Catholic vs Protestant-Sola Scriptura

Good afternoon, and welcome along to the program. I'm Justin Briley, and you're listening to Unbelievable. Between now and four o 'clock, I'm going to be joined by a couple of Christian guests debating a particular theological issue.

I'll be telling you all about that in a moment's time. Unbelievable is, of course, part of your Saturday lineup of afternoon programming called Faith Explored. And don't forget that straight after today's program, you can hear the profile interview.

So do stay tuned for that as well. Later on in today's show, you're going to be some of the feedback from previous weeks of programming. And if you want to find out more about the program, maybe check out some of the past podcasts, a whole archive of programs for you to explore at premiere .org .uk slash unbelievable.

Do hope you enjoy what's coming up on today's show. Yes, we have two characters who have been on the show a number of times before back for a theological debate today. It's a Catholic versus Protestant show.

And we're going to be discussing what is the ultimate authority for Christians, scripture alone or scripture plus well representing the Catholic position today. Peter D. Williams joins me. He's a writer and speaker.

He's part of Catholic Voices. And the other side of the argument today is James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries. I'll be making sure you know how to get hold of both of them via their websites a little later on.

But they've both joined me on the program before discussing similar issues in one way or another. Gentlemen, thank you both for joining me on the program today. Great to have you with me. Great to be with you.

Great to be here. Let's first of all, go to you, James, you've come the furthest after all. I feel honored. I feel like you've flown in just for me. And on this occasion, it's almost true in a way. It's great to have you with us.

How's things going for you.

In Arizona? It's starting to cool off. So that's that's a good thing in life, especially for cyclists like me. It's it's beautiful. But I just had a book come out, whatever Christian needs to know about the Quran and writing another with Shabir Ali.

Dr. Shabir Ali is pretty well known around the world as one of the leading Islamic apologists. And so keeping really busy with that because he and I are co-authoring a book on the Trinity and Tawheed.

Yeah, well, we're looking.

Forward to a another discussion coming up with you and Yusuf Ismail in due course on the program. And that will be fascinating because you've turned a lot of your hand these days to interacting with Islam and the Quran.

But at bottom, you're still a Calvinist. You defend that theology so often on your show, in debates and so on. Solar scriptura is a term not everyone may be familiar with. Can you just define what that is and how it plays into today's discussion?

Well, historically, the phrase is primarily used to define both the the formal and material principles of the Reformation. One is sola scriptura, providing the essence of the epistemological difference between the Protestants and the Roman Catholic Communion.

And then sola fide justification by faith being the the essence of what was preached that really started things off. And so sola scriptura is often misrepresented, but fundamentally is the assertion that because scripture is theanoustos, because it is God breathed, that is absolutely unique in its character and unique in its authority.

And that while God has established the church, that the church, I'm a I'm a high churchman. I believe that the church is the bride of Christ. In fact, so much so that when 1 Timothy 3 15 talks about the church, the pillar and ground of the truth, that, as I see it, is about the local church.

I mean, I'm an elder in a local church. I, for example, this next month, I'm only going to be in my church once in four weeks. That's extremely unusual for me. Unlike a lot of apologists who are just gone all the time and don't really have a connection, I regularly preach in the church.

Very important to keep that local connection. Oh, as far as balance is concerned, that's one of the most important things I would say to anyone who's looking at getting involved in apologetics. But I have a very high view of the church, but I believe that the church is subservient to the voice of Christ, which is found solely in the scriptures.

So the technical definition is the scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith of the church. Not that we don't have other rules of faith. I'm a Reformed Baptist. We have the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith.

It tells people if they want to know what we believe there. I think it's important these days you ask, what does that church believe? Well, they're not really sure. We want to be clear in what we're saying to the world.

But that is a subordinate standard. It must be reformable and correctable.

By the higher authority of scripture. Now, a bit of a controversial question coming up, but where do you stand then as far as a Roman Catholic is concerned? Do the fact that they differ significantly from you in your view of scripture, does that leave them, as it were,.

