School students stool stood still, Studio stalls still still still, school studs from
stallings several years and stalling news the sas the Stallings, the sec stallings step
start, all right, we're back. Welcome. It's another open forum we
haven't had open for him in a bit, and today is perfect timing for
open for him because of the surprising but not surprising news in the Roman Catholic
world. We have the upcoming Synod on senidelity in the Roman Catholic Church that
they have been making quite a fuss about because of course they are, with
all with good reason, concerned that Francis is going to further the agenda to
quote update, liberalize, and bring big changes to the Roman Catholic Church.
For many of us, it's not surprising. As you know, I converted
to Roman Catholicism in two thousand and three and myself went through the whole.
I guess you could say bell curve of Roman Catholic progress, the development of
theology, which occurs on an individual level as you work your way through not
just Roman Catholic history and dogma, but what I think are open contradictions.
And so remember Erica Baras said in The Discover that we had four or five
years ago that if you could demonstrate that the papacy has contradicted in faith and
morals, that would constitute a disqualifier of the system. Now I think we've
demonstrated it many times over. But there's always, thanks to Francis, our
greatest evangelist for the Orthodox Church, a new scandal every time there's a hubbub
amongst the Roman Catholic So every time it's almost without fail. Every time they
make a big hubbub and a big stink, as the Thomas did a couple
of weeks ago, Francis comes to our aid to provide us with yet another
gigantic theological error, not just a moral scandal, not just a much of
coping and explaining away. And oh it doesn't count, it does not infallible,
it doesn't matter. It literally does not matter in terms of theological teaching,
what the status of the document is, because the Vatican One teaching is
that the Roman bishop is preserved from errors in faith and morals. So anything
that's encompassed by faith and morals, which is intentionally ambiguous, by the way,
because that allows for the flexibility to deny or affirm various things that might
be controversial as either non infallible or infallible, as the case provides. So
whatever is opportune at the time actually becomes the standard by which something is considered
authoritative or infallible. Now, what's interesting is that it's not really a question
of what's infallible or fallible, because again, that has nothing to do with
whether a person is objectively, objectively speaking heterodox. So, in other words,
the authority behind the document right has absolutely nothing to do with the person
themselves believing and teaching and promoting heresy. If the authority was necessary to make
something heretical, this is what somebody the Romans. It doesn't count. It's
not binding, it's not infallible. I don't have to listen to it.
I can discard everything that I don't want because it's not quote infallible. The
only body within the Roman Catholic Church that can make something infallible or to proclaim
it to be of infallible status is ultimately the Roman see. So essentially,
what that boils down to is that no one could be a heretic except the
pope, and the pope cannot be a heretic. That's an unfalsifiable system,
so via Vatican one, which is very explicit in many places, that the
successors to the Roman bishopric will continue. There will be a living magisterial succession
to the end of the world, to the return of Christ. That's what
Vatican one says clear as day in many places. That means that while there
can be vacancies between successors, sure, there cannot be the loss of successors
in an extended period such that, for example, nowadays, all of the
cardinals and Roman College and all of the bishops of Vatican two, for example,
there are no trad bishops left that could constitute a potential Roman College to
elect a traditional pope. So you understand that Francis has already stack of the
deck with liberals. And it's not even an issue of liberal and conservative anyway,
because all of the people who affirm Vatican two are already part of the
revolution anyway, because Vatican two's Nostre attat document is precisely the document that prepared
the way for things like Pacha Mama, And if you don't remember, Pacha
Mama was the blessing of this indigenous human sacrifice idle, which according to natural
theology, had said to be well, but it's kind of also like Mary.
I mean it's a woman. Mary's a woman, So we could say
that all the symbols are the same. Remember this was Michelle Lofton's argument.
No, it doesn't work that way. Did that argument work when Aaron was
arguing that the calf could be a symbol of Yahweh, the well, the
golden calf could just be a power of God of Yahweh. That was the
argument that Aaron made, and that was not acceptable as an argument for the
golden calf. Exact same, parallel to Lofton's defense of Pacha Mama the human
sacrifice idle that Francis blessed and they did some kind of weird ceremony around it.
Again, you understand that it's not a new scandal. Francis has been
a consistent pattern of scandals ever since he was elected. And scandals are not
just you know, sexual things or issues relating to corruption in the Vatican.
No, no, no, I'm talking about theological scandals. I'm talking about
open errors on faith and morals. Now, remember people like Lofton and people
like Ibara, you know, they were very adamant for years that you have
no right and no authority to challenge the teaching of the Roman pontiff, how
dare you? And now we have five cardinals, the Dubia, five cardinals
now coming out and saying that, hey, it kind of looks like Francis
is a heretic. And the whispers are that they're going to write up a
rebuke of Francis as a heretic. Well, number one, it wouldn't matter
if they do, because five cardinals have no authority to judge the First Sea
anyway. Vatican one upholds the old ancient canon, which is itself from a
paper forgery, that no one judges the First Sea. That means no council,
no consistory of cardinals, no group of bishops can form a council to
judge the pope after the decisions of Vatican One. In fact, to say
that a council is above a pope is condemned in Roman Catholic dogma. Now
they don't really care about these contradictions, of course, because these contradictions are
manifold throughout the second millennium of Church history. And thus we have the introduction
of the evolution of doctrine. Right, doctrine develops. You see, doctrine
sort of the morals can change. And this is why Michael Welton correctly points
out that the original revolutionary institution in Western civilization was not the dialectical Marxists or
the Paris Commune. It was not then the Protestants in Calvin and luther diginal
revolution was the eleventh century Grigorian Reforms, which completely changed the ecclesiaastical structure,
ecclesiastical structure of the Church in the West. And that's admitted now by many
Roman Catholic historians and scholars Eve Kongar after nine hundred years Francis de Vornick Phocian
Schism. So the revolutions of the Western civilization far pre date Thomas Munzer and
Martin Luther and John Calvin and the French Revolution and all those goblins. It
goes back to the eleventh century Grigorian Reforms and Dictatus Pope. And if you
don't recall, what are some of the great claims of Dictatus Pope. And
we're going to open it up to open form in a little bit. Don't
worry. The eleventh century Dictatus pop claims for the papacy. I'll put them
up there on the screen as you can see right here, the Roman Church
was founded by God alone. The Roman pontiff alone is universal. Remember the
statement of Saint Gregory the Great. No one should be called universal bishop to
the denigration of the other bishops. He alone can depose the reinstate old bishops
in the world. That's a change, because the ecumenical canons of the first
seven Councils don't have the Bishop of Rome relating to anything in regard to the
world's of bishops. That in a council, his legate is above all the
other bishops. The pope may depose anyone absent that, among other things,
we ought not to remain in the same house with those ex communicated by the
pope. It is alone lawful for the pope to make new laws. It
is alone lawful for the Pope for him alone, according to the needs of
the time, to make new laws. So while this might be argued to
be only in a canonical or a legislative sense, this is already preparing the
way for the revolution, for the pope to then dictate and change and say
what moral law is and how it has changed. Francis already did this by
saying that the death penalty is an offense against the Gospel quote unquote, the
exercise of the death penalty is quote contrary to the Gospel. So the pope
can now change and alter natural justice. But the idea that he could change
and alter these things does not begin at Vatican two. In the liberals of
Vatican two, like the tradcats, think no, no. This goes back
to Dictatus Pope, when Dictatus Pope said in the eleventh century that the pope
can make whatever laws according to the needs of times he wants. The pope
alone can use the imperial signia. And what was the basis for a lot
of this argumentation, the fraudulent donation of Constantine. The Pope alone. All
princes shall kiss the feet of the Pope alone. His name alone shall be
spoken in the churches. This is the only name in the world. The
Pope can depose all emperors. He may be permitted to transfer bishops as he
sees fit. The Pope has the power to ordain a clerk of any church
as he wishes. That he is ordained, may preside over another church,
but is not subordinate to a position. Let's skip down. No synod can
be called ecumenical without him. Now, what a radical change from latter in
six forty nine, which already had condemned Monothelitism prior to the Sixth Ecumenical Council,
which again shows clearly that Dictatus Pope's attitude of papalism was not the attitude
of papalism in the seventh century when Saint Maximus went to obtain help from Rome
in condemning the Monothelites. If the Vatican One mindset, the Dictatus pope view
mindset was the case in six forty nine at later in the latter in Roman
Council six forty nine, there would not have been any need for the six
Sechemical Council several years later in six point eighty six, because the entire Church
would have simply said, what saith Rome Rome has spoken, case is closed.
Remember their their their mantra, they chant Rome is spoken cases closed.
Oh like in six forty nine. And by the way, Roman Catholics don't
count latter in six forty nine as an ecumenical council, which on their criteria
should be an ecumenical council. No. In fact, what happened was by
the time of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, the Emperor calls the council and then
they investigate to see who is right and who is wrong. Again, none
of that has anything to do with Dictatus Pope and the rise of papalism in
the eleventh century, which then goes on to define this is the Gregorian Reforms.
This defines the rest of the Western Church all the way up until the
absurdities of Vatican Ion. So you understand that the revolutions in the West and
in the papacy, they begin with erroneous theology, erroneous ecclesiology, and they
work themselves out for the next thousand years to where we now have the objective
apostasy for everybody in the world to see who's not completely deluded and hasn't lost
their power discernment that the Roman Catholicy Church has completely left the faith, and
it did so a thousand years ago when it posited a different theological norm than
what the Ecumenical Church had accepted at the first seven slash eight councils. It
goes on to say that no one judges the first see, no one judges
the first see. That is still in Roman Catholic canon law. It is
still believed in to this day. It is part of the argumentation and presubpositions
of Vatican One. No one judges the first see and so it doesn't matter
how many trad quote unquote cardinals, they're not even tried. They're just quote
conservative neo conservative cardinals. It doesn't matter how many of them decide Francis is
in an error. They don't judge Francis, nor does any layman in the
Roman Cality Church judge Francis. And notice how arrogant they've been for the last
five, six, seven years, how they've looked down their nose upon Orthodox
and how they've how did this arrogant line of how dare you you don't judge
Francis? All you stupid schismatics, all their venom and all their hate.
