Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Comments are turned off for this media
Production. If you would like our free resource catalog or audiotapes in this series or videotapes of the debates. Call us at area code 5 1 2 3 4 6 6 7 7 1 or write to P Sway Productions P .O. Box 9064 Austin Texas 7 8 7 6 6.
We hope that you will find these debates Informative welcome. My name is Mark Gunning, and I'm the moderator for today's debate. I think you will find this debate to be very interesting and very important.
The thesis for today's debate is the Catholic teaching on the infallibility of the Pope is unsustainable in light of the Bible and church history. Allow me to briefly introduce our speakers. James White is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries.
James holds a bachelor's degree in Bible and a master's degree in theology. He is the author of seven books including works on Roman Catholicism Mormonism the translation and text of the Bible and Christian theology.
He has had the privilege of serving as a professor of church history and an instructor in biblical Greek. He is an ordained Baptist minister. He is married to Kelly and has two children Joshua and Summer Marie.
Dr. Robert fast EG holds a PhD in theology from Fordham University in New York. He is an associate professor of religious studies at st. Edwards University in Austin, Texas where he has taught since 1985.
Dr. Fast EG and his wife Kathy have two children and are expecting their third. Our debate today will be strictly timed and Organized so as to ensure fairness both speakers will give 15 minute opening statements followed by four minute rebuttals.
Then there will be a period of question and answer which will be followed by five minute closing statements with that. Let us begin James. Thank you very much. Princeton theologian Charles Hodge wrote regarding papal infallibility.
Quote. There is something simple and grand in this theory. It is wonderfully adapted to the tastes and wants of men. It relieves them of personal responsibility. Everything is decided for them. Their salvation is secured by merely submitting to be saved by an infallible sin pardoning and grace imparting Church.
If any in their sluggishness are disposed to think that a perpetual body of infallible teachers would be a blessing. All must admit that the assumption of infallibility by the ignorant the erring and the wicked must be an evil inconceivably great.
The Romish theory if true might be a blessing if false It must be an awful curse and quote and while it is certainly not politically correct Philip Schaff the great church historian of the past century wrote concerning the developments in Roman Catholic theology that were current in his day quote.
The sinlessness of the Virgin Mary and the personal infallibility of the Pope are the characteristic Dogmas excuse me of modern Romanism the two test dogmas which must decide the ultimate fate of this system.
Both were enacted under the same Pope and both faithfully reflect his character. Both have the advantage of logical consistency from certain premises and seem to be the very perfection of the Romish form of piety and the Romish principle of authority.
Both rest on pious fiction and fraud. Both present a refined Idolatry by clothing a pure humble woman any mortal sinful man with divine attributes the dogma of the immaculate conception Which exempts the Virgin Mary from sin and guilt perverts Christianism into Marianism.
The dogma of infallibility which exempts the Bishop of Rome from error resolves Catholicism into papalism or the church into the Pope. The worship of a woman is virtually substitute for the worship of Christ and a man God in Rome for the God man in heaven.
This is a severe judgment, but a closer examination will sustain it. Every Catholic may hereafter say I believe not because Christ or the Bible or the church. But because the infallible Pope has so declared and commanded.
On the other hand if the dogma is false It involves a blasphemous assumption and makes the nearest approach to the fulfillment of st Paul's prophecy of the man of sin who as God sitteth in the temple showing himself off that he is God 2nd Thessalonians 2 4 and quote the thesis of our debate today is the Catholic teaching on the infallibility of the Pope is Unsustainable in the light of the Bible in church history now given our time constraints I must honestly say that even if I had the entire 90 minutes our time to do nothing just to present my case I would fail to do justice to the information both biblical and historical that demonstrates the truth of our thesis today.
Now to sustain my defense of the thesis statement I propose to do the following things. First I shall demonstrate the papal infallibility is inconsistent with the Bible in two ways. First by asserting that the Bible knows nothing of a papacy at all and Hence must know nothing of the infallibility of a mythical office and a mythical office holder.
Second I shall for the sake of argument examine Peter who was hardly a Pope but who is claimed to be one by Rome and Shall demonstrate that he failed to walk in accordance with the truth of the gospel at Antioch and hence had to be rebuked by the Apostle Paul.
Secondly, I shall demonstrate the papal infallibility is inconsistent with church history again in two ways. First by demonstrating that the early church knew nothing of the papacy to begin with and hence obviously knew nothing of papal infallibility and Secondly that Pope such as Liberius and Honorius did indeed teach falsehood in their office as Bishop of Rome.
Now when we turn to the Bible first we find out that Peter is never viewed by the New Testament as a Pope. While he is the leader of the disciple band He is not the head of the church and in fact gives way to other leaders such as James in the early church.
Luke chapter 22 verses 24 through 30 shows us that even the night of Christ's betrayal the disciples argued over who would be the greatest. Demonstrating that they did not understand the words of Matthew 16 18 through 19 is establishing Peter as their head.
But they did not find anything else in the words of Jesus that gave Peter any kind of supremacy either. Peter never gives the slightest evidence that he viewed himself as a Pope or the head of the church.
Instead he viewed himself as a fellow elder not as Vicar of Christ on earth. Acts shows Peter as a leader But not a Pope and that at the beginning of the ministry of the church only Acts chapter 11 Peter is called to give an account for his actions in the house of Cornelius and in doing so he gives not the slightest hint that he is functioning as the Vicar of Christ on earth.
As Time goes on Peter fades from view and others take the center stage. Paul's epistles not only do not give us any evidence of the papacy they give us a great reason for rejecting the entire concept.
Paul said in 2nd Corinthians 11 28 that the care of all the churches was upon him a silly thing to do when in fact. That is Peter's worry not Paul's. Paul's encounter with Peter Antioch provides us not only with plain evidence that the early church did not view Peter as a Pope but if we would grant the idea that Peter was a Pope it then gives us a clear argument against papal infallibility.
A Time does not allow for recounting of the events recorded in Galatians chapter 2. Instead an outline must be presented. Certain men came from James And Jerusalem. As a result Peter Barnabas and others withdrew from table fellowship with the Gentiles.
Now Paul rebukes Peter in public and what he says is vitally important. He says quote, but when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel I said to Cephas in the presence of all if you being a Jew live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews.
How is it you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews Galatians 2 14? Now do we accept Paul's verdict or not? Was Peter acting in hypocrisy and in so doing acting in a way that was not? Straightforward about the truth of the gospel is not the gospel a matter of faith and morals and is papal infallibility such a Paperfiction that it has nothing to do with how a Pope teaches by example and leadership.
Are we truly to believe that a Pope will always say the right thing when speaking ex cathedra? But his actions can be 180 degrees removed from the truth as we turn to the verdict of history. We first note that every early church council every letter written by an early father defending the faith by appeal to scripture.
Stands as a witness that this doctrine of papal infallibility is a modern innovation. Utterly unknown by the church for the vast majority of a period of existence. Why call councils when one had an infallible source of authority in the Pope?
Why not just to appeal to Rome for the final word in all matters yet? The early church had no such concept as one has well said quote the whole history of Christianity. Would have taken a different course if in all theological controversies an infallible tribunal in Rome could have been invoked.
Ancient creeds councils fathers and popes can be summoned as witnesses against the Vatican dogma and quote. Roman Catholic apologists are forced to go to great lengths to defend the concept of papal infallibility.
Normally the concept is so severely restricted that it ends up referring us to a bare handful of statements. Most of which are not of such a nature is to be falsified. This leaves us with the absurd belief that God has deemed it necessary to state that one must believe in papal infallibility.
Or suffer the anathema. While he has also seen fit to allow the bishop of Rome to function as a sole infallible shepherd of Christ's flock about once a Millennium the idea of an infallible guide who has been unable to lead but a few times in nearly 2 ,000 years is a spectacle in itself.
But it is forced upon the Roman apologists for the simple reason that history stands and alterably opposed to the fiction that is papal infallibility infallibility. We must ask these Roman apologists who say this.
Are we to believe that? 99 .9 of the time the Pope when presenting encyclicals Constitutions bowls etc is in fact giving us fallible teaching. That means that nearly everything ever taught by the Pope is in fact fallible and possibly in error.