In any sense, outside the fold? That's not the reason. That's not the reason that I cannot join hands and say, let's just all get together and sing Kumbaya. That's not the reason. The reason is the gospel.

Now, the reason that we differ on the gospel is because we differ on Sola Scriptura. I've lost track of how many debates I've done with Roman Catholic apologists, around 40-ish, something like that. And whether we're discussing Mary, the Mass, justification, papacy, it doesn't matter what the issue is, it always ends up devolving back to this.

It comes back to what the ultimate authority is. For me, the dividing line is the issue of the gospel. The sad thing is that if Peter and I stood outside an abortion clinic together, I am absolutely merciless when it comes to debating abortion.

I don't take prisoners on that subject, because you're talking life and death stuff. So we would probably be very much in line in our views on that and our feelings about those subjects and how we would debate the issues and things like that.

But if someone walked up to Peter and I outside an abortion clinic and said, what must I do to be safe? We would not answer in the same way. And I believe the reason we would not answer in the same way comes back to this issue.

That's why it's so foundational.

Well, we'll get back to that, I'm sure, in one way or another. Peter D. Williams, our other guest, as we mentioned, on the programme today. Welcome back, Peter, as well. Great to be here, as always. Tell us a little bit then, from your perspective as a Catholic, what you're going to be aiming to defend on today's programme.

Well, I'm going to be aiming to defend the idea that the ultimate authority for Christians is threefold. It's well, I suppose, well, basically, we'd all agree that the ultimate authority for Christians is God.

But the question is, how does God reveal his truth to us? And by what standards are we bound? And I guess for a Catholic, there are three, holy scripture, what we call the sacred tradition of the church, and what's called the magisterium.

Magisterium is a Latin word coming from the Latin magister, meaning teacher. So the teaching authority of the church. So that's that threefold triumvirate of authority, which gives the Christian all the truth that we need.

And all those three together are sufficient to function as the ultimate rule of faith. I will be very much contending that scripture alone isn't sufficient. Scripture is fundamental, but on its own, it cannot give us all the truths that we need.

Okay. When it comes to this issue of whether you can join hands with James and sing Kumbaya, do you approach things any differently in the way that he's just spoken? There is a fundamental difference in so far as Catholics confess that anyone who is baptised in the name of the father, son of the Holy Spirit, and confesses at least the base basic core, the basic curriculum, as it's called, of Christianity, and I say in a Constantinopolitan creed, at least in its Trinitarian aspects, is our brother or sister in Christ.

Now, that doesn't mean that there is an equivalence between the Catholic church and all the different variants of Protestant sect and denomination. We do believe that the Catholic church is the one true church in which subsists the fullness of the church of Christ.

We certainly recognise that, for example, the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Assyrian churches, all the churches of the East, they are particular churches. In other words, they have a valid bishop, and they have a valid Eucharist, and they have valid sacraments, all seven sacraments.

And so those are particular churches, sadly, not in full communion with the church, but nonetheless, we're hoping to move into full communion. But the difference between them and Protestant denominations is that Protestantism has rejected absolutely core and essential elements of Christianity, which would include five of the seven sacraments, which would include so many of what we would call the instruments, the means of grace, by which God communicates his grace to his church, which is very, very, a very basic, important difference in terms of how you are saved.

That's the thing, and I'd love, by the way, for us to debate that at some point. But very much more foundationally, we have a different understanding of authority. And one thing that the Catholic church and the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox and Syrian Church of the East all share is a belief in Holy Scripture, sacred tradition, and the authority of the church.

Now, of course, there's a particular claim that the Catholic church makes about itself, and the Eastern Orthodox would make a similar claim, and there's a debate we could have about that. But ultimately, Scripture alone is something that all the apostolic churches would reject.

We all believe that the church and the sacred tradition have a role within the authority of the church. Do you think that this view is a fairly recent development in terms of church history? Yes, very much so.

