Orthodoxy and the Papacy, Answered

Keys cites St. Ambrose, who applies "Thou art Peter and upon this rock" to Peter and concludes that where Peter is, there is the Church.

“St. Ambrose depicted Peter as pointing out the way to eternal life: He is that same Peter to whom He said, “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.” Therefore where Peter is, there is the Church; where the Church is, there is no death but eternal life.”

In a passage Keys cites, St. John Chrysostom names Peter "that unbroken rock, that firm foundation."

“This very Peter - and when I say ‘Peter’ I name that unbroken rock, that firm foundation, the great apostle, first of the disciples, the first called and the first who obeyed - he committed no little offense but an exceedingly great one, denying the Master.”

St. Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 400), as cited in Keys, calls Peter the firm rock on which the Church is built, both because he confessed Christ and because he himself became a firm rock of the building.

“St. Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis in Cyprus (c. 400), wrote: And the blessed Peter, who for a while denied the Lord, Peter who was the chiefest of the apostles, he who became unto us truly a firm rock establishing faith in the Lord, upon which (rock) the Church is built in every respect - first of all, because he confessed that Christ was the Son of the living God, and heard that upon this rock of firm faith I will build my Church....Further, he then also became a firm rock of the building, and foundation of the house of God”

Robert says the context of Matthew 16 is about Peter as a person, to whom Jesus says "you are a rock."

“Because the whole context is not talking about physical things it's talking about peter a person you are a rock and upon this rock I would build my church”

Robert's Matthew commentary states the gender argument and answers that Greek gender agreement does not apply to proper nouns.

“Regarding the “rock” being identified with Peter, opponents argue that Πέτρος (petros = “Peter”) is a Greek masculine noun and πέτρα (petra = “rock”) is a Greek feminine noun, thus, since Greek requires words to match in gender when identified with one another, obviously Peter cannot be the rock. Although it is true that Greek requires words to match in gender in order to be grammatically correct, this does not apply to proper nouns. It only applies to nouns, pronouns, articles and adjectives. Evidence for this in the NT is quite clear.”

On one of his broadcasts Robert says Petros is a proper noun, and proper names are not dictated by gender, so it can match petra.

“No because petros is a proper noun okay petra is a common noun the only reason you would use petros and this is what the other protestants don't understand you know well pedro's is masculine it can't match petra which is effeminate well yes it can you see because when it comes to proper names you can use masculinity or feminine proper names don't have are not dictated by the gender”

Robert's Bible Studies for Catholics says Matthew 16:18 in Aramaic would use kepha in both places, since Aramaic had no masculine and feminine nouns for "rock."

“5) Since it is well known that Jesus and the Apostles spoke in Aramaic, the original form of Matthew 16:18-19 was probably stated in Aramaic, not Greek. (In fact, there is a tradition of the Church that Matthew’s gospel was originally written in Hebrew, of which Aramaic is a dialect). The reading of Mt 16:18 in Aramaic would have been “I say to you, you are kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church.” Here there is no distinction between the two words, since Aramaic did not have masculine and feminine nouns for “rock.””

Keys cites Origen, who comments on Matthew 18:18 and says Peter was given something peculiar above the rest, the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

“For example, Origen wrote: What in a previous passage was granted to Peter alone, seems here (Mt. 18, 18) to be granted to all....But, as it was fit - even though something in common was spoken of Peter and of those who should thrice admonish the brethren - that Peter should have something peculiar above (the rest), this was previously ordained separately respecting Peter, thus: “I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven””

Butler and Collorafi report, and then quote, Pope Leo the Great saying that the power of binding and loosing granted to all the apostles cannot be lawfully exercised without the consent of Simon Peter, and that what is intimated to all is commended to one.

“Pope Leo the Great described the “power of the keys” as the supreme power of binding and loosing, of making authoritative declarations about the Christian Law. Although the power of binding and loosing was granted to all the apostles, Pope Leo declared, it cannot be lawfully exercised without the consent of Simon Peter: The right of using this authority passed on to the other apostles, but what is intimated to all is, not without reason, commended to one.”

Robert's Bible Studies for Catholics says the "you" of Matthew 18:18 is plural while that of Matthew 16:18-19 is singular, and only Matthew 16 gives the keys, which signify ultimate authority.

“It is no surprise, then, to find that, unlike the use of you in Mt 16:18-19 that is singular and only refers to one person (Peter), the you of Mt 18:18 is in the Greek plural, as are the verbs which accompany it. This means that there is both a distinction and a similarity between the two verses. 2) Another major distinction between Mt 16:18-19 and Mt 18:18 is that only in the former are the “keys” given. The keys signify ultimate authority.”

Speaking on a broadcast, Robert says no other apostle is given the keys and that the "you" in "whatever you bind" is a Greek singular referring to Peter.

“Because the pope is given the keys and no one else no other apostle is given the keys to the kingdom and Jesus said to him whatever you bind and that's a Greek singular replying only to one person Peter whatever you bind shall be bound in heaven whatever you singular loose shall be loosed in heaven okay and he only has the keys”

Butler and Collorafi state that Peter presided at Antioch and then went to Rome, and that he was the first bishop of Rome.