They're vile for the last five or six years, they're bile towards us,
all the claims about how mean I am, when all those goobers ever did
was try to go after me on a personal level, always trying to find
dirt, always trying to find some comment to get me deplatformed. I mean,
just absolutely acting like demons. And why is that, Well, it's
because they're not good faith actors, many of them, and their actions betray
They're insecurity in their own faith and in their own position. If they had
the goods, it would be very easy to engage in a formal debate on
these topics and to simply refute the Orthodox. But all their response, ever
is is how bad character we are, how mean we are. It's all
ad hominems to distract away from the actual issues, or it's even stuff as
absurd as let's debate the nuances of Tomism, as if modern Roman Catholicism is
Tomism, it's not. It's Rome. What's happening in Rome? And that's
why you see a lot of the Romancolic channels, even the people that I
like that are my friends. Every show every week is the soap opera of
Rome. Do you think that? Imagine the first thousand years of the church
was the practice and focus of the average laity wondering about the soap opera dramas
of what was happening in Rome, a thousand miles away, five hundred miles
away. Of course not, They had no access to this. It's all
silly, it's ridiculous. The church was local, it was run by synods.
The church wasn't run by ecumenical councils. It wasn't run by pope's writing
letters to all the churches, which is exactly how they try to argue the
letters of Clement. Clement writes letters because he's a pope and he settles all
the issues in the churches. But also they didn't use that power that they
had like Clement did for thousands of years, even though it was there in
potentia. They just didn't choose to use it. Right, that's the bara
excuse, oh thank you for failing to exercise this great, wonderful office that
would solve all the problems in the church and make it so clear and obvious
how we would be unified. Will he just he can't. He can't write
a letter to everybody because the vet can be full of paper stocks everywhere.
That's literally what I borrow said, And people say, we won not argument,
we borrow smash in that debate he won, Yeah, really good arguments.
Right. The pope, who in Clement's day supposedly could solve the issues
in every church one thousand miles away by writing to the Corinthians fails in that
duty for centuries and then reminds himself by what seventh eighth ninth century. Oh
yeah, I forgot to have this power to like literally unilaterally solve every problem
in the church. Crap, why didn't I just do that this whole time?
Why do we have to have these stupid councils. All they could have,
all they had to do was just right to me, will because it
didn't happen, because the Vedican would have been full of papers and letters.
Do would the mail man would have brought a giant bundle of letters every week
to the pope, and he would have just he couldn't even have walked around
the Vatican because he would have been swimming through season letters and scrolls. And
people think that was a good argument. No, Romangantholicism is a system.
It's not a bottom up thing a project where you stack a bunch of evidences,
although that's how they think of it. They think of it like,
oh, it's like classical foundationalists epistemology, where if I stack up enough quotes
it becomes true. So let me quote mine more than a Protestant. Let
me get my quote, mind posthold digger up and just start digging it up.
Oh, look at this, thousand quotes approved the papacy, and that's
a litterally. If I remember at Bar said something like that, if I
give enough evidences, will you believe in the papacy? Eric, If I
have one piece of doctrine that shows a contradiction, the whole system falls away.
Because it's an enclosed system. It doesn't matter if you have a supposed
thousand proofs or evidences of papal claims. If one contradiction in the system appears,
then the system is false. And he even admitted that at one point
if you could show a contradiction and the teaching on faith and morals, well
we've already seen it multiple times over with Cantante Domino. No salvation outside the
church unless you are in commune with the Roman bishop, which they then say,
well, no, that doesn't count. It doesn't mean that. That
means that everybody's potentially in commune with the Church. And now there's a concentric
circles, right, which is what Francis's Fortelli two he document says. So
basically, everybody's in degrees of communion with Rome, including the world religions.
That's why Francis provides a prayer for unitarians in that encyclical. Again, this
is all the fruits of natural theology, generic theism, and natural theology coming
to its logical conclusions at Vatican two in no stratante, which says that Hindus
worship and love God what God, No, they don't. They worship devons,
and Paul says the gods and nations. David says the gods and nations
are demons. Paul says the gods and nations are demons. The Church fathers
say the gods and nations are demons. Nobody argues that we're all on a
continuum in concentric circles of everybody having degrees of Christianity. Now that's the Vatican
two that the Church subsists in the Romancolic Church but exists in all of the
other groups and world religions. Because you see, it's a it is a
slippery slope because once you admit that, because for example, the Orthodox have
valid sacraments and valid orders in the Roman Catholic sacramentology view, you have to
then be consistent and say, well, Protestants have quite a bit in common
too, right, don't they. Many of them believe in the Trinity and
the incarnation. Oh okay, so I guess they're kind of also, uh,
you know, they've got thirty percent Christianity Orthodox, so it's like Rome,
and then liberal Roman Catholics and then Orthodox outside their Orthodox have maybe seventy
eighty percent true Christianity, and then Anglicans have forty or fifty. Protestants have
maybe thirty forty percent. Oh, and then Muslims have maybe twenty percent,
and then the pagan religions outside that. That's the circles concentric circles argument view
that Francis lays out and for Teletuti, which is just restating the theology of
Nosra Tata and Vatican two, And isn't it telling that again? Here we
are, what four or five six years later after those Ebara debates and all
that stuff, and what are they relying on They're still relying on Jay's mean
five to six it would it'll be ten years from now they'll still be pulling
out clips for me getting heated in debate, which by the way doesn't even
compare to most of the ridiculous online debates. Fhear how they act, I
mean, they act like complete demons. The ron Mcalochs, by the way,
pretend to put on this error, this attitude of being pious. I
demand that you repent, though, repent for what you said for me.
So in other words, yeah, so every time someone disagrees it's slandering,
you need to repent. I mean, that's just pure feminine behavior, total
passive aggressive. All these people are ridiculous, except for Tim Gordon. Tim
still a body. I appreciate Tim because he doesn't act like the rest of
these people. Tim acts like a man, recognizing where we disagree, and
he's content to not engage in Pope's planning. So, look, it's time
to just be honest and admit that, as he said in his last livestream,
we're screwed now. He doesn't mean that he's ready to give up Roman
Catholicism, but he's saying that, look, we can't keep engaging in you
know, the loft and tier Trent Horn tier of excusing everything that Francis does.
Yeah, but it's a lot worse than that, because I mean,
the point of all of this is not to just debate people and win argument.
It's the point is that And I believe this truly, and that's why
I'm not mad at Roman Catholics. I don't hate them, even though because
I know what It's like, I know what it's like to be in a
religious position, a system of worldview, to be so devoted to it and
dedicated to it, and then to be very afraid that it's wrong. That's
the actual source for why they're all so mad and why they lash out in
this way. They're not acting as if they are people who are confident in
their position. They're not acting as if there are people who are sure that
this is right and it's it's not a threat. They're worried and scared that
this might actually be false, and it's leading to them acting out in this
ridiculous manner, as almost all of them do, especially the younger ones,
and they just get more erratic, more irrational, more psychic, psychotic.
Because why, ultimately, this isn't an issue of intellectual problems, and this
is what I think is really hard for a lot of Roman Catholics to accept.
I'm not saying that intellect and dogmas and propositions are irrelevant, but at
the end of the day, it's a question of can the Roman Catholic Church
actually give the healing that we all need. If it can't, then the
religion is reduced to a bunch of wranglings on the Internet, and a bunch
of scholastic debates about tonism or anything like, all the stuff that doesn't even
relate to modern reme ma. Ron doesn't care about tonism anymore. There's no
actual healing of the individual. And that means that the Roman Catholic Church is
a parachurch. As much as I can appreciate people that say true things there
and that are friendly, that we like, that have great insights on philosophy,
that have great moral positions, put out great books, sure, but
the institution of the Roman Catholic Church cannot be divorced from the city of Rome
and the people in Rome. Okay, there's no Nestorian papacy right, the
papacy in the Platonic ideal world that's divorced from the papacy over in Rome,
that I don't have to listen to. If you read Vatican One, which
is dogma for them, it's clear as day that you have to follow all
of the teaching of Rome, extraordinary extra extraordinary, magistrar ex cathedral stuff,
Ecumenical council stuff, universal ordinary teaching, which has guided and protected also by
the magisterium and by the charism of Peter and for the stuff that's not infallible,
but just the normal teaching of Francis. Guess what, you still have
to submit to it, even if you think it's wrong quote with docility.
That's the traditional Catholic moral teaching about the pope's normative teaching, his day to
day stuff, his sermons, his opinions, etc. You can disagree,
you can think, hey, I think Francis is totally wrong there. You
do not have the right and the authority in that system and in that structure
to launch a campaign to undermine him as pope, unless you want to go
the route of saying, well, then he's just not pope. There's no
such a seventy percent pope, sixty percent pope, forty percent pope. I'll
take Francis when I like him over here, I don't like him over here,
And every Roman Catholic deep down knows he's being a Protestant. You're picking
and choosing the documents, the dogmas, the doctrines that you want that you
think are consistent with traditional quote unquote Romancllic teaching and discarding the ones that aren't.
Now, maybe you're correct in the things that you're picking out. Maybe
you're correct, But guess what, it doesn't matter if you're correct, because
the system is structured such that no one judges the first see, no group
of cardinals, no consistory can come together, no council can come together to
overthrow the pope. And do you understand that you already rejected that position of
Gallicanism and Sonodalism at Vatican Ie because there were already people in your church that
believe that councils were above the pope. That position is condemned in Denzinger.
So every time you're going to try to argue that the Dubia of who are
the characters here, let's look over here one five. Of course this propaganda
outlet they put up on Twitter, the new Dubia could anathematize Pope Francis.
Oh well, then that would put them under the anathema of Vatican one.
No one judges the first seat, and anyone that says that a council or
any bishopric is above the pope or can judge the pope is anathema. One
five says it is possible for the church today to teach doctrines contrary. This
is quoting from the Vatican two document luminingentium. And so the answer is no,
the Church cannot teach. And then it quotes Vatican one. If anyone
as searchs to the possibility that a sense is given to doctrines propounded that are
different from what the Church has always understood, let him be anathema. So
one Peter five is actually trying to use Vatican one's definition that doctrines can't evolve
or change. Supposedly there morals in the sense of the church is the Roman
Catholictori has understood these doctrines to say that Francis could potentially be anathematized. And
who's putting out all this stuff? Why none other than the apostate from the
Orthodox Church, Tim Flanders, who remember when he was patting all that piety.
Oh, I'm so pious because I learned how arrogant and prideful I was
judging the Church and judging Rome. Now that I'm Roman Catholic, haha,
the honeymoon is here, I don't have to worry with those problems. Oh
and now one Peter five is putting out the very articles potentially talking about judging
the pope, the very thing that four or five years ago we said Tim
Flanders would have to deal with when he found out what Rome was really like.