I don't think the early church functioned in terms of soul scripture at all. Certainly, you can pick out little verses from various church fathers which seem to be affirming the authority of Scripture, and certainly there are many you could pick out, but those don't prove soul scripture.

Okay. Well, we're going to get into this. I know that we're going to have a really intelligent debate today, because I've got two very intelligent people joining me here in the studio, but they will be very different in their opinions, and they won't hold back.

I know that too. So, I hope you enjoy today's discussion, wherever you're coming from on this particular issue. Be interested to hear from you as well, of course, in regard to today's programme. If you've got a view, you'd like to respond to anything, why not email in?

That's unbelievable at premier .org .uk. You can also, of course, find us online via Twitter, Facebook. You can send in your comments that way as well, in regard to today's programme. I'm on Twitter, at unbelievable JB, or Facebook .com slash unbelievable JB.

You can like the show page there and get in touch to all of those links and more, available from the website premier .org .uk slash unbelievable. Unbelievable with Justin Briley. So, let's get into today's discussion.

We are going to be talking about this whole area of what the ultimate authority is for Christians. Scripture alone, sometimes called sola scriptura, or scripture plus, and we've already just heard there from Peter D. Williams, our Catholic representative on the programme today, about what that might entail.

So, just where are we going to start on this? Let's come back to you, James. Why, for you, is what Peter has just explained there about this triumvirate of authority that he believes is what is modelled in church history and from Christ and so on.

Why are you simply not convinced by that view?

Well, I don't see it as apostolic, and I don't see that it actually functions that way, because when you look at the claims that Rome makes today, now obviously I see a major continuum over the history of the church.

I don't see that the church that existed in 325 was very much like the church that exists today, especially as far as Rome envisions it. I don't believe there's anyone at the Council of Nicaea, for example, that affirmed the very dogmas that you have to affirm,.

To be de fide, to be a Roman Catholic. Give me just a couple of examples.

Purgatory, the primacy of the Roman Pope, the Marian dogmas, I mean bodily assumption of Mary. These are the issues that, you see, from a functional perspective, this is the purpose of the Reformation and the process of the Reformation.

If you say you have three equal authorities, and yet in the Roman Catholic concept, if I ask the question, well, who defines what is and what is not scripture infallibly? Well, that's the Roman Catholic Church does, and it did not happen until April of 1546, the first dogmatic definition of the canon.

Who can interpret scripture infallibly? It is the Roman Catholic Church. Who can define what is and what is not canon? It's always been enjoyable to me. I'm sorry, tradition. Who can define what is and what is not tradition?

It's always been interesting to me in my debates when I would bring up patristic sources, quotes from early church fathers that go against the Roman Catholic perspective. I've frequently had Roman Catholic apologists say, well, that person wasn't speaking from tradition.

So you get to pick and choose what is and what is not tradition. And of course, the final authority as to what tradition says is the Roman Catholic Church. Now, if the Roman Catholic magisterium gets to define what scripture is and what it says, and what tradition is and what tradition says, how in the world can the church be under the authority of those sources?

If you define it and what it says, how can it correct you?

So there's a sort of anarchy that ensues if you...

It's not anarchy. It's just a non-functional system, because once you have infallibly said the scriptures say this, then you cannot be corrected. And when I look at, for example, the scriptural arguments found in the Second Nicene Council in regards to images, and I look at the biblical argumentation, I don't think you could find a single member of the Pontifical Biblical Institute that would defend what they said as having any meaning as far as having serious exegesis behind it.

But you're stuck with the results of it anyways, because of the concept of infallibility. And so again, it comes back to, well, here's my problem. Scripture is theanoustos. Tradition is not. Show me where the Bible teaches that tradition is God-breathed.

We can go to what Paul says about scripture and tradition. Let's look at it. Let's look at the text. But the point is, from my perspective, it is the nature of scripture.

