Matthew Bellisario and the Papacy

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line

The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence

Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed

Baptist Church This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with dr.

White call now at 602 973 4602 or toll -free across the

United States. It's 1 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 And now with today's topic here is

James white And good afternoon. Welcome to the dividing line on a Thursday afternoon

As I mentioned on the blog we are going to have a discussion today on an actual argument that I have made against the

Claims of the Roman Catholic Church in reference to the papacy I believe specifically in regards to the primary

Petrine passage, which I believe Is in gold around the rotunda of st.

Peter's in Rome I seem to recall taking pictures of that a few years ago when I was there the words from Matthew 16 18 and following from the

Gospel of Matthew, of course and The individual who will be raising those issues is

Matthew Bella. Sorry. Oh, hello, Matthew Doing pretty good. Thank you very much for inviting me back on to discuss this topic well, you want to ask for a specific amount of time a few minutes to sort of lay out a case and so I Be happy to do that.

Why don't you go ahead and let us know. Are we focusing specifically on? Matthew 1618 are we looking at?

Wider topics. What what was your intention? Well, I want to discuss of course

Matthew 16 16 through 19, but to try to hold that particular text by itself is is kind of Having a low regard for the scriptures and looking at it a little bit

Just looking at it in the linguistic sense. So I just want to kind of give a little introduction I'm approaching that particular text and how it falls into the rest of the

New Testament And also we can look at a little bit about some of the arguments that You've posed before that you thought were good arguments against the papacy.

That's okay. That's fine with me Okay, and I of course, you know that I'm a Catholic I don't believe that scripture alone we can argue everything from scripture alone, and I don't intend to do that.

However, I Believe that the scriptures must be read at the mind of Christ They must be read when the community the church and I agree with the

Holy Father Pope Benedict the 16th Well, I think how wrong it is to attempt to draw final conclusions from isolated text of the

New Testament end quote So if we're only going to examine the scriptures by linguistics and human reasoning alone that we're doing a severe injustice to the biblical text

Now, of course, we know there are many levels of understanding with the sacred scriptures And I believe once again, we must be read with the mind of Christ within the church

Deconstructing the text and looking at it on your human level of linguistics only scratches the surface

Scriptures are not read as a textbook without regard to their divine inspiration This can be seen for those there are several people who are who are

Greek scholars And even though they oftentimes appear to agree on the sentence structure that they're talking about They often quarrel over the actual meaning of the text that's applied to the theological position

So I don't believe that this alone is Going to get us the answers. We're looking for for example when we're looking at the biblical text of Matthew 16 16 through 19

I don't believe we can ignore the inherent reality of the relationship between Peter and the

Apostles to Christ and Christ to the Father. I Believe in Matthew 10 40 through 42. Jesus says he who receives you receives me.

He who receives me is the one that sent me Nor can it be divorced from John 20 21

Jesus said again peace be with you as to the father sent me I am sending you So Christ represents the prototype of the

Apostle in which then turns and grabs Peter into himself in Matthew 16 Then he sends him and his

Apostles out with divine authority Likewise, we can't divorce it from John 21 15 through 17.

Well, Peter tells you this to you Alone, he doesn't tell all this apostasy tells Peter alone to feed his sheep

The ecclesiastical groundwork, I believe is laid within the passages of the New Testament For those however who are looking for Vatican one to be explicitly spelled out in the

New Testament As a systematic theological exposition, I believe are making unreasonable expectations of the text

Now I want to continue on a little bit and look to st. Peter's confessed his profession of faith St.

Peter and his profession of faith is bound to Christ is the rock therefore Christ names him also rock

Why to grasp st. Peter into himself, there's a unique and mystical bond that Peter will receive from Christ the cornerstone

The resemblance of Christ being sent from the father to Christ sending Peter is unmistakable in my opinion

Thus we see various fathers of the church Refer to st. Peter's faith as being the rock and his being the chair being referred to as having a unifying character in essence to it

St. Peter takes this position after Christ's resurrection, of course This is demonstrated in the book of Acts such passages as Acts 1 15 5 1 through 11 15 7 through 13

I believe all these are intimately linked and it cannot be taken and pulled out of context pulled out of how they are linked together with a

Christological nature about them And there are few reputable scholars that I find who take who who who basically?

Say that Matthew 16 does not show the leadership in a special place of honor among the Apostles of Peter I believe the keys given to Peter make him unique among the

Apostles Although I will admit the other Apostles likewise receive authority to bind and loose just as the bishops today

Also have that authority However, I don't believe this to be in contradiction to the youth the unique authority of st

Peter and I don't believe it denies the bond that the other Apostles had with Peter to exercise their authority

There are many Orthodox theologians who also agree with it John Mayer door

Father Lawrence Quinn work by this Thomas Coppola, for example, although they do not go as far as Rome in Taking the authority of st.

Peter. I will admit One other thing I would like to say before we get into anything further is talking about tradition but I think a lot of people misrepresent tradition both in the

Catholic Church and outside the Catholic Church and They they they merely look at it as being just quoting church fathers

Or just merely a tool to interpret scripture and We have to understand a tradition.