And here we are one Peter five, the Flanders outfit, pushing the
very thing that he said was the root of pride. The root of pride
four or five years ago, according to Tim Flanders, was judging the magisterium,
judging the pope, trying to make judgments on these things. Here he
is contradicting himself unless he didn't post this, and he's going to say,
well, that's not my position. I would never No, you're out of
tried site. That's literally trying to judge the pope. Now look at how
deceptive this quote mine is because it says he's quoting Vatican one and then pairing
it with Vatican two, as if Vatican one allows for a pope to be
a valid pope to teach errors on faith and morals. So they're all in
the dilemma. You say this. The reason this is so big is not
because well, it's the first time that Francis has openly taught error and heresy.
No it's not. Francis has been at it for a long time,
as of all of the post Vatican to Roman callog posts by the way.
The difference here is that now you have members of the Magisterium, the so
called Dubia, the five tread But these cordinals who are writing questions, whoa,
whoa writing questions? Now wait a minute, why are they having to
ask Dubia questions? We are doubtful. These are dubious. We are doubtful
of what you mean, Francis, Francis, tell us what you mean on
basic ethics and morals. Wait a minute. I thought the whole argument for
all of these years was that the papacy was going to give us clarity on
faith in morals. But now we've got to have Dubia to interpret the interpretation
of the interpretation of the interpretation of the interpretation, not of obscure doctrines and
scholasticism of morals, of basic human biology and sexual ethics. But Pope French
is the pope, the officer. The Pope will give us certitude and clarity.
Remember when a Bari said that, and then he said he never said
that, and people dug out the comments and tweets where he said that the
orc the docs don't got no officer could give them certitude and could give them
the doctrines because there they don't know what's true and false. Right, the
same low tier argument that Michelle Loughton has relied upon too right for so long.
Do how you gonna get certainty? How you gonna get dogmas when you
ain't got the pope? Do so the pope gives us the certainty in the
dogmas? You all got a bunch of little popes. Oh? Really,
is Francis providing clarity and certitude on the death penalty? I guess he has,
hasn't he? Because he has clearly certified that the death penalty is no
longer Roman galic teaching and that it has changed. You see, where do
we get ideas that revolutions could occur in law? Oh? You mean the
eleventh century or growing reforms of Dictatus Pope. It is for him alone to
make laws according to the needs of the time. What does Francis say in
is replied to the w the very thing that Dictatus Pope said. But Dictatus
Pope was to bel fate the morals Ductais Pope. It was about temporal power.
No, it doesn't matter, because it's setting the precedent that the pope
is above the natural law. Like when you guys used to teach that death
penalty was part of natural law, natural justice. Now Francis can sid,
no, we don't do that anymore. It's contrary to the Gospel. Now
Francis can say skittles unions are not the same level of marriage, but they
can receive a kind of blessing. And I'm literally saying Roman Catholck's coping.
Of course, we all know they're gonna cope. Like Francis can can literally
slice up an infant in St. Peter Square on an altar with a giant
Bapha mat in front of him and drink the blood, and they'll still cope
and say, well, but he was doing the traditional black mass right.
He wasn't doing the liberal black mass right, because in the liberal black mass
right it's woke. But you'll notice when he did the black mass in Saint
Peter Square, it was in the actual original Latin of the thirteenth century black
mass of the Germans. Totty right, they'll literally say something like that,
I'm not joking. They'll come up with some just nonsense. And meanwhile,
we got Taylor Marshall over here receiving visions of the Virgin Mary squirting milk everywhere,
the milkers are engorged, according to the Jami's in their lafe. No,
that's not actually what he says. That's actually what he said in his
mystical dream that Mary sent him. And you Lunicics want to follow these people.
I can't fathom the people that follow these people, Like what is going
on in your heads when you follow these people and take them seriously? And
let's look at what Tim brings up here. Because Tim keeps making the same
points for seven years. Francis already taught that people who have immoral lifestyles in
the Roman Catholic system can now come to communion. Remember Amoris Letitia taught that
you can come to communion now in the Roman Callic church under things under penalties
that formerly forbade you from communion. Now Tim was making the point that that
was setting the precedent for bigger changes down the road in the Roman Callite church.
And guess what, oh, Tim was right. Of course he was,
because it's not just about that. It's also about a bunch of other
big changes, like Deaconess's, which Roman Catholics already have in the Nova Sorto
female acolytes. Female acolytes is the step to deaconess's. Deaconess's is the step
to women priests. And everyone knows this. Who's a slippery sloop? Who's
a slippery sloop? No, it's not, because look, Francis has already
signaled. The whispers are that the syndot on sinidelity will also consider the possibility
of women and ordination. Now, I don't know that they're immediately going to
jump to let's have women priests. You know, they incrementally do this stuff.
It's called fabianism. It's called the incremental slow kill model. It's an
old bureaucratic technique. You don't drop everything all at once. You incrementally do
this stuff. And that's why Tim was correct to say that the change in
who could receive communion under the morals that were previously would ban you from receiving
community the Romachelly Church, that's the stepping stone to seven years later will integrate
a more radical step. It's that seven years tiptoe right left right, left
right, and in the middle of this. This is a classic bureaucratic technique.
When people have their outrage and they scream and fuss, you throw them
at trid bone. Every now and then, Now, Benedict would throw a
lot more tried bones, even though he was still a radical. If you
read his books, he's absolutely a theological modernist. I've read about seven of
Benedict's books, But when it came to liturgy, he would throw a bone
to the triadserving, oh, we'll give you your Latin Mass, as if
the Latin Mass is some magical thing that like preserves the romccaulic faith, you
could be Do you understand you could be a heretic and go to Latin Mass.
You can have heretics saying the Latin Mass the faith is more important than
the Mass. The Mass is part of faith, but the doctor is the
beliefs are more important. I mean, if I'm not anti Trinitarian and I
go to the Latin Mass, does it help me in any way if you're
a Roman Catholic, of course not so. The faith is first and the
Mass is underneath that, because you could have the conceivably the church shut down
and people can still have the faith. Right. Think about the reconuissant Catholics
in England. Have you ever been to places where they have priest holes where
they would hide the priests in England when Roman Catholics are being persecuted. They
didn't have the Mass, or they had the Mass in secret, you see.
So I want to remind everybody too that it's not just advancement in morals.
That's a big issue here, because I remember the faith that the pope
is not just guided and reserved from error in theology and dogma, it's also
morals. And by the way, natural law in the Roman Catholic system is
more obvious and clear than the theological dogmas. Right, your first principles come
out of natural principles, come out of Risitanism, come out of natural law.
That's first principles, and then you build a theology on that. In
the classical Roman Catholic Thomas view, so natural law about skittle stuff, backdoor
stuff that's more clear than Thomism and the obscure elements of the Trinity or something
like that in their view. Right, So how is it just think of
the irony of this. The payasy, which is supposed to give us clarity,
unity, certitude, preservation of the faith, is not even providing that.
In the areas that are more clear and more quote self evidence, like
natural law, we're not talking about again, obscure theological principle. We're talking
about natural law, human relations. What is marriage? So let's look at
the Dubia and remember Pacha Mama again, big issue, and remember that a
couple of years ago, as Taylor Marshall himself had to deal with. Not
only did Francis say that he's open to the idea of civil unions. Remember
that was a big scandal, and then they all did the cope of he
didn't officially pronounce it. It doesn't matter because he writes a letter supporting James
Martin. All the trads had to do damage control. Remember when Matt Frad
put up a picture of himself crying with Francis and the civil unions and there
that when they're still there coping. The code machine never ends Roman Copetholicism.
Look, here's Taylor Marshall having to do damage control because Pope Francis endorsed the
most famous Jesuit Skittles man in the church. Everyone knows it, and they're
still going to say, well, he didn't mean it and it's not official.
It signals his views and now here we are send it on senidality.
Thank you, Francis hans Us. As always, I can always rely on
Francis to come through anytime there's a big hubbub online of Roman Catholics, and
this has been this way for at least four or five years. I can
count on within a week or two, Francis comes to my aid and provides
me drops into my hand a giant, juicy giblet to feast upon, to
demonstrate and to show you all once again that the Roman Catholic system is not
just a system, it's a spiritually damaging institution. I do not mean that
the individual people in it are bad, or that I hate them or dislike
them. I do not hate them and dislike them. I like them,
but I want them to not be under the slavery of this ridiculous system,
and the contradictions within this system. That's what produces the erratic, irrational,
emotive behavior of these people, the subtle piety signaling nasty behavior where they put
up a pious front, but then secretly they're working to try to get you
deplatformed. That's the nastiness of what these people are really up to. And
all you people are duped by Michelle Lofton as if he really cares about nuanced
charity and piety. You're being duped, and you're being duped by people way
above him, because he's a dupe of the bigger dupes. And the big
dupes are in Rome, and they have about one thousand plus years of expertise
in bureaucracy and in managing and moving positions, in overton window movement, in
moving the goalposts, and they know very well, going back to way older
than Macchiavelli, the art of opinion management, of public management. The Vatican
is an intelligence agency that goes back way before today's intelligence agent. It's the
oldest intelligence agency in the world. Do you think they don't know bureaucracy.
One thing we could say about these degenerate Borgia and medici era popes is that
they were not stupid when it came to geopolitics. When it came to propaganda
and bureaucrates, no, they were masters of that. They were completely wicked
degenerates, but they were masters of ruling, in managing perception in people groups.
And the Vatican today is just the extension of that older model, of
the same degenerate corrupt controlled by the same structures as our government is. And
all of this, by the way, I want to add one last point
before we open it up. Well, we're going to look at some of
the dubia and the answers first, but it's not a theological issue ultimately,
at the end of the day, this is what a lot of people are
having a hard time understanding. I mean, ultimately, going back a thousand
years, you could say it's a theological deviation via you know, Trinity and
incarnation and created grace and Philly Oquay and all that. But beyond that in
today's world, the reality of today's twentieth century, twenty first century Vatican is
all the geopolitical stuff that you hear me talk about. The Roman Catholics themselves
are beginning to figure this out, like the David Winhaff book, John Courtney
Murray Timeline magazine, and the CIA's doctrinal warfare program. It's the same stuff
that I've been talking about for weeks now with Operation Gladio and how the Vatican,
an organized crime, and the CIA had to come together supposedly to fight
the Cold War, but that just put the Vatican under new masters. And
guess what, the Vatican's under the same masters they were under since the Cold
War, and that's why they do what they're told so Francis answers to people
above him, and this partly explains why Benedict stepped down, because they're blackmail
people. Because blackmail controls these institutions, it has for a long time.