And this would include many many Condemnations of men and women to the very anathema of God. For example during the Great Schism. We find Clement the seventh condemning the followers of urban and of course urban returning the favor.
Now is this not a matter of faith and morals. Are we seriously to believe that when you condemn? Someone to the eternal damnation of their souls. The very phraseology used during the schism. That we are not speaking of something relevant to the faith itself.
The same is to be said of the many times in history when Popes have exercised the keys in granting Indulgences for various reasons. Two examples this must suffice us first. We find indulgences being offered to those who undertake the extermination of the heretics by the fourth Lateran Council.
Popes have attached indulgences to similar crusades for example against the peaceful Christian people the Piedmont Valley Who are mercilessly slaughtered by papal armies. Are we to believe that such butchery connected as it was the granting of indulgences?
Which requires the use of the keys is irrelevant to papal infallibility and one of the silliness demonstrated by Popes who invested? Indulgences in the story of the house at Loreto. Which allegedly is the house the Virgin Mary that it was once believed was carried by angels from Nazareth in 1291.
Eventually coming to rest at Loreto in 1295 these Popes were using the power of the keys to grant Indulgences on the basis of a pious fraud. Are we to believe the Pope can err in doling out the very merit allegedly purchased by the blood of Christ.
The greatest scholars of the Roman Catholic Church Opposed the concept of papal infallibility when it was proposed prior to the first Vatican Council and for good reason. They well knew that the concept was utterly absent from the scripture and from tradition.
And what is more, but it was utterly incompatible with history itself. Papal infallibility requires one either to ignore history and believe a lie or it requires one to so Redefine what the doctrine means as to reduce it to a silly appendage and meaningless paper fiction.
The single example that has been presented most often and that by Roman Catholic scholars prior to the Vatican Council itself is the instance of Pope Honorius. It takes it would take at least half an hour just to present all the background story of Honorius's heresy itself.
I refer our audience to the full discussion of this historical reality in shafts history of the church. I simply repeat the facts of history as they have been established after the most careful and in-depth historical analysis even on the part of Roman Catholic scholars.
First Honorius taught Excathedra as the Bishop of Rome speaking on a matter of doctrine in two letters to his heretical colleague Sergius the monothelite heresy. Which was condemned by the sixth ecumenical council.
Second an ecumenical council that of Constantinople held in AD 680. Condemned and excommunicated Honorius the former pope of old Rome as their words as a heretic. This condemnation was repeated by the seventh and eighth ecumenical councils.
The following popes all the way down to the 11th century in a solemn oath taken at their succession to the papal chair itself. Endorsed the sixth ecumenical councils condemnation of Honorius. These popes had to pronounce an eternal anathema on the authors of the monothelite heresy.
Together with Pope Honorius because he had given aid and comfort to the perverse doctrines of the heretics. Hence popes for three centuries. Publicly and openly recognized than an ecumenical council could and did condemn a pope for heresy.
Also, they admitted that the sixth ecumenical council had rightly condemned Pope Honorius for heresy. This is important for some have attempted to defend Honorius by saying that he was wrongly accused or condemned.
Which does the modern Roman position little good for it then makes the popes of the next three centuries? Guilty of error in their very oaths of succession to the chair of Peter Pope Leo the second confirmed the acts of the sixth council and said in a letter that Honorius was one who quote.
Endeavored by profane treason to overthrow the immaculate faith of the Roman Church and quote the same Pope wrote to the Spanish bishops. And said quote with eternal damnation have been published punished.
Theodorus Cyrus surges together with Honorius who did not extinguish at the very beginning the flame of heretical doctrine as Was becoming his apostolic authority, but nursed it by his carelessness and quote as one writer concluded quote.
Yet in every case the decisive fact remains that both councils and popes for several hundred years believed in the infallibility of the Pope in Flat contradiction to the Vatican Council such acts of violence upon history.
Remind one of King James a short method with dissenters only hang them. That's all end quote. Now how do modern Roman apologists deal with the simple facts of history most often? We are told that while Honorius erred and not rebuking Sergius as heresy He did not teach heresy to the church and hence he just escapes violating papal infallibility of course.
What this asks us to believe is that a pope can be a heretic and be infallible in fact? He can be a heretic. He can write letters as the bishop of Rome that are heretical in nature in answer to letters written to the bishop of Rome on Theological and doctrinal matters and even be condemned as a heretic for his writings by an ecumenical council and all the while He's still infallible if only OJ could be so lucky.
Time fails us for mentioning the many many other facts of history that demonstrate papal infallibility to be a farce. We can only mention in passing the error of Pope Liberius Who signed the Arianizing Creed of Sirmium and gave in and condemned the great Athanasius defender of the full deity of Christ?
Liberia shows us plainly that for a long period in the fourth century not only did no one believe in papal infallibility. But it was the bishop of Alexandria Not the bishop of Rome who stood against the majority for the great truth of the full deity of Jesus Christ.
The words of Liberius still exist today. He wrote the following pitiful words to the Arian bishops who worked to deny the eternity of our Lord Jesus Christ. He said. Quote. But having learned when it pleased God that you have condemned him justly I assented to your sentence.
So then Athanasius being removed from the communion of us all so that I am NOT even to receive his letters. I say that I am quite at peace and concord with you all. But that you may know better. Then then in this letter I speak in true faith the same as my common Lord and brother Demophilus Who is so good as to vouchsafe to exhibit your Catholic creed?
Which at Sirmium was by many of our brethren and fellow bishops considered set forth and received by all present this I receive with willing mind contradicted in nothing. To it I give assent this I follow this is held by me end quote.
There are many others the blunder in regard to Galileo. Hopefully we'll have time to look at Sixtus's infallible version of the Bible. My friend Rome tells us that we must believe in the doctrine of the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome that can counsel after using every kind of political maneuvering and chicanery to outwit the learned opposition promulgated the decree and had the audacity to Attach this line quote, but if anyone which which may God forbid presume to contradict this our definition Let him be anathema end quote here.
We have Rome anathematizing truth and decreeing falsehood. Those who love Christ who is the truth must reject that which is false and thus we must say to Rome your doctrine of papal. Infallibility is a fraud and we shall not be bound by such a falsehood.
Dr. Steele. Well, I'm very pleased to have this opportunity to correct. Mr White's view of history and it has been my experience that Protestants who try to attack Papal infallibility make use of three different strategies.
The first is to invoke irrelevant criteria for the establishment of a dogma. The second is to obscure the facts of history and the third is to obscure The teaching of the infallibility of the Pope itself.
Now, I was expecting a little bit more from mr White since he has such a great reputation as a skilled apologist. But I must admit that my opponent has fallen into all of these errors. First of all, what do we mean by papal infallibility?
Well, we mean first of all that Jesus established a church and he established a certain manner of Perpetuating sound doctrine in the College of the Apostles and they in turn appointed their successors then Peter was the head of the Apostles and Jesus Commissioned them to go and teach and he gave them the promise of the Holy Spirit.
So the infallibility of the Pope is not distinct from the infallibility of Christ or the infallibility of the Holy Spirit. Rather it is a special gift given to him as the supreme bishop in point of fact.
Most of the time when the infallibility is operating within the church. It is through the collegial corporate effort of the College of Bishops and only very rarely. Would the Pope as the supreme shepherd of the faithful?
Individually make use of the charism of infallibility. Now we also have to point out that some of these references in Scripture are totally irrelevant. I mean Paul's rebuke of Peter recorded in the in the letter to the Galatians.
Well, they agreed on matters of dogma. It was just a case of whether or not Peter was acting consistently. One could raise the same question about Paul because after all in the Acts of the Apostles he Circumcises Timothy and yet he tells us that circumcision is unnecessary in any case Paul specifically says we agree on this.
So it wasn't the case that Peter disagreed in dogma it was just a case of whether or not his behavior measured up to what was teaching and Paul could rebuke him. No one would deny that a Pope cannot be challenged or rebuked.
This doesn't challenge infallibility at all. Also all of those quotes at the beginning I wish I had time to point out how terrible they were. You know this worship of a woman in Mariology and and so on.