I believe is the gospel being conveyed living and breathing within the unity of the church And one more thing about the early church fathers that I would like to outrightly state is that the early church fathers were not writing their letters

For future controversialists such as dr. White and myself. They were writing for specific controversies at a time

So I believe we have limited access to look at these particular Statements that we're looking for from the church fathers.

Although I do believe we can make it a pretty strong case that We have a majority that believes in what the

Church of Rome teaches One last thing I want to talk about the unanimous consent that is often misunderstood by both

Catholic apologists and Protestant Apologists as having it to mean that every single church father has to agree

That is not the case and we can look to the writings of the Catholic Church By Pope Leo the 13th to actually see what that means and it means a basic majority not every single church father

So if we bring up a couple arguments where church father Contradicts what Rome teaches it doesn't necessarily mean that that debunks the argument from Rome and One last point some of these early church writers are not early church fathers

I see Tertullian constantly being quoted as a church father I see Origen constantly being quoted as a church father according to the true sense of the word.

They're not church fathers They're early church writers. And now a few questions for you.

Dr. White that I would just like to pose to you since we want to Know You get an opening statement.

So do I I think that people need to Hear the other side first and then we can start

That's fine. I Would like to quote from the First Vatican Council's dogmatic Constitution from 1870

We therefore for the preservation safekeeping increased the Catholic flock with the approval the sacred council

Do judge to be necessary to propose to the belief and acceptance of all the faithful in? Accordance with the ancient and constant faith of the

Universal Church the doctrine touching institution perpetuity in nature the sacred apostolic primacy now, please notice it speaks of the ancient and Constant faith of the

Universal Church And so if we discover that the papacy actually develops over time that is in fact unknown in Periods of time that there are major early church fathers who pursue their ministry without any knowledge of these things

This allegedly infallible document would be shown to be untrue It likewise said it opened variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has been ever

Understood by the Catholic Church Are the perverse opinions of those who while they distort the form of government established by Christ Lord in his church?

Deny that Peter and his single person Preferably to all the other Apostles whether taken separately or together was endowed by Christ the true and primary proper primary

Primacy of jurisdiction notice. It's a clear doctrine of Holy Scripture. And this is as it has been ever understood by the

Catholic Church. So These are the claims that Rome itself makes now my understanding was we're gonna be looking at Matthew chapter 16

So we read in that text now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi He was asking his disciples.

Who do people say the Son of Man is they said some say John the Baptist others Elijah But still others Jeremiah one of the prophets he said to them

But who do you say that I am Simon Peter answered? You are the Christ the Son of the Living God and Jesus said to him blessed are you

Simon Barjona? Because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you my father who is in heaven I also say to you that you are

Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not overpower it I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven and whatever you

Loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven the central theme of this passage is the

Messiah ship of Jesus Christ any interpretation that takes the focus off of Jesus as Messiah is quite simply missing the point

Jesus questions to the disciples about the opinions the multitudes and their own viewpoints are all directed toward his own person his own

Identity when Peter speaks up and confesses that Jesus is a Christ the Son of the Living God He is confessing the faith of all the disciples not merely himself

He is speaking for them all as he often does Jesus pronouncement of blessing upon Peter is not due to any inherent goodness in Peter But as due to Peter's being the recipient of a great blessing from the father

The father has revealed to Peter the true identity of Jesus and of course revelation was given to the other apostles as well

We can hardly think that they all sat there amazed Never having even thought that Jesus was the Messiah The point of Jesus words is that it requires the work of the father to reveal the

Son the subject of the passage Remains the identity of Christ found in the confession of Peter when the Lord says

I tell you you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not overcome it the focus does not change

Yes is not here speaking of the identity of Peter. He is still talking about himself and his church

This is plainly seen by continuing on through verse 20 where we read then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was

The Christ the Messiah the focus never shifts from Christ to anyone else including

Peter The rock of which the Lord speaks is that common confession made by all who are part of the church? Jesus is the

Christ the Son of Living God This is seen I believe in the fact that while the Lord is addressing Peter directly He changes from direct address to referring to something else this rock when speaking of Peter's confession

He does not say upon you Peter. I will build my church instead You have a clear distinction between Peter the Petras and the use of the demonstrative pronoun this

Petra the confession of faith upon which the church Is built this statement is followed by the promise to at some time in the future

Give the keys the kingdom of heaven to Peter I emphasize This is a promise for the verb is future intense

Jesus is not here in this passage give anything to Peter in the way of keys Yet when we see it's the authority given in Matthew 18 18

It is given not to Peter alone or even primarily But to all the Apostles and that using the exact same language word -for -word regarding binding and loosing

If someone wishes to say that Peter receives the keys and distinction from the other puzzles as their superior they are also forced to admit that the giving of these keys is never recorded for us anywhere in Scripture a

Strange thing indeed for something supposedly so fundamental to the Constitution of the church Now these are just some comments on the the text itself

But I would likewise point out that I am certainly not alone in taking that view there is a long list of Individuals in the early church

Gregory of Nyssa st. Cyril of Alexandria st. Chrysostom theodoreth theophyl act St.