“Shortly after Pentecost, St. Peter presided over the Church of Antioch for about seven years, but Antioch was not the place of his final apostolic mission. By divine providence, Peter went to Rome and established the church there. Peter was the first bishop of Rome. Because Peter had been the first bishop at Antioch and later at Rome, liturgical tradition speaks of the Chair of Peter, at Antioch and Rome.”

Keys cites Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea (c. 325), who says Peter presided over the church of Rome until his death.

“Peter, that coryphaeus, after having first founded the church at Antioch, went away to Rome preaching the Gospel, and he also, after (presiding over) the church in Antioch, presided over that of Rome until his death.”

Writing in De Viris Illustribus, as Keys cites him, St. Jerome says Peter, after the episcopate of Antioch, held the sacerdotal chair at Rome for twenty-five years.

“St. Jerome, in the opening of De Viris Illustribus, writes that “Simon Peter, prince of the apostles, after the episcopate of the Church of Antioch...went to Rome, and there, for twenty-five years, held the sacerdotal chair.””

Robert's Acts commentary offers as one possibility that Peter was first bishop of Antioch from 49 to 54 AD and bishop of Rome from 54 to 64 AD.

“Hence another possibility is that Peter went to Rome right away - without stopping at Antioch - and arrived in 44 AD. But his time would have been interrupted in 49 AD due to Claudius’ edict; and this is when Peter went to Antioch. He stayed in Antioch from 49 to 54 AD as the first bishop of Antioch, although he went to Jerusalem in 49 AD for the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). By 54 AD, Nero revoked the edict and thus Christians were allowed back in Rome, which then allowed Peter to resume his reign as bishop of Rome which transpired from 54 to 64 AD”

Butler and Collorafi say Cyprian's On the Unity of the Catholic Church exists in two versions and that later scholarship leans towards Cyprian having written both.

“Important variations exist in this treatise. Formerly they were considered to be the result of interpolations in the text, but later scholarship, spearheaded by Fr. Maurice Bevenot and Dom John Chapman, has leaned towards the view that Cyprian himself wrote both versions.”

The Cyprian passage quoted in Keys places the apostles' equal fellowship of honor and power after "Upon one he builds the Church" and the source of unity "beginning from one."

“Upon one he builds the Church, and although to all the apostles, after his resurrection, he gives an equal power and says, “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you; receive the Holy Ghost: if ye shall have remitted anyone’s sins, they shall be remitted to him: whose ye retain, they are retained,” nevertheless, so as to manifest the unity, by his authority, he disposed the source of the unity beginning from one. The other apostles, indeed, were what Peter was, endowed with equal fellowship both of honor and of power”

Robert's Acts commentary answers the claim that James controlled the Council of Jerusalem by saying Peter made the ruling on circumcision that everyone accepted.

“Some claim that since James was the bishop of Jerusalem, he had control over the meeting. Although James certainly held authority there, the fact that Peter rose to give the definitive decision on the single matter at hand (i.e., whether Gentile converts had to be circumcised), shows all the more that Peter was the recognized leader of Christendom since he, not James, makes the crucial decision that has been held as the dogma for the church ever since. There is no vote on whether to accept Peter’s doctrine.”

Homily 88 on John, by St. John Chrysostom, is cited in Keys: Christ entrusts Peter with the presidency of the brethren and ordains him teacher not of the throne of Jerusalem but of the world.

“And to show him that he ought to have confidence, as if the denial were done away with, He entrusts him with the presidency of the brethren....And He does not bring forward the denial, or reproach him for what happened, but says, “If you love me, preside over the brethren.”....A third time He commands the same thing, showing how greatly He honors the presidency over His own sheep....And if anyone were to say, “How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?” I would answer that He ordained this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the world.”

Keys cites canon 3 of the Council of Sardica, proposed by Bishop Hosius, allowing a condemned bishop's case to be referred to Julius, bishop of Rome, who may order it reconsidered and appoint judges.

“Canon 3. Bishop Hosius said: “... if a bishop has had sentence pronounced against him in some case, and thinks he has good reason for the case to be considered, let us, if it pleases you, honor the memory of the holy apostle Peter: let letters be written to Julius, the bishop of Rome, by those who examined the case; if he judges that the case must be reconsidered, let it be reconsidered and let him appoint judges;”

Writing to Faustus in late 493, Pope Gelasius says, in a passage Keys cites, that the canons refer the appeals of the whole Church to Rome and that the Apostolic See alone deposed many eastern bishops.

“In late 493 Pope Gelasius wrote to Faustus, a dignitary acting as a legate in Rome: The canons themselves willed the appeals of the whole Church to be referred to this see’s examination. From it they decreed also that no appeal whatsoever ought to be made; and thereby that it judged of the whole Church, and itself fell under the judgment of none... Not one but many bishops were deposed by the sole authority of the Apostolic See, Timothy of Alexandria, Peter of Antioch, Peter, Paul, John...”

Keys quotes the sentence passed in 536 against Anthimus, which says Pope Agapetus, sent to the royal city, deposed Anthimus from a see that did not belong to him.

“in 536, also passed sentence against Anthimus, observing: ...he promised to do whatever the pontiff of the great apostolic see would decide and wrote to the most holy patriarchs that he would follow the Apostolic See in every respect. But our great God and Savior Jesus Christ did not allow such things to go on; to this royal city Agapetus, the most blessed pope of holy and blessed memory was sent, who...deposed him from a see which did not belong to him”

Keys reports Pope Leo writing that Anatolius should be content with the royal city, which he cannot make an apostolic see.

“As for Anatolius, the pope continued, “let him be content with the royal city, which he cannot make an apostolic see.” Canon 28 could only be ratified at the expense of the canons of Nicea, which, Leo wrote, were not to be changed:”

Keys reports Pope Leo writing that canon 3 of Constantinople was never brought to his predecessors' knowledge, and grounding Alexandria's dignity in Mark, disciple of Peter.

“Canon 3 of Constantinople, the forerunner of canon 28, was never brought to the knowledge of my predecessors, the pope continued, adding: Let not the rights of provincial primacies be uprooted; nor should metropolitan bishops be defrauded of privileges instituted from of old. Let none of the dignity of the see of Alexandria perish, which it merited through the holy evangelist Mark, the disciple of Blessed Peter,”

The Slavonic Nomocanon, attributed to Methodius or his disciples and cited in Keys, says Rome's primacy came not from its being capital of the Empire but from Christ's words to Peter.

“It is not true, as this canon says, that the holy Fathers gave the primacy to Old Rome because it was capital of the Empire; it is rather from on high, from divine grace, that this primacy originated. Because of the degree of his faith, Peter, highest of the apostles, heard these words from our Lord Jesus Christ himself: “Peter, lovest thou me? Feed my sheep.” That is why Rome holds the pre-eminent place and first See among hierarchs.”

Pope Gregory the Great, in a passage Keys cites, explains that Rome, Alexandria and Antioch share the authority of Peter's one see, Antioch being the see where Peter sat for seven years.

“Therefore, although there are many apostles, yet because of that very principality only the see of the prince of the apostles has waxed strong in authority, which in three places is of one. For he himself exalted that see (Rome) in which he deigned to rest and to end the present life. He graced the see (Alexandria) in which he sent (Mark) the evangelist, his disciple. He strengthened the see (Antioch) in which he sat for seven years, although he was destined to depart.”

Not By Scripture Alone, which Robert edited, argues that Gregory I's 'precursor of Antichrist' warning concerned a regional bishop taking the title universal, and did not deny that the pope heads the bishops.

“Hence we see that Gregory is not suggesting that he, as Pope, is not the head of the church or not a bishop over all bishops, but is saying only that someone who is merely the bishop of a certain region cannot call himself a universal bishop or priest.”

Protesting to the emperor that his fellow priest John strove to be called universal bishop, Pope Gregory I says, as Keys quotes him, that the care and principality of the entire Church were committed to Peter.

“Behold, he received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the power of binding and loosing is given to him, the care and principality of the entire Church are committed to him, and yet he is not called the universal apostle, and my most holy fellow priest John strives to be called universal bishop.”

Butler and Collorafi argue that Nicea canon 6 appeals to the authority of the bishop of Rome as the model for Alexandria's jurisdiction.

“Canon 6 confirms the extensive authority of the bishop of Alexandria because a similar custom exists with the bishop of Rome; in other words, the authority exercised by the bishop of Rome, in accordance with “ancient customs,” is invoked to reaffirm the traditional jurisdiction of Alexandria over Egypt, Libya and the Pentapolis.”

Butler and Collorafi state that Trullo in 692 confirmed the Sardican canons on appeals to the bishop of Rome and that Eastern Orthodox accept them.

“At the Council of Trullo (Quinisext) in Constantinople in 692, these canons were confirmed in Canon 2 of this council. Eastern Orthodox accept these canons 3, 4 and 5 of Sardica.”

Butler and Collorafi argue from the final wishes of Ignatius Theophorus that the Roman Church presided and watched over other churches from the very beginning.

“The entire history of the keys, in a certain sense, is like a commentary on the final wishes of Ignatius Theophorus. From the very beginning, the Roman Church has presided over the love. Whenever it was necessary for the good of souls, she has had to episcopize or watch over other churches.”

Keys cites Irenaeus saying every church must agree with the Roman Church on account of its more powerful principality.

“For to this church on account of the more powerful principality it is necessary that every church convene, that is the faithful from all sides, in which, always, that which is the tradition from the apostles has been preserved by those who are from all parts.”

Not By Scripture Alone, which Robert edited, cites Pope Julius, writing about the charges against Athanasius and Marcellus, claiming a custom that cases come to Rome and appealing to what Rome received from Peter.

“Are you ignorant that the custom was first to write to us, and then for justice to be determined from here? …I beseech you, readily bear with me: what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed apostle Peter, that I point out to you…”

Robert says there is so much evidence that the eastern churches respected the papacy before the schism that "it's uncanny."

“There is so much evidence that the papacy was respected by the eastern churches prior to the schism that it's uncanny I I don't see how anybody can come out of this debate and think that the papacy was not given the primacy okay”

Robert, answering a question about James White's claim that the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals were essential to the papacy's development, points to his book on the papacy and addresses White's motives.

“Here's my response get our book um on the papacy I'm going to make you do your homework okay and um see James White is invested in this for a reason he's he has to upset the Catholic church because he has to give justification to why he is following a group of people that came along in the 1500s”

On another broadcast Robert says the Eastern Orthodox followed the papacy for 1400 years and that everybody looked to the papacy for at least the first 800 years.

“All the now Eastern Orthodox that claim not to have the papacy went by the papacy you know for 1400 years um so as a matter of fact we have a book where we show how the papacy operated and how much Authority they had everybody looked to the papacy at least for the first 800 years of Christianity”

Butler and Collorafi describe a collection of papal decretals, from Siricius to the late fifth century, made by Dionysius Exiguus about 500.

“About 500 the Scythian monk Dionysius Exiguus made a collection of decretals of the Roman Pontiffs, which contains dozens of decrees from the time of Pope Siricius (384-399) to the late fifth century.”

Keys cites the council's sentence against Nestorius, which names the canons and Pope Celestine's letter as the grounds for deposing him.

“Necessarily compelled by the sacred canons and by the letter of our most holy father and fellow minister Celestine, bishop of the Roman Church, with tears we have necessarily come to this sorrowful sentence against him.”

Philip, the legate Pope Celestine sent to the council that condemned Nestorius, says in the passage Keys cites that Peter lives and judges in his successors.

“It is doubtful to no one, indeed it is known to all ages that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of binding and loosing sins, who up to this very age ever lives and judges in his successors.”

Not By Scripture Alone, which Robert edited, quotes the acts of the Council of Chalcedon recording the bishops' acclamation after the reading of the Tome of Leo.

“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [i.e. the Tome of Pope Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the Faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo [reigned A.D. 440-461]. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril.”

Butler and Collorafi treat the Chalcedon acclamation as Peter speaking through a Roman Pontiff.

“Yet Chalcedon was the council where Peter spoke through Leo. In the decades to come, Peter, who had spoken through a Roman Pontiff, proved to be remarkably unwilling to keep quiet.”

Butler and Collorafi argue that Cyprian's saying that no bishop can be judged by another conflicts with his own request that Rome act against Marcian of Arles.

“Did Cyprian really believe that? Cyprian had asked the Roman bishop to intervene against Bishop Marcian of Arles, because of Marcian’s Novatianist leanings. What if Marcian had responded that “every bishop has a right to his own opinion,” or that he, Marcian, 43 could “no more be judged by another than he (could) judge another?””

Butler and Collorafi argue that Cyprian's position on rebaptism did not prevail against Rome.

“While the Church venerates the holiness of Cyprian, the great African did not have the last word in the dispute about rebaptism. Cyprian had confronted a power greater than himself.”

Jerome, writing a century and a half later and cited in Keys, says Cyprian's appeal to Stephen was in vain and the African bishops later returned to the ancient custom.

“Blessed Cyprian...condemning the baptism of heretics, sent (the acts of) an African Council on this matter to Stephen, who was then bishop of the city of Rome, and the twentysecond from Blessed Peter; but his attempt was in vain. Eventually the very same bishops, who had laid down with him that heretics were to be rebaptized, returning to the ancient custom, published a new decree.”

Butler and Collorafi report, quoting one of the bishops from Illyricum and Palestine, that doubts about three passages of the Tome of Leo were resolved by the explanations of the Roman legates.

“Some bishops from Illyricum and Palestine had expressed doubts about three passages of the Tome of Leo. One of them announced, “we have learned that our most holy father and archbishop Leo is most orthodox,” adding that the legates of the Apostolic See had been well prepared to remove all doubts and had explained whatever difficulty had resulted from the obscurity of the language.”

Robert says Honorius erred in a private letter and that it was popes, Leo II and Agatho, who declared him a heretic, because only a pope can judge another pope.

“He He did it more or less in a private letter. So, he's still a heretic, and he was denounced as a heretic by two popes and three councils. Okay? Pope Leo II who and Pope Agatho. Uh both uh declared him a heretic. Now, Now, interesting because see, they're both Popes. And only a Pope can judge another Pope. He can declare him a heretic. Which they did.”

In Why I Left the Catholic Church, Robert writes that the Honorius case preserved papal infallibility because Honorius did not teach one will as official doctrine for the universal Church.

“After Honorius, two popes and three councils judged the issue and concluded that papal infallibility was preserved because Pope Honorius had not taught a one-willed Christ as official doctrine for the universal Church but only in a private letter to Sergius.”

Butler and Collorafi report, quoting the council, that after anathematizing Honorius the council called Agatho its 'sacred head' and asked him to confirm its acts.

“The council listed prelates whom it “justly subjected to the anathema of heretics,” including Theodore of Pharan, Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople, Pope Honorius, and Patriarchs Cyrus, Paul, Pyrrhus and Peter. Calling Agatho the “sacred head,” the council asked him to confirm its acts by his “honorable rescripts.””

Pope Leo II, quoted in Keys, condemns Honorius for favoring heresy by negligence rather than for teaching it.

“they have been punished with eternal condemnation, that is, Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, (former bishops) of Constantinople, along with Honorius, who did not, as befitted his apostolic authority, extinguish the rising flame of heretical doctrine but instead favored it by his negligence.”

Keys cites Pope Leo, writing to Anatolius about canon 28, calling his legates those 'who presided over the synod in my stead.'

“Anatolius had used the council as the occasion to further an unheard-of ambition; thus the legates from Rome, the pope continued, “who presided over the synod in my stead,” quite properly opposed canon 28.”

Butler and Collorafi report, quoting Leo and Anatolius of Constantinople, that Leo annulled canon 28 and that Anatolius wrote that its confirmation was reserved to Leo.

“In the sixteenth session, when most of the bishops had left, Anatolius had engineered the promulgation of canon 28, over the protests of the Roman legates. Pope Leo, “by the authority of Blessed Peter,” later pronounced it “utterly null and void by an all-embracing definition.” Anatolius had written to Leo that “the whole force and confirmation of the acts (i.e. canon 28) had been reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness.””

A monk known as Stephen the New, cited in Keys, denies that the Council of Hieria was ecumenical because the bishop of Rome did not consent.

“One of them, a monastic known as Stephen the New, protested against the claim that the Council of Hieria was the seventh ecumenical council, asking, “How can a council be called ecumenical to which the bishop of Rome did not consent, whereas a canon exists that forbids the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs without the Pope of Rome?””

Robert says the popes existed before the Eastern Orthodox adopted conciliarism, and that this "gives away who's right and who's wrong."

“Because we had popes before the Eastern Orthodox decided that there wasn't going to be any popes. There just going to be consiliarism right away. It gives away who's right and who's wrong.”

Robert says the Church always went by the rule that the pope's official word was final and infallible, and defined this, as it did the canon, only when objections arose.

“But the canon wasn’t declared infallible until 1563 at the Council of Trent. Again, the Council did so because there were some who were objecting to the then accepted canon, namely, Luther on the Protestant side and Cardinal Cajetan on the Catholic side. When such a degree of objection occurs, the Church then moves to make infallible what was always believed in the tradition, and thus it puts an end to all objections and discussion. The same happened with papal infallibility. The Church always went by the rule that the pope was the supreme authority and what he said officially on a matter was the final word and infallible.”

On a broadcast, Robert says the first councils took hundreds of years to define the Trinity, and that before a doctrine is defined, one who denies it is not a heretic, because the Church has to define it formally first.

“Our first four or five six councils over hundreds of years were trying to um figure out what the Trinity was and they finally figured it out now somebody before them had said well the Trinity is you know three modes of God's existence now before they Define the doctrine it wouldn't be a mortal sin he would not be excommunicated he would not be in heresy because the church has to formally Define it first”

Keys quotes the Formula of Pope Hormisdas, which the Byzantines were required to sign, stating that in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved immaculate.

“The formula of Pope Hormisdas reads: The first condition of salvation is to keep the rule of the true faith, and not to deviate in any way from the tradition of the fathers. And because the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be overlooked, which says: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my Church,” these things which have been said are proven by the events, because in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved immaculate.”

In Robert's Matthew commentary, Pope Agatho, writing in 680 to the sixth ecumenical council, is quoted saying the Apostolic Church has never turned aside to any part of error and remains unspotted to the end.

“Pope Agatho (680): to the 6th Ecumenical Council: “This is the true and undefiled profession of the Christian religion...which the Holy Ghost taught by the Prince of the Apostles...which Peter...has handed down....Resting on his protection, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned aside from the way of truth to any part of error, and her authority has always been faithfully followed and embraced as that of the Prince of the Apostles by the whole Catholic Church and all Councils, and by all the venerable Fathers who embraced her doctrine....So she remains unspotted to the end”

Robert says no pope has ever decided what to do about a heretical pope, so only pious opinions exist, and that in the historical cases where a pope was accused of heresy he was not deposed.

“And the point of fact is that no pope has ever made that decision about what to do about a heretical pope. Okay? And because of that, then all we have is a bunch of pious opinions. And pious opinions don't make doctrine. So, um we are left without a viable solution to that except what may have occurred in history. And there are cases in history where a pope was accused of heresy. And then the question would be what to do about it. Okay? Um they did not depose him.”

On the same broadcast, Robert says there is no official position, but the precedent in history is that another pope can declare a previous pope a heretic, and only after the first has died.

“I'm not giving you the official position cuz there is no official position. I'm just saying that if there is a precedent that's been established in the history of the church, this is it. That another Pope can declare another Pope a heretic. And of course, that can only happen after the first Pope has died. So, you see, the hierarchy is saved.”

Ennodius, later bishop of Ticinum, writes in a passage Keys quotes that God has reserved the prelate of the Roman see to His own judgment.

“God perchance has willed to terminate the cases of other men by means of men, but the prelate of that see He has undoubtedly reserved to His own judgment. It is His will that the successors of the blessed apostle Peter should owe their innocence to heaven alone and should demonstrate a pure conscience to the examination of the most stern Judge.”

Keys reports that Pope Leo, writing after the sixth ecumenical council, listed Honorius of Rome among those condemned and cast out of the unity of the Church.

“As for “the authors of heretical assertion,” Leo continued, they had been condemned and cast out of the unity of the Church: Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, (former bishops) of Constantinople, “and together with them Honorius of Rome, who allowed the rule of apostolic tradition, which he received from his predecessors, to be stained.””

Keys quotes Irenaeus saying every church must convene with the church founded at Rome by Peter and Paul, in which the tradition from the apostles has always been preserved.

“in the greatest, most ancient church known to all, founded and established at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, we confound all who in any way - either for self-pleasing or vainglory, or blindness or evil teaching - gather otherwise than they ought. For to this church on account of the more powerful principality it is necessary that every church convene, that is the faithful from all sides, in which, always, that which is the tradition from the apostles has been preserved by those who are from all parts.”

Robert recommends that the Church clear up "this whole infallible issue mess," saying it is not making it easier for people to know the truth.

“My recommendation to the church, you know, I always give recommendations. Um I'm just using the gifts God gave me. And one of the recommendations is to clear up this whole infallible issue mess. Because the church is not making it any easier for people to know what the truth is. I mean, we don't even know whether Humanae Vitae is an infallible statement”

Robert says that because infallibility is restricted to when it applies, it creates a new set of problems.

“As good as the doctrine of infallibility is nevertheless because of its self-imposed restricted domain as to when it is applicable it invariably creates a whole new set of problems”

Robert says the Eastern Orthodox who claim not to have the papacy went by it for 1400 years, and that "we have a book" showing everybody looked to the papacy for at least the first 800 years.

“All the now Eastern Orthodox that claim not to have the papacy went by the papacy you know for 1400 years um so as a matter of fact we have a book where we show how the papacy operated and how much Authority they had everybody looked to the papacy at least for the first 800 years of Christianity”

Robert says the Russian Orthodox Church has been in schism since 1054.

“Precisely is the Russian Orthodox Church's relation to heaven since she has been in schism since 1054, yet has a great devotion to our lady and maintains the priestly orders with all the sacraments”

In Not By Faith Alone, Robert writes that the Filioque became a source of contention between East and West and that the East broke off in schism in 1054.

“but became a source of contention between the Western and Eastern churches. Finally the latter broke off in schism in 1054, maintaining that the Holy Spirit “proceeded” from the Father only, not from the Son.”

Butler and Collorafi state that their history of the keys runs to the end of the patristic era and the first seven ecumenical councils.

“The history of the keys began at the walk to Caesarea Philippi, at the beginning of the Christian age, and has continued to the end of the patristic era and the age of the first seven ecumenical councils.”

Robert's Not By Faith Alone says Pope Leo I and Chalcedon held the Filioque and the Council of Toledo inserted it into the Nicene Creed in 589.

“This last relation termed filioque, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, was held as dogma by Pope St. Leo I in 447, and at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (CC, ¶247); and inserted into the Nicene Creed at the Council of Toledo in 589 AD but became a source of contention between the Western and Eastern churches.”

Robert reports the Orthodox complaint that the Creed cannot be modified and says the Church disagreed and put the Filioque into the Creed because the Creed became part of the liturgy.

“Eastern Orthodox said, "Well, you know, you can't go back and modify the Nicene Creed and put the Filioque in there. The Nicene Creed is the Nicene Creed. Okay, cuz the original Nicene Creed didn't have it. So, that was one of their complaints. You can't go put it back in there. And of course the church disagreed with that and um um because the Nicene Creed became part of the liturgy. We say it every time we go to mass, the Nicene Creed. So, the church wanted to make it part of the liturgy. So, she put it in the Nicene Creed and there we have it.”

Keys cites Pope Pelagius rebuking bishops who had removed his name from the diptychs, asking how they could not consider themselves separated from the communion of the whole world.

“Chiding the bishops for having presumed to remove the pope from the diptychs, Pelagius continued: How can you not consider yourselves separated from the communion of the whole world, if in the sacred mysteries, you do not, in accordance with custom, recite my name, in whom, notwithstanding my unworthiness, you see that the solidity of the Apostolic See consists at the present time, through the succession of the episcopate?”

Robert writes that the East broke off in schism in 1054, maintaining that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only.

“Western and Eastern churches. Finally the latter broke off in schism in 1054, maintaining that the Holy Spirit “proceeded” from the Father only, not from the Son. The Council of Florence in 1438 reinforced the teaching of filioque.”

Robert says ultimate authority rests with the Catholic Church in Rome, that Orthodox doctrines have differed from the Filioque onward, and that an effort to reunite in the 1300s fell by the wayside.

“There is only one place where the authority ultimately rests and that's with the catholic church in rome so um and that's why some of the orthodox doctrines are different okay um even from the philly oak way onward purgatory and mary and some other things marriage and divorce um you know so that's why they're different you notice how God just lets things go you know once once they happen he makes no effort for the church to get back together I mean there was an effort with the with the orthodox to get back together in the 1300s but that all fell by the wayside”

Butler and Collorafi write that the rock of Peter subsists in the Apostolic See and that many baptized Christians came to be separated from it, including after the great eastern schism.

“Although the rock of Peter endures, and subsists in the Apostolic See, tragically many baptized Christians, over the centuries, came to be separated from it, in the fifth century, during the monophysite crisis, after the great eastern schism, and again in the sixteenth century.”

Robert says the Eastern Orthodox see the Father as the main cause of the Spirit's procession and object to anything that dilutes that.

“Let me start by saying that the Eastern Orthodox look at the Father as the cause of the procession of the Holy Spirit. As the as the cause, the main cause, the primary cause. So, anything that dilutes that notion that the Father is the main cause of the Holy Spirit's procession, they are going to get their hackles up, okay?”

