Well, greetings and welcome to The Dividing Line. Not sure why we've got an accordance up there that fast. I'll just put that... Oh, that doesn't help either, does it? No. Actually, nothing... Whoa! Alright, we're having fun today because there is no one on the other side of that window. Now, what we've done in the past is we've used Zoom. I've been here in the studio and Rich has been at home. And see, there's my desktop, which I guess is gonna be a permanent part of the picture there. And we've just used Zoom to do it. And so I was using, we had these two cameras, we had for years, they're great cameras. but they're really large in comparison to how cameras are today. I'm not sure how to describe them. I think you could probably put it on your shoulder. It's maybe not that big. Anyway, we've been using these things for ages and they do a really good job for us. And then what I've done is I've stuck a 4K webcam just on the top of the lens. It's a flat surface on top of the lens. And that's what I use for doing all my Zoom programs that you've seen me doing various webcasts and stuff like that. So that's what we've been doing. Well, there we go. Somehow, Rich, though he is not here, he is in other locations that shall not be named. somehow is doing all of this remotely and using all the stuff he normally uses, which I think is really sort of strange and cool, but a little weird. And so that's how we're doing the program today. Because I just said, hey, let's get one in. I was supposed to be 100 miles outside of Phoenix by now on a almost three week journey, and I will confess that I am very unhappy that I am sitting here instead. I mean, not that I don't mind being with you, but you're supposed to be heading to Amarillo and then across Texas and Oklahoma up into Missouri for my 21st year on the first weekend in December in St. Charles. We're going to make it up. I'll tell you about that in a moment. dealing with medical stuff that, you know, as you start heading into your 60s, and I'm almost there, I'll be 59 next month, stuff happens and you got to get stuff checked out. And it's, it just seemed much wiser to do that at home than on the road, 1500 miles away. So I feel fine right now. I did a race this morning in Zwift. And I challenge most of you folks that are my age or younger to do 30 minutes at 151 beats per minute average at 240 watts output. I did well and everything worked fine. But there's stuff that we need to look at just to make sure of stuff and things like that and it harkens back to something that happened five years ago that sometimes just really annoying and painful and sometimes it can be dangerous. So you just gotta deal with what you gotta deal with. So anyways, here we are. I'm sorry to folks in Amarillo and in Lubbock. And of course, St. Charles, we are going to do everything we can. As long as I'm able to get this stuff resolved and have confidence, we'll do everything we can to move most of this stuff to January. Yeah, going back East, January. Weather, we'll see. But move most of this stuff to January. I have a block committed to teaching, and I won't mention where yet. Once that's announced, then you'll all figure out how everything's been working behind the scenes. But first weekend in February. And so the trip in January into February could be a month. over a month. If you put a three-week trip together with three-week trip, yeah, probably end up being five and a half, six weeks. That's a long one. No two ways about it, but it's only a way to catch up. And I'll just be honest with you. I feel a real strong compulsion to do these trips right now. I don't know how much longer we'll be able to do this kind of thing, and I want to be able to do it. I'm really hoping that some folks that are working on some debates, that the Lord will open some doors. And I miss in-person debating, and it needs to be worthwhile. It needs to be something that is you know, we deal with some pretty interesting issues. And so it's one thing, hey, doing online debate, okay, that's fine, that's cool, it's useful. I don't think it's as enjoyable for anyone as the real thing in person. where you can see the two people and they're looking at each other and they're in the same room and they're hearing the same audience responses. There's a dynamic to that you just don't have online. And I see some online debates that just might not as well have happened as far as actually accomplishing anything. I think, to be honest with you, there is a level of restraint in person that is not necessarily present in an online debate. I've seen some really bad behavior. We've all seen really bad behavior online because you're not there. You're not looking in someone's eyes. And so, yeah, we've done a few of those debates in the past. I'd like to Keep pushing that number up a little bit while I've still got my wits about me and can still think at least quickly enough to function within the context of a debate that is always something that I hope I will realize when I get to that point where I can't do that anymore. Some of you think I already have some of you thought think I. was there when I started debating in 1990. So there you go. So anyway, so here we are. And so that means for the next six weeks or so, this is probably where we'll be. And there might be some brief interruptions. There may not be. Let's hope and pray. My enemies are hoping there will be long, long breaks. And my friends are praying that we will be able to get issues taken care of and find out that