Read Whitney Webb's book Nation under Blackmail. You think that doesn't apply to the
Vatican. You think it's only US politicians. You don't think it's patriarchs and
cardinals and bishops that are blackmailed. Of course it is, and that's why
the Romancallay Church is also a giant front for human trafficking and all kinds of
other evils and pedo stuff that everyone now knows about. So you're defending a
giant institution with good people in it that is run by the wickedest people on
the planet. And they throw this in your face, and like good little
Stockholm syndrome children, you eat it up. You love it, and that's
why they love throwing it in your face anymore. Even more so you want
to convince me to come over to Francis's realm, when Francis is the champion
of the revolution, all you tried cats instead of a contism is not going
to give you any better answer, because guess what. Vatican one says that
there will always be living successors to the end of the world, to the
coming of Christ. And if you're a set of a continent, guess what,
there's no more tried bishops left who can elect the pope. That's what
I'm trying to tell you. First of all, the bishops don't elect the
pope. The Roman College elects the pope. And once the Roman College has
elected a pope, the entire world receives him, and then he is the
pope. You can't say, well, oaps, no, he wasn't actually
wasn't. He wasn't really ever the pope, because you've undermined the canonical law
procedures of how the pope is elected and on what basis he is seen to
be valid, on the basis of the reception by the church, the entire
church in the world of Roman Catholicism, the cardinals, the bishops received Francis
as their pope. And if he goes into heresy, then the doctrine of
the indefectibility of the Roman See is no longer true, and that is part
of Vatican one. So Vatican one is no longer true. If Vatican one
is no longer true. The Romancalloy Church is not the Roman is not the
true Church. It's we're not doing right. He gets really complicated, and
you're gonna be get all these documents and a thousand page books to read.
Doesn't matter. Francis is telling you that the morals change. And the whole
argument has been the Romancalolic Church does not change in faith and morals. And
that's what the Dubia cardinals are all telling him. Francis, we don't change
in faith and morals. Five cardinals have set out a question known as the
Dubia, to pote Francis to express their concerns to seek clarification ahead of this
week's opening of the Sin on Sinidelity of the Vatican. The Dubia are asked
answered our questions brought before the Pope and the appropriate Vatican office. That seeks
a simple yes or no. Of course, Francis hilariously does not answer with
a yes or no. Francis answers with a lot of Pope explaining himself,
which is funny. H And by the way, I'm gonna go to where
Tim covers this, so you see that this is not just me. Line
Diar's line about what we're gonna look at other Roman Catholics talking about what happened
the cardinal. The prelates are Cardinal Bran Mueller, Cardinal Burke, Chinese Cardinals
Zenzai Kung, Mexican Cardinal Ignias, and Ghanaian Cardinal Sarah. These are the
supposed trads amongst the Novasorto because the Pope answered at length and is not a
customary yes or note, so they wanted yes or nose. Francis wrote giant
walls of text, which is funny. The Pope has not responded to the
group resubmitted it. So here's Francis's responses, should we reinterpret divine revelation according
to today's cultural and anthropological changes that are in vogue? And then Francis's response
is, the answer depends on the meaning to reinterpret. So here we're getting
some Jordan Peter sony in it. Well, it depends on what you mean
by reinterpret depends on what you mean buckle. If interpret means to this is
a bunch of gibberish, does it mean to interpret better? And he says
that the judgment of the Church can mature, and then he cites uh Oh
Vatican two. Wait a minute, So here in France is saying the judgment
of the Church evolves. Bro that's in our Vatican two documents. So it's
funny because so Francis is throwing Vatican two back at the Roman Catholics that are
citing Vatican one A Vatican two am, I mean, all of this is
just so absurd, right. Therefore, while it's true that divine revelation is
immutable in binding, the Church has to be humble and recognize that she never
exhausts its unfathomable richness and needs to grow. And I understand it. Okay.
So again, so doctrine in revelation doesn't change, but our interpretation of
it, which is all we have access to and all we have it,
grows, immatures and changes. So in other words, there is an evolution
of doctrine. Therefore, also she matures in her understanding of what the magistarium
is. So not only does the Church mature or evolve in its understanding of
divine revelation, the divine magisterial teachings are also reformable and subject to maturation.
Now remember this is actually condemned in lamentabilei and in piss the Knights documents and
Denzinger, and you can read all these documents, and if you don't have
Denzinger, you can read the popes against the modern errors. Basically, the
stuff that Francis says is literally what's condemned in lamentabiley and pious, the sense
paced dominici, gragious and cyclical. Cultural changes and new challenges of history don't
modify the revelation itself, but they stimulate us to be more explicit in the
overflowing richness, which offers more so masters of ambiguity. Here right, again,
we want to know, you know, can dudes put their thing in
another dude's hole? And here's our answer. Right, it is inevitable that
this may lead to a better expression of the past and the statements of the
magistarium, and this has happened throughout history. On the other hand, the
magistarium is not the superior of the Word of God. It is true that
the text of scripture and the Testaments tradition need an interpretation that allows us to
distinguish the perennial substance from the cultural conditioning. So here he's saying, well,
look, some of what is the perennial for all time teaching is different
from the cultural conditioning. This is evident in the biblical text, for example,
Exodus twenty one twenty to twenty one, where you have mentions of slavery,
and then get this, the news system of teaching on women so that
women should be subbortinate to their husbands, according to Francis, was a cultural
teaching of that time, and we no longer believe in patriarchal submission. That's
actually false. So here Francis is once again giving props to feminism and basically
saying the Bible is wrong. And Tim and his wife even admit this in
their stream. They admit, yeah, France is basically saying the Bible's wrong
because that was a cultural issue to think that men should say that women should
submit to men. Francis goes on to say, it's important to realize that
what cannot change is the salvation, the doctrines that are revealed for the salvation
of all. So in other words, now there's a distinction between divine revelation
is actually distinguished between historical things. Right, So he's basically promote higher criticism
and then this other category of things that are revealed for salvation so in other
words, salviafic things, which is unclear what that is. So does that
mean the incarnation of Christ? Is that a symbolic subject of change thing,
or is that a doctrine that's necessary for salvation? Now most Roman Catholics will
say, well, that's desary for salvation. But a minute, Jesus says,
sees the new atom. So that seems to suggest that Adam and Eve
were historical people and that Genesis is historical. No, that's a cultural condition
thing. Well but wait a minute, you see how those go together.
And this ambiguity just allows for a bunch of double talk and a bunch of
lying and deception, which is what all the people who argue for the Bible
being full of errors due. So again Francis is admitting and capitulating, totally,
totally saying that he believes here in higher critical studies of the Bible.
For this reason, the church must discern between what is essential for the salvation
and what isn't is less directly connected with the scholars secondary. I agree that
you know clearly there are things in scripture that would be secondary, right,
I mean, mastering Deuteronomy is not going to be necessary for my salvation.
But to then turn around and say that, well, Deuteronomy, you see,
can be cultural and full of errors. That's a non sequitur, and
that's false. And then he says that he quotes a Quitas to the effect
that there are things that are more important and less important in scripture. But
now, remember this is the question about divine revelation of and morals, and
France has already said, well, look, morals changed on slavery, and
morals changed on women submitting to husbands, did they Maybe in Francis's church they
did. The formulation of a truth is never adequately understood in isolation if it's
isolated from the rich, harmonious context of the whole the hierarchy of truths,
So you see there's actually a hierarchy now truth. And apparently the line of
argument that he's going in is that something like two dudes is and can be
understood as a culturally evolving thing that might have been seen as immoral and inherently
evil in the ancient and medieval world. But much like slavery and feminism is
now okay. Slavery has been done away with, feminism is now the norm,
and so now we can have if feminism can be the norm, this
is the argument, then so can this be the norm? And does this
not vindicate what Rachel has said for so long? Feminism is the first revolution
in the West that prepares the way and is the justice subsequent justification for all
the other revolutionary principles. Well, we have feminism, so why can't we
have the revolution of skittles and the revolution against biology itself? With tr A
N s Exactly. So that's not a slippery slope fallacy. That's actually where
this leads. So then Francis goes on. The next dubium is the claim
that widespread practice of the blessing of unions not quote Skittle's marriage, but a
blessing of a kind of union. So this is still the church granting a
blessing. Right, It's not saying that it's the sacrament of marriage, but
it's giving approval to this. Now, wait a minute, could the church
then, as ten points out, could the church then give blessing to murder?
I mean, why can't that moral change? Why can't that moral evolve?
I mean, can I have a harem? Can I live with a
bunch of thoughts? Why not? By the way, isn't living with a
bunch of thoughts less unnatural than what is being proposed here. Yes, it
is. In fact, Aquinas argues that. Aquinas even argues that I n
ceest is less unnatural and less of a sin than skittles, because skittles is
more unnatural because it goes against the purpose. Even if I am with a
relative sister, mom or whatever. In a Quitas's view and in medieval Catholic
views, that is more unnatural. I kid you not, and I'm happy
to debate this if it's any idiot Roman Catholic thinks this isn't the case.
No, having a harem or sleeping with your sister is not as bad in
medieval and traditional Romancalitic theology as the skittles stuff, because it's more unnatural and
it's more rew removed from the tie loose in the purpose of the act in
their system. But where is Francis on? Uh? Tape bro? Well,
I'm a tape bro. I want to hear them. Can can we
evolve Roman Catholicism for me to have that? No? No, no,
you see, the only evolution is in the direction of the most degenerate globalist
goals. Now I'm not saying that it's good to have a harem, but
I'm saying that that's against feminism. You're not gonna get your tait harem in
an institution that is simultaneously pushing feminism. But what I'm saying is that what
he's pushing is far worse than polygamy. Isn't that wild? And even Aquinas
s admits that polygamy is not as bad as this stuff. What an amazing
evolution and what an amazing time that we live in that this is now.
I would have never dreamed they would go this far and that Francis would do
this kind of stuff. I mean, I left all this stuff a long
time ago, but I can't believe that they're that bold to do this.
But I guess because they answer to more powerful people than them. I mean,
they do what they're told, and if you don't do what you're told,
you might meet a well. Number one, you're not gonna you're probably
not gonna get taken. You might if you keep persisting. But if you
don't do what you're told, then the media is gonna know about what you
did in that brothel five years ago in Haiti or wherever. Right, That's
how it works. And remember, Francis has openly and clearly stated that he's
aligned with all of the same global elite actors, all of the same World
Economic form Davos people for years, very open about this. His mentor is
one of Klaus's BFFs. His mentor, that dude that was a liberation theology
guy is Klaus's close confidant. And what did Francis do some years ago?