Hillary st. Ambrose st. Augustine st. Gregory the Great quote just one John Chrysostom One of the greater biblical exegetes of the early church

Having said to Peter blessed art thou Simon Barjonas and of having promised to lay the foundation of the church upon his confession not long

After he says get thee behind me Satan and elsewhere. He said upon this rock He did not say upon Peter for it is not upon the man

But upon his own faith the church is built and what is this faith? you are the Christ the Son of the

Living God and so we have a an interpretation of Matthew chapter 16 that is

Consistent it requires no appeals to anything outside the immediate context and it is consistent with the interpretation of the early church as Well, and so I would simply present that as an interpretation of the text you go to the text

Mr. Belisario has said well, you know linguistics and human reasoning alone can't do this. We need to read it in the unity of the church

Well, I think especially when that church is founded upon the claim that this text has to have a certain meaning

That is in danger of becoming somewhat of a circular argument if we are not careful. So with that mr

Belisario you said you had some questions to to raise Yes, what so would you you don't see any connection between?

Christ receiving the authority from the father and then in turn passing that on that that that authority on to Peter You don't see in Matthew 16 in Matthew 16.

No. Well, once again, I don't think Matthew 16 can be isolated from the rest of the text I don't think you can pull it out and just say well if this refers to Peter's faith

That's the end of it because John Mayerdorf who's not a Catholic He says as far as I know

He's a Greek scholar says that the the faith of Peter cannot be separated from the person of Peter Well, while it may not be able to the fact remains that Jesus did not say

You are Peter and upon you I will build my church He uses a demonstrative pronoun and I've asked many times.

Why does Jesus use a demonstrative pronoun? And if this is the constant and ancient faith of the church

Why can I cite the leading? Commentators of the first four centuries of the church who agreed with what

I just said I just wrote I just I just read for you John Chrysostom So why does he say why does he not say and I will build the church upon you

Peter? Well, I I'm not a Greek scholar, so I'm not going to pretend that I wasn't asking about Greek Well as far as we're looking at the text when we're looking at The English text that that's not clear it says on this rock and Peter is named rock.

Am I correct? It's it Jesus not changed Peter's name to rock Was there not a reason that he did that so that the person

Peter would also be? His name was changed to refer to Peter as well.

And and that if faith also is is bound to the person I don't think you're going to separate St. Peter's profession of faith from him as a person

Otherwise, why would he just change his name to rock? Well, he doesn't here again We we keep we keep leaving this text and and I'm asking a specific text question about the text

And that is if this is so and and I again quote from Vatican one at open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has been ever understood by the

Catholic Church and So there was John Chrysostom not a part of the Catholic Church Yes, Dr.

System, but Dr. System we can quote we can throw quotes of Dr. System back and forth where I asked him he called

What counts were he calls of Peter the rock and calls the unifying chair of Rome?

Yes Yeah Well, certainly mr.

Bell, sorry, you know that the Cathedral Petri in the ancient church a chair of Peter is Shared by all bishops as Cyprian pointed out and as the

North Africans pointed out and so on so forth So it wasn't just applied to him in the person of the

Bishop of Rome in any way shape or form But I again return to to the text and are you saying we just it's not clear

I mean, this is the key Petri in text. Is it not? It's key

It's a key Petri in text as long as it's looked at in relationship to the rest of Scripture Not just pulling it out and looking at it as a mere linguistic

Exercise which is what what what you're really doing. So what other text Explains why he uses a demonstrative pronoun and says upon this rock rather than upon you.

What other text Explains that is is Peter's failure of faith and his need to be prayed for is that does that explain?

the demonstrative pronoun what what what's I'm trying to understand how other texts which

I would assert are actually Significantly less central and less compelling in their

Testimony to some kind of Petri in primacy how they could somehow Explain what

Jesus is saying here if evidently the text is itself unclear well,

I mean we can Look at other arguments I'm sure you know that Robert's on Kenneth has an argument for the demonstrative use of the

Greek text Once again, I can't debate you on the Greek text What exactly is going on because I'm not a

Greek scholar But what I can do is take another Greek scholar and put him against you to disagree with your interpretation on the demonstrative

Use of this text. No one no one disagrees. There's a demonstrative pronoun there. Nobody because they're gonna well

It's a fact that the the Greek specifically has contains a demonstrative pronoun that that's not that's not even

That's not even an arguable thing Now he may disagree with the interpretation, which of course

I know that he does but epitout a tate It's it's right there touted. It's it's it's right in the

Greek. It's not that it isn't a question about that now Mistress and Genesis made numerous errors about the

Greek which I've documented in the past, but I really don't believe that that he would go to the point of Saying that tout a is not in the text.