These are all just canards. They don't measure up to truth. We don't worship Mary. We venerate her. In fact, we're forbidden to worship her with the type of worship one would have for God. In fact, we venerate her and the Second Council of Nicaea made this very very clear now.
Regarding some of these facts of the Bible. Well, you know, he says there's nothing to indicate that Peter was aware that he was the first Pope in the vicar of Christ and so on. Well, first of all, is there anything to indicate that Mark knew he was writing sacred scripture or that Paul specifically says he was writing God-breathed scripture yet.
My opponent doesn't deny that they were indeed also the fact that the Popes could be human and and and Sinful doesn't deny that God could not work through sinful human beings to teach infallible truths.
Look at the authors of the Bible. You see, I mean we have David who sins and yet he writes the Psalms and. And so forth. I could multiply examples, but I'd like to Point out that there is great evidence that Peter holds a primacy.
Enormous evidence. I mean the fact that Peter is mentioned 195 times in the New Testament and the next Apostle to be mentioned is John 29 times. And then we could go through the way Peter speaks on behalf of the church in the Acts of the Apostles.
I could multiply examples if you'd like but there was a joint study done by Lutheran and Catholic scholars a number of years ago that came out in this book Peter in the New Testament and the conclusion was just a based upon the biblical evidence that it was clear that Peter was the most prominent missionary among the twelve and perhaps also because he had been a fisherman the image of Peter as the great fisherman missionary Developed and then it also points out In the same book that not only is Peter presented as a confessor of the Christian faith.
Eventually, he can be seen as the guardian of the faith against false teaching. Some hints of this aspect can be implied in the power of binding and loosing it if that is a power of excommunication. But it comes to the fore in the second letter Peter here Peter speaks as a magisterial voice that it can interpret the prophecies of scripture 2nd Peter 120 and 21 and can correct misinterpretations based on the authority of other apostles such as Paul 2nd Peter 3 15 through 16 and this is done by competent Lutheran and Catholic scholars together.
Now my opponent has brought out two examples of what a Liberius and Honorius neither of these challenge papal infallibility. First of all we have to look at what is required For a dogma to be proclaimed infallibly and the current Code of Canon law number 749 Tells us that no doctrine is to be understood as infallibly defined unless it is clearly established as such.
If we look at the paradigms of papal infallible statements like the immaculate conception in 1854 the assumption in 1950 they follow this solemn pattern. First there's a Prologue of the purpose of the definition, then there's a solemn invocation of authority.
Then there's the pronouncement of the dogma, and then there's a severe prohibition of dissent against Dissenting from this dogma now in those two cases of Liberius and Honorius. There's so much ambiguity involved even historically.
We don't really even know especially in the case of Liberius what he signed and then there is evidence from Confident scholars that many of the things that were alleged to have been said by Liberius were actually forgeries.
And I I suspect that what mr. White was reading was probably one of those forgeries now. I've studied this matter in rather in a great deal of depth and First of all I think it's an insult to call Liberius and Aryan the one who Recognized his hatred of the Aryan heresy was no other than Athanasius himself.
I would suggest my opponent read Athanasius his history of the Aryans and he tells about Liberius receiving the eunuch sent to him by the emperor Constantius and the eunuch in this is in Athanasius his history found Liberius an enemy to the heresy and then Liberius was so resolutely opposed to the heresy that he anathematizes the Aryans by name and Then he Athanasius also reports that Liberia says we are ready to suffer anything rather than to be called Aryan madmen and then in terms of this the Emperor kidnaps him and keeps him under captivity for two years and Pressures him and finally it's on them.
It's not clear even historically what it was that Liberia signed and what he if he did sign something. What he signed was a statement that can be interpreted in an orthodox sense not necessarily an unorthodox sense so there's so much ambiguity involved here and even Athanasius says that the fact that he hated the heresy of Aryanism is Shown by the fact that he lasted two years and only fear of threatened death subscribed.
But he says yet this only shows there the Aryans Violent conduct and the hatred of Liberius against the heresy and his support for Athanasius. So long as he was suffered to exercise a free choice. For that which men are forced by torture to do contrary to their first judgment ought not to be considered the willing Deed of those who are in fear, but rather of their tormentors.
So there's just so much ambiguity here. It hardly qualifies as an ex cathedra statement as my opponent Erroneously alleged now dealing with honorius well here again Sergius writes to honorius. Wanting to know how to settle all these these discussions about one will and two wills and so on now Honorius does write a letter, and it's also a very ambiguous letter because what he was really saying is you know.
This seems to be very confused. Let's not talk of one will or two wills or one operation or two operations. He says let's talk of one operation in the the one will in the two natures. But no less a theologian than Maximus the confessor said that what?
Honorius said could be interpreted in an orthodox light and and Maximus as we know is the great opponent of monothelitism. Because in other words when honorius said one will he probably was thinking of what of a moral unity.
Because the issue hadn't been settled and then he wrote his letter then he died and only after his death. Was it promulgated by Sergius in other words that the ambiguity is so great that this hardly qualifies as an ex cathedra statement and Beyond that when the council eventually condemned him or censored him.
It never condemned him for the heresy per se but for fostering it. You see it condemned him for the fact that he did not defend the faith. And I suppose hindsight is always 20 -20 and he was not ever specifically condemned by the council as a Monothelite but for approving Sergius is contradictory policy of placing Orthodox and heretical expressions under the same ban now.
When this was confirmed by the by the Pope. Because it's Catholic belief that anything taught by a council has to be confirmed by the Pope the Pope did not Specifically say he was condemned for heresy per se but for not defending the immaculate faith and allowing this heresy to spread now this was all brought up at the First Vatican Council, and they studied it very carefully and overwhelmingly.
The bishops at the First Vatican Council in 1870 said this did not challenge papal infallibility. I'd like my opponent to get his facts straight at the First Vatican Council. It wasn't the case of the Pope saying you must declare me infallible.
No, he was willing to accept the view of the council, but there were five hundred and five hundred and thirty-five bishops who voted for it and Sixty had reservations and out of respect for the vast majority they absent it from the final vote so in point of fact It was a unanimous decision at the First Vatican Council.
Now the other outrageous claim He makes this historically is that there was no evidence for the existence of a papal office in the early church. Well, I've compiled a total of about 18 Pages dealing with the testimony of the church fathers.
Now I'd first like to read to you what the great Cardinal Newman observed about the development of papal infallibility. He's writing about What what was the situation in the third century? He says the Pope's acted as if they were infallible With a high hand Preemptorily magisterially fiercely, but when we come to the question of the analysis of such conduct I think they might have had vague ideas on the subject just as many early fathers had on The doctrine of the Holy Trinity, but they acted in a way which needed infallibility as its explanation so We could see many examples of this and I could just multiply them.
But I mean we have the case of st. Irenaeus who's speaking about the Church of Rome. He says for with this church This is around the year 185 for with this church because of its superior origin all the churches must agree That is all the faithful in the whole world and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.
And then in Eusebius's history of the church written in the early 4th century. He tells us how in around 195 AD Pope st. Victor Invoked his authority to Excommunicate the other churches who wouldn't follow his direction regarding the date of Easter and I could just multiply examples.
Give to point this out or we have the Council of Sardica around the year 343 which was attended by Athanasius himself and there they Passed the resolution that If a bishop be judged adversely in any case and consider there is a good chance for a fresh decision.
Let us honor the memory of Peter the Apostle that those who tried the cause right to the Bishop of Rome. So in other words, there was the recognition that you write to the Bishop of Rome when there's a controversy then we only need to turn now to the another example in the in the third century for million of Cesarea.
Writing about the authority of Pope Stephen Who was Pope from 254 to 257 for million says? And In this respect. I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly. That he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate and contends that he holds the succession From Peter on whom the foundations of the church were laid should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches.
Maintaining that there is baptism in this by his authorities. Talking about the heretics Pope Stephen who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter is stirred with no zeal against the Donatist heretics when he concedes to them not a moderate but the very greatest power of grace so far as to say and Assert that by the sacrament of baptism the filth of the old man is washed away by them and and so on.
