doing. It is not an issue, sir, and has never been an issue, that Protestants say that God could not do this.

02:42:37

The simple fact of the matter is, he did not do this. The historical facts demonstrate it. Those who claim to have this infallible charism, and there are many, by the way, not just the

02:42:48

Bishop of Rome, there are many who claim this authority, that they consistently and constantly teach contrary to what the

02:42:56

Scriptures lead us to believe. And so the simple fact of the matter is, it is not an argument. No one is saying that God could not strike you infallible right now.

02:43:05

He could do that. No, the time is not up. He could do that if he wanted to. That is not an argument.

02:43:10

The point is, does the Scripture say that he has done so? And the Scriptures do not give us any indication of that whatsoever.

02:43:17

The Scriptures instead tell us that there will always be the struggle in the Church against those who would teach false teaching and that the

02:43:24

Church will always have to be looking to the Scriptures. And we acknowledge, of course, there will always be struggles.

02:43:34

In fact, in the Catholic Church, we acknowledge, even though the Pope proclaims in 1994 that women cannot and will not, the

02:43:43

Church cannot ordain women, there are still those who want to run off at the mouth. Well, the same thing was going on with St.

02:43:49

Augustine. Two councils have been sent to the Holy See. The answer has come, shut up! And well, the problem, it is incredibly naive to believe that because the

02:43:58

Bishop of Rome proclaims the truth, everything is going to be beautiful. It is incredibly naive because there is a little something out there called original sin.

02:44:07

People rebel against the plain truth. For your information, we have about nine minutes left, so we will get to as many of your questions as we can.

02:44:15

Obviously, we are not going to get to all of them. We apologize for that. Mr. Staples, you have made a constant appeal to examine the historical facts, but my question to you is, in light of Ignatius Loyola's statement that for the unity of the

02:44:29

Church, if something appears to us to be black, but the Church declares it to be white, you shall accept it as black.

02:44:38

Let me ask you this, because you have made a constant appeal for us to examine the historical questions here.

02:44:43

So, if we are examining whether something is white or black, you really can't objectively do that, can you?

02:44:49

Because your Pope has told you it is black regardless of whether it is white or black. Calm down, it is okay.

02:44:57

Well, brother, please understand St. Ignatius of Loyola in context. He is a

02:45:02

Jesuit. As a Catholic, we understand that he is talking as a

02:45:11

Jesuit, they take vows of obedience. We, as Catholics, should obey as well in all things except sin, even in matters juridical.

02:45:19

So now, when it comes to doctrine or dogma, what in very powerful language he is saying is that if you, as a layperson, comes up with an idea, well, you know what,

02:45:32

I think there is a quadrinity, and that is what I see the truth to be.

02:45:38

Well, guess what? You are wrong, because you are not infallible. It is the Church that Jesus Christ has established that proclaims the truth, and therefore, you must humble yourself.

02:45:47

See, the problem with Protestantism is that it depends upon everybody's particular intellectual ability to interpret very difficult things.

02:45:57

And, folks, for most of Christian history, most of the world was illiterate and could not even read. God gave us a

02:46:02

Church for that very reason. Well, in light of what was just said, it is fascinating to read

02:46:12

Basil of Caesarea, who disagreed with Mr. Staples. He said, we ought carefully to examine whether the doctrine offered to us is conformable to Scripture.

02:46:20

How could he say that, because everybody was illiterate? And if not, to reject it. Nothing must be added to the inspired words of God.

02:46:27

All that is outside Scripture is not of faith, but is sin. Amen. How could an early

02:46:32

Church father make such a statement if, in point of fact, as one Roman Catholic writer put it, the

02:46:37

Bible is not a safe guide as to what we are to believe? My question is for Mr.

02:46:44

White, and I ask it in love. Let us say for sake of argument that all of your stipulations about the

02:46:50

Catholic papacy blow infallibility out of the water. Let us say the papacy, indeed the Church, are in error in our fallacy.

02:46:58

John 17, four times in a mere ten verses, Christ says, Father, may they be one as you and I are one.

02:47:04

Ephesians 4, Philippians 2, Romans 15, 1 Peter 3, we could go on. Urgent cries by the

02:47:10

Holy Spirit through these God -inspired men for unity. How do we reconcile that with twenty to forty thousand, and counting, five new ones every week, separate

02:47:19

Protestant churches? Amen. Would you restart the clock, please?

02:47:30

Thanks. First of all, that number is so grossly, grossly overinflated.

02:47:37

It's ridiculous. It really is. Check it out for yourself. If there are, if there are, if there are a tenth of that many meaningful denominations, it would be very, very surprising.

02:47:48

But it's interesting. We can find so many viewpoints amongst those who are Roman Catholics, but when I quote them, Mr. Staples says, well, they're not really

02:47:54

Catholic. Isn't that interesting how we just define away the same problem that exists in our own communion? But in answer to the question,

02:48:01

I have brethren out here from the Master's Seminary, and I have brethren out here from an

02:48:07

Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and I'm from Reformed Baptist Church. And you know why we're brothers? You know why we're in union here tonight?

02:48:14

Because of the gospel of Jesus Christ that we share in common. And God's promise to the church has not failed.

02:48:22

The gospel has not failed. It continues to be proclaimed today. And that's the foundation. It is the unity of truth.

02:48:29

And God continues to build his church. Well, first of all, the fact is the number of denominations is much higher than that.

02:48:44

I read an encyclopedia which said 20 ,000 back in 1982, and with the advent of non -denominational denominations, it's much, much higher.

02:48:54

But I would just like to point out real, real quickly that Mr. White can claim all this unity, but how many of you agree with Mr.

02:49:01

White that God has predetermined before all of creation that some of you are going to heaven and some of you are going to hell?

02:49:09

Your wills are entirely passive. You have no free choice in whether you go to heaven or hell.

02:49:14

How many of you Protestants agree with that? That's just one example of the division. Okay, I think we have time for a couple more.

02:49:28

Let's go right here. This question is for Mr. White. Many Protestant biblical scholars, such as F .F.

02:49:35

Bruce and D .A. Carson, whose scholarship far surpasses your own, have clearly concluded that Peter is himself the rock in Matthew 1618, the rock in which the church will be built.

02:49:47

If they can see this, why can't you? Well, you know, those Protestant scholars, and I know

02:49:53

Dr. Carson, those Protestant scholars would likewise tell you, sir, that their interpretation of that has absolutely nothing to do with the

02:50:00

Bishop of Rome, and that they would understand that to mean that Peter and Peter alone was first to bring the gospel outside of the

02:50:07

Jewish circle, and they would, in the very same books that you're citing, such as Hendrickson and others, point out that it is impossible that the

02:50:14

Roman Catholic interpretation is true. So I ask you, sir, why don't you accept what they had to say? And I think you make a very good point.

02:50:28

Yes, I have D .A. Carson in the Expositor's Bible commentary, and yes, he does say Peter is the rock.

02:50:34

We're not claiming he's Catholic, Mr. White, but he has taken one step in the right direction in acknowledging that.

02:50:40

Now, as far as Peter having successors, I've demonstrated that yes, there is no reason to say that Jesus, oh yeah, he established

02:50:49

Peter as the rock, but that ceased at the end of the first century. Where does the scripture say that? Never.

02:50:54

The fact is the apostolic gift is alive and well, according to Ephesians 4, verse 11.

02:51:02

Okay, unfortunately, our last question. This question is for Mr.

02:51:07

Staples. Mr. Staples, in the beginning, in the introduction, you stated that there's no difference in Matthew chapter 16 with the wording that's used, the

02:51:16

Greek words that are used for rock. Well, if that's the case, then why is Peter, why does it seem if Peter's being tossed to and fro in the scriptures, for example, and the letter in the following verse, in verse 23,

02:51:33

Jesus calls Peter Satan, and also Peter denies the

02:51:39

Lord three times and curses at the same time he lies, and also he's being a hypocrite in Galatians chapter 2.

02:51:45

If there's no difference, why is Peter being tossed to and fro like a little small rock? Now, a big stone would not be able to be moved.

02:51:53

All right, hold on. I think you've asked the question. Well, the answer, first of all, is that notice Jesus said,

02:51:58

I will give to you the keys of the kingdom. And then in Luke chapter 22, he says, when you are converted, that's in the future, strengthen your brethren.

02:52:08

The apostolic authority to be, as Mr. White claims, St. John Chrysostom knows nothing of Peter being the rock.

02:52:16

In fact, I have six quotes here from St. John Chrysostom saying things like Peter, the leader of the choir, the mouth of all the apostles, the head of that tribe, the ruler of the entire world, the foundation of the church, would not become that until he received the power of the

02:52:34

Holy Spirit that empowered him to do it. But now, even if he was already in power, if he was already pope in Matthew 16, what he did was pertaining to his actions.

02:52:47

Once again, and folks, we do not say the popes are impeccable. They are infallible when they declare a dogma to the universal church freely, and they say they are doing so.

02:53:00

Okay. And a final 30 seconds for Mr. White. And when we interpret them to be doing so, and when we don't interpret them, then they're not infallible.

02:53:07

We just saw an example of the Peter syndrome. Every time an early church father says something exalted about Peter, that means it has something to do with the papacy.

02:53:14

If you read John Chrysostom, you'll discover that's not what he believed. And secondly, please remember, the majority of the early church fathers did not interpret

02:53:21

Matthew 16 the way that Rome does today. That is a historical novelty. Vatican I was simply wrong in its statement on that as well.

02:53:29

Thank you. All right. Once again, let's have a round of applause for both James White and Tim Staples.

02:53:37

In all honesty, a show of hands, how many would have liked to have been in one of their positions tonight?

02:54:02

Not me. All right. Well, I want to thank you all for coming this evening.

02:54:08

We will close with a word of prayer. So if you do need to dash out real fast, please do so quietly and allow us just to once again invoke the

02:54:16

Holy Spirit and give thanks to God for this opportunity to delve into his word and to try and seek to know him better through the truth.

02:54:25

Father in heaven, we just thank you for this evening. We just pray that we would have open hearts to know your will, your truth.

02:54:33

Lord, you have spoken. You have spoken through your word and through your church. And we thank you for the blessing of these two gentlemen tonight and pray that they would go forth and continue the zeal that they have for you and that our hearts again would be open to your truth and the action of your

02:54:50

Holy Spirit. I ask you to keep everyone safe going home this evening. And we ask this all through Jesus Christ, our

02:54:56

Lord and Savior. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen.