The Apologetics of Vinney Lewis

The Roman Catholic Papacy as a Tradition of Men

Today, we'll address the question, is the Roman Catholic doctrine of papacy a tradition of God or of men? I believe the clear and obvious verdict of the New Testament and Church history is that papacy is a tradition of men.

It is an institution that was unknown to the primitive Christians. The first hundred years of the Christian faith passed in Rome without even a monarchical or one-man episcopate in that city, and no one seemed concerned by this.

Even after one man became the single bishop of Rome, many centuries passed before any sizable number of people could confess him to be anything other than the bishop of one of the largest churches in the world and the leading church in the West.

The Eastern churches struggled long and hard against those bishops of Rome who attempted to exert their power outside of their ancient boundaries. Canons were passed at Nicaea and Chalcedon, which specifically limited Roman prerogatives.

Great church fathers lived and died, wrote extensively in defense of the faith without ever once mentioning a papacy or believing it to be a divine tradition, let alone foundational to the church itself.

The Roman papacy grew over time, and with the aid of political forces, eventually reached the heights of its power under Innocent III more than a millennium after the Lord Jesus had said to Peter, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.

Indeed, it was not until the 19th century that the papacy reached its greatest power in the religious realm with the definition of papal infallibility, a doctrine utterly unknown in the early church. The claims of the Roman Catholic Church with reference to papacy are wide-ranging and broad.

No person concerned about God's truth can afford to remain ignorant of this topic. If the papacy is a divine institution, we all need to know this. If it is not, there are nearly a billion people laboring under a grave misconception, and they, too, need to hear the message.

If the Roman papacy is true, it can stand up to biblical and historical examination. If it is not, its defenders will be forced to engage in eisegesis of the biblical text, the reading into the text of concepts that were not there originally, and they will likewise face insurmountable difficulties when it comes to the record of the early fathers of the faith.

Our debate today, it is my prayer, will demonstrate that while God gave us the church as the body of Christ, he did not place one single mortal man on earth at the head of that body. Thank you. Okay. Once again, I agree with my opponent on thanking him for getting together, and I hope this thing works out well.

I will say this. First of all, I'd like to make very clear an assumption upon which I'm working. It sounds like a very obvious one, but sometimes obvious assumptions are useful to be stated. The papacy is inherently Catholic.

Catholicism is inherently papal. That does become an important point later. I will present six arguments, or shall I say six facets of the same argument, which will establish to any reasonable person, any person seeking the truth whatsoever, that the papacy is, in fact, a divine institution.

I will simply name those arguments now, so it will make it easier, number one, for purposes of clarification, and secondly, for attempted rebuttal. One argument shall be from miracles. Another argument shall be from Scripture.

By that, I mean the Bible. A third argument shall be from right reason. A fourth argument shall be from what I call witnessing. A fifth argument shall be from what I call winning. And a sixth argument, which has a rather fancy term, but I couldn't think of a simpler way to put it, will be an associative ontological argument.

Of these six, or each of these six, by themselves, in conjunction with one another, or separately, will prove my point beyond any doubt whatsoever that the papacy is, in fact, part of the divine plan for the church founded by our Lord, Jesus Christ, which is to be preserved on earth as a partly divine and partly human institution until the second coming.

I would like to make a couple of clarifications at this point before we get into the exposition itself. Number one, the papacy has at least two general aspects. One is the administrative aspect, which deals essentially with the day-to-day operations of the Catholic Church or the Church of Rome.

The second is the pronouncing aspect or function, which is the dogmatic sense. In this, I will make it clear that the administrative functions of the papacy, that is, the administrative decisions, which bishop shall head which diocese, etc., are not, I repeat, not covered by any infallible aspect of papal infallibility, nor in any way are we to consider these anything other than individual decisions of an individual pope.

Therefore, the pope, that's what we're dealing with, he who holds the position of the pope, functions in two quite specific and quite distinct fashions. Number one, as a pen in the hand of God when he makes definitive dogmatic statements.

By that I mean the pen has no more control over the word it writes than the pope has control over what he says.

Sorry to interrupt, Ben, but we're right at three minutes.

Okay, give me 30 seconds. The other one is as the chief executive officer of the Catholic Church. With that, let's go on. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you. Now, Professor White, if you would go ahead and give your exposition.

Thank you very much. We first must refresh our memories concerning the claims made by Rome. This is very important as our debate focuses on whether the papacy, as defined by Roman Catholicism itself, is a divine or human tradition.

I begin with the words of the First Vatican Council's dogmatic constitution, titled Pastri Terrenus, given April 24, 1870, quote,. We therefore, for the preservation, safekeeping, and increase of the Catholic flock with the approval of the sacred council, do judge it to be necessary to propose the belief and acceptance of all the faithful in accordance with the ancient and constant faith of the universal church, the doctrine touching the institution, perpetuity, and nature of the sacred apostolic primacy, end quote.

We know that this supposedly infallible document asserts that the modern Roman doctrine of the papacy, which included for Vatican I not only the concept of patrine primacy and the primacy of Peter's supposed successors as the bishops of Rome, but the concept of papal infallibility as well, is in fact the ancient and constant faith of the universal church.

But remember that Vatican I continued and said, quote,. At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture, as it has been ever understood by the Catholic Church, are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord and His Church, deny that Peter, in his single person, preferably to all the other apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction, end quote.

As the New Catechism puts it in section 882,. For the Roman pontiff, by reason of his office as vicar of Christ and as pastor of the entire church, has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.

Now the Roman Catholic Church claims that Peter is placed in a position of primacy by the Lord Jesus Himself. His primacy is one of honor, jurisdiction, and rulership. This primacy given to Peter is presented according to the dogmatic teachings of the Church of Rome in Matthew 16, verses 18 -19, and John 21, verses 15 -17.

According to Roman teaching, Peter is the rock of Matthew 16, that Christ, in conferring a primacy upon Peter, intends this to be understood to apply to Peter's successors as well, and that hence Christ is, in this passage, instituting the office of the Pope for the Christian Church.

Rome further teaches that when Christ spoke to Peter and said, Feed my sheep, he was, by so doing, setting Peter apart as the pastor of all Christians in a way different from all the other apostles. Peter is said to have been the Bishop of Rome.

Because of this, his supposed primacy is passed on to his successors, the Bishops of Rome. And finally, this viewpoint has supposedly been the ancient and constant faith of the Christian Church. Supposedly, the Church has always believed this to be true.

Anyone who would express a different perspective is holding to perverse opinions and are, in fact, anathema. In light of this, it is incumbent upon the defender of Roman Catholic teaching to demonstrate the following.

First, Jesus is without question speaking to Peter in Matthew 16, and in so doing, identifying him as the rock upon which the Church is built. Secondly, that the words the Lord Jesus speaks establish Peter as the prince of the apostles, the very first pope, the head of the Christian Church.

Thirdly, these words of Jesus necessarily indicate the creation of an office replete with successors and the associated powers. And finally, that the Christian Church has always held this to be her constant and unchanging faith.

We must know that my opponent cannot merely demonstrate that the Roman position is probably true, or that it is likely to be true, but that it is true beyond question. Rome claims absolute authority in spiritual matters over all believers in Jesus Christ.

She claims infallible teaching authority. The papacy is not an issue upon which one can be neutral. Pope Boniface made this quite clear in the papal bull, Unum Sanctum, promulgated November 18, 1302, where he said, Quote,.

Consequently, we declare, state, define, and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff, end quote. Such is a tremendous claim, and tremendous claims require more than probabilities in their defense.

In light of the very limited time frame which we have to work today, I will restrict myself to summarizing the evidence, and will invite the listeners to delve further into the topic for themselves. Two recent debates on this topic, one six-hour version against Roman Catholic apologist Jerry Matatix, which took place during the papal visit to Denver in 1993, and one four and one-half-hour version against Robertson, Jennings, and Scott Butler, recorded at Boston College early last year, are available for those who wish to hear a much more in-depth discussion of the issue.

There are two major areas of evidence that demonstrate the human, rather than the divine, nature of the Roman Catholic papacy. These two areas are the biblical evidence and the historical evidence. In both arenas, the Roman Catholic apologist finds himself up against a veritable mountain of material contradicting his position.

Before addressing the few passages deduced by defenders of the papacy, we must step back and ask the first and most necessary question, does the New Testament as a whole lead us to believe that Peter was considered the head of the church?

Was Peter viewed as the vicar of Christ on earth? Did Christians think of him as the Holy Father? Did the other apostles recognize Peter as their head and leader? Does the New Testament lead us to believe that there was an office of Pope to which all Christians looked for guidance and upon which the church's unity itself was founded?

And do we find in the words, actions, and writings of Peter himself evidence that he interpreted Jesus' words in Matthew 16, verses 18 -19 in the way modern Roman Catholics do? A brief review of the facts answers these questions in the negative.

Consider, for example, the following items. While Peter is certainly prominent in the Gospel account, his name appearing more often than anyone else's, this is hardly evidence of the Roman claims, for quite often it's plain Peter would rather his name did not appear.

For example, immediately after receiving the revelation from the Father concerning the identity of Jesus Christ in Matthew 16, Peter demonstrates his great fallibility by staying in the way of God's very plan of salvation.

For when the Lord Jesus begins to speak to his disciples concerning his coming death, Peter takes him aside and begins to rebuke the Lord. Jesus' response to Peter shows that Peter was not thinking through his statements before making them.

The same thing happens on the Mount of Transfiguration, Luke 9, where Peter opens his mouth and, as Luke puts it, he did not know what he was saying. Impetuous Peter is often the first one to speak, though this hardly makes him a pope.

The Gospels themselves deny that any of the apostles had a position of primacy. Note, for example, Luke 22 -24 -30, where on the very night of the betrayal of the Lord, the disciples are arguing about who would be the greatest.

Jesus does not say to his disciples, Don't you realize I made Peter the head of you all back in Caesarea Philippi? He rebukes the entire spirit of anyone seeking primacy and makes no hint as to Peter's supposed headship.

Indeed, there that evening, the Lord Jesus prayed for Peter's faith for Peter more than any of the other disciples would dishonor his Lord that evening by denying him three times. The rest of the New Testament, likewise, gives us no hints of Peter's supposed supremacy.

Nowhere in the epistles of Paul, John, James, or Jude do we find them referring to Peter as a pope, nor do they give any hint of the institution of the primacy of the papacy. Peter himself fails to give us the slightest hint that he views himself as a pope as the head of the church on earth.

On the contrary, in his first epistle, he speaks as an elder, not as a pope, to the fellow elders of the congregation. He does not speak as the chief pastor, but as a fellow pastor. There is no reference to Rome, the papacy, or any other element of Roman Catholic claims in this epistle.

His second epistle, likewise, is silent regarding the papacy and his own allegiances. If there is no evidence for the papacy from Peter himself, we should hardly be surprised that there is none in Paul.

But, in fact, we find statements and actions that are contrary to the Roman position had it existed in the primitive church. For example, Paul indicates that he is in no way inferior to the very chiefest apostles in 2 Corinthians 12 .11.

Even if Paul has in mind here someone other than the real apostles of Christ, we can see plainly that he does not have any concept of the papacy and the structure of the church, for he writes to the Corinthians that God had placed in the church first prophets, third teachers, etc., 1 Corinthians 12 .28.

It hardly needs to be said that in all of Paul's letters, in which we find discussions of apostles, bishops, deacons, and all sorts of other positions of ministry in the church, never a word is said about the most important office of all, the supposed office of the pope, and the reason is plain, no such office existed.

I briefly mention only in passing the evidence against Roman claims found in Paul's epistle to the Galatians, specifically the insistence that Peter was entrusted, according to Paul, not with the headship of the church, but with the task of preaching the gospel to the Jews.

Likewise, we find Paul's rebuke of Peter's wayward actions before the entire assembly most strange if, in fact, Paul viewed Peter as the infallible head of the church. One does not lightly say the head of the church is not walking in accordance with the truth of the gospel, yet Paul said this about Peter.

This is, however, quite in line with the entire Pauline corpus, in which you will find not a shred of evidence to support Roman claims concerning Peter. Epistle after epistle can pass in review without the slightest evidence of Petrine primacy.

Even the pastoral epistles, with their extensive instruction on ecclesiastical matters, speak not a word about the papacy or Peter, or anything even remotely similar to the Roman claims. And we would be remiss if we did not at least mention the evidence in the book of Acts, wherein we find Peter functioning as one of the apostles, not as a pope.

He is sent to Samaria in Acts 8 -14 by the apostles. He is called to answer for his actions at Cornelius' house in Acts 11, and in his response, there is no hint of papal prerogatives. In Acts 15, James heads up the council, considering the Gentile issue, and Peter, though a participant, is not seen functioning as a pope.

His words in Acts 15 -11 are our final glimpse of Peter in the entire book of Acts. The history goes on without him, and without a papacy as well. When Paul arrives in Rome at the end of Acts, Peter is nowhere to be found.

And so we conclude our overview of the New Testament evidence with the plain fact before us that the concept of a papacy, with Peter as its initial office holder, is nowhere to be found. Not only does the term itself not appear, but the office cannot be found anywhere, and we instead find contradictory data from the pages of inspired Scripture, showing that the early Christians did not look to Peter, or to the Bishop of Rome, as the head of the entire Church.

In light of the testimony of the entirety of the New Testament witness, the Roman apologists must be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the few passages to which he appeals prove the establishment of the papacy.

It cannot be a matter of it being likely that the Roman interpretation is the correct one, given the absence of papacy from all the rest of the New Testament, the few passages by Roman apologists, such as Matthew 16 and John 21, must beyond a shadow of a doubt, plainly and clearly and unequivocally establish patron primacy and succession in the office of the pope.

But do these passages do this? The answer is plainly no. Given the brief time allotted, I will address only John 21 and Matthew 16 as the prime passages used to establish the papacy, and will address Luke 22 only if necessary.

With reference to the incident in John 21, and the thrice repeated questioning of Peter by the Lord, Do you love me? I cannot do better than Cyril of Alexandria, who said with reference to this incident, If anyone asks for what cause, he asks Simon only, though the other disciples were present, and what he means by feed my lambs and the like.

We answer that St. Peter, with the other disciples, had been already chosen to the apostleship, but because meanwhile Peter had fallen, for under great fear he had thrice denied the Lord, he now heals him that was sick, and exacts a threefold confession in place of his triple denial, contrasting the former with the latter, and compensating the fault with the correction.".

Here we have the gracious Lord restoring the apostle who, in his brash impetuosity, had promised to follow him even to death, and yet had denied him three times. The threefold question of Peter, followed by the command to feed or shepherd Christ's sheep, is restorative in nature.

Nothing the passage would even begin to suggest to us that this means that the other apostles were not likewise commissioned to feed and pastor Christ's flock on an equal basis with Simon Peter. There is no indication that only Peter is told to shepherd God's flock, nor that all others who shepherd the flock do so derivatively from Peter's supremacy.

But what is the central passage in this dispute, Matthew 16, verses 18 -19? No one will deny that Matthew 16 is a singularly important passage. Here the Lord Jesus leads his disciples to a confession of faith in himself.

The Father from heaven reveals the true nature of his Son, Jesus Christ. It is a pivotal passage in Matthew's Gospel. Yet we find this passage being used to support a concept seen nowhere else in Scripture.

We are asked to believe that not only is the impetuous and frail Peter made the very foundation of the Church itself, but this foundational position creates an office of Pope, and that in fact this office involves successors, successors who will sit in the seat of Bishop in the far-off city of Rome, 1500 miles distant.

Before we can discuss this passage, it is necessary to address the common claim that we should take Matthew's words and somehow guess how these words would appear in Aramaic, assuming of course they were spoken in Aramaic.

I will simply allow the leading New Testament textual scholar Kurt Auland to summarize my position. Quote,. There is no longer any doubt that Greek was the language in which all the parts of the New Testament were originally written.

End quote. Speculations regarding some lost and unknown Aramaic original, what it would have said, only show the weakness of the argument being used. The subject of the passage of Matthew 16 is the identity of Christ found in the confession of Peter.

When the Lord says, I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it, the focus does not change. Jesus is not here speaking of the identity of Peter.

He is still talking about himself and his church. This is plainly seen by continuing on through verse 20 where we read, quote,. Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ. End quote.

The rock of which the Lord speaks is that common confession made by all who are a part of the church. Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God. This is seen, I believe, in the fact that while the Lord is addressing Peter directly, he changes from direct address to the third person, this rock, when speaking of Peter's confession.

He does not say, upon you, Peter, I will build my church. Instead, you have a clear distinction between Peter, the Petra, and the third person demonstrative pronoun before Petra, the confession of faith upon which the church is built.

This statement is followed by the promise, too, at some time in the future, give the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter, so that what he binds on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever he loosens on earth will be loosened in heaven.

I emphasize this is a promise, for the verb is future-intense. Yet, when we see this authority given in Matthew 18, 18, it is given not to Peter alone, or even primarily, but to all the apostles, and that using the exact same language, word for word, regarding binding and loosening.

If someone wishes to say that Peter receives the keys in distinction from the other apostles, as they're superior, they are also forced to admit that the giving of these keys is never recorded for us anywhere in Scripture, a strange thing indeed for something supposedly so fundamental to the constitution of the church.

Now, Mr. Lewis may disagree with my interpretation. That's fine. The problem is that my interpretation makes perfect sense. It does not require giant leaps of logic to see how I come to my conclusions, and it is obvious that my position has been held by Christians from the earliest days of the Christian faith until now.

Let's say Mr. Lewis can present an equally likely interpretation. In such a case, the Roman position fails. Why? Because, as we have seen, Matthew 16 is the last bastion of the Roman cause. We have found no papacy anywhere else.

If it is not here, plainly without question, it is nowhere at all. Yet the very existence of a viable, logical, rational, reasonable alternative to the Roman interpretation makes the Roman interpretation just one of many, and such is not supportive of the structure built upon the passage by Rome.

Mr. Lewis cannot simply provide us with a possible alternative. He must be able to prove, beyond all question, the impossibility of all other interpretations. Yet he cannot do this, nor can anyone else, for that matter.

Now, it is simply impossible to even begin to catalog the historical data that stands inalterably opposed to Roman claims regarding the papacy in less than four minutes. Let me simply call as witnesses every early Church father during the first century of the Christian faith.

Ignatius of Antioch, for example, when he writes to the Romans, does not even mention their bishop, and no wonder, for as Roman Catholic and Protestant scholars alike admit, there was no one bishop in Rome at the time.

As J. N. D. Kelly notes with reference to Anacletus, an early entry in the list of the bishops of Rome, quote, his actual functions and responsibilities can only be surmised for the monarchial or one-man episcopate had not yet emerged in Rome, end quote.

The Roman Christians did not consider it important to have one single bishop as the alleged successor of Peter all the way into the second century. This should tell us something. This is just the beginning.

The Epistle of Clement, for example, gives us no idea that the author, if it was Clement at all, is even bishop of Rome itself. More likely, Clement was a scribe for the elders of the church, and one does not find in the epistle any papal prerogatives or authority at all.

Other early fathers, who not only know nothing of the Roman claims, but instead provide negative evidence against them, include Cyprian, whose words echo in the Seventh Council of Carthage, quote, for neither did any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror did any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience, since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another, end quote.

Historians recognize that Cyprian was aiming most of the statement at Stephen, the bishop of Rome, the first man, we are told, who saw in Matthew 16 anything relevant to his own position as bishop in Rome, and this more than two centuries after the resurrection of Christ.

We find more evidence against the papacy and Irenaeus' rebuke of the rations of Victor, the bishop of Rome, and his dealings with the Eastern churches in the Quarter Decimant Controversy, Intertullian's harsh words and mocking use of the phrase Pontifex Maximus of the Roman bishop, and the African church's rebuke of Pope Dosimus as well.

All of this does not even begin to touch upon the evidence provided by the ecumenical councils, such as Nicaea and Chalcedon, each of which passed canons utterly opposed to Roman supremacy, specifically Canon 6 of Nicaea and Canon 28 of Chalcedon.

The simple fact is that the early councils had no idea that they had an infallible guide and source of answers from the person of the bishop of Rome. But as my time has almost expired, I only mention in passing the fact that the early church likewise stands against the Roman interpretation of Matthew 16, 18, as well as John 21 and Luke 22.

When Vatican I spoke of these passages in terms of the clear teaching of Scripture and claimed that it was expressing the ancient and constant faith of the universal church, the council was lying. Eighty percent of the time, according to Roman Catholic scholars, that the early church addressed Matthew 16, 18, they expressed viewpoints other than that defined in Roman Catholic dogma today.

Likewise, the unique interpretations of John 21 and Luke 22 are unknown amongst the early fathers. Great men like Augustine, Hilary, Gregory, Natsianzus, and John Chrysostom wrote volumes of books, preached thousands of sermons, and somehow forgot, all the way through, about the very foundation of the church in Matthew 16, and the fact that this passage marks off the bishop of Rome as the vicar of Christ on earth.

Well, no, they did not forget, of course. They simply were not aware of this human tradition. The facts are plain. The Roman papacy is a human tradition built up over time, constructed out of the political movements that made Rome the only apostolic see in the West, and the last bastion of the Roman Empire.

The attempts to find the Bible evidence for the doctrines fail, simply because the biblical authors knew nothing of it. History stands inalterably opposed to the claims of Rome, and any person who claims to stand for truth cannot long embrace a tradition so devoid of it.

Thank you. I would simply like to make, as a formal statement, that my first position, my first task, is to set forth my arguments and not to refute the claims made by my opponent. I will do that in refutation and cross-examination.

So therefore, my passing over them in silence, of course, does not imply in any way whatsoever my acceptance of his positions. The first argument for the supernatural nature, that is, the divine nature of the institution of the papacy, is from miracles.

Interestingly enough, or shall we say providentially enough, today at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the reading of the Gospel was from the earliest part of the Gospel of Saint Mark, in which we have the healing of the paralytic.

In that, Jesus heals a paralytic, but before he heals him, he tells the paralytic that his sins are forgiven, and the Pharisees say, well, gee whiz, who is he to say this? And then our Lord says, so that you will know that the Son of Man has the power to forgive sins, I work this miracle.

So therefore, we have a clear scriptural principle that miracles, at least sometimes, are there in order to prove Dogwood's point. I would mention merely a few miracles. One, which I think has the most relevance in this case, is the miracle at Fatima, which took place in the year 1917, in which 70 ,000 people saw the sun come down from the sky without suffering any eye damage or any heat damage, which, of course, can't happen unless God intervenes in the supernatural of the world.

Excuse me, in the natural events of the world by imposing a supernatural system. And, of course, that's what we're dealing with here, divine, supernatural things imposed in the otherwise normal course of events.

This is not, as I would point out, or to use, borrow a phrase from my opponent, this is not a speculation or legend or folklore. It is, quote-unquote, history. And anyone who wishes can go to the Encyclopedia Britannica, look up the Knowledge in Brief section, the blue-covered books, look up under Fatima and see that this is recorded with the exact same validity, with the exact same authority as the Battle of Waterloo, as the inauguration of President Lincoln, and as the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus.

In other words, it's a historical fact. What are the circumstances involved? The Blessed Mother appeared to three children at Fatima. Most Catholics know this, some of the other people listening to the tapes may not.

However, one of the things that was confirmed, affirmed, repeated, and dogmatized during the apparitions of Fatima was the role of the Holy Father in Rome. Therefore, what do we have? We have the scriptural principle that miracles are used to confirm a dogma.

We have the presentation of Catholic teaching, and remember, Catholicism is inherently and interchangeably, excuse me, intermixed inseparably with the papacy. So therefore, we have the absolute affirmation by God through a miracle, affirmed in modern times, completely undeniable that the Catholic system, including indulgences, papacy, and honoring the Blessed Mother was in fact, is in fact, and always will be in fact, correct.

This is a way to prove it. Other miracles, the Eucharistic miracle at Lanziano, which anyone who was in that part of Italy can check out, in which he can see the actual heart flesh of our Lord. For those who are interested, he had a B positive blood type.

The miracle of Our Lady of Guadalupe, the miracles of Lourdes, the liquefaction of the blood of Saint Gennarius which takes place at the Cathedral of Naples, which I have seen with my own eyes. What is the point?

The point is that even if one wanted to argue any kind of lack of historical evidence, certainly papal infallibility was defined, pronounced, decreed, etc. after Vatican I. And after Vatican I, the most well-known, well-documented, well-witnessed miracle affirming Catholic truth took place, that of Fatima.

Therefore, we have a clear, absolute, complete, dogmatic, absolutely confirms the nature of the papacy, the nature of Catholicism. Second argument, Scripture. Let me comment on Matthew 16. Let me ignore, simply because it gets rather scholarly, and I think rather petty, the whole issue of rock and Petrus and that type of stuff.

Let me go to the key passage. The key passage is, Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Everyone admits this was given to Saint Peter.

Truly, it was also given to the apostles later. Absolutely. But it was given to Saint Peter individually. Now, one can say in no way separate from the other apostles, but it was promised to Saint Peter individually, and therefore it was given because the Lord always keeps His promises.

If one understands Catholic positions, always be in union with the bishops when they pronounce unanimously. Always in union. Always agreed. Always identical. So therefore, there's no conflict here. So what we have is a situation, to use a very simple analogy for the family, that the father and mother agree on discipline.

And although the father is still ahead of the family, the mother will say the exact same words as the father, with a slightly different and diminished authority. The authority of the bishops is not the same as the authority of the pope, that is especially the first pope, Saint Peter.

His statement, his power, was to change, bind and loose things forever. Now, let us go a little further in Scripture. What we have later is a rather interesting story of the paying of the temple tax. It occurs in Matthew 17.

In this case, Saint Peter is asked about whether our Lord pays temple tax, and Saint Peter answers yes. Then our Lord, in a sense, gently rebukes him, pointing out that, quote, it's so it seems, his theology was wrong, and then says but lest they be scandalized, don't catch a fish, and the fish will have a coin in it and pay the temple tax for both of us.

This clearly says the following, when you even appear to make a mistake, I will change the rules as God, lest no one be scandalized to think that you do not have the power to bind and loosen, to decide infallibly, forever, eternally.

I'll even change it, even if you appear to be wrong in the eyes of men. A very interesting passage which can be interpreted in no other way. It was very ironic, or shall I say providential, that my opponent brought up Luke 9, Transfiguration, because I also was going to bring that up.

It's exactly correct. What St. Peter said, and St. Luke makes it very clear, he didn't know what he was saying, was it was good for us to be here, that is, in the presence of the Transfigured Lord, which is, of course, an infallibly correct statement.

And here's the point, he didn't know what he was saying, which means that papal infallibility functions separately from the will of the person, exactly what I said before, the pen in the hand. Now, let us now go on to the Acts of the Apostles.

Here we have the vision of St. Peter where the uncleaned animals are lowered from the sky and he's commanded to take and eat, and St. Peter refuses until he's told that these things are now clean. What do we have?