So here is a bishop from far away in Cesarea. Pointing out that the Bishop of Rome has this authority I could point to Pope Damasus the end of the Of the 4th century. I could poke to Pope Julius. I could put a point to what Athanasius himself says what st. John Chrysostom says about papal primacy.
I could look at the the the example of Pope Zorichius. The end of the 4th century. I could look at what st. Ambrose says or it could finally culminate in the in the Council of Chalcedon where after having After the delegates of the Pope read the letter the great letter of Pope st. Leo.
They say Peter has spoken to us through Leo. Thank you. In only four minutes I can hardly even begin to enumerate the number of historical errors that dr. Vestigi has just made. I am I am truly Shocked he just quoted for million.
I'm very glad that he did because if you look up the reference he just gave you four million is Using the harshest language against Stephen the Bishop of Rome demonstrate this man is harboring heresy and heretics.
Look at four millions letters to Cyprian and what both of them said about Stephen. It is truly truly incredible. What he said in regards to that particular issue dr. Vestigi. I want to focus in upon papal infallibility.
I would be very happy to attempt to deal with the whole issue of the papacy go into the early church. I've done that with other apologists. We'd be glad to do that with you for hours on end and look at every single statement.
He just brought up and demonstrate that every single statement does not establish the modern Roman position. But I want to focus in upon the specifics of the errors of the Pope's. First of all he both goes to a Liberian's and we read Liberia's his own words.
You'll notice that whenever you encounter something in history that is contradictory to the papal position. It's automatically obscure. Ambiguous and possibly fraudulent. This is the same system that for years based its papal claims upon the donations of Constantine and so many other.
Fraudulent documents that we've lost count of how many there were. But now when we go back and look at documents that there is no evidence. They're fraudulent at all that contradict the papal theory. Well now they're ambiguous.
They're possibly fraudulent so on so forth. I hope the audience will take the time to look into these things himself now. Iberia's was constrained to sign the Sermon creep, but the doctor vestiges as well such an ambiguous thing.
We don't know what he signed well if he was resisting for two years. What do you think he signed? He sent it to Arian bishops. He condemned Athanasius. What was Athanasius doing? What was Athanasius his position?
It's obvious that here you have a bishop signing a creed will dr. Vestiges. Well. That's not an ex-cathedra statement a Bishop of Rome can sign the creed and say I contradict this and nothing that creed denies the deity of Christ.
But oh he's still infallible. He's still infallible. He's still functioning as the bishop of Rome. He's still infallible, and that's why I called the concept of papal infallibility a paper fiction. Dr. Vestiges said they didn't say that honorius we go to the issue of honorius.
They didn't say he was a terror heretic they said that he just he gave aid to them in the 16th session the bishops exclaimed quote Anathema to the heretic Sergius to the heretic Cyrus to the heretic honorius etc.
He was identified as a heretic by the council, but dr. Vestiges says well that there's a way to understand his words in an orthodox sense. Well that means the sixth ecumenical council and the seventh ecumenical council and the eighth ecumenical council and every Pope for 300 years in their accession to the chair of Peter Condemned Pope honorius unjustly.
How does that help the case of papal infallibility especially when you say that papal infallibility is drawn from the church's Infallibility. How does that help anything out? It doesn't help anything out at all.
We need to focus our attention upon the issue. Does the church does the the doctrine of papal infallibility as taught by the Roman Catholic Church. Stand up to the test of the Bible and a test of history now as I said the common Approach is to say well the Pope's said basically almost nothing infallible to begin with.
He's only said a couple little things a couple little dogmas. And you have to have all these words here, and there has to be all this introductory stuff. Is that what Pope Pius the ninth believe. That's the question we need to ask is that how he understood it?
He who said I am tradition the very Pope 300 of the people who voted that for that were on his payroll. 300 of the people that were at that council run his payroll depend upon him for their income. He was actively involved in helping the people that were supporting papal infallibility and resisting those who weren't and We want to ask ourselves a question.
What did he understand? What did he believe by this doctrine? Did he not believe he was the organ of the Holy Spirit. He did. How did he understand the doctrine of papal infallibility. Well I Really would wish my opponent could take some courses in church history from me.
And I also wish that he could sit in and and listen to what we really understand papal infallibility to be. I read I repeat what is said in the in in the canon law no statement can be understood as infallibly proclaimed unless it's manifestly Demonstrated that it is in the cases of Honorius and and Liberius.
There's so much ambiguity. They hardly qualify and I Should point out that dr. Ludwig odd in his book with an imprimatur says that the judgment on Honorius was was unfair. Now how could he say that because if you properly understand the infallibility of a council?
It's infallible on matters of faith and morals. What was infallibly condemned was the Monopoly heresy the question of whether or not Honorius himself held that that's a matter of fact and that's not necessarily protected by Infallibility.
Now regarding this slander of Pope Pius the ninth that these people were on his payroll. And he was manipulating them. Give me the evidence sir. Give me the evidence. This is just a slander just as you tried to slander Liberius notice he didn't respond to the fact that Athanasius defends him.
Athanasius recognized in fact if he were an Aryan sympathizer. Why after he came back to Rome did he refuse to recognize the even semi Aryan? Council of Rimini and Milan he remained an opponent all the time.
You wouldn't allow someone who signed something under torture as a confession to hold up in a court of law. But my opponent wants to claim that this qualifies as an ex cathedra statement. I've read the statement that he allegedly signed and there's no evidence that he allegedly signed it and it can be interpreted in an orthodox As well as perhaps a semi Aryan way, but he never openly taught Heresy so these are just canards that they keep bringing up year after year after year.
And I'm just I'm just amazed that they they don't they don't see that you see the point in any case. You would have to show to disprove infallibility which he's trying to show that these statements these historical cases were manifest cases when the Pope was speaking ex cathedra and They just don't think they don't qualify.
Especially when we're not even sure of what he signed. There's so much historical ambiguity and regarding the fact that there were forgeries Protestant scholars that I have studied as well as Catholic scholars admit this so with all of this ambiguity How can we possibly claim that it was manifestly demonstrated that Liberius was a heretic and Honorius was a Was a heretic and even if he was a heretic or Honorius, let's take the case of him.
That he was not speaking ex cathedra after all the promulgation as I told you of that teaching by Sergius occurred after his death. This is a fact that my friend just didn't take up. So he just keeps insisting that we're misrepresenting history.
I can assure you I have studied this. I challenge anyone to study it very carefully. These were studied very carefully at the time of the first Vatican Council and they were not seen as any evidence Against the infallibility of the Pope.
Let me read to you. What a great church father named Theodore of Studian writing to the Pope in 1818 says about the Papal see he says for you are truly the limpid and forever Inalterable source of orthodoxy.
You are the tranquil and secure port open to the entire church against all the tempests of heresy you are the citadel chosen by God as the refuge of salvation. If that the Church understood that the case of Honorius challenged this how could you have such a great and prestigious church father as st Theodore of Studian saying this or to go Time we're now ending the question-and-answer session.
James your first question, please. Dr. Vestigi Pope Sixtus Produced an edition of the Latin Vulgate that had a constitution prefix that claimed that his edition Overseen by himself is quote to be received and held as true lawful authentic and unquestioned in all public and private discussion.
Reading preaching and explanations and quote now, of course as history shows. Dr Vestigi Sixtus's edition was anything but infallible and was quickly withdrawn from circulation now. Let me ask you sir If the Pope is not infallible with reference to the very readings of Scripture itself when he himself says that this edition is true lawful authentic and unquestioned.
How can we believe that the doctrine of infallibility is so important that the anathema can be attached to it as it was by Vatican? One okay. Well, I'm glad you brought up this case because this is a perfect example of how the Holy Spirit Protects the papal office because in point of fact Sixtus had everything ready to promulgate that as a solemn dogma.
And then he died. Thank God the Holy Spirit intervened. So this is only going to show even more so how the papal office is divinely protected he never promulgated that in that pattern that I I outlined for you that there has to be a clear statement that there's a First of all, the Pope states the purpose of the definition that he has the solemn invocation of authority.