everything's okay fairly quickly. So there you go. Also, the reason that we're doing this today and doing it in the way that we're doing it is our last Dividing Line broadcast was taken down by YouTube. Now it is available on Sermon Audio. I would encourage you to go listen to it. It is available. We have a I'm not sure if it's called library or odyssey. It's odyssey as far as the website URL. And so if you go to the blog entry at aomin.org and look at the last entry for the last dividing line, you will see something other than a YouTube video splash screen thing. And we all know why. We all know what it was I was discussing. I can pretty much guarantee you that no one at Google deleted that particular episode because of the in-depth discussion of the truth value of subjunctive statements and their relationship to middle knowledge. I suppose there might be some real rabid William Lane Craig fans working at Google that decide, nope, that's it, we're taking that one out. I suppose it's possible, but I really don't think so. I think it was that first half hour when we were talking about stuff that's actually happening in the world, stuff that you're not allowed to talk about anymore because big tech is working together with big government. and other forces to limit what can be said. They don't believe in free speech. They don't believe in debate. None of these censors would ever come out from behind their computers to actually defend what they're doing. We all know that. I mean, that's the one very satisfying thing to know is that not one of those people could ever stand in my presence and defend their action on the facts. That's a good thing, at least to have that as a consolation. Part of you wants to just stick your finger in their eye and go at it again and just be as bold and clear as possible in talking about those subjects. And there is a part of me that really, really, really wants to do that. And then there's another part of me that reminds me of how many times over, oh, the past 10 years or so, I have been all over the world when I could still travel and people have come up to me and have told a very similar story. And the story basically was, I had heard this about you, or I had heard this negative thing, and my church said I shouldn't listen to you, and you're an anti-this or an anti-that, and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And then I was surfing YouTube, and over on the right-hand side, this video came up. And we all know how that works. We've all lost hours of life because, oh, that looks really interesting. How did they know I would find that to be very interesting? And they went over there and they clicked it and their lives were changed. They're now in a completely different church. They're rejoicing in the Lord. They've been saved. They've been delivered from a cult, a false religion, whatever. And it's because there was because we were there. And so part of me goes, all right, you can't talk about. Well, the news today. Now, I have taught Greek for years and years and years, and so we could pretend that I was teaching a lesson today on the Greek alphabet. and discussing the letters that mu, nu, mm, you know, we could talk about the order of the Greek alphabet and things like that. And, you know, I could tell you stories from back being department fellow anatomy and physiology at Grand Canyon University. We might be able to cobble something together, but I'm not really sure that's worth it. And it's been made very clear to us, you're not allowed to do that anymore. You can't do that. You're a bad, bad, bad, bad person. You know, the sad thing is these people actually, some of them actually probably think they are doing good by silencing debate and any other viewpoints other than the one they're told to believe. It's sort of a sad thing. But anyways, the point being. I would like to have our stuff continue on YouTube in that way so that that random video pops up and someone clicks on it. And what ends up happening, they follow that, they end up coming to a website, they end up listening to videos on other subjects, and they end up being blessed in the process. And so I will restrain myself from using my thumb to poke certain people right in the eye, And obviously we are working on finding a way to live stream to other sources. And so I think eventually there will be two editions of The Dividing Line, not necessarily at the same time, but I just will need to be disciplined in what subjects I address in, you know, I suppose it could be we do half an hour on YouTube on what are, well, anything. I mean, it's a diminishing situation. Once you start doing censorship, censorship never becomes narrower. It always becomes broader. because what censorship is about is the recognition on the part of the ruling elite that they have no argument, that they cannot defeat the arguments against them. And so they simply must silence those who are making those arguments because they have the truth and the elite do not. And eventually that goes from the tip of the spear, where it is right now, into a broader and broader situation. And obviously, in a secular context, anyone who is going to be presenting the full Lordship of Christ over all of human life is going to be taken down eventually. We know we've already said all sorts of things in the past that we've never really understood how We didn't get taken down for that. And who knows? Maybe we will be. And I mean, in talking about biblical subjects, it seems to me that if the secular censors were