Describing the proposal under discussion, Robert says the Father is the cause and works this cause through the Son, expressed with the Greek word dia.

“So, when the proposal is that when we say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, the Eastern Orthodox are recognizing that we believe that the Father is the cause and then works this cause through the Son. And they've actually used the Greek word dia, which means through,”

Robert's Commentary quotes the Second Council of Lyons, which says the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not as from two beginnings but from one beginning.

“The Second Council of Lyons states: “In faithful and devout profession, we declare that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two beginnings, but from one beginning, not from two breathings but from one breathing”

Robert says most or all of the Latin Fathers held the Filioque, while some Eastern Fathers were equivocal and some said nothing.

“All we can say is most of the Latin fathers, if not all of them, were um for the Filioque. And most of the Eastern fathers, um uh not Well, some of them were a little equivocal on it. Um and some of them didn't say anything at all about it. Um but the Latin fathers, they had a lot to say about it.”

Robert writes in Not By Faith Alone that the Filioque follows an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, held by Pope Leo I in 447, and was inserted into the Creed at Toledo in 589.

“This last relation termed filioque, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, was held as dogma by Pope St. Leo I in 447, and at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (CC, ¶247); and inserted into the Nicene Creed at the Council of Toledo in 589 AD but became a source of contention between the Western and Eastern churches.”

Robert says the solution he favours was introduced by Maximus, whom he calls an Eastern Orthodox theologian.

“At the end of this, I'll come to a point where after analyzing some of the terms, there may be, I think, a way to solve this problem. Um not that I thought about this myself, but it was introduced by a uh Eastern Orthodox theologian. Uh his name's his name was Maximus.”

Keys quotes the decree of the Council of Ephesus (431) forbidding anyone to present or compose a faith other than the one decreed at Nicea.

“In response to the report from Charisius, the bishops decreed, “...it is not allowed to anybody to present, to write or to compose a faith other (heteran) than the one decreed by the holy fathers who met at Nicea, together with the Holy Spirit.””

Butler and Collorafi write that Eutyches and the monophysites cited the Ephesus decree against Chalcedon, while Eulogius of Alexandria and Maximus the Confessor said it did not forbid definitions in harmony with the Nicene faith.

“In 448 the heretic Eutyches, citing this decree of the ecumenical council of Ephesus, claimed that it forbade the Church from defining that there were two natures in Christ. In a similar spirit the monophysites, led by Dioscorus of Alexandria, appealed to this decision of Ephesus in order to reject the Tome of Pope Leo and the decree of the ecumenical council of Chalcedon. On the other hand, Patriarch Eulogius of Alexandria in the sixth century, and Maximus the Confessor in the seventh, explained that the Council of Ephesus did not prohibit doctrinal definitions in harmony with the Nicene faith.”

Butler and Collorafi conclude that meeting challenges with new and more precise definitions is a right of the Catholic Church.

“that the Council of Ephesus did not prohibit doctrinal definitions in harmony with the Nicene faith. 575 To meet challenges to her faith by new and more precise definitions is an inalienable right of the Catholic Church.”

Asked on a broadcast, Robert says those who hold the Creed could not be changed pick one moment of controversy, and that the popes and councils taken together support the Catholic decision.

“Well because they are conflating the history that's why okay they're going to pick a time where there was a little controversy about that and they avoid all the rest of the issue okay when you look at the preponderance of the evidence you look at all the popes and councils that dealt with this issue it's crystal clear that um the catholic decision was solid”

Robert says critics seize on equivocation in one place while the preponderance of popes and councils supports the Catholic decision.

“They're going to pick a time where there was a little controversy about that and they avoid all the rest of the issue okay when you look at the preponderance of the evidence you look at all the popes and councils that dealt with this issue it's crystal clear that um the catholic decision was solid okay you might get a little equivocation in one place and then we'll jump on that”

Butler and Collorafi write that at the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870) the Roman legates had about a hundred eastern bishops sign the formula of Pope Hormisdas after Photius displaced Ignatius.

“when the worthy patriarch, St. Ignatius of Constantinople, was unjustly driven from his see and replaced by the former imperial secretary, Photius. At the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870), in which about a hundred bishops of the east participated, the Roman legates made the bishops sign an expanded and adapted version of the formula of Pope Hormisdas.”

Robert says the early Church's common prayers for the dead only make sense if the dead are being released from purgatory.

“The other way you attack it is by the fathers are talking about prayers for the dead okay and here we got second Maccabees chapter 12 and we got Jesus talking about that and was at Matthew chapter 5 and so prayers for the dead which were very common during those early years of the church okay so if the person's already in heaven why would you pray for them you're praying for their soul to be released from this purgatory”

Robert says purgatory became dogma at Florence on the basis of patristic evidence, including Augustine's reading of 1 Corinthians 3:15.

“Purgatory was developed with council Florence as a Catholic dog doctrine but the church wouldn't have done so unless there was some evidence from the fathers I put some of this evidence in my book not by faith alone I have a whole pendeks on it and he came in two forms one was like a gustin's idea when he interpreted first Corinthians 3:15 he said that the the fire that you had to go through was purgatory”

Bible Studies for Catholics, by Robert, lists patristic witnesses, quoting Basil and Gregory of Nyssa on purging after death.

“As for patristic witnesses to the concept of Purgatory, there are quite a few: Basil: “...and if they are found to have any...stains or effects of sin, they are detained” (Hom on Ps). Gregory of Nyssa: “...until he has been purged of the filthy contagion in his soul by purifying fire” (Ser on the Dead).”

Robert writes in his Corinthians commentary that Augustine was the chief spokesman for purgatory and that prayers for the dead are the most frequent allusion to it in the early Fathers.

“Augustine was the chief spokesman for the doctrine of Purgatory, yet allusions to it are evident in many works of the early Fathers. One of the more frequent allusions to Purgatory is evident in the common practice of prayers for the dead.”

Robert writes in his Luke commentary that Christ and Mary did not inherit sin from Adam but did inherit physical death, which is why both died.

“In his human nature, although Christ did not inherit sin from Adam (and Mary, likewise, did not inherit sin from Adam because of her Immaculate Conception), both Christ and Mary inherited physical death from Adam, which is the reason both of them eventually died”

On a broadcast, Robert says Mary and Jesus were saved from spiritual death but not from physical death, the consequence of Adam's sin.

“Death okay death is a consequence of adam's sin this is what God said to him in the day you eat of it you shall die okay so mary and jesus are saved from the spiritual death okay but there's also the physical death that they were not saved from okay so we have to make that proper distinction”

Robert's commentary says the tradition is replete with the doctrine and cites Ambrose on Mary being full of grace.

“The Church’s tradition has been replete with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, even though the doctrine was not infallibly dogmatized until 1854 by Pius IX. Ambrose (d. 397): “Gabriel himself, sent to Mary, said, ‘Hail, full of grace,’ plainly declaring the grace of the Spirit which was in her” (On the Holy Spirit, 1,7);”

Robert says a doctrine does not need a patristic consensus, and the Church may define the Immaculate Conception when nothing in the Fathers or Scripture is against it.

“That doesn't mean however that a Doctrine needs to have the consensus of the fathers in order to be a Doctrine the church is the authority the fathers are not the authority okay so the church determines whether the Immaculate Conception is a doctrine of the church because she has the authority to do so and if there's nothing against it in the fathers there's nothing against it in scripture the church has every right to make that decision”

Robert writes in Not By Faith Alone, explaining Ott, that God is present in the soul as the agent of created grace but is not the grace, since grace increases and God does not.

“Ott says this to distinguish grace from the God who issues grace. God is present in the soul as the agent of created grace, but he is not the grace. Grace can increase but God does not increase.”

A real distinction between God's essence and energies, Robert says, would divide God, who is all one.

“Basically the idea is you can't cut up God into different things because he's all one I mean it's just there's no cause and effect so to speak it's just you know the cause is the effect the effect is the cause with God it's like you know it's all there so to cut up your essence from your energy means you're trying to make a division in God somehow and that's very hard to do”

Robert says the Catholic teaching that grace is created rests on reasoning, that Scripture does not settle it, and that he knows of no dogmatic statement on it.

“By saying the grace is created okay whether that's correct or not in the in the context of this whole discussion with the orthodox we don't know okay we're just sort of plotting along building one fact one another and hoping that we reach the right conclusion whenever our reason is involved you know scripture doesn't give us the information and we don't have a dogmatic statement from the magisterium on an issue like that”

Keys quotes Maximus the Confessor, in a letter written at Rome, saying those throughout the world who confess the Lord in an orthodox manner look to the Church of Rome, towards her confession and faith.

“These confines of the inhabited world, and those throughout the world who confess the Lord in a pious and orthodox manner, look straight to the most holy Church of Rome, towards her confession and faith, as to a sun of perennial light, receiving from her the bright splendor of the holy teachings of the fathers”

Jerome, writing to Damasus in a letter Keys quotes, says he is joined in communion with the chair of Peter, on which the Church is built, and that whoever does not gather with him scatters.

“Following in the first place nobody but Christ, I am joined in communion with your Beatitude, that is, with the chair of Peter. Upon that rock I know that the church has been built. Whoever eats the lamb outside of this house is profane. Whoever shall not have been in the Ark of Noah shall perish, when the flood prevails. Vitalis I have not known, Meletius I spurn; Paulinus I know not. Whoever does not gather with you scatters:”

Robert says the evidence shows the papacy was respected by the eastern churches before the schism, and that the papacy is the mark the Orthodox are missing.

“Right now there is so much evidence that the papacy was respected by the eastern churches prior to the schism that it's uncanny I I don't see how anybody can come out of this debate and think that the papacy was not given the primacy okay that's what we have on that one sure okay it's not the four marks we both have the four marks but this is the mark that they're missing and that's the papacy and as long as they don't have the papacy they're not going to be inside the true church”

Robert says ultimate authority rests with the Catholic Church in Rome and that Orthodox doctrines differ on the Filioque, purgatory, Mary and marriage.

“There is only one place where the authority ultimately rests and that's with the catholic church in rome so um and that's why some of the orthodox doctrines are different okay um even from the philly oak way onward purgatory and mary and some other things marriage and divorce”