That makes it absolutely unique and non-repeatable. So obviously, you're in agreement that scripture is extremely important in the way we are to gather our teaching and understanding of the Christian faith, Peter.

But it's scripture as mediated by the tradition and teaching of the Catholic Church. So does this result in basically, well, we can have it the way we like it, depending on what the latest... Well, no.

I'll say two things just to start off with. The first thing I would point out is that the scriptures and the tradition, that is the sacred teachings of the church brought down to us through history, are something that is recognised by the church.

This is a passive process on the part of the magisterium, on the part of the church. The church doesn't determine anything. It didn't say, right, no, I like Genesis and I like Revelations and I like Hebrews, so I'll have that.

No, they recognise a tradition which was passed down. And actually, I'll just use the canon, because this is a very deep and profound topic, which we're not going to completely cover in one hour. So I'll just provide one argument, which I think illustrates why sole scriptura, the idea of scripture alone being our sole ultimate rule of faith, is wrong, and why I think the historic Catholic position of scripture, tradition and the teaching of the authority of the church is right.

And it is the canon, because one of the things that you have to believe in order to assert sole scriptura is the sufficiency of scripture, that scripture is sufficient to give you all the necessary and essential truths of the deposit of faith.

Everything you need should be found within scripture. Now, there is obviously one truth. I mean, actually, that does differ between, in terms of its scope, between different traditions. So, for example, the Anglican communion says of the sufficiency of the holy scriptures in its article 6 of the 39 articles, holy scripture contains all things necessary to salvation.

But then in the Westminster Confession of Faith, it says it concerns all things necessary for God's own glory, man's salvation, faith and life. That's then repeated by the London Baptist Confession of Faith, which I know that Dr White will ascribe to.

So there's a difference to a certain extent in terms of the scope of that. But regardless of what scope you believe, one of the things you need to know, whether it be just for salvation or for God's glory, man's faith, hope, salvation and life, is what scripture is, because scripture is necessary.

That's another aspect of the evangelical doctrines that I've read. If I go to Wayne Grudem or anyone else, they affirm the necessity of scripture. Scripture is necessary because it contains all the truths that you need.

It's your sole and false rule of faith. You need the scriptures. Well, if you need the scriptures, then clearly you need to know what the scriptures are. In other words, you need the canon. But nowhere in scripture does it define what the canon is.

It doesn't give you a list. There is no inspired contents page. There's no golden index. There's no way you know from scripture alone what the canon is. So by definition, scripture is insufficient to give you something which you need.

So I'll just finish on this point. The canon is a tradition which is passed down. In other words, the church recognises, you see this in the New Testament, you see Peter recognising that Paul's writings are inspired, for example.

So the church recognises what is the honestness, what is God breathed. But then later on, they disagree over it. So the reason why at the back of your Bibles, you have Hebrews, James, Peter, 2 Peter, 2 -3 John, Jude and Revelations, is because the only church disagreed over whether or not those books were apostolic and inspired.

They were called the antinomia, the books that were spoken against. A circular reasoning within Sola Scriptura which says the Bible tells us exactly what to believe, but somehow we know what the Bible consists of.

Yeah, and I think therefore it's disproven because it cannot give you that necessary and essential truth. But the tradition of the canon is passed down. It's something you need. It's a tradition which is outside the scripture, which is passed down, and then it's recognised authoritatively by the church.

Not actually as late as 1546. I'm not going to claim that there was an extraordinary definition before 1546. That's absolutely right. There was the first extraordinary definition. But there are two forms of magisteria, two forms of teaching authority in the Catholic Church.

The extraordinary magisterium, when the church specially defines something by a papal definition or by an ecumenical council, and I'll finish now. Also the ordinary magisterium, which is to say, the fact that the church teaches something consistently for many, many, many, many years, that is considered infallible as well.

It's not merely the extraordinary definition. So the Trinity was not, for example, just defined at the Council of Pius II. It was believed before then. Well, lots to respond to there, James. First of all, though, this chink in your armour, potentially, the soul of scripture armour, which is simply this suggestion that, well, you go beyond scripture by defining what the canon of scripture is, because you won't find that within scripture, obviously.