consistent, you could not speak from the Bible. You could not preach from Leviticus 18 or Leviticus 20. or really anywhere in the Holiness Code for that matter. You couldn't do Genesis 18 and 19, you couldn't do anything about the temple prostitutes in Canaan, you couldn't do anything about the Asherah, you couldn't do anything. Certainly you could never exegete Romans 1 or demonstrate that in 1 Timothy 1 Paul's drawing from the Decalogue and the Ten Commandments as the foundation of moral law You certainly couldn't do anything in 1 Corinthians 6, and eventually, they don't care if it's in 1 Corinthians 6. If it's in the Bible, then it needs to be silenced. And so, you see the process as it develops over time. And so, eventually, if there's going to be any consistency, everything from every one, except for good progressives, because they know they're not threatened by good progressives because good progressives have already bowed the knee to Caesar. They've already offered the pinch of incense. And so there's nothing to fear from their preaching because there's no gospel power in it. It's not based on the lordship of Christ or the exclusivity of his work. It's just one way of feeling better about yourself and whatever it is you've decided you're going to be. And as such is extremely empty. So, uh, that's coming one way or the other, but it just seems to me anyways, uh, wise, uh, to try to keep it. I sort of feel like we're a light in a very dark place and I want to keep that light shining, um, for as long as we can. And, um, when they snuffing out in that place, well, That's the way it is. And they will... One thing I know that I will make sure to inform people of in that day when they're taking your property from you. In Hebrews, that had already happened to some of the believers there. But I think it is perfectly appropriate, proper, necessary for us to warn those who are taking our liberties, our property, those who are persecuting Christ's people, causing them to lose their jobs and their futures and not their future futures, but they're here in this world. their savings and everything else, you take what God has given to his people and try to use it for yourself, it'll be cursed. It'll be cursed. That wasn't given to you. So if you engage in theft, it's cursed. It's the last thing you want, you want to be so far away from it that you, you know, and, and I'm going to tell every single one, every single person. Oh, you're, you're taking my vehicle, huh? Okay. I wouldn't want to be driving with you in the future. Huh? Just warning you. And you're going, oh, come on. It would be better if what was tied around their neck in their drown the sea? It was one of those little noodle things that you use during the sun. No, it wasn't a little noodle thing. A little blob of rubber duck. Oh, millstone. Yeah, that's that big, huge, hunking thing. That means you just... You just go straight down and you stay down. You become food for the fishies. And that's it. And that was, who said that? I must've been that nasty Paul guy. No, I wasn't a nasty Paul guy. Luke, no. Oh, that was Jesus. Oh, okay. Yeah, that was, yeah, that was Jesus. Yeah, there needs to be a clear testimony. to those who will work evil, that there's a day of judgment coming. There is a day of judgment coming, and it will be a righteous judgment, and that means if you stand before God clothed in your good, woke gospel works, you're going to experience the wrath of God in its fullest. That's all there is to that. So anyways, that's why we're here and that's why I'm not on the road. But I will accept God's providence and we will work toward making up for it in January and getting out there and getting back to those churches we were going to be at and doing what we can while we have time to do it. And who knows what gas will cost then. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, there you go. All right, so what did I have here? I had a couple things I wanted to make sure that we got to. Yes, my daughter just sent me... Some people got upset about this, and I can't talk about this on the program anymore, but I did post something on Facebook. that got me in trouble, and it was so well done. But it speaks to a truth that, again, I can't talk about right now. I mean, you can go online right now and find out about. Just look up the general health of footballers. Remember, footballers in Europe are soccer players in the United States, okay? What seems to be the problem amongst footballers in Europe? And remember, If you're going to be traveling and playing in Europe, there are certain things you have to do. Just you just have to do it. There's there's no options left. And so all these footballers. Have had to do what they've been told to do and just look up what's going on. Let's just say they're dropping like flies. And there's a reason for that, but we can't talk about that because, you know, there are certain people that just, you know, have a problem with those, those particular things. Anyway, okay. Hopefully you are all aware. So weird, see the cameras doing their thing and know that there's no one. The rich cam is Sitting there, dead, staring into a dark room. There's nobody there. The Frenchman from Prescott is not... I was going to say a bunch of things about the French in Prescott today, but I figure I'm even more dependent upon Rich right now. So I better not do that because then this will all end. I hope you're all aware of the fact that there are a few people in Finland. Now Finland, when