So the question is what it means And it says upon this rock and so the the question then comes back to you know okay, so you don't agree with my interpretation, but I have demonstrated that it is consistent with the context because it maintains the focus upon the identity of who

Jesus is it is consistent with the rest of the gospel of Matthew because Jesus in a future tense promises to give the keys to Peter and he does in Matthew 18 along with the other

Apostles and It is consistent with an entire list of people that I cited for you and their interpretations

In my in my in my in my statement I said you have to do one of two things with Matthew either you have to recognize that that future promise

I will give do so The keys is either fulfilled in Matthew 18 18 when

Peter receives them along with the other Apostles in equality Or if you want to say that's not the fulfillment then you're gonna have to say that nowhere

Does Matthew or any of the other part of the other gospel writers a record this momentous fulfillment?

so you've got one of the two if you accept Matthew 18 18 as being the Place where Peter receives the keys then he does not do so as superior to the other

Apostles and if you don't accept Matthew 18 18 is that fulfillment then

You have no place recorded for you when when this fulfillment this promise is fulfilled So I'm not sure which view you take and I would think there especially on the issue like this be an infallible interpretation from Rome and its oral tradition, but I'm not unaware of any infallible interpretation of Actually of any of these texts come to think of it even

Matthew 16 I've heard Tim Staples say that it's capable of multiple meanings and you only have to affirm one

But the other ones could possibly be meanings too. I'm not sure if that's position you take or not To me

I don't have a problem with Peter receiving keys and the rest of them receiving the likewise authority It doesn't really specify that they all receive the keys the claims

As As far as Peter receiving the keys and the lights and the apostles receiving a likewise authority I don't believe that jeopardizes the primacy of Peter in this

When he was when they received that authority, I mean even today as the

Roman Catholic Church operates the Pope is not looked at as the Dictator obviously that all the other bishops and archbishops throughout the church have their own autonomy over there over there

The diocese's are the archdiocese or whatever you want to look at their take their seat So when we look at the text when we look at the text in that context

I'd like like I said, I don't think you can divorce the rest of these New Testament passages that I named before That give us an overview of how this is looked at throughout the

New Testament. Okay, so when you say throughout the New Testament You you mentioned only a couple of texts you mentioned when

Peter denies Jesus and in the in the restoration of Peter in John 21 you you have

First you have the prayer for Peter's faith and you have the restoration of Peter and you feel somehow that because Peter denied

Christ this somehow Gives him some type of a of a primacy.

What what early church fathers for example? Interpreted John chapter 21 the way that's the way that you are.

I'd be interested in in in knowing John chapter 21.

Yeah, you you mentioned the feeding the sheep Passage. Yeah, so feeding the sheep passage. What was it?

It was only it was only given to It's Peter. Correct. He didn't speak to everybody when he told him to feed the sheep

Yes, it can be looked at as restorative in nature, but such people as such as St. John Christos from Looked at it as him being restored not just a restorative in nature

But it was restored back to his place of honor that he had received before that So yeah,

I'm standing that that thinker socialism says he received it He denied Christ Christ comes back restores him to his place of honor and primacy amongst the

Apostles and that's the interpretation that he gives us but does that mean that you are saying that Chris system viewed this as Establishing Peter as the as the primary as Establishing a papacy

It tells us that st. Peter looked at or a sorry st. John Christos and looked at Peter as being the leader of the

Apostles Yes so but That but then that means that he viewed the

Bishop of Rome as having Ultimate authority over the entire church as a result of that I mean, I'm just I need to point out that no matter what you do with Peter the

Roman Catholic argument for authority requires not only that you find in these scattered passages a

Primacy of Peter, but then you also have to make the leap That Peter then goes to Rome and Peter is the first Bishop of Rome and the

Bishop of Rome Receives from Peter this alleged authority and That it is passed down through those bishops of Rome.

So I think we can conclude that from history Yes from historical sources, we can conclude that that's that's a long long chain of possibilities.

I just wanted to let Cyril of Alexandria Respond to you on John 21 if anyone asked for what cause he asked

Simon only Though the other disciples were present and what he means by feed my lambs and like we answered st

Peter with the other disciples had been already chosen to the apostleship But because meanwhile Peter had fallen from the great fear.

He had thrice denied the Lord He now heals him that was sick and exacts a threefold confession in place of his triple denial

Contrasting the form with the latter and compensating the fault with the correction So it would seem to me

Especially in light of Acts 20 28 and other other indication other text that there is no indication that only

Peter is Told to shepherd God's flock nor that all others who shepherd the flock do so derivatively from Peter's supremacy

That would be a major reading into the text of a concept That I would argue is coming from outside of the text of the

New Testament so we have John 21 15 through 17 and We have

Matthew 16 18 But you continue to speak of this whole New Testament Concept that drives your reading of of these texts

Would these include Paul's? Rebuking of Peter when he is found to be guilty of not walking straight in accordance with the truth of the gospel in the book of Galatians or Peter having somebody else another apostle address him and Having him change his mind to admit his error

I don't it's not even really what would be considered it would be considered more to be a disciplinary

Matter during that in the New Testament. I don't find that text to be a particular strong argument against papacy.

I Don't think it's it's relevant to the papacy because I don't see the papacy in the New Testament But it does if we're going to assert

Certain aspects that papacy I think not walking straight in accordance of the gospel might be a little bit more than just a disciplinary thing but be that as it may what other texts then are there that Provide this overriding context that leads you to believe that Your particular interpretation which was not the majority

Interpretation of the early church. I don't think that's been proven. But I mean we can look at st. Cyprian who

Who I'm on John 21, you know, he says feed my sheep on him

He built the church and he gives the keys to feed the sheep And although he assigned the like power to all the

Apostles yet. He founded a single chair He established his own authority as a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity indeed others

Were that Peter was also but it promised he is given to Peter. That's that's Cyprian and how did

Cyprian understand? And mr. Bell sorry, how did mr. How did that martyr Bishop understand those words that he wrote did he not demonstrate for example

And just just just just a question before I proceeded that who is the first Bishop of Rome to use

Matthew 16 18 in his own defense, do you know Who is the Bishop of Rome? Who's the first?