Then there's the pronouncement of the dogma. Then there's a solemn prohibition of dissent. That was not the case in Pope Sixtus. So I'm glad you brought that up because that's a perfect case that shows the Holy Spirit will prevent a Pope.
A Pope could be first of all very peccable, you know. It could be sinful there have been some the vast majority have been very holy. The Pope could perhaps privately be confused and perhaps even privately teach something that was heresy.
But the Holy Spirit will protect the Pope will protect the church from having a Pope solemnly proclaim Error and impose it on the whole church and there's never been an example of that and I'm asking I'm challenging you to show one.
And all of your cases simply don't apply. Mr. White. Well, I think it's pretty obvious to anyone who will take the time to look at the facts. Dr. Fastidious very condescendingly offered to teach me church history.
I'd like to respond and invite him to my own classes as well. But if you will look at church history, and if you will look at the documents I just read to you from the six ecumenical council that identified on Aureus as a heretic now seemingly my opponent is saying well.
They they're a council and they're infallible on faith and morals, but not facts. Listen to what we're being asked to believe folks a Council can be infallible on doctrine on faith on morals. But it can be utterly confused about facts.
You see on Aureus wrote the letters as the Bishop of Rome on Doctrinal issues he was functioning as the Bishop Rome and now you see what Rome has to do now is. Well, we've got all these errors and you see the there are many of the of the people of Vatican one Who demonstrated that these errors existed and they were eventually either forced to flee or they were told to be quiet.
They were outnumbered by the Pope's hirelings. Look at any unbiased semi unbiased history of Vatican one. You'll find all these things right on the surface all the people that were observing it saw these things recorded these things.
People that were involved wrote later about it. Don't take my word for it. Look it up look it up for yourself, and you'll find these things to be true. They saw these issues and so what do honor Roman Catholic apologists have to do they have to attempt to define all these things away.
Because folks you've got to remember one thing my opponent cannot Allow for the possibility of error here his whole system stands or falls on this doctrine. It is his ultimate authority and because it's his ultimate authority.
Dr. Festigi cannot admit even the possibility of error on the part of the Pope is teaching ex cathedra because he's been told. It's a circular thing all facts have to be Subservient to that one overarching principle the Pope's infallible.
Thank you. One minute response well one minute response well the greatest opponent of monothelitism as Anyone who knows church history is aware of was st. Maximus the confessor. Let's listen to what he said about the Roman see this apostolic see which from the in the incarnate Word of God Himself as well as from the Holy Council's according to the sacred canons and definitions has received and possesses the sovereignty Authority and power of binding and loosing over all the churches of God in the entire world in and through all things.
He was quite aware of what Honorius taught. How could he say such a thing if he felt that the case of Honorius challenged this? Divine protection of the Roman Sea. And Regarding Vatican one you know a pious the ninth made a little joke at the beginning.
He says I'll come into the I'll leave the council either fallible or infallible, but I know I'll be bankrupt in an Italian. It's a kind of pun. The point a point is he has to provide the evidence that the bishops were not free.
Thank you your first question, please yes. Well, mr.. White. I'd like to get back to the Bible and what happens after the Bible. And I'm wondering if we could just stick for a moment to the question of what?
Was the authority that our Lord Jesus intended his church to have? After he ascended into heaven and after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit because I could produce text after text of early church fathers saying that there was clearly an Episcopal an Episcopal succession that there were successors to the Apostles.
I could just for very briefly quote saying that Ignatius of Antioch. He says for Jesus Christ our inseparable life is the will of the father just as the bishop who has who have been? Just as the bishops who have been appointed throughout the world are the will of Jesus Christ.
It is fitting therefore that you should live in harmony with the will of the bishop as indeed you do now. Do you accept? The historical evidence that the early church understood that the 12 Apostles had successors who were bishops.
Thank you. Well, though it has nothing to do with the topic of the debate whatsoever. I will I will go ahead and answer the question the early church Had two different models as you can see and this is very significant.
I'm glad you brought it up. You quoted from Ignatius and he talks about the bishop and. As you know as a church historian, I'm certain you're aware of the fact that the primitive perspective in Rome. Was that you had a multiplicity of elders?
In fact, there was no monarchial episcopate in Rome until the middle of the 2nd century. There was no one bishop in Rome. Which of course causes endless problems for the Roman concept of apostolic succession and Peter and so on and so forth.
But there are many churches that had this concept of a multiplicity of elders and Ignatius represents the perspective where you had one bishop with elders beneath him and the scriptures clearly teach that you were to have elders and you're to have deacons and that this is the function of the church the structure of the church if you're familiar at all.
For example in our previous debate you talked about the Westminster Confession of Faith. These things are clearly brought out. What is crystal clear in the early church doctrine and in the writings of the early church is that they did not believe that the Bishop of Rome was the sole successor of Peter and that as the sole Successor of Peter that he was in fact the head of the church the vicar of Christ.
There is so much evidence that demonstrates clearly and beyond a shadow of a doubt. But this is a doctrine and a dogma that developed over time and there are so many instances where this was Plainly contradicted the Council of Nicaea plainly contradicts the concept of papal supremacy all the councils Plainly contradicted in the first four or five hundred years of the church the idea that the Pope was the infallible vicar of Christ on earth.
There is there there are canons in at Chalcedon and at Nicaea that Rome would not even accept because the very fact that it demonstrated that no one else in the church had this idea that they Somehow were the head of the church.
There's so much evidence of this all through the early church fathers that if you'll take the time To actually look at what the fathers wrote not just at compilations put together by Roman Catholic scholars.
But actually read what they wrote you will find piece after piece of this puzzle coming together. Demonstrating that it is an upstart thing for the Church of Rome to claim the headship of the Church of Christ on earth and that This was not believed by Athanasius.
Where does Athanasius ever refer to the Pope as the vicar of Christ on earth the head of the infallible Church. He doesn't. Where does he ever say to the Aryans all you've got to do is go to the infallible vicar of Rome and a Vicar of Christ in Rome and ask him he'll tell you they don't.
In fact Cardinal Newman recognizes this and that's why he relies so much upon this concept of the development of doctrine which I believe is an abandonment of the field of battle in history. The Simple fact the matter is the early church did not have the Roman concept of either Petrine primacy as it's been blown up by Vatican one or the entire functioning of the church.
There was a much more specific and smaller function and organization to the church. Well, I have a Cardinal Newman's book, and I would invite anyone to read it on the development of doctrine and After he talks about people supremacy He says more ample testimony for people supremacy as is now professed by Roman Roman Catholics is scarcely necessary.
What then what is contained in these pages? The simple question is whether the clear light of the fourth and fifth centuries may be fairly taken to interpret to us the dim though Definite outlines traced in the proceeding there are developments of doctrine.
Okay now my opponent also would have to admit this because there's not a clear sense of the closing of the New Testament canon till the end of the fourth century or even the beginning of the fifth and yet he accepts that as Infallible that there's a 27 writing canon of the New Testament if there clearly were Discussions and and debates about that.
But in terms of the evidence for the recognition of people in Supremacy I'll quote to you from Patriarch Flavian's letter to Pope Leo in 449. He says the matter needs only your single decision and all will be settled in peace and quietness.
Your sacred letter will with God's help Completely suppress the heresy which has risen and the disturbance it has caused and so the convening of a council Which is in any case difficult will be rendered superfluous.
That's the Patriarch of Constantinople writing in the year 449. Recognizing that the Pope has the authority to settle a doctrinal matter by himself. Now the Pope's often very wisely or under the guidance of the Holy Spirit often decide that they would rather allow the collegial body of the bishops to decide these matters and in point of fact in the two Clearest examples of papal infallibility the Pope's did consult with their With their brother bishops in the case of the Immaculate Conception in the assumption.
They wrote letters and the bishops overwhelmingly responded in favor. Well, dr. Festegi becomes quite emotional and reading to you that the Pope can by himself decide this. Well. Why didn't he decide the Aryan controversy?
Well because Liberia's got rid of athanasia's. Well. Why didn't he do the thing calcid on it? Well calc on they said that the supremacy of of the Roman Sea was political and not religious. So well, why didn't they see the point is folks?
