Boston College Papacy Debate Reposted

This is being taped. I hope you all have the opportunity of going back and listening because I am amazed at the inaccurate citations, the 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 to what I said, I said it is a sheer myth that there's such a thing as unanimous consent of the fathers.

And then he used that over and over again to beat me over the head. Straw men worked 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 a statement about you need to read all of what someone says.

It's interesting to me 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 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.

You just heard statement after statement after statement. In fact, he again misrepresented me. He said that I said, quoting from Maldonatus, and this amazes me because Mr.

Syngenis has the tapes where I've given this quotation. Mr. Butler has the tapes where I gave this very information in the debate against Gerry Mattis 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 listened to our presentation, they might know what we're talking about and be able to respond to our actual statements.

Now, Mr. Syngenis 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 and 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 this edition of the Eerdmans set, which is 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 Latins or the original

Greek. In fact, Mr. Butler stood up here and said, I forgot to tell you something that's on page 15 of this book.

Well, there's page 15 of 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 not on page 15. You can look at it yourself if 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 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 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 Sardica, 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, Sardica is a very interesting council. You might want to look into it and Rome's misuse of it later on and the

North African Bishop's rejection of Rome's misuse of it. We were told that the

Bishop has the line item veto regarding Canon 3 of Constantinople. Isn't it interesting that Canon 3 of Constantinople ends up in Canon 28 of Chalcedon?

If he had a line item veto, why do you keep bringing it back up? Didn't everybody believe that Peter was a vicar of Christ on earth?

So how does it end up at Canon 28 of Chalcedon? And then we were told, and it's interesting,

Mr. Butler has been citing from Meyendorf many times, but you notice he didn't cite from Meyendorf about Canon 28. You know why?

Because I cited from Meyendorf in my opening presentation and he confirms that 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 sea 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 J .B.

Lightfoot's 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.

There are regularities 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 at 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. Butler kept telling us we've got to do away with this myth of the distinction between the

Church of Rome and the Bishop of 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 in 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' list, the first Bishop, he doesn't talk about Popes of course, the first Bishop of Rome, he does not say it 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 Vermilion. 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 could 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

Vermilion said, Vermilion 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, Vermilion 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 and a snippet out of there.

Let's look at what they said in totality. 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 in exalted language, haven't we?

But have you heard anything that even begins to demonstrate that the early

Church believed what Vatican I stated? That Peter was made the

Vicar of Christ on Earth, with absolute jurisdictional authority over all the world. Were you given any information like that?

If you do not receive, remember Vatican I said it was the unanimous consent of the

Fathers. We've had to hear Mr. Syngenis go so far as to say, well, but you see, you've got to realize they believe that Peter's faith and Peter are the same thing.

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

Let's say it's true. You're still not up to Vatican I, are you? Vatican I said, you know, it's not the case.

And yet Rome uses the anathema upon us for standing on the truth of history.