Yeah, the first Bishop of Rome to use this this text as you're using it I'm not sure who the Bishop of Rome is the first one my mind my understanding is that according to J.

Andy Kelly it was in fact Stephen who was the very Pope that Cyprian opposed and and specifically

Repudiated his not only his use of that text as you read for millions letter, which is a real scorcher in regards to Stephen, but The entire

North African Church speaking through Cyprian and the Council of Carthage rebuked

Stephen's attempts to expand his authority into the

North African churches at that time, so One of the reasons that he did that Specifically was because he understood the

Cathedral Petri Yes, he did believe that Stephen sat upon the the chair of Peter But he believed that for million did and Cyprian did and every bishop in the church sat upon the chair of Peter and that it

Was not in fact Centered in the city of Rome that of course has become the position of the

Roman Catholic Church since then So if you're gonna go to Cyprian, then you need to recognize That Cyprian is a strong testimony

Against the claim that the ancient church has always understood a primacy of the

Bishop of Rome himself as The fulfillment of those texts that's

I think of a fair reading of what he said That's I don't think that's entirely accurate because if I'm memory serves me, but I think that Think Cyprian was first of all ask folks even to intervene

If my memory serves me right I don't think that the Pope imposed himself on thing I think Cyprian started off as Many times we see in the

Eastern Church at the time because there's a love -hate relationship From what I read in the history of the

Eastern Church and the Western Church That they asked several there's there's several

I can go through several times where they ask the Pope to intervene They send people to Rome to be judged and then when they get the answer back

Sometimes they go along with it. Sometimes they don't Mr. Bell, sorry Examples that I could fight you you're you're speaking somewhat anachronistically

When you speak of appealing to the Pope in point of fact the deacons of the Church of Rome referred to Cyprian as Pope Which I find interesting, but let me quote you the actual words the

Seventh Council of Carthage Where we read these words for neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops

Nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience since every bishop

According to the allowance of his liberty and power has his own proper right of judgment It can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another.

I understand that Cyprian Was wrong is that that's not that's that wasn't

Cyprian. That's not Cyprian. That's the Seventh Council of Carthage Oh Yes, I know that St.

Cyprian Opposed Rome. That's that's not that once again. No, no, no, he opposed

Stephen you see you make a differentiation He was the bishop of Rome, right? but he he recognized that previous bishops of Rome had not been as shall we say imperious as Stephen himself was so you don't see any reason why

St. Cyprian would appeal or ask the folks even to intervene. Why why not go to his own bishop?

Why is he going to Rome? Well, that's easy that that's very very easy this happened many this happened many many times in church history where if you had a conflict you wanted to have as many and as influential churches on your side as you could possibly get and that's why you see and well, especially with Carthage being in the

West You see this in the East all the time Jerusalem Antioch Constantinople There is a constant power struggles and everyone wants to have

Rome on their side Rome is the richest church in the world at that point in time and the most influential because well all roads go to Rome It has the greatest ability of communication

I don't think that's entirely historically accurate Noble usurp Rome very quickly in the fourth in the the end of the fourth century, excuse me, but you're you're now 200 years out of sync with the context that we were just discussing because Constantinople's rise to power is about two centuries after the time of of Cyprian That definitely does happen in the middle of fifth century

But that wouldn't be relevant in regards to the the conflict between Carthage and Rome in the middle of the third century

Well, I can the position doesn't the What happens later once Constantinople becomes prominent?

You served Rome in in this aspect. They still continue to send People to Rome to be judged.

Why not just stay in Constantinople? Well again, there's several examples. Well, let's let's let's let's go to the

Pope. Why don't they go to Alexandria? Why don't we let why don't we let let's let's let the historical record speak for itself.

Let's look at the 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon a canon that Rome resisted and here's what it says

Following in all things the decisions the Holy Father's and acknowledging the canon which has just been read We also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges the

Most Holy Church of Constantinople which is new Rome for the father's rightly granted privileges to the throne of old

Rome because it was the royal city and the 150 most religious bishops actuated by the same consideration gave equal privileges to the

Most Holy Throne of new Rome Justly judging that the city which is honored with the sovereignty in the Senate and enjoys equal privileges with old imperial

Rome shouldn't ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is and ranked next after her now

Notice they say that these fathers granted privileges to Rome not on the basis of Matthew 16 the

Bishop of Rome being the successor of Peter But the privilege of the Grand Rome because it was the royal city and so now

Constantinople being the seat of government assumes such privileges and It is it's highly instructive to note as you know the reaction of Rome to this canon when it was proposed the

Roman legate at The council he indicated that he had no instructions from Rome and withdrew The can was passed in his absence the next day when he objected his objections were dismissed

When Pope Leo heard about this he was angry and rejected the canon, but on what ground did he reject it?

He did so on the basis of defending the older Patriarchates Alexandria and Antioch and by so doing of course he was protecting

Roman claims as well Leo did not refuse to recognize the can because it had been passed without his consent

But because he said that the canons contradict the decrees in I see ya Which he said would last forever and could be altered by no one but but did that end the dispute not at all in?