The early church didn't understand that the Pope by himself could do something. In fact the Pope over and over again wrote such letters and guess what they were ignored. There are many situations the Pope writes a letter and did it's in the heresy.
No. It didn't in the heresy why because no one dreamed that he alone was the Vicar of Christ on earth with the power to Define all dogmas and all doctrines. It just simply doesn't happen in regards to Cardinal Newman.
I would simply refer you to the fact That he quotes from Barrow's work of 1836 where over and over again He points out that the early bishops of the church give no evidence. But they viewed the Bishop of Rome as the head of the church and that they did not appeal to him.
I'd ask you to look those references up to yourself. Thank you your next question James. Thank you Dr. Steegey. Seemingly and I'm having trouble understanding How you deal with this? Seemingly you are trying to say in regards to Pope Honorius the the city example.
It was brought up prior to Vatican one. Maybe you just clarify for me. Are you saying that Honorius was or was not a heretic or are you saying that? Three ecumenical councils and 300 years worth of Popes were wrong in Anathematizing Honorius as a heretic.
What is what is really your position regards? Were they right or were they wrong in anathematizing him as a heretic? They were absolutely correct in in anathematizing monothelitism. They were also correct in saying that What was written by Honorius helped to spread the error?
But they did not condemn him as a as a heretic in an infallible sense. Because that was a matter of fact, you know, in other words that monothelitism is a heresy that was infallibly taught. Whether or not Honorius was himself intending that heresy if we I mean when a man is dead.
You know, you don't know what he would have said and especially as I told you before. It's a very significant fact that Sergius his proclamation of that occurred after Honorius his death. He was writing a private response To Sergius, but the fact that he did this and it helped to foster, you know.
Because it was an ambiguous helped to foster and feed the flames of the heresy. Well in retrospect, they said well, yes, he deserves to be censored but we have the reports of what occurred at that council in 681 the sixth ecumenical council and afterwards they first of all, they proclaimed that Peter has spoken through Agatha the Pope.
They didn't see this as challenging at all the authority of the Pope. They saw it as a fact that a Pope as a private man. Writing a letter helped to foster a heresy and perhaps. All right, let's grant.
Maybe he was privately a heresy. We don't know because the man was dead. We'd have to ask him. What did you mean by the will? Did you mean one will in a moral sense or in terms of two distinct wills in?
Let's say an ontological sense, we just don't know this, you know history could have a hindsight. But I keep repeating that Maximus the Confessor read what? Honorius had written and he said this can be interpreted in an orthodox light and I think that's quite significant Mr. White.
So as I mentioned before Ludwig Ott's book has an imprimatur and he said the council erred in its Condemnation of Honorius because then it wasn't a matter of faith or morals. But it was a matter of an historical fact, which wasn't absolutely connected with the heresy itself.
Well, dr. Festigia, I can certainly understand why you don't want to answer my direct question. Which was not was the council right in condemning monothelitism now, you know, I didn't ask you that what I asked you Was was the council right in condemning Pope Honorius as a heretic and let me read it to you again I realized that this is a Problem for you, but in the 16th session the bishops exclaimed quote.
Dr. Festigia. This is a quote Anathema to the heretic Sergius to the heretic Cyrus to the heretic Honorius and quote now They anathema ties to him as a heretic for what for the letters. He wrote not as a private man.
Dr Festigia that is twisting history as the people of Vatican one had to do and I realized you have to do that because you can't allow history to Stand stand that history here is so blatantly contradictory to your position.
You can't allow it to be what it is the sixth ecumenical council you're now saying according to Ludwig Ott and citing an impromptu or as if You could couldn't find books that have some weird things in the having of that on it.
Now you're saying well literally got set the council airs that means a sixth council aired some of the council aired eighth council aired and 300 years worth of Roman bishops as they took their oath to succession the pair of chair of Peter all anathema ties Honorius wrongly.
What an amazing statement to be made. What a twisting of history? The man wrote the letters as the Bishop of Rome on a doctrinal subject. You're telling us that we can write a letter to the Bishop of Rome and we can ask a question about the very nature of Jesus Christ that is later dogmatically pronounced upon by a ecumenical council and we can receive heresy in response.
But the Pope's still infallible the Pope still infallible. I suggest to the listeners that this doctrine is constructed in such a way that it is non falsifiable. You see hindsight's 2020 we can always define out of existence all the errors the Pope has made.
Do I have a chance one minute to respond? Well, I I'd like to read to you an account of this. By a man senior von dort he says before anything else this much is absolutely sure. Honorius was not condemned as guilty of preaching heresy in his official capacity ex cathedra.
Something more he was not even condemned as being privately a heretic. Strictly speaking. He was condemned for being a helper of heresy. Whatever might have been the intention of the fathers of the six ecumenical council this much as much as certain.
The decree of the council would be of no value except insofar as it was ratified by the Apostolic See. So this is the Catholic understanding that when a council teaches it must be ratified by the Pope and Pope Leo the second then ratified the decree, but he ratified it in this way.
He says we anathematized the inventors of the new error. That is Theodosius Sirius Sergius Pyrrhus Paul Peter and also Honorius who did not Enlighten this apostolic see with the doctrine of the apostolic tradition, but allowed its immaculate faith to be soiled with by profane betrayal.
Thank you Dr. Prestigi your next question. Yes. Thank you very much. Now, mr. White. I hope you would agree that the that the Holy Spirit protects the church from error and I'm just wondering though whether or not we could do a little bit of a comparison Between the way the Holy Spirit protects the Catholic Church from error and the way it protects the various churches that claim to be Teaching what Jesus teaches after the Protestant Reformation.
I'm just wondering how I as a as a Catholic could understand this because I see all these contradictions between the various Protestant groups over various matters. And I just want to know how I can know what is truly what the Bible teaches.
For example, I'll read from the Augsburg Confession of baptism. They the Lutherans teach that it is necessary to salvation and that through baptism is offered the grace of God and that children are to be baptized.
Who being offered to God through baptism are received into his grace. They the Lutherans condemn the Anabaptists. So I just want to know how I as a Catholic could appreciate your standard of infallibility.
Well, first of all, I don't have a standard of infallibility because the church Being the body of Christ is being sanctified by the work of the Spirit within her and I do not believe that there is some doctrine infallibility.
God is infallible. His word is infallible. And as the church listens to the infallible Christ speak in his infallible word. She is constantly reformed by listening to that. But I'm glad you brought this question up even though again It does not impact on the doctrine of infallibility the Pope unless you're attempting to say that.
Well, it's infallibility the church that brings about the infallibility of the Pope and that there is a connection. But I'm glad you brought it up because you see this illustrates the problem in our debate today.
I As a Protestant theologian, I'm under the authority of the Word of God. My beliefs have to constantly be under the examination of what the scriptures say and hence I must always be willing to change when the scriptures show me that I need to change.
The problem is Rome can no longer be reformed because Rome is no longer in a situation Where the only thing it's infallible is what God has said to her in Scripture now. She is arrogantly I say claimed to herself Infallibility and has now put this infallibility into a particular individual.
You see Rome cannot go back in history and look at honorius and honestly say well, you know, you're right. Here is a Pope who was condemned by a council as a heretic himself and Pope's condemned him as a heretic and yes it was an error and Rome cannot look back in history and look at Liberius and Rome cannot look at Sixtus and Rome cannot look at the situation with Galileo and Rome cannot look at the indulgences all the rest of these things and say well, yes, it's true.
The Bishop of Rome has has erred in the past and in very grievous and important things in in bringing about eternal Condemnation of people he's made an error and we can change you see the Christian Church the body of Christ Listens to the voice of Christ and the voice of Christ is found in his word.
But when you take a doctrine like Rome to where Rome now says well this isn't all we also have this tradition. See and we're the only ones who know what this tradition is and we're the only ones that can interpret this book there are no longer any boundaries upon Rome and So Rome proclaims her own infallibility and says you must believe it facts history is irrelevant.
We've said it. That's the end of the discussion. There can be no further discussion. Honestly when you think about dr. Vestigi, how can you possibly have an honest discussion about this? You can't say well, you might be right because to say that is to say my church is completely wrong.