you think about Finland, I mean, what is even saying Finland? The only thing I think of when I think of Finland is like lutefisk and strange fish dishes and snow, you know? The only time you hear about Finland is during the Winter Olympics. Pretty much. And they're doing the weird... I think they do curling. And they do the stuff where they, you know, ski and then stop and shoot. That's really hard to do, by the way. That... Gotta give those gals and guys credit. That's all you ever hear about Finland. Finland... is putting the Christian faith on trial, fundamentally. And it is basically the Finnish authorities are as woke as can be, and they are prosecuting two Christians who wrote a twenty four-page booklet in 2004 that explains basic Christian theology about sex and marriage, which reserves sex exclusively for within marriage, which can only consist of one man and one woman for life. The Finnish prosecutor claims centuries-old Christian teachings about sex, quote, incite hatred, end quote, and violate legal preferences for government-privileged identity groups. So you've got some Finnish prosecutor who obviously hates God, and loves sin, and loves rebellion, and is going after Raasinen and Poijola. The only thing that bothers me about this one is, at least according to this story, Rosalind and Puyola both have adamantly affirmed, quote, the divinely given dignity, value, and human rights of all, including all who identify with the LGBTQ community. If what you mean by that is that even those in the LGBTQ community are created in the image of God, well, duh. Obviously, the issue is, if you're creating the image of God, then God gets to determine what is and what is not appropriate behavior and orientation for human beings. If you're made in the image of God, that makes Him the potter, you're the pot. Again, as I have said over and over and over there is no such thing as an LGBTQ community and everybody knows it today because put some Some L's in a room with some T's and you have to call the cops to stop the fight Have you ever heard of a TERF? Transphobic Feminist radical feminist something I don't know It's it's the the lesbians who will not affirm the transgender orientation and stuff. None of the letters work with the other letters. That's why calling it a community is like, how does that work? Since they're all contradicted to each other. But anyway, but Finland, And of course, this will have huge implications for not only Finnish Christians, but all the Nordic states up there. They're all going the same direction. And this is just more of Europe doing what Europe has to do to try to basically get away from its own history. It's the depth of Christian influence that determined their law. Now they've decided that they detest that law, they're going to get rid of it and they're going to abandon it and that's exactly what they're doing. Okay, I want to take some time today. I may get back, looking at the time I'm not sure, but it may get back to a little bit more with middle knowledge, and eventually I want to get some other folks, though I'll be honest with you, William Lane Craig is much more, I'm discovering, is much more willing to make extended logical application of middle knowledge than some others who promote middle knowledge but seem rather hesitant to make application, especially when it comes to soteriological issues and really grand sweeping, why did God do things the way God did things? And it just seems that a lot of Molinists don't want to get down to the central affirmations of what their system is really all about. But we'll look at some of that stuff, but we'll see if we get some of that a little later on. I don't know if any of the rest of you, I do follow the Pope on Twitter. Think about that. If someone had told me that first debate I did on the papacy, I would have gone, I'm going to do what? I'm going to follow the Pope on Twitter. Oh, okay. And when you do follow the Pope on Twitter, you end up with sort of vanilla, leftist, progressivist, shallow, I mean, I don't even know how to describe it. Most of you know I did my first master's degree at a seminary that even then was way to my left, and it's so far farther to the left now than it was then, it's not even funny. And so I got my fill of progressive leftism. And I know why the Lord had me do that. And I'm thankful for the preparation that it was and how useful it's been and my doing apologetics. And I had no idea that's where I was going at the time as far as what the application was going to be. And so I'm thankful for all that, but I've never really fully come to understand why progressive leftists even bother It would seem to me that just honest atheism would make more sense than, you know, that woman we've reviewed twice with the rainbow stole that she wears, some leftist Lutheran loon that we've demonstrated has no earthy idea what in the world she's talking about. I don't know what motivates folks like that. I really, really don't. just dump it and go on would seem to be, and a lot of them do. I mean, we've seen over the years the left swing and eventually you get so far out. It's just sort of like, why am I even, why am I even bothering any longer with, with this religious stuff? Let's just, let's just dump it. But when it comes to Pope Francis, you know, I, grew up primarily with John Paul II, and at least there was a consistency in that pontificate. And Ratzinger, the German shepherd, at least you have to recognize his scholarship, even though you could see the influence of German liberalism, Now, German liberalism and South American liberation theology progressivism are not the same thing. Neither one of them is overly good for Roman Catholic orthodoxy. And if you go back and you read, for example, look up the Papal Syllabus of Errors. Look up the Papal Syllabus of Errors. Is that 1850s or 80s? I don't have it up here right now, but anyway, look it up and read it. and read it in its context, like where it identifies religious freedom as an error and stuff like that. Understand what it was talking about at that time. And when you do, you just realize just how completely different even John Paul II was than those popes who were only 100 years earlier. And 100 years in church history is not a long period of time. So now, with Ratzinger still alive, and maybe that does in some way add to the contrast. But you just look at Francis, and if you know what liberation theology is in South America, then you know what his terminology means. And you know what he means by the phrases he uses and the emphases that he's putting in his statements and all the rest of that kind of stuff. And you're just left going, man, has, how can, how can Rome hold this together? Because this guy is about Theologically and worldview-wise is about as far out of the mainstream of the history of the Roman Pontiffs as you can get. So sure, you had the period called the Pornocracy. You had period where you had just wildly, worldly, hypocritical, shallow, nominal guys who were the Bishop of Rome. You know, the Vatican was a brothel during periods of Rome's history. But that was a moral thing. Leo, his predecessors riding through the city of Rome in armor and leading armies and they're rich and got huge families. They're supposedly not married. And a lot of that's very worldly power oriented stuff. But Francis, when it comes to worldview, is way out there. And given that talking with most people today, they've literally forgotten what it was like in 2019. I mean, in so many areas, I literally have conversations with people, and I know that they would have answered my questions differently in 2019 than they do today. And they don't seem to realize it. That's fast. That is, whew, that's blindingly quick. And so it seems quite possible then, in light of that, that there would already be people who have entered into adulthood, and that's delayed greatly these days, who don't recognize just how out of the historical mainstream Francis is. And so I start thinking, well, this is what the papacy is all about. And no preceding Pope would ever have even recognized so much of the stuff that this guy is saying or doing. And so I want to remind everybody that there is a historical, dogmatic, definable understanding of what the papacy is supposed to be within Roman Catholicism. That's true of most of its major dogmas. Well, certainly it's dogmas and most of its major doctrines. And yet, we know that there are so many Roman Catholics today who not only do not know what the history of their church is, but they don't hold to even the minimal expression of dogma and doctrine that Rome has said is required to be a faithful Roman Catholic. And there are a lot of Roman Catholics that recognize this. So when it comes to the papacy, let me remind you of, let me just give you some quotes, okay, from official sources. So for example, the first Vatican council of 1870 said, we therefore, for the preservation, safekeeping, increase 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." Now, I just stopped there to emphasize the fact that, and this was really clear, when John Paul II died, Fox News had pretty much every Christian apologist I had ever debated got their 15 seconds of fame on Fox News for a few days during the election of the next Pope. And the emphasis was always upon the antiquity of the Roman church, the church that has stood for 2,000 years. And so, notice the words, in accordance with the ancient and constant faith of the universal church. Now, in our debates, I think we have demonstrated that that is fundamentally a lie. Especially in regards to the papacy, the idea that the papacy is the ancient and constant faith in the Universal Church is simply not true. It's self-evidently not true. The only reason anyone believes that is because they're told to believe it and therefore told to look back into those earliest periods with certain eyes that will see. They're told what they will see. and they're told not to see what they should see, which would tell them there was no primacy of the Bishop of Rome, but you're not supposed to see the things would demonstrate that. And so there is a historical blindness that sets in. But that issue aside, the point is the Roman claim has always been there is an ancient and constant faith universal church, and so I sit back, to be honest with you, and I hear modern Roman Catholics trying to legitimize Francis' progressivism and his clear de-emphasis of dogma. And I go, y'all realize that you're fundamentally abandoning the central tenet of the claim you've used all along, and that is you're the only game in town because the ancient and constant faith, the universal church. And if I could sit here, and in my short lifetime, Go, I remember that Pope, and I remember that Pope. If they had walked into a bar together, they would have gotten into a fight. I know the difference. I can tell the difference between the two of them, and so can you. That's the point. So can you. There's been a lot of discussion about people getting red-pilled ever since Francis became Pope. are people who are no longer associated with certain Catholic apologetics ministries who have been red-pilled about Pope Francis. They've come to recognize, hey, this doesn't work. No, it doesn't. It doesn't fit with this. There is no ancient and constant faith universal church if the Bishop of Rome can have this wide, that office can express this wide a variety of opinions and perspectives. But the First Vatican Council continued, we therefore teach to declare that according to the testimony of the gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction of the universal church of God was immediately and directly promised and given to blessed Peter the apostle by Christ the Lord. Okay, might as well just explain this. It's been a long time since we've discussed any of this. Probably, I don't know, 80% of our audience was not with us back in the 90s. Oh, 95% of our audience was not with us back in the 90s when every single year we were doing debates on these subjects. And please note then that the claim is that the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal church of God was immediately and directly promised and given to blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord. So there is no room for development. You cannot have a position that says that the papacy developed over time because the assertion is that the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal church of God was immediately and directly promised and given to blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord. So this is a New Testament office given to Peter and he knew he had it. For it was to Simon alone. To whom he had already said, Thou shalt be called Cephas, the Lord, after the confession made by him, saying, Thou art the Christ, Son of the living God, address these solemn words. Blessed art thou, Simon by Jonah, because flesh and blood has not revealed to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I'll build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and whatever thou shalt buy on earth shall be loosed also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. So notice, the interpretation being placed upon the text, which is being done by a allegedly ecumenical universal council, so it must be an infallible interpretation, right? Well, that means there were a bunch of people in the early church that didn't interpret it that way. Just look at the differences in the versions of Cyprian's on the unity of the church after his split with Stephen to see the difference. to see the fact, for example, that Cyprian viewed all bishops as seated upon the Cathedra Petri. All bishops, not just Peter. All bishops sit upon the seat of Peter. But the point being, I've had many a Roman Catholic tell me over the years, well, we don't have a necessarily infallible interpretation of Matthew chapter 16, but what we have is we have one necessary interpretation while there may be others. Just, you know, it has always made me shake my head when Roman Catholics would say, you Catholics, or you Protestants, all you have with Sola Scriptura is a bunch of confusion. And then when you ask for them, from them, infallible interpretation of their key text you end up with wishy-washy stuff instead of something real so goes on to say and it was upon Simon alone oh by the way and so the question you always ask So when did Peter receive the keys? Because it's in the future tense in Matthew 16. I will give you the keys. Because it is a singular. So it is being addressed to Peter. So when did Peter receive the keys? When I started asking this question, probably about 1993-ish, around there, when I started asking this question, it was fascinating to see Roman Catholic responses. It's sort of like, They'd never even thought about it. Well, at some point, but when is it? You're telling us the Vatican I says it's in Scripture because it was given directly to Blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord. Okay, so it's in Scripture. Well, maybe not in Scripture. Okay, you're telling me that something that important was not recorded in Scripture? Well, you got Matthew 16. Yeah. But, but Matthew 16 says, I will future tense. When did it happen? And they have to either say, uh, wasn't considered important enough to record that. I mean, that's, that's the safest way because there is another obvious place where Peter did receive the keys, but it's Matthew chapter 18. And he does so there with all the rest of the apostles. And the Vatican council is saying, Simon alone. That was not the view of the early church. That means this is not the ancient and constant faith, the universal church. That's why it's a lie. And it's just, you know, I've been in the Vatican and I've looked up there at the cupola And these words in Latin are etched into the ceiling in solid gold. Not gold paint, gold, the real stuff. And she's abused that text. It's an abuse of the text. It was Matthew 18. It was with the other apostles. Not alone, not a primacy. That's why he calls himself a fellow elder. when he writes in his epistles. And it was upon Simon alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, bestowed the jurisdiction of chief pastor and ruler over all his fold in these words, feed my lambs, feed my sheep. Now, again, if I recall correctly, I'm going off top of my head. I could look it up fairly quickly. I think The first time that text was interpreted in the way the Vatican Council interprets it in 1870 was about 700 years after Christ, if I recall correctly, at least outside of Rome. There were some imperious Roman leaders that may have done that before then. Jesus says to Simon, feed my sheep, feed my lambs. And according to this, that makes him chief pastor and ruler over all his fold. You know, you'd think if these things were so clear and so compelling that there'd be a little bit more clarity to them. No, no. At open variance, this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture, I love how that works. You hear it from Roman Catholics all the time. Oh, it's clear. I'm sorry, I missed the clarity? The section where Jesus is talking about Peter's denials is where he makes him, he gives him the jurisdiction of chief pastor and ruler, huh? Oh, okay. at open variance to this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has been ever understood by the Catholic Church. May I repeat that? As it has been ever understood by the Catholic Church. Well, you only have two ways of understanding that. The only truthful way of understanding it is that we're now talking about the Roman Catholic Church from, say, the 12th century onward. But that's not what they mean, because they mean the Catholic Church back to the days of Jesus. And that means as soon as you find all sorts of early church writers, including Augustine and all sorts of others, who did not interpret it that way, that that makes this a lie. That makes this a lie. Anyone who reads church history knows that Rome was a vitally important church, not because of its bishop, but because of the city it was in. The grandeur of the bishop arose over time because up until 140 AD, there wasn't a singular bishop in Rome. It was a plurality of elders. So Rome has reversed the historical reality. and turned it upside down. Has. And had to use a bunch of faked documents to do it. Look up the Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals and the Donation of Constantine sometime. All recognized as pure forgeries today, but vitally important to the establishment of the papacy. They've been washed away by history, but the papacy still stands. Well, floats in midair, more like. So, 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 in His Church, I just stop. The form of government established in the New Testament knows nothing of a papacy. Nothing of a papacy. The highest position is bishop slash elder. That's the highest position in the church. So, but to say that is to distort the form of government established by Christ, Lord, and his church. They deny that Peter in his single person, preferably to all the other apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction. Or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon blessed Peter himself, but upon the church and through the church upon Peter as her minister. Now, why does Rome even have to address these things? Because they know that's what people have believed in the past. And they know that you can point to early church writers who held those views. but they are anathematizing them, identifying them as a distortion, as a perversion, instead of the truth of papal primacy. If anyone, therefore, shall say that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed the prince of all the apostles and the visible head of the whole church militant, or that the same directly and immediately received from the same our Lord Jesus Christ, a primacy of honor only and not of true and proper jurisdiction, let him be anathema." Now, if you listen to modern Roman Catholic apologists, they have ways of dealing with the anathema. Well, just simply cut off the fellowship of the church. And, you know, it's spiritually important, but they don't want to have to admit that the anathema was centrally important to the physical persecution of tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people down through history by the Roman Catholic Church. Once the spiritual anathema had been proclaimed, then the secular arm could come to bear and you'd have torture and you'd have burnings and you'd have all sorts of neat and nasty stuff as a result. But the anathema is the strongest condemnation that can be made. So if you are a Roman Catholic, you have to believe this. Well, what if you read Ignatius and discover that when he wrote to the church at Rome, he didn't even address the bishop even though he addressed the bishops of the Eastern churches, because they already had a monarchical episcopate, he doesn't when he writes the Church of Rome, because he knows there is no single bishop there. And you realize, well, but is Ignatius not a part of the ancient and constant faith of the Church? Yeah, he is. And then you read Clement. Clement was supposed to be a pope. And you realize he's never named, There's no exercise of quote-unquote apostolic authority. There is instead a argumentation from scripture against the Church of Corinth for what they had done and kicking out their elders. You don't have a single Pope saying, I as the Pope tell you to reinstate these individuals. There weren't any priests yet, by the way. That's a later development. I don't have that either. You have all this evidence. You see what happens with Irenaeus and Victor and all these things that demonstrate the later concept of the papacy grew slowly over time. It was not the ancient and universal faith of the church. What if you read church history and discover this? Well, then you are anathema. You are cut off. And Rome was serious about that. Now, the First Vatican Council is where papal infallibility is defined, but papal infallibility has to be based upon a preceding doctrine of papal primacy, and that's what you have here. And you must believe it. Now, how many Roman Catholics today, especially teaching at Boston College, actually believe it? I would say at Boston College in the faculty? 2% maybe? Maybe? I can guarantee you Joe Biden doesn't believe it. I can guarantee you Nancy Pelosi doesn't believe it. No, no way. And so it's really hard for me to take these claims seriously today because Rome doesn't take them seriously. Can you see Francis? In fact, I don't think Francis believes it. Not the way they meant it. No way. He doesn't believe the way they meant it. And the real question is going to be when he either dies or resigns, and I still think he's going to resign. When he does, and he has stacked the College of Cardinals with a bunch of progressive liberals, what happens when you get the next guy, and he's even more radical than Francis? What do you do now? If you take that red pill, where do you go? That's the question, really it is. There was a document that came out in, let's see, 1896, that I've quoted a number of times before, we're almost out of time, called Satus Cognitum. Look it up. I've always found this quote to be interesting. Wherefore, in the decree of the Vatican Council as to the nature and authority of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, no newly conceived opinion is set forth but the venerable and constant belief of every age. So all you gotta do is find faithful, sound men of the past, honestly look at what they believed. And you can see Rome's doctrine of the primacy of the Pope is a historical fiction. It's a lie. When they say that it is a venerable and constant belief of every age. One other quote. Back when I first started studying Roman Catholicism, a lot of the Roman Catholics directed me to a book called The Faith of Our Fathers by Cardinal Gibbons. Here's a quote. The Catholic Church teaches that our Lord conferred on St. Peter the first place of honor and jurisdiction in the government of his whole church, and that same spiritual authority has always resided in the popes or bishops of Rome as being the successors of St. Peter. Consequently, to be true followers of Christ, all Christians, both among the clergy and laity, must be in communion with the See of Rome, where Peter rules in the person of his successor. I'm sure Father Feeney liked that, but the vast majority of Roman Catholics don't really believe that. They would say, they'd look at something like this and say, well, yeah, you need to be to really be right with God, but there's still lots of Christians outside of us. You go back to Cyprian, Cyprian had a doctrine, extra-ecclesiam nulla salus, outside the church there is no salvation. And there is an orthodox expression of that statement, because if by the church you mean the body of Christ, well then that's sort of a duh statement, really. But once you have Rome's definition of the church as herself, you can now understand what Pope Boniface meant in Unum Sanctum in November of 1302. 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. Now, I know Francis doesn't believe that. And I know Francis could not make a statement even similar to that that would have the same contextual meaning as what Pope Boniface meant. And any honest person does know that. So what does that mean? Things to think about for our Roman Catholic friends at this time where the Pope is so far out there. Oh, I have a feeling that I am intended at this point in time to take on the function of a promoter of a Black Friday deal. Now, I don't know about you, but I already have carpal thumb syndrome from deleting Black Friday emails. I'm not sure how many I deleted today. I wasn't sure. I only have three gigabytes of space open on my mail account. I wasn't sure I was gonna make it today with all the stuff that was coming in. But a little bird just didn't tweet me, but sent me a message that says, Black Friday. This is Doctrine in Life on Twitter. Black Friday sale, 15% all weekend. Use code Black Friday 1689 for the new merchandise. showcase one of your favorite ministries on your laptop, water bottle, or forehead. So there is a, well, there's actually a, this is actually a tweet. And so I will retweet the tweet and try to get it out there for you. And you can do some of your Black Friday shopping with the Dr. Life guys that have our shirts and other people's shirts and hats and all that kind of fun stuff too. So they can thank Rich for sneaking me that little thing there. So, well, I think this is the first time, it's, I think it's the first time we've done it this way. We've done it other ways, but that's what I normally see up there on the screen, and that's my normal microphone. been replaced by AI. And soon I will be too, I would imagine, if certain people get their wishes. So we'll see if this program stays up. I suppose there might be some good Sedevacantist Roman Catholics working at Google that might nail this one too. Who knows? We'll find out. If you watched You won't get censored, but be watching for new ways we're going to be doing things in the future, obviously, because we need to be able to talk about everything and to do so freely, as long as we can. Thanks for watching the program today. Pray for Monday, not for the medical issue, that would be later on, but I'm doing a very important discussion on Monday, and I hope that you'll find it useful. Pray for us for that, and we'll see you hopefully next week. God bless.