I did a whole video on this, and nobody paid attention to it or
the algorithm buried it. Inclusive capitalism the Vatican's acceptance of inclusive capitalism remember this,
and this was a joint goal between World Economic Forum, the UN,
Ralph Childs and Francis. And if you didn't watch this video, you should.
Pope Francis the great reset inclusive capitalism and the world religion Michael Lofta refuted.
And again it doesn't stop there. Remember the Abu Dhabi Faith Center.
Are you seeing a pattern with Francis? Are we seeing a pattern here?
Every goal that the technocratic global elite want, Francis openly pushes and these people
want to argue about was I too mean? In a debate five years ago?
Was my Ebarra joke to mean, these people are unbelievable and ridiculous people.
And again it's all because of the insecurity and their fear that I might
just be right and then their position is wrong, and so there is this
wild reaction, which I understand. But your devotion, your attachment, is
not going to make this system right. It's not going to cause it to
be true. Magical thinking, magical thinking. The reality is that Francis works
with and is a tool of the global elle that you hear me talk about
all the time. And guess what. That's why he pushes all of their
goals openly. For however, many remember his ten Commandments of Climate. Remember
Francis's ten Commandments of the Climate. I mean, I can't even remember all
of these. Francis is like every week a new one, So who could
even keep up with all this? But again it's nothing new. Dick Titus
Pope ten seventy five. Dick Tatus Pope was included in the Pope's Register of
ten to seventy five under Pope Gregory. Whether it was written by him or
not, we don't know, but it was at least in the Papal Registry
of ten seventy five, and what do we have him say a thousand years
ago, the pope alone, according to the needs of the time, can
make new laws. And that just evolved to me that he can now define
and reinterpret the moral order as well. This is exactly what we see in
the responses to the Dubia. So let's get to the next Dubia. Here
Francis says about the blessing of skittles. Francis says, there is a clear
teaching of marriage. We know that it's a union of man and woman.
It's indissoluble, it's for the purpose of begetting children. And then he says,
and he cites himself, it's only a partial and analogous way if it's
another kind of union. Oh wait a minute, oh what the union between
a man and a woman is what marriage is. Other forms of union are
partial and analogous, so they can't strictly be called marriage, but they're analogous
to impartial unions, you see. So he's left the door open to a
type of union between a couple of hot dogs. Touching hot dogs is also
an analogous kind of union because kind of like Pacha mama, right, I
mean Pacha Mama is an analogous type of thing, kind of like Mary.
It's an image, it's a it's a goddess woman Mary. Kind of like
a goddess woman, Pacha Mama Mary. The same thing putting a hot dog
in a bun in a hole, putting two hot dogs together. That's kind
of a union between two people. That's kind of like what happens between a
man and a woman. It's partial, it's analogous, but it's kind of
a union. Right. Look at the absurdity of the stupid theology and what's
Francis's source himself, his own encyclical. What is going on to the head
of Roman Catholics to believe this? I mean, this is a It's like,
I'm sorry to think. It's not even the worship of just bear authority
anymore. It's the worship of bureaucracy. All we got this worship bureaucracy in
Casustri. By the way, if you want to support the show, you
can do so via stream labs. We're gonna open it up here in a
minute. Support the show right here with tips. Tips are done through stream
labs on my channel. Very easy to head on over there to stream labs
and leave a super chat. There's the link right there, and I'll answer
your questions when we get to those. Francis goes on, it's not just
a question of names, but reality, marriage is a unique, essential constitution,
and it demands an exclusive name. So we can't call the other things
marriage, but they're kind of an analogous union. For this reason, the
Church does not give sacramental privileges to those things. Right, in dealing with
people, we must not lose pastoral charity, charitable and nuanced. Bro Hey
dog, This Francis is charitable and nuance. It must permeate all of our
decisions and our attitudes. The defensive objective truth is not only the expression of
this charity, which is also kindness. Okay, so we got to be
nice to people, Yeah, we got it, but patience, understanding tenderness
and encouragement like writing letters of encouragement to and support to James Martin, the
biggest Skittles promoter in Rome. For this reason, pastoral prudence must discern whether
there are other types of blessings. Oh so you see, it's pastoral to
give another type of blessing to the analogous union of two hot dogs. Touching.
I mean, hot dogs that men have are privy parts, and when
they touch it's kind of analogous to what happens between a man and a woman.
Kind I mean, don't use days, it's I mean, it's kind
of unbelievable. For this reason, you must discern when this is requested by
skittles, the request for blessing is a request. Oh, it's help from
God. It's a plea for better life. So to bless the union of
Skittles is to signify help these people live a better life. Notice the ambiguity
here. No, No, it's a blessing of acceptance. Bless these people
in their endeavor. Everybody knows that. And then he says, however,
there might be situations where there are other approaches. We don't simply treat these
people as sinners, and then he cites the previous pope, John Paul the
Second, who prayed with voodoo worshippers and did all kinds of acts of apostse.
You understand that the outward actions of a cz the compromise of public worship
to affirm and to promote Pacha Mama, which is just doing what John Paul
and Francis did with a sez one and two where they openly prayed together with
Buddhists, Voodoo worshippers, Shinto and all the world religions, which is itself
an act of apostasy. All this is is the moral reflection of their religious
apostasy. It's impossible to theologically deviate without also more, they always go together.
As what I'm trying to say, the theological deviation is almost always tied
to a moral deviation, and the two will always go together. And that's
what you read. Just go read the Book of Numbers, read about bail
Pure. This is all a repeating of bail Pure. So when John Paul
the second does all these public apostasy actions by signifying that in his action of
prayer with all the world religions, the action assumes that everybody is on an
equal plane imploring God. But that is to according to Mortalium Animals, surrender
the Catholic faith. Interfaith gatherings are a surrendering of an apostasy from the true
faith, according to Mortalium Animus in nineteen twenty eight of PI c. Eleven.
So what does it mean. Is it all propositional? No, it's
a surrendering of the morals, that there's a connection between heresy and morals.
The two go together. That's what I'm trying to say. Heresy is a
moral problem, not primarily an intellectual problem. That's what they don't understand.
They think that this is a big intellectual system that you can perfectly scheme out,
like writing an algorithm or writing computer code. Trad cat Catholicism is for
spurgs that obsess over role playing games and computer codes. No, no,
you've got it all backwards. The reality is intellectual problems are secondary. Moral
problems are the real problem. And I'm concluding, by the way, the
worship of God is part of a moral problem because God does not accept the
worship of Pachamama and a CZ one and two where all the world religions are
praying together. That's not acceptable worship. That's a moral problem. Idolatry is
a moral sin. So the theological errors are second to the moral error and
corruption, which is all the pedo and skittle stuff and the hot dogs touching,
which is an analogous marriage. It's an analogous union. So there's a
guy in the chat, Hey, you want to come to bay Dude,
Guess what Today's your day. Here. There is the link right here,
dude, in the chat. The link is right there for you to come
on my Twitter space and request to speak and get in line. Who's frank
Pope Francis, Who do you think I'm talking about? All right? So
back to the statement. So Francis goes on to say, we're going to
open it up here in a minute, if we get through Francis's long winded
wall of text here which again the question was just Francis, can hotdogs be
put in exit only organs? And then we get walls of text from Francis.
I'm not joking either that the questions were dubia that wanted yes or no,
And so notice Francis can't give you yes or no. Francis gives citations
of himself, says, go read me where I said this, which,
by the way, is kind of a subtle middle finger to them. And
remember, it doesn't matter how many trad based, pseudo based cardinals and prelates
come together. No one judges the first sea. It doesn't matter if every
bishop and cardinal in the world comes together and says we don't like you,
Francis. Francis is above them, and no one judges the first sea,
so none of this even matters in their system. There are situations that might,
from an objective perspective, point to a view that's not morally acceptable.
So he's basically saying, you can't just like bless everything. It's not what
we want to do in all cases. But there might be cases where you
can so again totally ambiguous, totally becoming relative. Relativistic decisions and certain circumstances
can form a pastoral prudence, but they should not become the norm. Right,
So he's saying that don't bless every single analogous hot dog union, but
in some cases you can't wink wink, that is to say, it's not
appropriate diocese or the conference to constantly and officially do this all the time.
So he's giving you an out. But he's also this is throwing a bone
to the pseudo trads who think that, well, look roll red, you
shouldn't do in all cases. And Tim is absolutely correct to point out that
that's exactly what they said seven years ago when Francis allowed for the reversal of
the communion canons in Rome. The reversal of the community canons prepared the way
for this, as everyone who has any wisdom could see and guess what,
It's the same thing in the Orthodox Church. The same entities that are behind
Francis and connected to the push for this stuff in Rome are the exact same
entities that are saying that, via Bartholomew and the Arcons, we need to
have women deconesses throughout Orthodoxy, and also, by the way, we should
also have some kind of blessing of these unions in Orthodoxy. It always goes
together. Why because the same entities and geopolitical powers behind Francis, Diavos,
world economic form, all this stuff. Again, Francis is BFF and mentor
was Klaus's BFF the liberation Cardinal Dude, They're all in the same club,
pushing the same agenda. And this is an anticipation of twenty twenty five and
the potentiality of a union with the so called Orthodox. Why do I say
the so called Orthodox, because anybody who's under Betholomy and wants to go back
to Rome is certainly not Orthodox, the Orthodox in name, because you would
have to be under total delusion, and you'd have to have lost all of
your discernment to want to go to this but I mean the members of go
Arch or the members of the OCA, or of any of the jurisdictions that
want to go to this be my guest. Go please leave us alone,
Go away and go be with Francis. And to all the people that are
coping, what are you coping about? If you want Roman Francis, go
be with Roman Francis. Tim Flanders, you chose this. You said how
arrogant we were and how humble you were in your youtubes and your live treams.
Now you're over here printing texts about how Francis is potentially heretic, violating
your own ideas and claims about how humble you were. Remember does everybody forget
what these people do and how they argue and what they said I'm not talking
about was he mean? He was mean? Seven years ago in a debate
you hoe the Crusader Teutonic Knights got their feelings hurt. Anyway, we got
to finish the dubio or I'll never get I'll never I'll never get done.
So don't give to everybody, because if you did, it would lead to
an intolerable casustri. Canon law should not and cannot color everything, nor should
a piscopal conferences claim to do so because the life of the Church runs through
many channels in addition to the normative ones. The next question from the rebellious
conservatives, quote unquote, we are concerned about the assertion that senidelity is an
essential element of the church according to the absolute constitution episcopalis communio, so the
church would be sonodal. So ironically, Francis is basically restating Vatican two to
them that began to recognize the problems of the claims of Vatican One via Orthodox
argumentation. For those that don't know, we've already done entire streams on the
Alexandria document and the Chi eighty document, and so here France is actually correct
because he's admitting the Orthodox points, all of which we went through. Now
I'm gonna give you the link to this, because people again just ignored it.
The tras, the Roman callies were totally silent. I've not seen any
of them reply to Alexandria yet. Maybe they will, maybe some one of
them did somewhere, and I just missed it. But the Alexandria document just
happened, and it's the theological commission between Orthodox and Roman Catholics on the notion
of senidality, that is sinodal church government synods as in not just papal papal
church government or ecclesiastical sonodal church government. Two models. Vatican two, for
many reasons, tried to give a balancing move away from the papalism and ultra
montanism Vatican one, to balance it out with also trying to bring in collegiality
in the Roman Catholic struere and many of the Vatican two documents discussed this,
it's their point. So since that time, the quote ecumenical dialogue has been
concerned with trying to reach out to the Orthodoxy to us to bring us back
into union under the admissions first of Vatican two. Then we get this document
called the Chiaty document. And the Chiady Document was important because it admitted at
the very end of it that in the first thousand years the pope did not
exercise unilateral universal control and jurisdiction. So that's a tremendous admission. At that
time, Roman Catholic apologists were saying, this is an admission because this is
a papally approved commission. Francis is signing off and approving these documents. This
is an admission that Francis and Vatican one are false. Remember that guy for
Catholic World Report, that doctor whatever his name, was basically saying, how
do we deal with this? This is an admission that we contradicted. Well,
guess what Chiata was weak sauce. Chiada was weak sauce. Compared to
Alexandria. Alexandria went almost the full way. Ninety five percent of our arguments
are admitted in the Alexandria document, which just happened about a month ago,
maybe two months ago. We went through the entire document. It's not that
long. You need to read it if you haven't. It's crucial to this
whole discussion, an event because why because what's the synod on Francis's synod that
they're all up in arms about is Francis's synod on sinidelity. And it's not
just about skittles and women deacons and whatever else. It's also about us Orthodox
because they want to offer and try to bring us back. Supposedly, all
they're going to get out of this is the worst elements within our church.
Yes, please don't let the royal doors hit you on the way out.
Head on it. Please get out of here as quick as possible. Go
to him. Go have your Antichrist union. No one wants you in our
church anyway. You're cancer and destructive. All you forward in people. Please
go have your hot dog fest with Francis. He's given it to you.
Go be with him. So this is great for us. Actually this is
a separating a week from chaff And when I was talking to him about this
the other day, I was explaining to him, you understand that centidelity relates
to the document that they just did for the Orthodox. The document is called
the Unsenidelity. So Francis is now talking about this very thing in this answer
to the Dubium number three, and France is actually correct. He's correct on
this point. Don't misunderstand me, because when I said this last time,
somebody thought I was saying that now we need to go back to Rome because
Francis is to a document admits ninety to ninety five percent of our positions.
I didn't know. I'm not saying that, of course not. I'm saying
that the admission of the document proves we're correct. This is Francis saying the
Orthodox were right, This is Rome saying it. He's not an infallible document.
He's not an available document. He's not an infallible It doesn't matter.
It doesn't have to be an infallible document. That has nothing to do with
whether it's true false, or whether it's heresy in the Romagai view anyway.
So Francis basically concedes to the point about collegiality that we covered in the whole
podcast that we did with David and Snack breaking down the synot on snidality.
It's almost like when you read the the au Me, the the Alexandria document,
not the cynoncinality. It's almost like when you read it, they were
listening to me and UBI over the last six years. I don't actually think
that. I just think it's funny to say that, because that's basically the
line of argumentation there. Uh again, if you've not watched that podcast we
did, it's right there. It's it's this is I mean, this is
amazing stuff. But notice most of them won't even pay attention to this.
They ignore all this and they just shout out their low tier like one liners.
But you got divorce and remge. Oh, you mean like the Canons
of Basil, which your pope accepted for centuries, those canons that your church
used to accept those Oh yeah, exactly, Well, church could change teaching,
Oh yeah, exactly. You understand, you changed teaching a long time
ago. So Francis isn't doing anything different than what the popes have done for
the last thousand plus years. The next dubium is about pastors and theologian support
for theology changing and the question of ordination for women, and let's see how
francis response to this. The common priesthood of the faithful and ministerial priesthood differs,
so he cites Vatican ellumin Genten, Vatican two. He says that women
cannot be the normal priesthood, but there's a lower secondary category of a lower
degree of priesthood, of the priesthood of all believers, right, John Paul
the second affirm that was necessary to definitively state the impossibility of priestly ordination for
women. But he was not belittling women, blah blah blah. But he
also affirmed other things. These are words that are not sufficiently accepted. He
clearly maintained that while the priests alone presides at the Eucharist, the priest does
not have superiority over the others. Oh, actually, yes, they do.
A male priest has superiority over anyone else, including deacons or lady I
likewise affirm that the priestly function is if it is hierarchical, is not supposed
to be domination. Who thought that it was? Is not to be understood
as a consequence of the distinctions that are drawn. Blah blah blah. Women
and other people should participate in the life of the church. Nobody was asking
or suggesting that they shouldn't. On the other hand, to be rigorous,
we should recognize that clear and authoritative doctrine has not been developed about the nature
of definitive statements. So wait a minute, I thought, remember how robic
as forever would say that us that we can't have women briefs. And now
francis saying, well, but doctrine evolves, and so we don't know exactly
what the nature of definitive Wait abnute, I thought definitive statements were definitive statements.
With Francis, we don't know what is the exact nature of a definitive
statement. Oh, it's not a dogmatic, dogmatic definition, but it must
be observed by all. You can't contradict it interesting, Hm, I thought
the pope was there to give us unity, clarity, guidance, and assurance
and preservation of the faith. What have they said incessantly in their pap apologetics
for decades, but especially the incessant, annoying online YouTube pap apologetics the Orthodox
and by extension, they would say Protestants too don't have doctrinal certainty, unity,
clarity, preservation of truth, and the ability to make decisions on faith
and morals. And now Francis is telling us that, oh, yeah,
all those things that you thought were definitive might not actually be definitive, because
what does it mean to be definitive? We got a lot of Jordan Petersonian
is it? Well, what's that? What's it mean to be definitive?
Depends on what you mean? Buckle, Well, you know you've got a
lot of problems there. Forgiveness is a human right. I don't know that
One's not that interesting to me. So I guess this relates to divorce,
remarriage and communion or whatever, So that one I don't really care about.
But so those are the dubium And uh seems like Francis's ambiguous replies are actually
pretty clear. So uh, that's at least what Francis is signaling of where
he wants to go. And none of this is inconsistent with Francis's previous actions
that they previously had to do co explaining over, such as the open support
for James Martin. Why would Francis' actions be inconsistent if he's already given a
letter of open support to James Martin. Why is anybody surprised by this?
And so we should give some credence to Tim because Tim is admitting essentially the
same position here. Now, I mean, I'm not saying he's admitting orthodox
positions. I'm saying that Tim is admitting what the Doobier replies say. And
I'll just play a little bit of this so we can see what Tim's arguing
and you'll see that I'm not being unfair or deceptive or lying about what their
positions are. I'll start it just here, briefly, just a little bit
of what he says. Let's say, homo sapien, homo sapien, homo
sapien acts acts of humans would be presented practically as a good, or at
least as the possible good that God asks of people. In their journey toward
Him. Here's the penton bolded part. So let us rephrase our dubium.
Is it possible that in some circumstances a pastor could bless unions between Homo sapian
persons, thus suggesting that Homo sapian behavior as such would not be contrary to
God's law and the person's journey towards God. Linked to this dubium is the
need to raise another? Does the teaching upheld by the Universal Ordinary Magisterium that
every sexual act outside of marriage, and in particular Homo sapian acts, constitutes
an objectively grave sin against God's law, regardless of the circumstance in which it
takes place and the intention with which it is carried out, continue to be
valid. Perfectly fair question, Now that one was pretty terse. Now look
how many parts to this answer? Seven parts to this interloper's answer Pope Frances'
answer ready Dubium two Part A. First part of the answer. The Church
has a very clear conception of marriage. See they didn't knock this down enough.
He's just gonna say, look, the Homo sapiens, they can never
get married. Who cares? The Church has a very clear conception of marriage,
an exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman,
naturally open to the begetting of children only. This union is called marriage.
Like Darcidius, he is darth Sidius. I'm gonna just start calling him
Darcidius. Other forms of union are realized only in a partial and analogous way.
And guess who he cites here himself? He cites a Morse Lititsia two
ninety two, which is why they cannot strictly be called marriage. Other forms
of union are realized only in a partial and analogous way. They're not partial
or analogous the way if you play half a baseball game, whatever, half
a football game. Let's say you get injured right before halftime, you played
half the game. That's not how mortally sinful unions work. They're not even
analogous or partial partial. Did you catch that? Everything you heard me say
exactly what he said. I'm not making it up, not being mean.
It's clearly what Francis says that hot dog unions are kind of analogous. You
know, it's it's kind of a union, right part B. It is
not a mere question of names. Oh okay, good, not marriage or
union, but the reality that we call marriage has a unique essential constitution that
demands an exclusive name, not applicable to other realities. It is undoubtedly very
much. That's not nice. Something that is not marriage is recognized as marriage.
You see what he did there, that's part three. He just said
that we will avoid any right or sacramental which would include a blessing. I
believe if it confuses a union as a marriage. I thought he was off
of that. He stipulated out what lawyers call stipulated out of answering that question,
because in the second part of his answer to two he said it's not
a mere question of names. So I thought he stipulated out. With his
answer to part three, he stipulates back in He's gonna sound faithful. Wow,
like Darth Sidius sound faithful while doing evil. This is what he always
does. This is Pope Francis. Yeah, sorry about that. So Siri
popped up and I couldn't get her to go away. I wanted to read
this comment from Ubi. Ubi notes that the Skittles unions cannot be blessed as
a full sacramental marriage. The argument goes, but the definition of marriage that
Papa frank Uses places Skittle's unions on the same plane as heterosexual remarried divorcees.