So you're already at some level dependent upon tradition. So... As defined by the church. As defined by the church. So have we already kind of discovered a...

No, not at all. A number of years ago, I was on a radio program with a then-anyways-still-Orthodox Roman Catholic apologist by the name of Jerry Matitix, and I asked him a question. And the question was, Jerry, how did the believing Jew know that Isaiah and 2 Chronicles were scripture 50 years before Christ?

We had just debated the Apocrypha at Boston College.

Which is, for those unaware, part of Catholic scripture, the...

The Apocryphal books, the Deuterocanonicals, yes. I thought you were about to say Boston College is actually a Catholic institution, which some people would actually question, given the liberal nature of many things there.

But be it as it may, and he was pressing this issue of the necessity of church authority, etc., etc. And so I asked him, how did the believing Jew know that Isaiah and 2 Chronicles were scripture? He did not have an answer.

Some of the answers that have been offered since then. Because it's very clear that they did know. Jesus held men accountable to scripture, and no one ever responded to Jesus going, I didn't know that was scripture.

We didn't have an infallible magisterium to tell us that. The reality is that Jesus held men accountable to scripture before there was any type of external authority that could have told them what it was.

Not only that, if you try to say, well, there was a Jewish magisterium, the Jewish magisterium never held to the inspiration of the very books that Rome now says are in fact inspired. And that's why I've debated that subject a couple of times.

Well, and I think anyone can go listen to the two debates we've done on that subject, and I think those facts are rather clearly laid out. Not only that, there was no ordinary magisterial statement on this subject, because I can trace a line of teachers, going back to Jerome all the way through Popes, all the way to the time of the Reformation, where Cardinal Cajetan, who was the man who interviewed Luther, rejected the Deuterocanonicals in his written works, and that was right before the Council of Trent.

So the point is, there was no ordinary, there was two traditions that existed side by side. So if that's the necessary argument, then Rome doesn't have an answer. And just simply saying, well, you need our authority to define your canon is not answering the question.

It's just moving the goalpost or the point back one.

Point. Where do you get that authority to define these things? What I want to ask you, though, how do you, within Scripture, via Sola Scriptura, define the canon of Scripture?

Well, part of the answer is found in the answer to the question that I asked Gerry Matytix, and that is, obviously, God has a purpose in the giving of Scripture, and I address this in my book, Scripture Alone.

There's an excellent book that I want to recommend to folks that came out last year, I think, it might have actually been this year, but recently, within the past 12 months, by Dr. Michael Kruger, called The Canon, I think it's The Canon Revisited.

It's one of the best books I've seen on this subject, and he really lays it out more fully than I did. But let me just summarize it. And that is, the canon is not an extra-biblical tradition. The canon is an artifact of revelation.

When God inspired the writing of the first books of Scripture, he established a canon by so doing. Now, he knew exactly what it was. Since other books had been written, God was saying, I haven't written every book, and I have not written no books, I have written some books.

So, I, as an author, I know what the canon of my writings is. I've never had to sit down, open up a document, and go, the canon of James White's books, for that canon to exist. I know what I've written.

I know what I've not written. There are other James Whites out there. There's a James E. White, people get me confused with him all the time. I didn't feel.

Your pain. There's Peter S. Williams, there's a Peter J. Williams. There's too many Peter.

Williams's going on. Lots of people say that. Especially here in England. I didn't mean it that way. So, the point is, when I engage in the activity of writing, I am creating the canon. And that's what God has done in Revelation.

Now, the question then becomes, does God have a purpose for us to know what he has and has not inspired? And my belief is that he has just as much of a desire for us to know what he has inspired, as he put just as much effort into that as he would into the writing of the scriptures in the first place.

