Hunt, Dave: Hunt-Feating Debate-Romam Catholism-01 ~ Subject Debate

This tape is being distributed by The Berean Call. The proposition for tonight's debate is Roman Catholicism cannot be identified with early Christianity. To the affirmative is Mr. Dave Hunt. Mr. Hunt is an internationally known author, rese- researcher, and lecturer. He has written num- numerous books and is recognized as an authority on modern and ancient religions, prophecy, cults, and the occult. To the negative of this proposal is Mr. Carl Keating. Mr. Keating is the founder and president of Catholic Answers, America's largest lay operated apologetic organization. Mr. Keating is the editor of This Rock magazine and lectures throughout North America. To my, or behind me, is Mr. Al Cresta. He is the host of Talk from the Heart radio program heard in on Crawford Broadcasting stations here in southeastern Michigan, in St. Louis, Missouri, and southern Illinois. We're glad you're here tonight. I'd like to turn the program over to Mr. Al Cresta. Before we begin, let's have a word of prayer. Father in heaven, we pray for all those who have trusted in Jesus as their Lord and Savior. We ask that they would be filled with all truth in all peace. Where your people are corrupt, purify them. Where they are in error, correct them. Where in anything they are amiss, reform them. Where they are right, establish them. Where they are in want, provide it for the sake of him who came into the world to reconcile sinners to you. Where they are divided, reunite them in truth for the sake of him who is the way, the truth, and the life. Lord, we pray that our minds would be composed and our hearts sensitive to your truth tonight. Let this debate be such that the weak are made strong, the doubters filled with faith, and the unregenerate see their need for a savior. In Jesus' precious name, amen. Amen. We begin tonight's program with Mr. Hunt answering affirmatively to the proposition Roman Catholicism cannot be identified with early Christianity. Mr. Hunt, you have twenty minutes. Thank you. Whether Roman Catholicism can or cannot be identified with early Christianity depends upon the definition of early Christianity. My opponent will undoubtedly quote from some of the so-called early church fathers to show that they held beliefs compatible with Roman Catholicism. The earliest Christianity, however, is found in the Bible, and anything, no matter how ancient, which contradicts scripture is not Christianity at all. Even the beliefs and practices of church leaders who were in the very next generation after the apostles cannot be relied upon as true Christianity, much less those from later generations. Why? Because already in the days of the apostles, many church leaders had gone astray from the true faith. Paul said that in his own day, all those in Asia had turned away from him. Apostates even arose from among the Ephesian elders whom Paul had personally trained. There was hardly a local church in the days of the apostles that had not strayed from the truth. Most of the epistles were written to correct errors that were already rampant among the very earliest Christians. So we dare not look for true Christianity to the writings, beliefs, and practices, even of contemporaries of the apostles, much less of church leaders in the following generations. Early, no matter how early, isn't necessarily right. The issue is whether or not it is true Christianity. To know what that is, we turn to the highest authority, Jesus Christ himself and his word. There we find both the perfect example and the correction of errors which began quickly to creep into the church. And when we compare Roman Catholicism with true Christianity presented in the New Testament, we discover many glaring. I only have time to name a few. Number one, in his book Vicars of Christ, Peter DeRosa, himself a Roman Catholic, points out that his church became, quote, the most persecuting faith the world has ever seen, ordering in Christ's name all those who disagreed with her dogmas to be tortured and burned, commanding the throne to impose Catholicism on all its subjects under threat of torture and death. Pope Urban II, who commissioned the First Crusade, decreed that all heretics were to be tortured and killed. That became a dogma of Roman Catholicism, unquote. As only one example, Pope Martin V commanded the King of Poland to exterminate the Hussites, named after the martyred Jan Hus. The Pope commanded, quote, turn your forces against Bohemia, burn, massacre, for nothing could be more agreeable to God than to exterminate the Hussites. That's not Christianity. The torture of millions in the inquisitions and Rome's merciless massacres of Christians for centuries cannot be equated with early Christianity. It was the popes who created the inquisitions, who decreed the torture and murder of all whom they termed heretics. De Rosa reminds us that, quote, Pope Innocent III murdered far more Christians in one afternoon, twelve thousand, than any Roman emperor did in his entire reign, unquote. Historian Will Durant writes, compared with, quote, compared with the persecution of heresy in Europe by the popes, the persecution of Christians by Romans in the first three centuries after Christ was mild and humane, unquote. Yet the Catholic Church, while rightly honoring the martyrs under pagan emperors, never admits that she herself has slaughtered far more and done it in the name of Christ. Again, we must say that's not Christianity. The early church, like Christ himself, never persecuted anyone, but was itself cruelly persecuted. Nineteenth century eminent Catholic historian von Dallinger reminds us, quote, since eleven eighty three, the view of the church was that every departure from its teaching must be punished with death, and the most cruel of deaths by fire. From twelve hundred to fifteen AD, the long series of papal ordinances on the Inquisition, ever increasing in severity and cruelty, runs on without a break. Every pope confirms and improves upon the devices of his predecessors to the one end of completely uprooting every difference of belief. It was only the absolute dictation of the popes and the notion of their infallibility that made the Christian world accept the Inquisition, which contradicted the simplest principles of Christian justice and would have been rejected with universal horror in the ancient church. That's from an eminent m nineteenth century Catholic historian. Torture and murder, even of genuine heretics, are an abomination to Christ. Yet another Catholic historian writes, quote, of eighty popes in a line from the thirteenth century on, not one of them disapproved of the theology and apparatus of the Inquisition. On the contrary, one after another added his own cruel touches to the workings of this deadly machine. Such practices have never been abrogated or confessed as wrong, much less denounced and renounced by the Catholic Church, and how could they be with eighty allegedly infallible popes affirming them. Which brings us to the second point, the despotic powers of the popes. The Code of Canon Law, Canon three thirty three, paragraph three, declares, quote, there is neither appeal nor recourse against this a decision or decree of the Roman Pontiff, unquote. Vatican II says the same and demands absolute obedience. Such dictatorial control over the church is the antithesis of early Christianity. Neither Peter, Paul, nor any other apostle ever claimed or exercised such tyranny. Christ called mankind to come to him willingly. Peter writes that Christ never coerced or threatened anyone, nor did the apostles, but the Roman Catholic Church did so for centuries and has never admitted it was wrong or apologized for it, and still holds millions in fear that without submission to her rules, they're damned. Number three, the Catholic Church has repeatedly sold salvation for money. Popes listed every crime from piracy and murder to incest with a price for which they, by their absolute authority, would grant absolution from each. That's not Christianity. The sale of indulgences was one of the main issues sparking the Reformation, and it continued for centuries thereafter. In eighteenth century Spain, for example, the annual papal bull of the Crusade had to be purchased by everyone of seven years and older at least once each year. No one could be buried without the current bull in the coffin. Upon purchase of the bull, the Pope immediately granted absolution from all sins except heresy and the vow of chastity. That's not Christianity. Columbus, a Catholic, sarcastically praised money because he said, quote, he