That's a key point that Ubi pointed out. Did you notice that? And
that vindicates Tim's point that goes back to Amoris Letitia, where Francis's letter in
cyclical that allowed for uh remarried divorcees to come to communion. They're in the
exact same status now as the blessed unions of the Skittles people. That leaves
the back door open to the recognition of the Skittles union clear as day.
And that's everything that Tim was saying the whole time for the last seven years,
and he's correct about that. And we're also correct about what we say,
which is that all of this and the Dubia and all that is just
further signaling where they want to take their revolution in Cope and Tiara and I
would remind you again, none of this is divorced from all the other stuff.
It all goes together. There's no audio because the camera is sitting on
my laptop. That's why I don't know why it does this, because every
time I barely touch this desk, it rocks. So be sure and watch
this as well. Because in this video that Kyle put up for dire Clips,
he really just got the essence of the Pacha Mama stuff that we covered.
I think that was me and Snack too. I think, yeah,
when we covered for Telly Twoty, I know the audio cutout, it's because
I hit Siri and when Siri pops up, she shuts everything else down and
I told her to get the heck out of here, and she said,
that's not very nice. So, by the way, did you notice this.
We talked about this the other night when we did the live stream about
when we talked about thchx one one three eight right now, I was talking
about AI confession and then here it is. This is a Methodist church.
I just thought this was funny church and AI takeover as sermon led by chat
GPT in artificial intelligence, so that lazy ass preachers don't have to do their
own sermons anymore. They can just get chat gpt to write up a sermon
for him. But all right, so now with all that aside, we're
going to open it up to this is a brand new desk. It's actually
a really nice brand new desk, but it still moves if you touch it.
We're gonna open up to open for him. If you want to come
on, if you want to make an argument, you can. You can
have the floor for as long as you like. If you want to raise
a question, if you want to challenge a point, if you want to
what else, if you want to anything relating to these issues. So we're
not talking about scholasticism today. We're not talking about it. We're talking about
Roman Catholic papal stuff, church history. If you want to talk about that,
we can. If you want to talk about Bible stuff, that's okay,
we can do that. I guess as well. If you're Protestant and
you want to ask me questions, okay, but leave that for later,
because that's not the topic today. So every time we do this and we
open it up, the first thing is like, it's going to be some
Protestant or it's going to be some Orthodox person asking me about Orthodox drama and
scandals. That's not the topic today. Please keep it topic relevant. It
really bugs me when people don't keep it topic relevant. So the way it
works, request to speak. You can come on, you can make your
argument, you can ask me a question, you can say whatever you want
for as long as you want within the parameters of what is acceptable history journeys.
What's up if you don't do that, I have every prerogative to absolutely
ban you, boot you, delete you with with iron fists. Hey,
j yes, sir, thanks for letting me speak. I had a theological
question. Okay. It was regarding Timothy to twelve. I know, like
a lot of people online, just like on Twitter and stuff, they argue
about this verse and they say, you know, something like, oh,
well, that was only addressing specific issues in the early Church where some women
were teaching false doctrine. Paul's instructions were specific to that situation and not a
universal prohibition on women's voices. That's just one thing. I one argument I
noted against well. I mean, Paul consistently teaches this not on the basis
of anything cultural, but on the basis of the natural order between men and
women. So you'll notice that text doesn't say it's properly understood according to the
culture and the morals of our time. He says, let a woman learn
in all silence, with submission. I did not permit to teach a woman
to teach, or to have authority of a man, but to learn in
silence or to be in silence, because Adam was formed first, then Eve.
Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and fell into transgression.
Nevertheless, women will be saved in bearing if they continue in faith,
love and holiness with self control. So uh no, there's nothing about that
that is a cultural relevant argumentation, right, And also there's nothing about that
being like only specific to that church at that time, like does that carry
on? Well, I mean our Adam and Eve only specific to the Church
of Ephesus, right, No, yeah, anything else, anything else?
That was it? Okay? Yeah? And for those who want to deeper
dive into the history of the push for women deacons and then how that's the
stepping stone to women's women priests. By the way, Romatics already have acolyte
female acolytes, so they're already on the road to that. John Paul allowed
that for the Novasorto. Let's see, if you want to deeper dive into
the means, methodology, and plans of deaconesses and how that's a big scam.
We covered that here with Father John Whiteford not too long ago, and
he went into great depth and detail refuting this from church history and who's pushing
it in the motivations of this for today? All right? Next up is
handmade something I can't read the rest of the name. It's connecting, so
handmade. When you connect, just unmute. You'll be muted. Everybody asks
when you come on, you're muted. So just unmute yourself. If you
request to speak, then when I give you permission to speak, you have
to unmute yourself. Otherwise, and we already know I'm gonna have to do
it. I have to sit here all day long and tell everybody to unmute.
All right, So it's having a trouble connecting, So go out and
come back in handmade Father deacon, did you want to speak? Unmute?
Did you want to speak? Oh? Just in case you needn't to talk
on anything, I'm just here. Do you have any comments on so far
the Dubia and all the big the Roman Catholic world going wild just just have
to be typically kind of noticed. The level of sophi stream kind of coping
and all of it goes two arguments that you and I have made that it's
a type kind of non falsify fiability. Yeah, oh, but it's the
church and the gates of Hell won't well, wait a minute, so it's
forever, it's the ineffectibility because it's room. It's always the church. And
so you could literally the next day worship sit all of you decide to worship
Satan and it's still well, the gates of Hell won't prevail. So it's
still the church, which is exactly what's in question. And second of all,
then it seems to doctrine doesn't matter. It's kind of what I'm getting.
If you can do all this stuff right to the ad hocts, save
what you want to save, then in the end it doesn't seem that doctrine
matters. Now why would you say that, Why would you say doctrine doesn't
matter? I'm saying that's the logical consequence of their position, right, but
flesh that out. Why would that be the logical conclusion or that? Well,
if they do have a principle of indefectibility. So when you bring up
these problems, and again, a problem in one system is not the same
as a same problem in another system. Exactly, Yeah, they'll say what
about your church? You have a liberal bishops as well, So when you
address these problems, that illustrates there's a systemic problem, and there's a problem
with the ecclesiology. What this eventually goes towards is pointing out indefectibility. The
Roman Church will always be, you know, the church. If that's the
case, then there's nothing that can falsify that. That means incorrect doctrine or
whatever you do is irrelevant because it will always be the church. If that's
the case, and you could all decide to worship Satan tomorrow and you're still
the church, the logical consequence of that is, well, then doctrine doesn't
matter. Well I would say that, I say what you're saying. A
lot of them would actually probably say, well, yeah, it is an
unfalsefiable system because it's just true. What would you say to that, Well,
then don't criticize me if I just say, well, it's true,
it's axiomatic the Orthodox churches. Yeah. In other words, if you can
appeal to that, can I appeal to that as well? Exactly? Yeah,
So it does occurs with Protestantism too, right. They appeal to these
principles for me, but not for thee Oh no, no, no,
that only applies for me, why because it saves my position? But if
I let you have the same principle, then it would make my position wrong.
So I can't let you have that right, all right, So it's
open for him. If your request to speak, you can ask a question,
you can propose an argument. If you want to disagree with anything that
we've said layout a position, You're welcome to Giermo. What's up? Hello,
Hey, what's up? Hey? Sorry? Thank you for having me.
I'm from Venezuela and Superior General of the Jesuit Order right now is a
very sell I came from a Jesuit led university hitting Caracas, and I'm wondering
because I really I'm not that familiar with the whole part of the influence of
the Jesuit Order being the Francis Is the pope right now have in this whole
movement towards the left style things. So do you have any comment on that?
Maybe absolutely, I mean, Jesuits have been at the forefront of pushing
the liberalization of the Roman Catholic world, particularly in the twentieth century. I
don't know that prior to the twentieth century that you could probably find some sort
of protoliberal Jesuits. But really in the twentieth century, you get, for
example, the Jesuits in Latin South America really fostering and pioneering liberation theology,
which is a movement away from supernaturalism and religion in theology to make it kind
of a quasi Marxist or a social gospel basically where the church's goal is to
feed and house people in this world, nothing to do with the Trinity and
the incarnation and the supernatural doctrine. So it's a imminentizing and a de mythologizing
and a moving away from the supernatural movement that at times was very Marxist,
was very socialist. So that's liberation theology. It's really found a home amongst
the Jesuits for whatever reason. And then, particularly at the time of Vatican
Two in America, a lot of the Jesuits or a lot of the uh,
well, the really prominent ones were specifically co opted by the CIA,
like John Courtney Murray, and that's what David Wimhoff's book is about. So
you kind of had a fissure within the Jesuit order of some favoring liberalism,
some being co opted by the CIA for so called Americanism and neoliberalism. And
really after the twentieth after after the Cold War, pretty much what what won
out was basically just that CIA globalism. So neoliberal CIA globalism is what one
and that's not antithetical to Marxism. So you can be just like Klaus can
be a you know, neoliberal technocrat who's best friends with the archbishop or cardinal
whoever he was, that's Francis's mentor. And Klaus this you know, wealthy
technocrat. The archbishop guy that was Burgolio's mentor is also a liberation theologian.
And then Francis worked with the CIA in when he was the archbishop in Operation
Condor, because what's going on is above Cold War dialectics. It's the global
elite that are international, supernational and they're not capitalist or Marxists. They're above
that. And you can see that when you look at these power groups and
these power structures that are above Francis. So the Jesuit order is really a
tool in the overall movement towards the globalist order, and the Jesuit order had
both CIA and Marxist amongst them. Yeah, and I think that the political
movement is something that really needs to be spoken about, how these whole minutia
goes through the super entities, like my daughter is at the same university right
now, and the last week they have an art presentation and he sold these
modern arts and they had the queer art there and the team from the university
that suggests with priests not only what's watching it, but sensioning yeah, yeah,
the and for those that are in the chat wondering, I mean yeah.