Fact the Pope's resistance the canon had no effect the Quintessex Council in 681 confirmed all the calcidon canons without exception

And the Council of Florence repeated the same order found the canon with Constantinople second now

Council of Florence is where you get your dogmatic definitions of certain elements of the doctrine of purgatory So how do you deal with that?

Once again, I think that you're taking a little so many things out of context as I've said before we have a

Line of appeals to Rome and we have a I mean I think we can throw church fathers quotes back and forth about about the

Peter being the reason why Rome was looked at I mean I believe was st.

Irenaeus. They quoted st. Paul and st. Peter is being the the authority of what Rome was built on But Matthew should we be able to toss text back and forth

Thank Gregory of Nysa writing to Rome In his letter 13, you know He says what is more of more to the interest of Rome that it commends to be presided by some hot

Highborn and pompous senator or by the fishermen in Peter. So there's still a relation of Peter to Rome Acknowledged by all these church fathers.

There's no there's no there's no question of any of that but that does not follow that these same church fathers believed that the

Bishop of Rome was the universal bishop of bishops over the entire church Now two things is it not true

Matthew that we should not Be able to toss early church fathers back and forth in light of Rome's own claim

That this is not only the clear doctrine of Holy Scripture But it is the ancient and constant faith of the universal

Church not the church after Newman's development hypothesis allows for the development of the papacy

That's that's an abandonment of the historical field of battle as George Salmon very rightly pointed out

You referred to Calphadon Yes, I quoted Calphadon But but session three it says something entirely different does it not?

You mean in contradiction to Canon 28? Yeah What what do you mean?

Well, the text that I'm that I have here in this book says are here is where wherefore the most holy and blessed

Leo Archbishop of the great and elder of Rome through us and through this present most holy stand together

With the thrice -blessed and all -glorious Peter the Apostle who is the rock and foundation of the

Catholic Church And the foundation of the Orthodox faith has stripped him That's that's what he's referring in the image any council of Calphadon And he's talking about the office of the primacy of Peter He's actually talking about Leo's tome and Leo's tome was very important at Calphadon.

But again That was due to the content of the tome The council then produced

Canon 28 as to the issue of authority and so you're you're confusing the two there's there's no question that the

Bishop of Rome is Important church history. There's no question that being the bishop of the only apostolic see in the

West There are five in the East that gave him a Tremendous position of authority, but you can't ignore the fact and this is why

Newman had to come up with a development hypothesis Because he recognized that That there was no reason for so many of the conflicts in the early church if in point of fact the position you now hold

Would have been the universal faith the church. There would have been no reason to the Council of Nicaea Why not just go to the

Pope they didn't in fact the Bishop of Rome had almost nothing to do with the decisions of the Council of Nicaea at all

There's just there's so many historical problems. Look at what happens when the North African churches under Augustine Reject Zosimas's rehabilitation of a heretic and The Pope is forced to Beat a hasty retreat

This is this is in the early fifth century and yet you still have These people who recognize not only that the

Pope certainly isn't anything Infallible in any way shape or form but that he is in no way shape or form the universal head of the church either

He's very important you want to have them on your side all those things are very very true There's no question of that.

You can find all sorts of exalted language, but to go from that without looking at the actual actions of the people who were using that language is to engage in what

I've called for a Long time the Peter syndrome it requires Okay, I understand what you're saying the council from what

I'm looking at the can 28 is not in the Council of Calpedon It's not even there

It's as far as I'm what I'm looking at it shows that the council that that was rejected by the Pope and was later

Acknowledged in and returned to the council at later later times. Is that how do you understand it? No historical?

No, evidently. I'm not what what books you reading? I was actually I took the most of my information that from my end or who you quoted as an authority earlier

So but in a story on a particular subject, of course, I don't endorse everything he believes because he's Eastern Orthodox So, of course,

I don't agree with everything he's written Then why did then why the quintessence council?

Repeat that canon if it was rejected see again There's just there's just so many of these these issues that you know

The sixth canon when I when I raised the issue of the sixth can and I see ya Itself, which is likewise very important Which says let the ancient customs in Egypt Libyan pentapolis prevail that the

Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction all these Since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also Likewise in Antioch and other

Providence Provinces let the churches retain their privileges when I raised this which clearly shows that there was not a single bishop over all the churches that there was a

Sort of a metropolitan concept that had developed certainly but that Egypt Libya pentapolis was under the

Bishop of Alexandria not the Bishop of Rome When I raised this in a debate with Robertson Janice and Scott Butler at Boston College, I remember

Scott Butler Actually attempted to overthrow the sixth canon of Nicaea by referring to an

Arabic list Of the kids of the Council of Nicaea to try to get rid of it and it's it's that kind of You mean as far as saying that there was no

Bishop of Rome and up until the year 250 year So I don't know one's ever suggested something like that I would suggest that there was no monarchical episcopate in Rome until about 140

But no what the canons the the canon of Nicaea is saying that at Nicaea at the beginning of the fourth century

Here you have documented the idea that Alexandria has the supremacy over the areas of Egypt Libya Pentapolis Rome has her supremacy over her area

