Papal Infallibility - White vs Fastigi

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 Debate Thesis and Speaker Introductions

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.

Peter, Galatians 2, and the Biblical Case Against Papal Infallibility

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.

Papal Infallibility as a Charism of Christ, the Spirit, and the Apostolic College

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.