And so, what mechanism was available for that believing Jew, 50 years before Jesus, to know, had to be sufficient for him to be held accountable to scripture. And that doesn't change afterwards. If in anything, it becomes even clearer in the light of Jesus' ministry and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

So, I'm not looking at, you know, it's not the Council of Jamnia. There was no Council of Jamnia. But it's not some Jewish thing that, well, I take that authority, then I take this authority. That will never actually lead you to the proper foundation for defending the canon.

Alright, response there, Peter. Well, just as I'm.

Not going to get drawn into Purgatory and the Dogmas of Mary. We'd love to debate those, by the way, another time. I'm not going to get drawn into the Jethro Chronicles, but I will draw people to Why Do Catholics Have Bigger Bibles? by Gary Machuta, which answers many of the things that Dr. Why debated on this very subject.

He wrote that book after he debated Dr. Why. But how do the Jews know scripture? Through tradition. Clearly, the believing community that we call the Jewish people, recognize over time certain things that were inspired, certain things, certain prophets, for example.

Over time, I don't have to believe that there is just one particular source whereby the Jews had got scripture. I don't have to believe, actually, an infallible Jewish magisterium, because ultimately the magisterium of, presumably, the Jewish priesthood, certainly the Jewish community as a whole, recognize these books.

For Dr. Why, he has to show, if he does believe that scripture is sufficient, how a necessary and essential truth is given in scripture. If it's not, then scripture is not sufficient. And I'm afraid the artifact versus object distinction that you make, which I read in your book, simply doesn't answer the question.

That's confusing. That's giving an ontological answer to what's an epistemological question. The question is, how do you know what is canon? How do you know the scriptures? That's something that's a necessary, essential truth, which should be, therefore, found in your sufficient rule of faith of the scriptures.

If it's not found therein, the scriptures are, by definition, not sufficient. They clearly are something. I mean, I don't disagree, incidentally, that the canon is discerned or is basically came into existence by the fact that God inspired certain books.

That's really uncontroversial. We all agree on that. No one says that the Catholic Church determined in the sense of made certain books inspired. We all agree that God inspired through his action of the onus does certain books into existence.

The question is, how do we know what is the onus does? And the very simple answer from history is it's a tradition that comes to us from the early church through the apostles. And it's something which is then has to be recognized by the church itself.

And it does recognize that there is a continued such a continuity, such a consistency from at least the late fourth century from the councils of Carthage through the recognitions of the popes, because those councils are rectified by the pope's right through the tradition of the Western church.

So that you can't simply you simply can't say that there isn't a response from James. We're coming up to the first break, and there's a lot there for James to respond to. We're starting off today on the program as we discuss what is the ultimate authority for Christians?

We're asking, is it scripture alone? Or is it scripture plus sacred tradition and the teaching of the Catholic Church as Catholics believe? And so we've got to this point of asking how does James White, our Protestant guest on the program today, justify the canon of scripture if he's not if if he isn't going to go beyond scripture alone, as it were?

Okay, we'll hear James's response again on this in a moment's time. You're listening to Unbelievable with me, Justin Briley, asking that question today in our Catholic Protestants debate. My guests are Peter D Williams of Catholic Voices and James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries.

We'll be back in a.

Moment's time. Are we the products of chance or intention? Does the cosmos leave space for God? Does Darwin dispense with God? Does the human mind reflect a mind behind the universe? Exploring the God question is a new six part DVD study series investigating a major talking point of our time, science and God.

Some of the world's best scientists and philosophers arguing from both sides of the debate with open, frank and rigorous discussion and fascinating results. Exploring the God question is designed for individual or small group study as well as for schools and public presentation.

To order and find out more, visit thegodquestion .tv. Slash explore. Explore the.

Search for truth. You're listening to Unbelievable on Premiere Christian Radio. You certainly are. I'm Justin Briley, your host for the show today. And don't forget, you can find us online at premiere .org .uk slash unbelievable.