Antioch and her province the Providence provinces, etc, etc there is no universal bishop at the

Council of Nicaea and the Bishop of Rome had Basically nothing to do with the proceedings at the

Council of Nicaea now How could it be Matthew if if Vatican one is right and it has been the universal constant faith the ancient church clearly taught in Scripture That the issue of the relationship of the father to the son

Would be decided by a council and you sort of just dismissed the Council of Carthage a little while ago

So here you have at least a larger council It's considered the first ecumenical council though that it had to fight for that standing and it's not like what it said was

Accepted by everybody. In fact, it was rejected for quite some time even by the Bishop of Rome but anyway, the

Council of Nicaea gets together and Without reference to the universal pastor of all

Christians without turning to him They think they can define the relationship of the father and the son and and and bind upon Christians this idea of the

Consubstantiality of the father and the son How why why why didn't the

Bishop of Rome do that Well Constantinus, you know is the one that called that council not the

Bishop of Rome and it's many times in the eastern Eastern the first several counselors weren't called by the

Pope, but the Pope did it after the council Ratify it so to speak and and you think that that ratified that the church sort of waited

The Pope wasn't always there I mean sometimes the Pope sent his Legates to the to the council the

Pope didn't actually have to be there to to oversee the council and he did send he did

Send legates to Nicaea, but they basically had nothing to do with the council itself

So my my question still remains So could you can you give me a single reference from anyone at the

Council of Nicaea that they believed that their Proceedings would not be valid until the

Bishop of Rome ratified them No, I can't produce any evidence, but that's because that's an anachronistic belief that is read back into church history

It's not what they believed and the fact the matter is that even after Nicaea as you know

The Arian Ascendancy for many decades Demonstrated that even Nicaea was not seen as having some kind of infallible authority the idea of an ecumenical council

There were councils held after Nicaea that had many more bishops at it That rejected Nicene Orthodoxy even

Liberia signed the Arian I asermium Creed That's where Athanasius contramundum came from.

I seen I if you don't start With Rome's claims of authority and you simply look at church history

Matthew. I see no reason to believe looking at the fourth century Looking at this first second third and fourth centuries.

Let's go that far that the early church functioned with Anything remotely like what

Vatican one produced and I think Cardinal Newman fully knew that Which is why he came up with the development hypothesis now

I've mentioned that a bunch of times you never sending about do you do you accept Newman's hypothesis or do you reject it?

Well, I think there's some merit in what what Cardinal Newman says But the basic fact is that what we have to read into in history

We're not going to find everything that we want to find I Agree with that. I also agree that although Peter that the sea of Rome had the authority

This doesn't mean that he necessarily had to exercise it in every single Aspect of how the church ran it just so he doesn't do it today

How about how about on a subject like the relationship of the father and the son?

Now that seems to me like something a whole lot different than how the church runs that is the very essence of the definition of the faith and the

Bishop of Rome had Nothing to do with its definition. In fact

Liberius Compromised on the subject. It was the bishop. Eventually. It wasn't even the he wasn't even the bishop at Nicaea Athanasius not become bishop till three years after Nicaea, but it's the bishop of Alexandria who stands firm and Eventually is victorious in defending the

Nicene faith. It's not the Bishop of Rome So you just said well, yeah, we can't get everything we'd like to have.

Why would you like to have anything? isn't the real issue what the truth of the matter was not what a

Modern church would read back into church history Well It just depends on how you're interpreting the historical aspect of it

If you're expecting to see Rome exercises its authority every every single instance when there's a crisis

I think that's I don't think you're going to see that So you'll admit you'll admit

Matthew the ancient church did not function like we'd function today. Yes, it functions very similar I mean we see the

Bishop of Rome judging the Patriarch of Alexandria at other times In Middle of the 3rd century the

Dennis of Alexandria had to go to Rome and he had the Pope had to to exonerate him

He had the right to judge the Patriarch of Alexandria And so you take and so you take that so he exercises his authority in that instance

So if he had if you think so, so in your perspective in the middle, did you say a 2nd century or 3rd century?

That happened around the year 260 if I'm not so in the middle of the 3rd century if Rome is involved in some kind of of a disputation in regards to the

Patriarch of Alexandria Then you take that to mean that the universal faith of Christians in that day

Was what you hold today in regards to the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, which would then mean?

That since Cyprian and the Council of Carthage at the same time that Cyprian was a rebel and so were the

Carthaginians and so was Augustine and the North Africans in the middle of the in the early part of the 5th century

When they told the Bishop of Rome to stick in his ear, they were all rebelling against the universal faith

Yes, I do believe they were going absolutely. Okay, there is there is to me the same way

You use Tertullian all the time to close your debates on Being an example of somebody opposing

Rome, but to me that that doesn't hold a lot of weight Mr. Tertullian was excommunicated with the rest of the

Monteserrat Heretics, so when of course Tertullian is going to be upset and rebel against Rome we see it all the time so any church father who contradicts well any church writer who contradicts

As the the later formulations of Roman Authority are simply rebels

Because you're going to assume this universal belief even though the practice of all 318 bishops at Nicaea the entire

Arian ascendancy All the way through Augustine who is considered the greatest early church father in all the

West You just convicted him of rebelling against the very foundation of the church and in fact in the words of Vatican one you just identified him something along the lines as Well, not so much a heretic, but as as someone who therefore should not in essence be

Considered to be faithful to the teachings of the church Is that is that what you really want to want to say?