You see history the Bible are not the relevant issues here for Rome because she has exempted herself From the review of Scripture and from the review of history. Yes, the church has this to constantly reform her.
Rome no longer has that. Well, I said in my opening Statement that part of the problem is a failure to understand what is really meant by infallibility papal infallibility, so I just would like to clarify that the Pope is not infallible in everything he says and Many great theologians Like Francisco Suarez and others have admitted that a Pope could privately be a heretic.
The question though is this infallible protection by the Holy Spirit? That when the Pope is speaking as the supreme shepherd of the faithful the Holy Spirit will not allow him to Proclaim a matter of faith and morals and make it binding on all the faithful and these cases of Liberius and Honorius simply don't Qualify, you know, we could talk about whether Honorius was a heretic or not.
I don't think I can judge what he meant by the one will say I don't think I can judge that. So I could leave it an open question. What I could say is yes, the council was right to condemn him for fostering The the heresy and and and Pope Leo was right to it to censor him in retrospect.
But I'd like to just point out that what is the alternative here? I mean st. Paul says God is not a God of confusion but of peace. So we have over 20 ,000 different Protestant sects throughout the world and they're all teaching different things and also the Catholic Church.
According to Vatican to is Semper Ephraim anda always being reformed. Why. Because we are human beings and so we need to be reformed in morally and spiritually, but when the Holy Spirit Enlightens the shepherds of the church to clarify and teach a matter of faith and morals.
Well, then that's the Holy Spirit who has spoken through the voice of the shepherds that Jesus has promised to be with until the end of the world and so this is where. It's a case that yes. We do need to study the word and we do need to be reformed that is the Catholics are 100 behind that.
But we do believe that on some of these essential matters that the Holy Spirit has spoken. James response. Well, dr. Vestigi focused upon what has not been contested. I have never said that every word of a Pope is supposed to be infallible but I have said that when you write to the Bishop of Rome in the case of honorius as Another bishop and you inquire of his theological position on the very person of Jesus Christ.
You should hopefully expect that if papal infallibility means anything at all that if you follow what he says in response. You're not going to eventually find yourself in hell, which is of course what ends up being the situation with Pope honorius.
Then notice that dr. Vestigi cannot say the words that the council itself said we condemn honorius the heretic. Oh, they condemn monothelitism. Dr. Vestigi. They condemned honorius the heretic. He was a heretic you say I can't judge the Sixth Ecumenical Council did and all the popes for 300 years did.
Why can't you now? Reason because your system will not allow you to do so. Thank you James your next question Dr. Steeji Brian Tierney and his work origins of papal infallibility wrote the theologians of the 13th century.
Could not possibly have taken the doctrine of papal infallibility from the canonical tradition of the church. Because the doctrine simply did not exist in the writings of the canonists and quote I Assert dr. Vestigi that the concept of papal infallibility is a as you term you've used theological novum.
It was unknown By anyone during the first 12 13 14 centuries of the church. Could you please show us an unambiguous plain assertion by someone in just the first thousand years of the church? That teaches that the Bishop of Rome is infallible in matters of faith and morals.
Well Here again, there's a misunderstanding and Tierney's a good historian. But he's not a good theologian because at the end of that book He winds up from a Catholic perspective saying that a future council should renounce the the doctrine of papal infallibility.
Anyone who says such a thing can't even qualify as a Catholic theologian. I mean he's good in presenting the data, but he's not so good in terms of Interpreting it now in in terms of this I've read I think what it what is sufficient already from a from a number of people and I'll read some more statements of this great st. St. Theodore the studite where he's talking about now.
The great authority of the Bishop of Rome. He says writing to Pope Leo the third. The listen apostolic head appointed by God as the shepherd of the flock of God holder of the keys of the kingdom of heaven the rock of faith upon Which the Catholic Church is built for you are Peter adorning and occupying Peter's throne and then he says To Pope Leo the third in another letter since it was to the great Peter that Christ our God through the keys of the kingdom of heaven gave the dignity of being the chief of the flock.
It is to Peter that is to say his successor that all new Heresies must be submitted that are introduced into the universal Church. By those who are led astray from the truth. What's implicit in here is that the Bishop of Rome has the authority to infallibly decide doctrine the term is not so important.
This is what Protestants do with things like transubstantiation. They say that the word wasn't around and therefore the concept wasn't around. I trust Cardinal Newman as a historian and a Catholic theologian more than Tierney.
Although Tierney brings up some interesting facts, but remember what I read of Cardinal Newman. He says the Pope's acted in such a way. Thank you. Well, first of all, I'll point out that Pope Leo the third is 800 years after Christ and you have someone writing to a Pope.
Possibly seeking some sort of favor or something from him and they speak highly of him and this is somehow going to demonstrate that the Entire church or there's an apostolic tradition of papal infallibility.
I think not but I think you actually gave me a much better answer initially because the first thing you said was well Tierney. He's a good historian. He's not much of a theologian because when he gets to the end of the book He says there should be another council to overturn papal infallibility.
Do you hear what's being said? I have to repeat this because it's the only way to understand how dr Vestigi can can use historical data in the way that he's using it. You see Tierney by looking at history recognizes.
This is not an apostolic doctrine. It was unknown during those periods of time. So as a result, he hopes that a church council can overturn this and can speak the truth. But dr. Vestigi says well, he can't be a theologian because he doesn't follow what the church says see the circularity.
It's very very plain. Thank you your next question of procedure. Yes. Well, thank you. Thank you very very much. I'm just wondering whether or not you have studied the the testimony of st Jerome of st. Ambrose and st. Augustine who had such high praise for the for the Bishop of Rome and Jerome writes to Pope Damasus.
I speak with the successor of the fishermen with the disciple of the cross. Following none in the first place, but Christ. I am in communion with your beatitude. That is with the chair of Peter on that rock.
I know the church is built now. Here's the point would Christ build his church on a rock which would then lead the faithful astray and You see these great theologians. We can't ignore the greatness of people like Augustine and Ambrose and Jerome and they recognized That the Pope was the rock and he was the successor of Peter and if this was the Constitution Established by our Lord Jesus Christ would Jesus establish a fallible Constitution?
Well, of course, we know dr Vestigi the vast majority of the early church did not interpret Matthew 16 18 the way that the Roman Catholic Church does that yours is. The vast minority opinion and not the majority opinion as your own scholars have said.
But Cyprian of Carthage wrote for neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops nor by tyrannical territories any compel his colleague in the necessity of obedience since every bishop according the allowance of his liberty and power has his own proper right of Judgment and can be no more judged by another than he himself can judge another and of course the Cyprian applied this to Stephen the bishop Of Rome and his controversies with him and of course the early church councils had no concept of this either.
Canon 35 of the Constitutions the Holy Apostle says bishops of every country ought to know who is the chief among them and to esteem him as their head. And not to do any great thing without his consent.
But everyone to manage only the affairs that belong to his own parish and the place is subject to it. But let him not do anything without the consent of all for it is by this means there will be unanimity and God will be glorified By Christ in the Holy Spirit.
Nothing about the bishop of Rome nothing about these things at all. Cyprian did believe. One of the minority of the early fathers who believed that Peter was the rock. But he also said that that meant that all bishops are in Peter and that all of them formed the rock not the bishop of Rome.
By himself when you have Augustine for example writing to Maximilian the Arian does he say go look at what the bishop Of Rome says. No he says you have your counsels. I have my counsels. Let's go to what is unquestionable, and what is that the bishop of Rome know that inspired scriptures?
And that's what we find throughout these early fathers is this insistence upon this and that is why I would be glad to go through glad to have a debate for Hours on end of what the early church taught these things because when you take the time and I hope Roman Catholics will do This when you take the time to go beyond the little quote books like Jurgens and others and actually look into the passages and look In their context.
I myself have been amazed over the years studying the passages that are adduced by Roman Catholic scholars in support of the papacy. Because every time you take the time to read the context you discover thing after thing after thing Contradicts the Roman claims in regards to Peter and the papacy.
Well in regard to Cyprian that you brought up. It's interesting that Cyprian is cited six times in footnotes in the second Vatican Council's decree Lumen Gentium. Cyprian was very good on the idea of collegiality and he was good on the idea of papal primacy at first until he Ran into a quarrel you should know as a scholar that there's two Renderings of his text and now the vast majority of good scholars say that both were original.
So he does. Yes, say that all of the bishops are what he says indeed the other bishops were that also which Peter was. But a primacy was given to Peter where it is made clear that there is but one church and one chair.
So this is what is taught in the second Vatican Council that each of the bishops See each of the bishops is the vicar of Christ in his individual church. But for the sake of the harmony in the unity of the one holy Catholic and apostolic Church.
They must be in harmony with the supreme bishop the Bishop of Rome. Thank you. We will now hear closing statements. James. Mm-hmm. Well, thank you very much. I Want to again refocus our attention upon the specific topic of the debate a specific topic of this debate is Is the doctrine of papal infallibility?
Sustainable in the light of church history in the Bible and I say that it is not. I say it is unsustainable. We have seen dr. Vestigi Attempt to undermine this thesis in a number of ways, but I would like to suggest to you that as I have said Dr. Vestigi is dealing with the historical facts.
Cannot be trusted not because he's not a nice man. But because the system to which he is dedicated to which he has given his fealty. Has said this is a doctrine you cannot even think otherwise than this.
This is a doctrine that you must believe or face the anathema of God and. Hence, obviously when we look at honorius and over and over again, I have quoted from the sixth ecumenical council. Well, they identify him as the heretic honorius.
Dr. Vestigi cannot even bring himself to say the words. Oh, yes, they were right to condemn monothelitism. That's not the point. That's dodging the issue and this is what the Roman Catholic apologists must do because you have honorius.
You have Liberius signing a creed sending a letter to the arianizing bishops and and and getting rid of an athanasius. What does that mean? It's not ambiguous at all to anybody who simply wants to ask the question.
Has the bishop of Rome as the bishop of Rome not as. A private person not in sitting around the table having private conversation with someone as the bishop of Rome. Representing the sea of Rome addressing an issue of faith and morals.
Made errors. And as Roman Catholic scholars prior to Vatican one knew. Even Newman didn't want them to say what they ended up saying and after they went ahead and said it back in one. He just closes now as so many did many who had argued against it once they spoke as I said, like well.
It's see it's not like their position had been disproven. But now the church has spoken in an ecumenical council allegedly. It was hardly anything but an ecumenical council, but the church has spoken and therefore all the facts that demonstrated they were wrong are now irrelevant.
So much the worse for the facts. Have we heard anything from dr. Fastigi that has demonstrated that? Papal infallibility was believed all through these periods of time. Has he honestly dealt with the fact that for hundreds of years Ecumenical councils six seven and eight all felt that Honorius was not just guilty of misjudgment.
But that he was a heretic and that every Pope when he took his very oath of office Called on Aureus a heretic. Dr. Fastigi for some reason says well we have to leave the matter open. They didn't leave it open.
Why didn't that bother them. Because no one ever believed in papal infallibility. They didn't believe that the Pope was infallible. These are the verdicts of history. We saw Sixtus and Sixtus. It was a fascinating thing dr. Fastigi says well you see this is an example of how God saved the papacy.
He killed the Pope. That's not his words, but he took him out of the way before he could make an error. Oh, wait a minute. It was published. It was printed that was the Pope's perspective. That was what he put into his Constitution, and it was wrong.
Now we have all these other instances dr. Fastigi has has attempted to get around the fact that Pope's gave indulgences to going visiting the silly house at Loretto. Doesn't that have anything to do with papal infallibility?
Oh, no. You've got to have the certain form that you fill out remember. Indulgences can only be given by the function of the power of the keys. Who has the power of the keys and when the Pope Gives indulgences is he not functioning as the Bishop of Rome.
Is he not functioning as the Shepherd of Christ flock? He must be and if that's the case then giving indulgences for going and visiting a house that allegedly was carried by angels from Nazareth to Loretto it's just one of the many examples we could multiply the examples forever.
Of this type of silliness in church history. And that's why many Roman Catholic scholars opposed this doctrine because they recognized the church was opening herself up. To the claim that history and fact and truth means nothing.
You see Pope Pius the ninth a strong strong Pope. Pope Pius the ninth wanted this. He had 300 people on his payroll that were there. He dragged the council along. He would only allow those in town who support his infallibility to print anything anyone who denied it couldn't have a printing license in Rome.
Look at the history for yourself and ask yourself this question. Do I really believe that I am bound under the anathema of God to believe a doctrine that was promulgated in? Situations like that that is plainly and obviously contrary to the history of The entire world in the history of the church.
I hope you'll see the truth in this instance. Thank you. Thank you James. Dr. Prestigi well, I First would like to point out that when we try to understand the doctrine of any religion or any religious body You have to try to respect the way that individual religious body understands its own doctrine.
And so we are the ones who have to know what is infallible teaching and what isn't and he says it's unverifiable. Oh, I could tell him if you could present a clear case where a Pope was speaking Ex-cathedra on a matter of faith and morals and there's no ambiguity involved.
We have all the texts we don't have a question of what he did sign and what he didn't sign and that this was clearly taught and Mandated on all the faithful and then it was revoked then you could falsify it.
But he has not presented any case like that. The dogma as proclaimed in 1870 by the first Vatican Council was it is divine. It is a divinely revealed dogma that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex-cathedra.
That is when acting in the office of shepherd and teacher of all Christians. He defines by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church Possesses through the divine assistance promised to him in the person of blessed Peter the infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his church to be endowed in defining the doctrine concerning faith or morals and that such definitions of the Roman pontiff are therefore Irreformable of themselves and not because of the consent to the church.
It took a long time Before the Holy Spirit moved the church to understand that this was what Jesus meant when he spoke to Peter. So that that's a sign that the church doesn't rush into things, but we have clear demonstration of primacy.
We have a clear demonstration in someone like Irenaeus saying it's this church. That you must be agree in agreement with this is the church. You must be in agreement with. I could provide other examples.
But I think if my opponent is to win the debate He has to show that he has falsified the claim and his his examples simply have not done that. They simply have not done that because in neither case of Liberius or Honorius would anyone admit that they were acting ex cathedra as the supreme shepherd of the faithful.
He can't come out as an outsider and say yes, they were and you're just denying it. No. These were carefully studied by Catholic scholars at the first Vatican Council and they did not apply. They simply do not apply.
As I'm just pointing out that my respect for Maximus the Confessor. When I say that what what Honorius sign could be interpreted in an orthodox light. But that he was that monothelitism was condemned and that he was rightfully condemned for fostering the heresy.
That's what was really taught when it was confirmed by the Pope afterwards. So we don't want to obscure the data here and then then he brings up all these other Incidentals that Protestants love to bring up about indulgences and the house of Loretto and so on so he's playing to the audience here.
How does he know that the house of Loretto isn't authentic. Doesn't he believe that angels could move something? I mean you just can't make these assertions like this and Pope's what is infallible regarding indulgences is that this.
That this authority has been given but in terms of prudential judgments and so on. As to what would be a good act of charity for an indulgence that changes with time. So those are not matters protected by infallibility.
I would invite mr. White to come and study with a Catholic who really understands the doctrine of papal infallibility and to earnestly try to understand it. But remember the doctrine of papal infallibility does not come from pious the ninth.
It comes from the lips of our Savior himself. When he said to Peter blessed are thou Simon Barjona. For thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.
I give to you Singular in the Greek I give to you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bound on earth shall be bound in heaven. Whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. I don't think these words were put there Accidentally and I don't think it's any accident that we see.
All of these early church fathers recognizing that the Pope was special that the Bishop of Rome was special. The dogma of infallibility had to take time. But first there was primacy like with Ignatius writing very early you are that you hold the presidency in love.
Then there was primacy and supremacy in terms of doctrinal matters. The question was whether or not the Pope could define dogma independent of the consent of the bishops. And that was what took for a long time.
But we could look at the decree of the Council of Florence there you find papal supremacy taught very clearly. Thank you. We hope you've enjoyed this third in a series of four debates between these gentlemen.
Thank you for joining us.