who possesses it has the power of transporting souls into paradise. Much of the fabulous wealth displayed by the church in Rome today was acquired with money from the sale of salvation. That isn't biblical Christianity, nor is it a practice only in the past. Today, one obtains a mass card from a mortuary, fills in the name of the deceased, gives an offering to the church in exchange for which the card will be placed on the altar during a mass, allegedly to reduce the suffering of the deceased in purgatory and move him or her a step closer to heaven. A friend told me recently that his father had just died, and two thousand dollars in Mass cards had been purchased at his funeral. Wealthy Catholics often leave large sums to the church for Masses to be said on their behalf after their death. Such practices cannot be found in the New Testament and are not Christian. But Vatican II condemns with anathema anyone who does not accept purgatory and indulgences today. If you're a Catholic in the audience and you don't believe in these things, you have been anathematized by Vatican II, whether you know it or not. Point four: Christ said he had nowhere to lay his head, and Peter testified, silver and gold have I none. In contrast, the popes live in more than one palace of eleven hundred rooms each and are surrounded with wealth that would make a Midas blush. Visitors to Saint Peter's, the Sistine Chapel, the Vatican Museum, and the other Vatican properties find its treasures breathtaking. Nino Lobello, former Rome correspondent for Business Week, calls the Vatican, quote, the tycoon on the Tiber, unquote, because of its incalculable wealth and worldwide enterprises. It owns fully one third of Rome's real estate and is probably the largest holder of stocks and bonds in the world. Such mind-boggling riches and the pomp and splendor of ritual accompanying them are not even remotely related to the apostles and the early church. De Rosa comments, quote, any suggestion that the pope should sell all that he has and give to the poor is greeted with derision as impractical. The rich young man in the gospel reacted in the same way. Throughout his life, Jesus lived simply. He died naked, offering the sacrifice of his life on the cross. When the Pope renews that sacrifice at pontifical high mass, no greater contrast could be imagined. Without any sense of irony, Christ's vicar is clad in gold and the costliest silks, unquote. Christ's naked body and blood-stained cross are mocked not only by gold crosses, gold chalices, opulent altars, and costly vestments, but by the Mass itself. The Eucharist is, according to paragraph eleven twenty nine of the New Universal Catechism, uh, quote, necessary for salvation, unquote. Yet the Bible says, and the apostles and early Christians preached, that Christ's one sacrifice on the cross obtained our salvation. Denying that finished work, Vatican II says that our redemption is in the process of being accomplished through the alleged re-presentation of one and the same sacrifice repeatedly in the Eucharist. Yet Hebrews nine twelve says that by his shed blood, Christ, quote, obtained eternal redemption for us, unquote. Both the Bible and Catholicism can't be right. Which one will you believe? Redemption can't be a finished work, and at the same time be in process of being accomplished on Roman Catholic altars. Yet Catholicism insists that each time Mass is celebrated, another installment of forgiveness of salvation is imparted to the faithful. The contradiction is fatal. Hebrews ten declares that the fact that the Old Testament sacrifices had to be repeated daily proved that they could not remove the penalty for sin. It then contrasts Christ's never to be repeated one sacrifice on the cross, which paid the full penalty, and declares, quote, there is no further sacrifice for sin, unquote. Yet the Eucharist is claimed to be a sacrifice, and one that pardons sin and must be continually repeated. That's not biblical Christianity. Point number six: As a consequence, Catholics have no assurance of salvation because it's an ongoing process performed by the church, which never ends. The Pope himself can't say how many more masses it may take to deliver from purgatory and open the gates of heaven for anyone. In direct contrast, First John five thirteen says, quote, these things have I written unto you that believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know right now that you have as a present possession eternal life, unquote. Jesus said, I give my sheep eternal life as a free gift, and they will never be lost again. One can't have eternal life today and be damned tomorrow, but Catholics live in continual fear of being damned. Eating meat on Friday used to damn the soul. That's not Christianity. If a debt one owes to a creditor has been paid in full, there's no need to make further payments, nor would it make sense or be of any value to speak of making this past payment, quote, perpetually present, unquote, as it is claimed the Eucharist does for Christ's sacrifice. No past event can be made perpetually present, and there's no need to do so with Christ's sacrifice at Calvary, even if that were possible. The debt has been paid in full, but that full payment is denied by declaring that each celebration of the Mass distributes a further payment to God for the participants' sins. Such teaching is not Christianity, no matter how early it may be found in the church. Consider the se- uh, point seven: Consider the celibacy forced upon Catholic priests and nuns. In the early church, celibacy was optional for all. Paul was a celibate and recommended this life, but noted that the other apostles, including Peter, were married, and he too had the right to marry. By forcing celibacy upon tens of thousands who want to be priests or nuns but are not capable of maintaining that unnatural life. Rome has created widespread immorality and hypocrisy. Pope Pius II himself said that Rome was the only city run by bastards, the sons of allegedly celibate popes and cardinals. The old joke was that Rome had more prostitutes than any other city because it had the most celibates. Such immorality is not confined to the past. Today, the Archdiocese of Santa Fe, New Mexico, is going bankrupt because of lawsuits against it for the sexual escapades of its priests. The Franciscan Seminary in Santa Barbara has recently shut down because of its priests' sexual affairs, and so it goes across America, with the Catholic Church having paid out hundreds of millions in out-of-court settlements in the past few years to keep the scandals out of the papers. The problem is worldwide. Six French women recently went to Rome to plead with the Pope to repeal celibacy, saying that they represented thousands of women in sexual relationships with supposedly celibate priests who have to keep the relationship secret and can't tell their children who their fathers are. The Pope refused to see them. Required celibacy for clergy was unknown in the early church, early church. It's not Christianity, it's not biblical, and on this point also, Roman Catholicism cannot be identified with early Christianity. Christ told Pilate, my kingdom is not of this world, and therefore my servants don't fight. Yet for centuries, the popes commanded armies and navies and fought wars in the name of Christ to extend their earthly domain and slaughtered entire cities, including women and children, in the process. This is not Christianity. It certainly was unknown in the Christian church in the first three centuries and is soundly condemned in the Bible. But the Roman Catholic Church has never admitted this was wrong, and when in eighteen seventy Italy achieved its independence from the popes at last, and Pius IX was confined to the Vatican, he thundered damnation upon all who had liberated vast territories over which the popes had ruled as despotic kings for centuries. Here again, Roman Catholicism is the very antithesis of early Christianity. Point nine: It was the popes who first put the Jews in ghettos, made them wear an identifying badge, destroyed their synagogues and scriptures, and for centuries banished or massacred those who would not convert to Roman Catholicism. Hitler justified the Holocaust by saying he was only finishing what the church had done to the Jews for centuries. This is not biblical Christianity. Though she now claims to take a different stance vis-a-vis the Jews with her recent treaty with Israel, Rome waited forty six years since nineteen forty eight before officially recognizing Israel's right to the land God gave her, and Rome still opposes her control of Jerusalem, wanting it to be an internet- in international hands. Prayers to Mary, uh, point ten. Prayers to Mary were unknown in the early church, and no justification for them can be found in the Bible. Yet Roman Catholics direct prayers to Mary, which she would have to be God to answer. In the Holy Father's prayer for the Marian year, for example, the Pope asked Mary to comfort, guide, strengthen, and protect the whole of humanity. To do so, she would have to be all powerful, all knowing, and everywhere at once. Moreover, his prayer ends, quote, sustain us, O Virgin Mary, on our journey of faith and obtain for us the grace of eternal salvation, unquote. This is blasphemy. Christ obtained eternal salvation and offers it to all as a free gift without any help from Mary. To sustain all Roman Catholics on their journey of faith, Mary again would have to be God. In fact, God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit guide and sustain us, but for the Catholic, it's Mary. This is not Christianity. The rosary concludes with this final petition. Hail, Holy Queen of heaven, of course, Mother of mercy, our life, our sweetness, and our hope. To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve. To thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears. Turn then, most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us, and so forth. Do Mary's eyes of mercy actually see everyone in the world? Is she really the Mother of Mercy? Didn't God's mercy exist long before Mary was even born? We read of the God of mercy, Psalm thirty nine seventeen, and are encouraged to trust in the mercy of God, Psalm fifty two eight, Luke one seventy eight, and many other verses, but never a word in the entire Bible about Mary's mercy towards mankind. Those who know God's mercy have no need of Mary's. In fact, she would have to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent in order to extend mercy to all mankind. The Bible mentions often mercy and peace coming from God to believers, but nowhere is there a hint that mercy is bestowed by Mary on anyone. Yet the rosary teaches dependence upon her mercy. To thee do we cry, rather than upon God's. As for Mary being the Queen of Heaven, the Bible says Christ is the king, but never that there's a Queen of Heaven, much less that she's Mary. If there were a queen, it would be Christ's bride, the church, but she is never referred to as the Queen of Heaven. The only Queen of Heaven mentioned in scripture was an idol worshipped by the pagans and to which the Jewish women gave offerings, bringing God's wrath upon them. The New Universal Catechism, quoting Vatican II, states, quote, from the most ancient times, the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of Mother of God. Not so. Never in the Bible. Mary is the mother of the body of Jesus, but not of him as God, for as God he existed long before Mary was born and is in fact her creator. The Catechism goes on to say of Mary, quote, to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs, unquote. Here is official Roman Catholic doctrine from the highest level, attributing to Mary authority and power which belong to God alone, for her to protect all Catholics from all dangers and to supply all their needs. Mary would have to be God. In the entire Bible, there is not one prayer to Mary, not one instance of her miraculously helping anyone, nor any promise that she would or could. From Genesis to Revelation, protection and help are sought from, promised by, and found in God and Christ alone. This fact is attested by hundreds of verses. The infinitely powerful and loving God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit has protected, as promised, all who trusted in him through the centuries. Then why would anyone call upon Mary? Yet Catholics send up far more prayers to Mary than to God and Christ combined. This is not Christianity, but Mary religion. Finally, it's argued that if the Roman Catholic Church is not the true church, but went into apostasy, then Christ's promise failed at the gates of hell would not prevail against his church, for the Catholic Church was the only Christian church in existence for fifteen hundred years, so it is said. On the contrary, there have always been numerous groups of thousands of true Christians who gave no obedience to the popes. They were slaughtered by the millions for not conforming to Roman dogmas. They were called Albigenses, Valdenses, Qatari, Lollards, Vaudois, etc., and were falsely accused of being Manicheans and of all manner of immorality. Current encyclopedias perpetuate these lies from Catholic sources. However, there are numerous records preserved from the very days when these alleged heretics were being tortured and massacred, which prove that they were true biblical Christians. That's the issue, not how ancient the record may be, but whether it conforms to the Bible, which is the authority to which we must look in deciding the question before us. Thank you. Mr. Keating, you now have twenty minutes. A century ago, A. J. Mason, a prominent Protestant professor of divinity, wrote, however far back the history is traced, no date can be assigned, however roughly, for the appearance of Catholicism. The church was Catholic from the outset. I agree with this Protestant divine. How can I make you see that he was correct? Well, I propose to work tonight from the duck principle. If it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it sounds like a duck, it's a duck. Applying it to early Christianity, that is the Christianity of the first three centuries prior to the legalization of Christianity by Constantine in three thirteen. If the early church had a structure that was distinctively Catholic, if it held beliefs that were distinctively Catholic, if it had customs that were distinctively Catholic, then it was Catholic. Now, in these matters, we can trust the testimony of early Christian writers. Some of them, such as Ignatius of Antioch, martyred in one o seven, and Polycarp, martyred in one fifty six, studied under such apostles as John. Keep in mind that the early Christians were extraordinarily conservative. They preserved everything that came from the apostles. They were very faithful. There is no falling away among early Christians. We know it because there was no one at the time claiming that there was a falling away. Yes, there were heresies. But the main church went on in the tradition of the apostles. Notice that in my remarks, I will confine myself to the first three centuries of Christianity, because this is what the question tonight is all about. I do this to avoid having to waste time with the claim that distinctively Catholic elements in church structure, belief, and customs were introduced by pagans after the legalization of Christianity. Let's look first at church structure. We see the early church had that tripartite leadership of bishop, priest, deacon. We see that there was an apostolic succession of bishops. Clement, the fourth bishop of Rome, writing to the Corinthians in the year ninety six, said, our apostles appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that if they were to die, other approved men should succeed in their ministry. Irenaeus, in his book Against Heresies in one ninety, gave a listing of the popes. The blessed apostles Peter and Paul handed over the office of episcopate to Linus. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place of the apostles, Clement. He had been, he had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. To Clement, Evaristus succeeded, and Alexander succeeded Evaristus. Then Sixtus was appointed after him, Telesphorus, then Hyginus, after him Pius, after him Anicetus. Soter succeeded Anicetus, and now in the twelfth place, after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate has fallen to Eleutherus. This is an early listing of the apostolic succession in the see of Rome. Notice that it comes from the date one ninety. In his new book, A Woman Rides the Beast, Mr. Hunt argues wrongly that the popes are not successors of Peter, but successors of Constantine. But how can that possibly be, since one, the year one ninety was a full century before Constantine was even born, and already in one ninety we're up to the twelfth pope. Irenaeus goes on to say, it is necessary to obey those who, as we have shown, have succession from the apostles, those who have received with the succession of the episcopate the sure charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father. Tertullian, challenging opponents of the church, said in two hundred, let them show the origin of their churches, let them unroll the order of their bishops, running down in succession from the beginning, so that their first bishop shall have been preceded by one of the apostles. And notice, please, that only bishops are successors to apostles. This contradicts Mr. Hunt's claim, also in this book, where on page one fifty one he says, every ordinary disciple must have the same authority and power from Christ as did the apostles. Obviously, then, not some special class of bishops, archbishops, cardinals, popes, or magisterium, but all Christians are the successors of the apostles. False. This is not what the early Christians taught, and this is not what the early successors of the apostles taught. From succession, we move naturally to another Catholic distinctive that's seen today and was seen then, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Again, Clement, writing in the year ninety six, is exercising that primacy. Here's what happened. You recollect that Paul had to write letters to the Corinthians because of their errors. The Corinthians in ninety six appealed to the Bishop of Rome, Clement, to solve some disputes. He sent them a letter, we still have it. Yet why didn't they appeal instead to the Apostle John, who is still alive, living on Patmos, much closer to them, the last apostle alive? Why not to him to settle? Because already they knew the successor of Peter had the primacy in the church. Irenaeus, in his book Against Heresy, said, with that church, the Church of Rome, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition. We see the pope of that year, Victor, exercising his universal jurisdiction. There came up what is known to scholars as the Corto Desuman controversy. This had to do with what date Easter should be celebrated on. Pope Victor ordered all local churches to so arrange it that Easter fell on a Sunday, but Polycrates, the Bishop of Ephesus, opposed the order and sent Victor a letter arguing for celebrating Easter on the fourteenth of Nisan, according to the Jewish calendar, meaning that often it would not fall on a Sunday. He said that he and his fellow bishops who supported him would not obey Victor's order. So what did Victor do? He excommunicated Polycrates and all the bishops who supported him, a whole province in Asia Minor. This incident shows that already in the second century, the popes were exercising generalized authority. Clement of Alexandria, writing in two fifty two, said, even heretics set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church at Rome, in which sacerdotal unity has its source. Even heretics wanted to get the okay of Peter and his successor because they knew that whichever side Peter's successor was on was the orthodox side, and they wanted to be counted as Orthodox. Let's go now on to some beliefs that are distinctively Catholic. I'll begin with baptism as a sacrament that regenerates the soul by the forgiveness of sins. The Epistle of Barnabas, written in the year seventy, refers to the washing which confers the remission of sins. The Shepherd of Hermas in one forty says, there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our sins. Justin Martyr, in his first apology in one fifty, referred to Christians being washed in the washing that is for the remission of sins and for regeneration. Theophilus, writing to Autolycus in one eighty one, men receive repentance and remission of sins through water and the bath of regeneration. Irenaeus again, we are made clean by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes. In a document of two twenty one known as the Recognitions of Clement, we read, when you are regenerated and born again of water and of God, you shall be able to obtain salvation, but otherwise it is impossible. A very important point. There is no father of the church, not a single one, who rejects the regenerative power of baptism, and there is not a single one who believes that baptism only symbolizes that one has become a Christian, and that's basically today's evangelical view. Evangelicalism does not hold that baptism itself does something to you because it says baptism is not a sacrament. But every father of the church disputes that. Now, what about the methods of baptism? The Catholic Church today baptizes by immersion, by sprinkling, or by pouring. So did the early church. But the evangelicals only use bapt- baptism by immersion as a rule. The Didache, the year seventy, the first regulation of liturgical usages. The year seventy, several apostles are still alive at this point. If you have no living water, that is, running water as in a river, baptize in other water. Pour water three times over the head, saying, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Pope Cornelius the First in two fifty one, when he, the heretic Novatian, seemed about to die, he received baptism in the bed where he lay by pouring. In Cyprian in two fifty four, in the saving sacraments, no one should be disturbed because the sick are poured upon or sprinkled when they receive the Lord's grace. And who's eligible for baptism? Today, the Catholic Church says, among others, infants. Evangelicals say no. The early church says yes. Hippolytus in the Apostolic Tradition two fifteen, baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves, let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them. Who are the children that could not speak for themselves? Faves in arms. Origen in his commentary on Romans, the church received from the apostles, from the apostles, the tradition of giving baptism also to infants. Nobody disputed Origen's statement. The Council of Car- Carthage and Cyprian in the same year rejected the opinion that parents should wait at least eight days after birth before baptizing children. That was the big dispute. Should we wait eight days, not whether we should baptize infants at all. Another distinctive Catholic doctrine, the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist at Mass, as taken from John six. Evangelicals don't believe in it, the early church did. Ignatius of Antioch in one o seven wrote, referring to heretics, he said, these heretics abstain from the Eucharist and from Mass because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ. Justin Martyr, in her, his first apology, wrote, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, Jesus Christ, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus. Origen, in his homily on Exodus, you are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you've received the body of the Lord, you reverently exercise care, lest a particle of it fall to the ground and perish. But if the bread stays bread, no one cares if a particle falls to the ground. But if the bread becomes the body and blood of Jesus Christ, then it's sacred, and you must protect it. There is no record in the early centuries of any Christian doubting the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. In fact, the first written evidence we have of anybody doubting it comes in the year ten eighty eight, when Baron Garius of Tours promoted the doctrine. That's more than a thousand years after the establishment of the church. Even the pagan Romans give testimony about the real presence of Jesus. How? Tertullian and Minucius Felix, writing in the second century, note that the pagan Romans accused the early Christians of cannibalism because the Christians claimed to eat their God during their worship services. That must have meant that Christians were teaching even Romans that they believed in the real presence. If it were just bread, the Romans would not have made that charge. What about the intercession of saints in heaven? Origen writes, not only does the high priest Christ pray for those who pray sincerely, but also the angels and also the souls of the saints who already have fallen asleep. Cyprian writes, let us on both sides, in heaven and in earth, on earth, always pray for one another. Let us relieve burdens and afflictions by mutual love, that if one of us shall go hence the first, our love may continue in the presence of the Lord, and our prayers from heaven for our brothers and sisters not cease in the presence of the Father's mercy. And then you can see for yourself, near Santa Sabina's church in Rome, there's a tomb dating from 300 on which this inscription appears: Atticus, sleep in peace, secure in your safety, and pray anxiously for our sins, asking the dead to intercede with God for us. And what about Catholic customs that are distinctive today? How about the celibacy of priests? Contrary to what you might have heard from some quarters, authentic scholarship has demonstrated the rule of celibacy goes all the way back. The best source on this is Professor Christian Cochini in The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy. He surveyed every known case of an ordained man, whether bishop, priest, or deacon, who was married either before or while he was serving in an ordained capacity. He went through all the ancient records and came up with a total of two hundred and thirty names. Many of those were men who had been married and were widowed, were widowed and then were ordained, so they weren't married while they were priests. Most of the others took a vow of celibacy, or continence rather, while they were married with the agreement of their wives. That is, they agreed to live as brother and sister for the duration of their marriage. The rule of priestly celibacy was not an invention of the Middle Ages, it goes all the way back. How about another ancient sign? This one, the sign of the cross. That's what points out to all of us that the person is a Catholic. Well, look at what Tertullian said in two eleven. At every forward step in movement, when coming in and going out, when putting on our clothes, when putting on our shoes, when bathing, when at table, when lighting the lamps, when reclining, when sitting, in all the ordinary occupations of the day, we furrow our brow with the sign of the cross. Already it was an old custom in two eleven. What about the veneration of relics? We read in the martyrdoms of Saint Ignatius, who was executed in one o seven, Polycarp in one fifty six, We read that their relics were venerated by the Christians. The martyrdom of Polycarp says, the centurion confiscated the body, and according to their custom, the Roman custom, he burned it. Then at last we took up the bones, more precious than costly gems and finer than gold, and put them in a suitable place. The Lord will permit us, when we are able, to assemble there in joy and gladness, and to celebrate the birthday of Polycarp's martyrdom. Note that this quotation also demonstrates that early Christians celebrated the feast days of saints. What about fasting and abstinence? The early church practiced it just as Catholics do today. During Lent, there are appointed days to fast, that is to have less to eat or to abstain from meat, all the Fridays in Lent, for example. The early Christians had a much more rigorous schedule of this. In the Didache, written in the year seventy, this is the first liturgical directive in the church, it indicated Christians were to fast on Wednesdays and Fridays of every week. The Friday abstinence from meat was made in commemoration of the Passion, according to Tertull- excuse me, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria. It was established universally in the second century. In the Eastern Church, there was what they called a major Lent, where all the people fasted for the full forty days, mimicking our Lord being in the desert. The practice of abstinence was especially common among early hermits in the East. Saint Anthony, for example, in the third century, and his followers abstained from all food except bread, salt, and water. We have seen that the early church displayed the distinctive structure, beliefs, and customs found in today's Catholic Church. Even Mr. Hunt concedes in his books that these distinctives go at least as far back as the fourth century as a general proposition, because he says at that point, after the church was made the official religion, the generality of Christians became Catholic in appearance. So he admits it goes back to the fourth century, the kinds of things I've been talking about. But these distinctives, as I've just shown you, were present in the first through third centuries, present not as aberrations as he would want you to think, but as the facets of mainstream Christianity. Virtually every person who claimed to be a Christian followed these structures, these beliefs, and these customs. We come, therefore, to the inescapable conclusion that the church of the first three centuries was the church of the fourth century. And if that's the case, and the church of the fourth century, uh, Mr. Hunt's own admission is the church of the twentieth, then the first of the earliest, the church of the earliest years is also the church of today. The Catholic Church today was the church of the early centuries, and that church in all its facets was Catholic. We now proceed to the rebuttal phase. Each, uh, debater will have ten minutes. We'll, uh, begin with Mr. Hunt. Well, uh, my good friend Carl made a prophet out of me. I said he wasn't going to go to the Bible, but he would go to the writings of the early church fathers to prove his case. Uh, but I already said that in the days of Paul, Paul said, all they in Asia have forsaken me. He said to the, uh, elders of Ephesus, of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them. How do we know that Ignatius wasn't speaking perverse things? What we have to be is Bereans. Uh, by the way, I think we have some sign up sheets out there. We call our ministry the Berean Call, and if you don't get our newsletter, you're ha- you're welcome to sign up. We'd be happy to send it to you. We send it out free, uh, each month. The reason we call it the Berean Call is because Acts seventeen eleven says that the Bereans were more noble, that is, those in the town of Berea were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they searched the scriptures, that is the Bible, daily, to see whether what Paul said was true. You have to do the same. Uh, I don't care whether Ignatius of, of, of Antioch and Polycarp studied under John. The elders of Ephesus studied under Paul, and he said, of your own selves men will arise speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them. The question, if we're going to decide what is early Christianity, what is true Christianity, we're going to have to go to the Bible. But Carl is doing what a Catholic does, and that is we cannot interpret the Bible for ourselves. Uh, Vatican II says only the Magisterium can interpret the Bible, and so we must look to, if we're going to decide what is Christianity, we can't go to the Bible for ourselves, we can't use our own brains, and we cannot, uh, uh, have the leading of the Holy Spirit show us what has been written in here, even to correct errors long before Ignatius of of Antioch came along. Uh, but we're going to have to take the word of the so-called early church fathers. And then finally down the line, we're going to have to take the word of the Pope today, the bishops, the magisterium, and, uh, that's not biblical. You will be held accountable by God, and one day when you stand before God, uh, and he says, why did you do this? You can't say because the early church fathers said so, or because the pope said so, but you're going to have to be like the Bereans and check Pope John Paul II out, check me out, check Carl out, check the church fathers out by the word of God. This is our authority. Uh, now he says, I found it interesting that he said Paul and Peter ga- uh, gave Linus his bishopric of Rome. Uh, why didn't just Peter? I thought he was supposed to be the first pope. In fact, on the earliest list of the bishops of, of, of Rome, we don't find Peter, but we find Linus, and there's no evidence to show that Peter was ever the bishop of Rome. Uh, apostolic succession. He said that I'm wrong on apostolic succession. I say that every Christian today is a successor to the apostles. Where do I get that from? Some early church father? No, I get it from the Bible. I get it from Christ himself. In Matthew twenty the, the so-called Great Commission, Christ said to his disciples, go into all the world and make disciples of all nations, and those that you make disciples, you teach them to observe everything that I have commanded you. Now, if they're going to observe everything that Christ commanded the, the, the apostles, then they're gonna, pardon me, they're gonna have to be able to bind and loose. They're gonna have to do everything that the apostles did, and that includes making disciples themselves and teaching those disciples to observe everything Christ commanded the first disciples. That's where the succession of the apostles comes down. It comes down to every disciple that they made, that they were to command to obey everything that Christ himself had told them. Therefore, that means that every disciple has the authority and the power of the Holy Spirit to do what the early apostles did, and we are commanded to obey Christ as they obeyed him. This is not what the early church fathers say, it's what the Bible says. It's what Jesus Christ himself, uh, said. Carl has quoted some interesting sources, but I can quote, uh, other sources that would say the opposite. Uh, for example, let me quote Peter DeRosa, himself a devout Catholic. He says, it may jolt Catholics to hear that the great fathers of the church saw no connection between it, that is Matthew sixteen eighteen, on this rock I will build my church, and the Pope. Not one of them applies it, applies thou art Peter to anyone but Peter. One after another, they analyze it. Cyprian, Origen, Cyril, Hilary, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine. They're not exactly Protestants. Not one of them calls the Bishop of Rome a rock or applies to him specifically the promise of the keys. This is a, is as staggering to Catholics as if they were to find no mention in the Fathers of the Holy Spirit or the resurrection of the dead. For the Fathers, it is Peter's faith, or the Lord in whom Peter has faith, which is called the rock, not Peter. All the councils of the church, from Nicaea in the fourth century to Constance in the fifteenth, agree that Christ himself is the only foundation of the church, that is the rock on which the church rests. Not one of the fathers speaks of a transference of power from Peter to those who succeeded him. There is no hint of an abiding patrian office. So the early church did not look on Peter as bishop of Rome, nor therefore did it think that each bishop of Rome succeeded Peter. The Gospels did not create the papacy. The papacy, once in being, leaned for support on the Gospels, though it wasn't there. Now, I don't take comfort from this. I'm only pointing out that we can also find, uh, for example, von Döllinger, uh, one of the most eminent Catholic historians of the nineteenth century, century. He says, Tertullian, Cyprian, Lactantius know nothing of special papal prerogatives or of any higher or supreme right of deciding in matters of doctrine. In the writings of the Greek doctors, Eusebius, Saint Athanasius, Saint Basil the Great, the two Gregorys, and Saint Epiphanius, there is not one word of any prerogatives of the Roman bishop. Most, the most copious of the Greek fathers, Saint Chrysostom, is wholly silent on the subject, and so are the two Surals. Equally silent are the Latins, Hilary, Patian, Zeno, Lucifer, Sulpicius, and Saint Ambrose. Saint Augustine has written more on the church, its unity and authority, than all the other fathers put together. He urges all sorts of arguments to show that the Donatists are bound to return to the church, but of the papal chair as one of them, he knows nothing. So we could also go back, uh, to early sources and, and, and disagree with Carl, but that's not the point. The point is, what does the Bible say? Uh, he, he goes to the early church and he says celibacy goes way back there and so forth. Um, just lost my place. Um, Paul writes and he says, am not, am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are not ye my work in the Lord? If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am unto you, for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord. I'm reading from First Corinthians chapter nine. Mine answer to them that do examine me is this: Have we not power to eat and to drink? Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas, that is Peter? So he says very clearly that the other apostles, he was a celibate, but that was voluntary. The other apostles had wives, and he said, I too, uh, could, could have a, a wife if, if I desired. It was not enforced upon them, it was an option, uh, that they had. Now, uh, Carl said, uh, he referred to, uh, fasting and, uh, certain, uh, days and so forth. Well, let's go to the Bible. Let's see what Paul said. He's writing earlier and more authoritatively than any of these church fathers, so-called. And he says, him that is weak in the faith, this is Romans fourteen— receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things, another who is weak eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not, and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth, for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up, for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another, another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day regards it unto the Lord, and he that regardeth not the day to the Lord, he doth not regard it, and so forth. Uh, he presents a liberal, a liberty. Where the Holy Spirit is, there is liberty, a liberty that the Catholic Church will not allow you today. Uh, there are certain days that you're not supposed to, uh, eat meat. Uh, it used to be, as I said, a mortal sin to eat meat on Fridays. I don't know how you apologize to all those people who ended up in hell because they ate meat on Friday, and now s- then the church says, no, it's no longer the problem. Go, go to Colossians, uh, two and verse sixteen. Listen to what Paul says. Let no man judge you, uh, in meat or in drink or in respect of an holy day or the new moon or the Sabbath days, which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ. I'll take the word of Paul against the early church fathers. Mr. Keating, you have ten minutes in your rebuttal. So many mistakes, so little time. I'd ask you to keep the applause. I noticed a conspicuous absence of any appeal to early Christian history. What we had substituted was a litany of historical confusions and melodramatic statements. Now, Mr. Hunt says we can't rely on even the next generation, even the same generation as Christians. We can't rely on them to understand church teaching from scripture correctly, and yet he asks us, uh nineteen centuries later, to trust his interpretation of it, when we've not had a chance to sit at the feet of the apostles. His implication is that no one got it right. Yes, there were her- heretics in the early centuries, but the Church of Jesus Christ is indefectible, and he promised it would be. This rigmarole that Mr. Hunt has gone through is a kind of shadow he draws over this early time because he's got nothing to draw on from those early centuries. I noticed that he did not go back and quote the men that I quoted on the opposite side of these issues because they didn't take the opposite side. He begs a real important question here, which is really, how is the New T- Testament to be interpreted? I say one of the best ways is to see what the very first Christians understood by it. Now, sure, some people got it wrong, but certainly most of the people must, must have gotten it right, especially those who had seen the apostles and learned from them. So many problems. I'll just go randomly as he went random. He said Pope Martin V ordered the extermination of the Hussites. The word in Latin is exterminare. It does not mean kill. It means to deport. It's a Latin term, and he brings it into English, thinks that the Latin word means the same as its English derivative. It does not. Martin did not say that the Hussites should be killed. He instructed the princes of the realm to deport the heretics to another country. Mr. Hahn alleges that millions were killed in the Inquisition, but all the reputable Protestant and scholar- Catholic scholars that I know of say the numbers, and I'm not approving of them, but the numbers were in the thousands. Most say around three thousand. Fewer killed in the Inquisition than were killed in Protestant England for witch trials. Now, I'm not supporting what happened in the Inquisition, but the grotesqueness of going from thousands to millions makes you wonder about sincerity. You said von Dolinger was an eminent Catholic historian. Not really. He was a schismatic. He left the Catholic Church. He wrote his history about the episodes that prompted him to leave, and he had a grudge match. He wrote against the Catholic Church because he left it, the way a man might talk badly about a girl that he jilted. Mr. Hunt said that the Pope listed the cost of the absolution of certain serious sins. It never happened. It never happened. The church has never charged anybody at any time for forgiveness of sin. Never. He said that priests charge for saying masses. I charge for giving talks. He charges either for giving talks or he gets book royalties generated by his talks. The Lord said the laborer's work is higher. When a minister of Mr. Hunt's church conducts services, he gets a salary. Priests get a salary. The, the annual, the regular stipend for a mass is five dollars in the United States. You can ask the priest at your closest parish. It is a kind of gift to him for his doing a labor. Mr. Hunt said that Vatican II anathematized unbelievers. Well, that's news to me because Vatican II did not contain one anathema, not one about anything or anybody. Then he goes to the wealth of the Vatican. He talks about fantastic wealth. The Vatican apparently is the wealthiest institution in the world. Not remotely. For example, most of the, most of the Catholic Church's wealth is tied up in land and buildings, in churches, houses of worship, in schools, in hospitals, and in orphanages. These properties are lo- owned by the local churches of each country, not by the Vatican. The Vatican owns the properties within Vatican City State and a few other properties within the city of Rome. The annual budget of the Vatican, the total annual budget is about the size of the budget of the Archdiocese of Chicago, one hundred million dollars, and that is to supply the needs of missionaries and poor priests and poor nuns and poor people throughout the world, and to run Vatican City, and to do all those other expenses for one billion Catholics in the world. One hundred million dollars is a budget very much smaller than many cities' budgets. Very much smaller. Mr. Hunt went on to say that celibacy was forced on priests and nuns. Well, that's like saying we forced policemen to wear uniforms, and that if a policeman doesn't want to wear a uniform, it's unjust. It's not unjust. If you want to be a cop, you agree to wear a uniform. That's part of the deal. If you want to be a priest in the Western Rite of the Church, you agree to voluntary celibacy. If you are in one of the Eastern Rites, married men are ordained, and they always have been, all the way back to the first century. So, in a way, you could choose which rite you'd want to be ordained in. In this country, nearly every priest is in the Western Rite, and that's why almost every priest you see is unmarried. But no one is forced to become a priest. When he does, he takes on the duties and responsibilities of the office. He said that the church had great complicity in the Nazi persecution. This is a great slander, but Mr. Hunt devotes a lot of his books to suggesting this. But who should we believe? Should we believe, say, Mr. Hunt or Golda Meir, the late Prime Minister of Israel, who was the Vatican ambassador in nineteen fifty eight at the death of Pius XII, the Pope who reigned during World War II, praised him for having saved more Jews than anyone else, in fact, all the Allied powers put together. The Jewish historian Lapid added up that under Pius XII, the church saved the lives of eight hundred and sixty thousand Jews. Rabbi Israel Zoli was the chief rabbi of Jerusalem before World War II. He was so moved by the great lengths to which Catholics from the Pope on down went to save the Jews that he became a Catholic after the war, and he took as his baptismal name Eugenio, which is the baptismal name of Pius XII. As one of the most important rabbis in the world, you don't do that. You don't take the name of someone who was killing your people. This is a great slander against the Catholic Church and against Pius XII in particular. It is simply false, what Mr. Huntsman is saying. He also said that the Catholic Church killed Jews who would not convert. Wrong again. No one was forced to convert to the Catholic faith. The Catholic popes repeatedly issued promulgations that Jews who wanted to remain Jews had to have their property and lives respected. The popes did also say that those Jews who feigned conversion to Christianity to gain political office or economic temperament, those Jews could be subject to civil penalties, but nobody who's ever been forced to convert. Mr. Hunt says that on the list of the bishops of Rome, we always find it beginning with Linus, never with Peter. Wrong again. I read you a list be- from, uh, Irenaeus. It begins with Peter. All the lists begin with Peter. All the lists go back and say that Linus took the place of those who founded the church in Rome, and they look at it in two aspects. Peter as the bishop of Rome, and Paul the great preacher, who also died at Rome in the Neronian persecution. Both popes are successors to Peter, and all the lists show this. As I say, I noticed that Mr. Hunt spent no time quoting the man I quoted to you. He's going hither and yon, bringing up all kinds of falsehoods, inaccuracies, misrepresentations, scare tactics to keep your mind off the real question. What was the church like in the early centuries? My friends, there's only one answer to that. It was like the Catholic Church. We, we now move to the cross-examination period. Uh, let me issue a warning. Uh, those of you who can't seem to keep it coarse, uh, try, would you please? You show great disrespect to both of our speakers. Mr. Hunt is quite capable of responding to Mr. Keating, and Mr. Keating is quite capable of responding to Mr. Hunt. We invited them here to debate. We didn't ask for your comments in the peanut gallery. You understand? The cross-examination proceeds this way. Uh, one of the speakers will state a question for thir- within thirty seconds. Uh, his opponent will have two minutes to answer. Then the one who asked the question has one minute to rebut, and the one who fielded the question has one minute to reply. This can become the most interesting part of the debate, so... So we'll, we'll get on to it. Um, Mr. Keating, you will lead off, Thirty seconds to, uh, state the question. Mr. Hunt, how do you explain, or explain away, the unanimous early teaching by the Fathers of the Church and other Christian writers that baptism regenerates and forgives sin. I don't think I have to explain or explain away, you know, with a, I think to the audience, the difference between our approach is very clear. You're going to go by what the Church Fathers say, and if the Church Fathers, if you can find enough Church Fathers to say something, and if the Magisterium says it, the traditions of the Catholic Church say it, the Pope says it, then regardless of whether it agrees with the Bible or not, because you, Carl, cannot accept, you cannot interpret the Bible. You say that in your own book. You wouldn't believe that the Bible was the word of God unless the church told you. So the Bible has no power, uh, the gospel has no power to speak to you. So you're going to go by what the church fathers say. I don't have to explain away the church fathers. What I'm responsible for is, what does the Bible say? There is one verse in the Bible, Matthew sixteen, that says, he that is, uh, he that believes and is baptized shall be saved. There are dozens of verses that say, he that believeth shall be saved. There are many verses that say, he that believeth not shall be damned. There's not one verse in the Bible that says, he that is not baptized shall be damned. Baptism is a sign of of our faith in Christ, of having come to the cross, accepted his death as our death, being buried with Christ, and rising in new life. And it's an act of obedience to Christ, but it does not say. Paul, for example, in First Corinthians chapter one even says, I don't know, remember how many of you I baptized. The household of Stephanas, maybe there were one or two others. I don't even remember. If this was necessary for salvation, you'd think Paul would have baptized, would have known who he baptized, and he would have been very careful that he baptized. He said, Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel. In Romans one sixteen, he said, the gospel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes it. Nothing about baptism. You have a gospel in First Corinthians one fifteen, nothing about baptism. And then in First Corinthians four, Paul says, I am your father in the faith. I have begotten you through the gospel, and yet he didn't baptize most of them. How could he be- he have begotten them through the gospel if he didn't baptize them, if baptism is essential to salvation? I go by what Paul says, not the early church fathers. One minute, uh, to I'm not gonna go right. Let's hold, let's hold the applause because that will extend, you can understand how long the cross-examination would be if we permitted applause during this segment. And, uh, Mr. Keating, you now have, uh, one minute to rebut. Well, let's look at Saint Paul a bit on this. Titus three five to seven, he said, he saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit so that we might be justified by grace. The washing of regeneration is baptism. John three five, of course, refers to baptism. You must be born of water and the Holy Spirit, not just the Holy Spirit, water and the Holy Spirit. All the early Christians understood that to refer to baptism. None of them re- understood to refer to anything else. Look at Ephesians five twenty eight, where we're told that Christ has cleansed the church by the washing of water with the word, by the washing of water with the word. We have it from the Bible. We have that interpretation protected and understood and explained and expanded for us by the earliest Christian writers, all of whom agree with the Catholic position that baptism regenerates. Not a single one disputes it. And Mr. Hunt, one, uh, minute to reply. The Bible makes it very clear, and you just said it, Carl, I thank you for that. The washing of water by the word. Jesus said to his disciples, you are clean through the word that I have spoken unto you. This is the regeneration by the word. This is the water that it's talking about. Uh, Peter says himself, uh, in F- in First Peter chapter one verse twenty three, being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth forever. So when Christ said you have to be born of water and of the Spirit, he's talking about the water of the Word that washes us and that cleanses us, as he made it very clear, uh, on the night of the Last Supper. Okay, uh, Mr. Honk, you have thirty seconds to state a question to Mr. Keating. Uh, Carl, Vatican II clearly says, and you agree in your book Catholicism and Fundamentalism, that sins must be expiated by the sufferings of this life or in purgatory. Yet the church offers indulgences to shorten or even eliminate purgatorial suffering. Two parts to the question. Isn't that a contradiction? We must suffer to expiate sins, but we don't have to. And, and how is it, uh, that the use of a crucifix or a mass, uh, said can shorten or eliminate expiatorial suffering, but Christ's death on the cross can't? Okay, Mr. Keating, two minutes, uh, to answer. Every sin incurs two kinds of punishments, just as every crime committed civilly incurs two punishments. If you were to steal some money, you could be convicted and sent to prison. You could be pardoned, but you would still have to return the money. There is, with every sin, an eternal punishment and a temporal punishment. The eternal punishment would come if you die not in the state of grace, estranged from God, you go to hell. That is the penalty for unrepentant serious sin. But even serious sin has with it a temporal aspect. There is, just as with the civil law, a requirement that you must suffer for what you have done. Now we look at the early church, we see the early Christians following this understanding. They likened it to the civil law. This is no denial of the exculpatory power of what Christ did. Because our sins can be forgiven through Christ if we repent. But that does not mean that there's still not some punishment. When I forgive my son, who apologizes for having done something wrong, I forgive him out of love, the way my Heavenly Father forgives me. But I still may ground my son for the weekend. There's still a consequence to pay that goes along with that forgiveness. Okay. Mr. Hunt, one minute to rebut. Well, Carl, you didn't answer my question. Uh, I said there's an obvious contradiction. On the one hand, it says, as you just said, and you explained why you believe that sins must be expiated in addition to Christ's suffering on the cross, but that wasn't my question. I asked you, how is it that it says sins must be expiated, but in fact they don't have to be expiated because you can get an indulgence, the use of a crucifix, uh, the saying of a mass, and so forth. But the death of Christ won't do that. In fact, if you die wearing the scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, uh, and do certain other things, she says she will personally go into purgatory the Saturday after your death and take you out to heaven. So on the one hand, the Catholic Church says you must expiate, suffer to expiate your sins. On the other hand, even Padre Pio with the stigmata can suffer for your sins. So it's a contradiction. That's what I was asking about. Okay. Mr. Hunt, one minute, uh, Mr. Keating, one minute to reply. The key point here, Mr. Hunt, is you have to distinguish between eternal punishment due for a sin and temporal punishment due for a sin. See, apparently, in your restricted understanding of soteriology, you don't see that there are two aspects here, and you have to look at both of them. All the early Christians understood there were two aspects. Now, one way you can expiate the temporal punishment for a sin is by performing works of charity and mercy, or performing a good deed such as praying and and an indulgence would be given, for example, for praying or reading the Bible. The church wishes you to do that, and it will give you an indulgence for that. That is the kind of charitable acts, alms giving is another, that tends to lessen the temporal punishment due for your sins. But unless you make the distinction between the eternal and the temporal punishments, this discussion can't go anywhere. Okay. And now we have, uh, Mr. Keating. You have thirty seconds to state a question to Mr. Hunt. You've decried the Catholic Church taking on pagan customs and baptizing them. Well, how do you decide which pagan customs that you will take on? After all, I presume you have. You're a married man, you wear a ring. The ring comes from paganism. As John Henry Newman pointed out, the bride's white dress and her bouquet and the exchange of vows, those come from paganism. How do you decide, Mr. Hunt, which pagan practices to accept and reject? And Mr. Hunt, two minutes to answer. Well, Carl, I haven't said a word tonight about pagan customs, uh, from the Catholic Church, uh, but nevertheless, I'm not the infallible pope, uh, when I, I wear a ring. Maybe I've made some mistakes, but we have an infallible church, uh, and the historians say that the statues of Isis, the fertility goddess, they changed the name to Mary. Uh, uh, Will Durant tells us this. Statues of Horus, the Egyptian god, they changed the name to Jesus. Uh, the, the fact is, even Augustine himself says that a man who goes into a fourth century church, he will find adulterers, fornicators, sorcerers, uh, people wearing amulets and so forth. He says that the same people that frequent the pagan temples on pagan holidays are also in the church. The church, in fact, was married to the world. It was married to paganism. Uh, this is a historical fact. Uh, it has nothing to do with whether I wear a ring or not. If you say that's a pagan custom, fine, but that's a custom that we use now, and I have no connection to it. But the church ought to be held accountable because it supposedly is the representative of Christ, and it's infallible. And, uh, Mr. Keating, one minute to rebut. The fact is that you do wear a wedding ring, but you know because you've read my book that it comes from paganism, and you still wear it. So one might wonder, why do you wear it when you know it comes from paganism? Either, it seems, that you don't disapprove of it, or if you do disapprove of it, you're not living by your own principles. But you go on to say, but this ring has no pagan connotation, and I agree, nor does the white wedding dress with the bouquet, nor do all these other things, when taken from paganism and made to Christian use, they no longer have a pagan meaning. Just as those evangelicals out here who use a Christmas tree, don't think that they're praying to the Germanic gods for somebody because German pagans had something like a Christmas tree, because there has, there is no pagan connotation attached to those symbols any longer. They're Christian symbols, and that's it. And Mr. Hunt, one minute to reply. Oh, I still have another minute to reply? Okay. Uh, Carl, I would agree with you that a wedding ring has a good purpose. Uh, it lets people know that I'm married. Uh, and uh, I guess some men take it off to do some things they shouldn't be doing, um, or women, women as well. But uh, I'm not making an issue tonight about a pagan connection between, uh, Catholicism. Uh, it's a, it's a fact that the church, forget paganism, the church married the world back there, and it took on many worldly aspects. Uh, the, the, the church lost its hope of heaven and began to work in con- in concert with earthly kings for an earthly empire. uh, and it, uh, it abandoned much of true Christianity, and it became the popular thing to be a Christian, even to get ahead in the military or in politics, you had to be a Christian, and it compromised. There was a compromise that came into the church at that time under Constantine that followed thereafter. And that ends the first, uh, segment of the cross-examination.