Well, I haven't I haven't examined Augustine in that much detail to confirm what you're saying So I've had an article up on the subject

You see it goes back to the the fraudulent use of the phrase Rome has spoken the case is closed

Yeah, that's been used by Carl Keating and Steve Ray and lots of folks Yeah, but it's in the article on that you can read all about the situation with Zosimas and What happened with North African Church and so the entire church in North Africa Goes into rebellion in that situation.

I say I I look at that and this is why Matthew has said for a long long time That I Can allow the early church fathers to be the early church fathers.

I can I can disagree with them I can I have a standard a written standard that existed before any of them in The scriptures that I can hold them accountable to but I can read

Augusta and I can appreciate the great things in Augusta And I can I can reject things where he was wrong about things his argument with Jerome for example and subject of Canon fascinating I can see where he was ignorant of things and you know,

I'm staying on the shoulders of Giants I can't you know, just mock the guy but it just seems to me that What you've illustrated in your statements just now is that the

Roman Catholic? Cannot allow the early church fathers to be the early church fathers.

You just said The other church fathers. I'm sorry They are the church fathers but you can't allow them to believe what they believed

Matthew because you just you are asserting that there is a Universal faith and the only reason you say that is because Rome tells you to you you haven't documented.

I don't think it's it's In history when we read these several times

When st. Basil for instance like Pope Amethyst in 371 and called him the

Pope recalls in your clemency send me I need help Why does he not go to somebody else? Why when

Athanasius right and Goes there because he's being accused of being a heretic.

Why did he go to Rome? Why not to Alexandria? Why did he not go to him? He was He had just been removed from Alexandria and so so the the only so But what you're doing again is you're stating the obvious and that is people wanted

Rome on their side They wanted Roman authority on their side. Well, there are also there are also appeals to other bishops and patriarchates, but you you look at that and then when you see

Athanasius you just mentioned Athanasius. Let me sure. Let me we only have a few minutes left But let me use that as an excellent example of the anachronism of your position because There comes a time

Matthew in church history where even the Bishop of Rome has signed the

Arianized Sirmium Creed there have been numerous church councils since Nicaea or Eminem and Sirmium that have compromised the high standard and I see in regards the homoousius nature of the relationship the father and the son and That's why that's where Athanasius contramundum came from Athanasius against the world even the

Bishop of Rome has given in at this point But Athanasius does not now it seems to me that if you have multiple councils attended by more bishops than Nicaea and You have the

Bishop of Rome on the side of those councils given your position What would have been the proper action of Athanasius at that point in history

No Athanasius Tried to deal with what he had where he was at until then later

He said he actually submitted to the jurisdiction of the Pope That's at least the history that I'm that I'm reading when

Pope Julius Is he appeals to Pope Julius in the end Matthew?

What? Should Athanasius have done when you have multiple councils with more bishops in attendance and The Bishop of Rome has signed the

Arianaeus Sirmium Creed What would a proper Roman Catholic do at that point?

I don't I don't recall the Pope Agreeing with the Arian tradition. That's that's not the history that I'm reading

Well, then you might want to read some history that wasn't written by folks who read history the same way that you do

As far as I know the the Bishop of Rome was the only one that didn't fall into the Arian heresy That's not the case

Appealing to Pope Julius the first did he not that's not the case So I would

I would recommend I would recommend that you start reading some materials other than Those produced in defense of Rome for another reason and that is things like oh the pseudo is a

Dorian decretals the donation of Constantine And issues like that that have produced some real major problems as far as the resources that Rome has used but Matthew Matthew I appreciate the fact that we've had a excellent conversation for 54 minutes and 48 seconds

And I time as well And I really do appreciate and I hope you recognize

I gave you all the time you asked the beginning We've gone back and forth there hasn't been any angry words exchanged and Hopefully the folks that were listening and we've had a large number of folks listening today

And who will be listening on the webcast as well? How would folks get a hold of you Matthew? Well on my website.

I have a Catholic champion calm and then my Blog is the Catholic champion blogspot .com

They can always go to and comment there or send me an email email addresses on there as well Okay, just wanted to let you get that information out as well wanted to be fair.

All right. Thank you very much I thank you. Thank you very much for calling All right, well there you go folks

Further example that you can have good conversations that blow right through the break at the half hour.

I Thank mr. Belisario for calling in hopefully you all will find that to be a useful conversation and Obviously if you go to our web store, you will be able to find debates on this subject

You will find seven hours of debate from 1993 to myself and Jerry Maddix on that subject

And I would highly recommend the debate with father Mitchell Pacwa on that specific subject as well from 1997

I believe on Long Island, I think you would find both of those debates to be very very useful

Thank you very much for joining us today on the dividing line. We'll be back again Lord willing next Tuesday. See you then

God bless The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries

If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 973 4602 or write us at P.

O box 3 7 1 0 6 Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9 You can also find us on the world wide web at a o min org

That's a o min dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks