Boston College Papacy Debate Reposted

Misrepresentation, Straw Men, and the Need for Full Citations

Being taped I hope you all have the opportunity of going back and listening because I am amazed at the inaccurate citations, citations that aren't there and the misrepresentations that I've heard so far this evening.

Mr. St. Genes just said that I said it was a sheer myth. There is evidence of the Roman Catholic position. If you'll go back and listen what I said I said it is a sheer myth. There's such thing as a unanimous consent of the fathers and then he used that over and over again to beat me over the head.

Straw men work that way. If you took that out of his presentation he didn't have a whole lot left. He quoted from Irenaeus just now but he didn't bother to tell you. At the bottom of the very same page is an alternate quotation that destroys his point.

He quoted from Tertullian but he didn't tell you that Tertullian mocked the Bishop of Rome and called him Pontifex Maximus which was an insult to Christians at that time. He only gave you a part of what Tertullian said about things like that.

It's interesting to me. He then quoted from Athanasius and Athanasius' statement about you need to read all of what someone says. It's interesting we haven't heard anything from Athanasius this evening about the papacy because obviously he didn't believe in these things.

I told you that you we need to be very very very very careful about the Peter syndrome and you were just given 15 minutes example of what the Peter syndrome is. The Peter syndrome is finding any statement about Peter by any father and just assuming that that's relevant to the topic.

Maldonatus, Matthew 16, and the Importance of Context

You just heard statement after statement after statement. In fact it was it was. He again misrepresented me. He said that I said quoting from Maldonatus and this this amazes me because mr. St. Janice has the tapes that I've I've given this quotation.

Mr. Butler has the tapes where I gave this very information and debate against gerrymander six years ago. So they've got the quotation. They've got the book. If they'd read the book Maldonatus is talking about their interpretation of Matthew 16 not what they said elsewhere about Peter.

And so again I might suggest that if they stayed in the room and listen to our presentation they might know what we're talking about and be able to respond to our actual statements. Now mr. St. Janice then said well you know the Trinity and the deity of Christ wasn't understood for a long time either folks.

I want you to think about what you're being told there. The Trinity and the deity of Christ has no stronger basis in Scripture and no greater clarity than what the tortured exegesis of Matthew 16. Isaiah 22 we've heard this evening.

The central aspect of who God is is no more clear than trying to say that John 21 or Luke 22 teaches the papacy. My friends this is dangerous dangerous things. We are told that Pope Clement wrote the letter to the Corinthians.

Where does Pope Clement ever say that scholars recognize that Clement never identifies himself. Secondly it's written in the plural. And many people feel that Clement was actually the secretary for the elders in the church.

So much for Pope Clement. It's interesting we were told that that this edition of the the Erdman set which now published by Hendrickson it takes things out. Please look into that. You see there are a lot of later Latin editions that scholars have discovered.

Remember it's Rome that for a long time based its papal claims on forged decretals for years and years and years. Think about who has more of a reason to insert things. The later Latin or the original Greek.

The Missing Page 15 and the Real Argument on Roman Jurisdiction

In fact Mr. Butler stood up here and said I forgot to tell you something on page 15 of this book. Well there's page 15 this book and folks I challenge you to go look at it. What he said is there ain't there's something about the primacy of Rome here.

It's on page 15. You can look at yourself. You'd like I have the same book. You do. It's not there. Look at pages 15. In fact what Mr. Butler forgot to tell you is on page 16. There is an excursus on the extent of the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome over the over the suburban churches.

It quotes from Hefala who says. Quote. It is evident that the council has not in view here the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over the whole church but simply his power as a patriarch. Read it yourself.

Folks I have no no reason to mislead you on it. Read it yourself. Check out all the citations yourselves because you're going to need to for example the quotation from the Council of Startica which is on page 417 of the same edition.

The end of Mr. Butler's quotation was not in that citation at all. In fact Startica is a very interesting council. You might want to look into it. And Rome's misuse of it later on. And the North Africans bishops rejection of Rome's misuse of it.

We were told that the bishop has the line item veto regarding King 3 of Constantinople. Isn't it interesting that count in 3 of Constantinople ends up in Canon 28 of Chalcedon. If he had a line item video why do you keep bringing it back up.

Didn't everybody believe that Peter was a vicar of Christ on earth. So how's it up. End up at Canon 28 of Chalcedon. And then we were told. And it's interesting mr. Butler's been citing from Mayendorf many times.

But you notice he didn't cite from Mayendorf about Canon 28. You know why. Because I cited from Mayendorf in my opening presentation. And he confirms the Canon 28 was in the Byzantine collections and in numerous other places.

He does mention that there are people in the West who did not accept Canon 28. Well of course of course the Roman bishop didn't like it. Well that's terrible. I mean doesn't that mean he has some primacy.

No he's the bishop of the one C in the West. And he doesn't like Constantinople. Getting a second position. This is political folks. Nothing more than that at all. Mr. Butler gave you just a very small portion of JB Lightfoot citation about the letter of Clement and he misled you badly.

He does say this is the beginning of the rise of papal primacy. But this is the whole section that mr. Butler left out because he went on to say there is all the difference in the world between the attitude of Rome towards other churches at the close of the first century when the Romans as a community remonstrate on terms of equality with the Corinthians.

That's a little bit different than what we've been told on their irregularities strong only in the righteousness of their cause and feeling as they had a right to feel that these councils of peace were the dictation of the Holy Spirit and its attitude.

The close of the second century when Victor the bishop excommunicates the churches of Asia Minor for clinging to a usage in regard to the celebration of Easter which had been handed down to them from the Apostles and thus foments instead of healing dissensions.

Even this second stage has carried the power of Rome only a very small step in advance towards the assumption of a Hildebrand or an innocent or a Boniface or even of a Leo. But it is nevertheless a decided step the substitution of the bishop of Rome.

And notice mr. mr. Butler kept telling us we've got to do away with this myth of the distinction between the Church of Rome and the Bishop Rome. Listen to what Lightfoot says. The substitution of the bishop of Rome for the Church of Rome is an all-important point.

The later Roman theory supposes that the Church of Rome derives all its authority from the bishop of Rome as the successor of st. Peter. History inverts this relation and shows that as a matter of fact the power of the bishop of Rome was built upon the power of the Church of Rome.

I can understand why the full citation would not be read in your hearing. And I'm not saying you have to cite every single thing someone says. But if you're going to cite a scholar who says X Y or Z if he then goes on the next paragraph to totally destroy your point don't cite him.

I think that's just simply honest to people who may not have the opportunity of going out and getting books like this and checking out the accuracy of the statements that are being made. We are told for example that Irenaeus by mr. Butler gives a list of all those Popes after Peter.

If you actually look at Irenaeus his list the first bishop he doesn't talk about Popes. Of course the first bishop of Rome he does not say was Peter. He says that Peter and Paul ordained the first bishop of Rome again just a little matter of historical accuracy.

And then interestingly enough he cited from for millions. And if you were listening closely maybe he just didn't hear me when I cited it. I don't know but I cited the exact same passage. Now how can we cite the exact same passage for two completely opposite positions because of what's called as I said the Peter syndrome.

You see when mr. Butler sees what four million said four million talked about the church being founded on Peter and so he reads it. But if you read the section as I quoted it to you four million is citing it mocking Stephen the Bishop of Rome.

Now please folks this is what I'm talking about. We must take these fathers in their context. We can't just simply take a little snippet out of here a snippet out of there. Let's look at what they said in totality.

Vatican I, the Fathers, and the Claim of Universal Papal Jurisdiction

This is an important issue. I just want you to think about one thing in regards to the historical section of this debate. We've heard all sorts of things about Peter and exalted language. Haven't we. But have you heard anything that even begins to demonstrate that the early church believed what Vatican one stated that Peter was made the Vicar of Christ honored with absolute jurisdictional authority over all the world.

Were you given any information like that. If you do not receive remember Vatican one said it was the unanimous consent of the fathers. We've had to hear mr. St. Janice go so far as to say well but you see you got to realize they believe that Peter's faith and Peter the same thing.

So we can change all the numbers here and so you've got more now. That's now. You've got three-quarters of the fathers who believe this. Well let's let's get away with that even if I think it's ridiculous.

Let's let's say as true. You're still not up to Vatican one. Are you. Vatican one said you know it's not the case. And yet Rome uses the anathema upon us for standing on the truth of history. Think about that.