Usually on the show, we get Christians and non-Christians together to do some kind of debate. But today, we're doing one of those inter-Christian debates, though, well, whether one of our guests might term the other a Christian is one of those bigger issues that is under discussion.

But today, we're specifically focusing down in our Catholic Protestant debate on the issue of scripture. Should we turn to that alone as our ultimate authority on faith? Or is it scripture plus some other things?

Well, James White is with me. He's from Alpha and Omega Ministries. You can check them out at aomin .org. Peter D. Williams of Catholic Voices joins me to catholicvoices .org .uk as we ask, what is the ultimate authority for Christians on the show today?

Don't forget, you can get in touch as well. Be interested to hear from you. You can call in. You can always leave a voicemail message. That option open if you ring 08456 525252. Select the option for leaving a voicemail message for Unbeliever.

We'll be happy to play that out on a future edition of the show. But as ever, the email is unbelievable at unbeliever .org .uk. Okay, just in that last section, James, again, Peter was back to this issue of, well, how do you define the canon of scripture without going beyond scripture, going to some kind of church tradition, authority, some kind of the councils and so on, even if you obviously, as you said, believe that the Catholic Church itself never had a kind of really united view on scripture for a long time.

Well, I just think that needs to be defined a little more though as to what you would turn to. You've said God knows obviously exactly what he's written, just as you would know your own canon. But then the question is, I suppose, well, how would you know what God believes the canon to be?

Well, that was addressing the nature of scripture and.

Canon flows from the nature of scripture, obviously. I mean, whether you call it actively or passively, I've met a lot of Roman Catholics that made very active statements about the ability of Rome to define the canon.

But Peter's taking a more passive recognition role. That's fine. That's great. I applaud that. But that all flows from what the nature of scripture is. And if you're going to have anything, it's going to be equal to scripture and authority.

It has to have the same nature. And we've not heard even the beginning of a defense of those other sources having that kind of authority. Where does Christ speak? He speaks in his word. Where is the evidence that he speaks in the traditions that have been defined by Roman Catholicism?

Now, it was said, well, the Jewish person knew on the basis of Jewish tradition. I dispute that. There were all sorts of different Jewish traditions. And Jesus rejected a large portion of those Jewish traditions, taught us to do the same thing.

And what did he tell us to judge Jewish tradition by? By scripture. So that would become a viciously tight circle that even Jesus was arguing in. And no one ever raised those arguments against Jesus when he said, you should have examined these things on the basis of scripture, and then turns around and calls the Jews hypocrites for not having done so.

So I'm following, I think, Jesus's pattern there and would say, well, then this becomes an apostolic tradition. What apostle gave us the canon? What apostle handed this down? You see, once you start getting into specifics, I remember I asked Father Mitchell Pacwa once, has Rome defined a single word that Jesus or any apostle ever said, De Fide, that exists outside of scripture?

And he said, I can't think of a word. And so, again, it comes down to when you ask the question, what is the ultimate authority? It's what God says. And what has Rome done when she's denied that? Today, Peter must believe to be, and you see, one of the reasons you mentioned at the beginning about the possibility of a division between us on this basis.

You know what, to be honest with you, that exists because I take very seriously Rome's own teachings, and a lot of the ecumenism of today just simply glosses over it. It just says, it doesn't really matter.

Let's just not worry about those things. And I don't even think that's respectful, let alone really honoring the truth that we say that we possess. So when it comes to issues of defining what Peter must believe today, De Fide, I think Peter would have a problem with anyone who claims to be a faithful, believing Roman Catholic that does not believe what Rome has defined on the basis of tradition, specifically, the Immaculate Conception, the bodily assumption of Mary.

I mean, the words that Rome has used to define these things are unequivocal. I mean, they're just as plain as day, and you wouldn't believe what I hear. Maybe, well, you hear it over here, but in the United States, you get the same thing.

I ran into Roman Catholics that just bend the parameters of language to just push these things back into the realm of mythology and something they don't really have to believe. And Rome has said, this is what we teach, this you must believe without any question.