Fordham University, which is a Jesuit Catholic university, has for a long
time produced CIA directors John Brennan and others. And so there's that who has
the largest Orthodox ideological propaganda outlet, which is a tool of changing Orthodoxy,
pushing for the union with Rome, pushing for all the changes in the Orthodox
were ald at Fordham. That's a Jesuit globalist institution. And so that's the
same people on the side of Francis. So it's not it's not it's not
a liberal versus conservative dialectic. It's a globalist leads wanting to change both the
Roman Catholic and the Orthodox world and the pros and you see it in the
politics too. I went to university at the same time. Then, I
don't know how how your audiences or yourself are with the whole problem politically here
in Minezuela. But one WHITEO went to the university, to that same university
at the time that I was going there, uh, and he was totally
in the in the university council. The he was totally into it from the
university pushing out this this this political movement that in the end goes to this
whole globe of the things. So I'm thinking about, I'm thinking about if
you do you think then I'm a Catholic by the way, So I'm really
I'm really appreciative of all the information that you grow. And I'm really thinking
about do you think that that when Pergoblio the dies or finishes the papacy,
do you think that the Jesuit thing is going to continue on the next pope
election. I think I think that he was just a natural uh one to
use because of his role that he played during the Cold War and Operation Condor
with the CIA about Francis. So I think he was just a natural choice.
I don't think they're going to have any problem choosing someone to continue and
further their goals because again the cardinals that the Roman College that elects the pope.
It's already stacked. The deck is stacked with people that are already going
to choose somebody like another Francis. So there's not going to be the Savior
trad pope elected or something like that. Uh. And I heard you before
this stream talking about how how this kind of uh just putting out there the
pig on timilality and stuff that just doing the union like we follow you coming
closer to Rome that you see, and it's an opportunity of just weaving out
the Orthodox priests there are in the hoods with this whole thing. Right.
I know that your position is sort of like, but don't don't you think
that for the Catholic work also could be that that kind of opportunity now that
that things like Father Martin and and the pope letters to you. No,
there's no, no, no, because there's no you don't have the option
in a in a centralized author I mean, that's a different structure. We're
a decentralized church. So we don't mind a bunch of people going on.
I mean, we don't want that, but we don't At the end of
the day, it's good for us to have a bunch of people go away
and go to Francis. You can't have different Roman Catholic churches. The only
one that exists is the one that's in Rome with Francis. There's no options
of like, well, let's have this other Romancolic church over here in France
or something, right, No, but just waving it out Like I was
listening to the video that you did about the Godfather, and it's really interesting
about the Godfather part three. Don't you see that that everyone is like,
oh, it's so boring stuff. And I also see the real important message
if you look. Uh, Francisco Coppola talking about it on the on the
re release that they did. Uh. He gives an account of him working
with Puso talking about the whole thing about the Vatican stuff. And now it's
it's creally c really overt for for everyone to see. It's not something like
you need to to you know, like this secret knowledge that it may be
happening, is itpcoming? It's obviously here. Uh. But in that regard,
which orthodox uh patriarchs do you see are are on the side of this
kind of of left leaning stuff and which ones are on the correct side?
Which one would you say, well, I mean, Bartholomew is the most
open for wanting to reunite with Rome, and he's open to women deaconesses.
And then the you know, our LP de Foos is probably the most liberal,
you know, kind of skittles adjacent person in the Orthodox world. So
but I mean there's I'm sure there's more that we could find. Those are
good questions, but I don't think that in Orthodoxy there's any equivalents to what
you see in the Roman Catholic world. So are there liberals and are there
skittles amongst Orthodox Yes, and even amongst bishops. I'm sure, but that
doesn't mean that, oh well, then it's equivalent. You know, I
think that it's far more prevalent in Rome than it is in our circles.
And again, for people that don't know, I mean Fordham is famous.
I mean Fordham produced John Brennan. I mean against people have no idea,
totally ignorant what it is. And it's absolutely a CIA school. I mean
they even named an entire division after John Brenham. Right, Brennan is a
key figure there, and it's a Jesuit university that's used by the CIA for
a lot of things related to things like Ukraine. For example, a lot
of the Ukraine Schism was pushed by Fordham connected individuals in the Ukraine. In
fact, Tim Flanders even attended one of those ecumenist universities I think in Ukraine,
so he had some role in that which I think you should. You
know, keep in mind when Tim Flanders is over there telling you that you
need to be you need to be humble and submit to Francis as he tells
us that Francis might actually be a heretic. So next up is dude guy,
what's that? Dude guy? Hello? Jay? Can you hear me?
Ye? Uh yeah. I was just wanting to ask you, is
there a way to argue for the Cappadocian monarchical trinitarianism with a tech argument only
against Catholics? For example? How would you disprove the philioquay and prove the
Orthodox Trinity as necessary when you deal without scripture, revelation and history is a
way? No, I mean, the Doctor of Trinity is a doctrine of
revelations. There's no way that you could argue for the Trinity without divine revelation.
So the point about when we say that it's like the necessary view of
the Trinity, that it means that it also assumes, or it necessarily implies
the rest of our worldview, though I might not at the point of arguing
the Trinity with it Roman Catholic immediately be under my argumentation arguing for all the
other doctrines of Christianity, they're assumed because you can't have partial Christianity. You
can't have trinity without incarnation, you can't have incarnation without you know, church
history. So it all goes together, but it's not necessarily immediately under the
purview of the immediate argumentation when I'm arguing with an atheist or with a Roman
Catholic about the Trinity. So, yeah, I think you can. You
can argue the philosophical route, but I don't. I think that's kind of
secondary and it's not. You can't really argue the philosophical route of the Trinity
without divine revelation. I just don't see how that's possible, Okay, And
how would you prove the necessity for argumentation when how would you prove the necessity
for divine revelation? Well, to someone who doesn't believe it, tag,
okay, say I'm an eighth theist, I say, yeah, I don't.
I'm okay, you convinced me about theism, but I don't know about
so. Uh. We've got a bunch of live streams, not trying to
be rude, but we've got a bunch of live streams where we've dealt exactly
with that question in depth. But today's topic isn't TAG, it's Francis Union's
Vatican one and these these issues that we're talking about today with regard to Roman
Catholicism in the history of the papacy. Uh. We have streams that we
did specifically about how does TAG prove the trinity? So you should look that
up on YouTube. That one should come up with. Joseph, what's up?
Just unused? Yeah, yeah, can you hear me? Yes,
sir, Hey, are are you talking to Orthodox people today? Well,
we're talking about Roman Catholicism, Francis Union, uh, Francis's statement on unions,
and Vatican stuff. So if you want to comment on that, sure,
yeah, yeah I will. I mean, I you know, I've
only been Orthodox for about nine months, but but you know, most of
my life I've dealt with that gay cabal in the Catholic Church, and you
know, it's real and it's, uh, it's not addressed at all.
Well, I think you know one thing that for example, Tim and people
like that that are Catholics, they'll say, there's this Saint Gollan mafia,
this group within the power structure that's really pushing for this stuff within Rome.
And so you know, if we get if we could get rid of this
Saint Gollan mafia, which I'm not saying, well, I'm not saying there's
not that, but it's like, well, do you think that it's just
this It's it reminds me of the of the thing that people used to say,
like when I became Catholic and issue these issues had come up, they
would always have this excuse about John Paul where they would say, well,
John Paul's got the these liberal advisors whispering in his ear, and if you
could just get rid of these liberal advisors, right, It's like, but
yeh, the problem is it's more dispersed that, right, because I mean,
I mean I have a million anecdotes and examples, but going back to
the seventies, one of my friends got rest assault. He was at he
was at USF and and he was down at the Casher and he turned the
corner one day and there's you know, father spanked me in a in a
mother harness, so it was going on, you know, even then,
and they look the other way. Yeah, I mean, it seems like
this is a systemic, longtime problem. It doesn't seem like a problem that's
limited to a you know, mafia within the Vatican. Correct. Yeah,
correct. And and you know, Jay, another thing that's interesting is it
when I was at when I was at Berkeley, I was studying the Romanesque
and something always fascinated me. There was a vessel as a cathedral of Saint
Mary Magdalen, and there was a sculpture there of the rape of ganymy and
that always fascinated me because I was wondering, why is it in the Catholic
Church, because it was kind of an anomaly too. They didn't have a
lot of Greek mythological characters there, but they had that rape of Ganity.
And right around that same time you had Peter Damien writing about sodomy and homosexuality
in the Catholic Church, so it was it was definitely an issue there,
you know, And whether that whether that sculpture of the rape of Ganymede had
something to do with the warning to the monks there at the abbey. I
don't know, but so that's that's a thousand years ago, Yeah, exactly.
I totally agree. Peter Damien is one of the more forceful about this
problem in the church, in the Roman Latin Church back then. And you
know, this just speaks to the hypocrisy. You know, when you look
at the Vatican itself, I mean, it's full of a bunch of nudies.
But at the same time, we're told that if you were to look
up and think upon this, you would be engaged in mortal sin. So
you're sitting here, supposed to be in church with all this mortal sin imagery
around you, which is just preposterous, and it's totally rejection of the Seventh
Ecumenical Council's teaching. The Seventh Ecumenical Council specifically forbade all of this kind of
stuff, and here it is all throughout the Renaissance Roman Catholic world, again
showing that they don't actually believe the Second Economical Ecumenical Council at all. They
give it verbal credence and then do whatever they want. All of this is
actually forbidden in the Seventh Ecumenical Council, and again, over and over and
over, we see this. We've been pointing this out for years and years
and years, and they just blow it off and don't care and just call
you names. So that's the level to which Roman Catholics want to deal with
the actual challenges to their position at least ninety percent of the time. Not
everybody, but but yeah, I mean, the Renaissance art itself shows you
that it's fake and gray. I'm not saying it's not good art instence of
like I can appreciate the artwork of some of those Renaissance masters, but it
doesn't belong in the church. I mean, the Seventh that Gimical Council clearly
lays out iconographic rules and laws for the Church, and all of that's condemned
as pagan art. And you don't even have to go into the theology.
Just look at the imagery of icons versus the Renaissance pagan imagery throughout the Vatican.
I mean that alone should tell you which one is the true and the
false Church? Maximus, what's up? Oh goo? Keep hearing yep,
Yeah, I don't know. I just kind of wanted to come on here.
And talk about like some of the responses I've seen kind of in the
wake of this, and a few things that I've noticed, which is,
well, there's a couple. There's a couple of things. First, is
is the is the way that Francis, I guess, the way that this
modernism, I guess is different than the old modernism, right where the old
modernism was actually about sort of erasing the fundamental categories of Catholic doctrine, like
you know, the immutability of revelation and these sorts of things. Right,
Well, the old the modernism at in the late eighteen hundred's and early twentieth
century, when you read the encyclicals that deal with it, I mean,
they actually define it as like what you just said, right, So let's
look at Lamenta Beiley, which is one of these, and it defines it
as things like truth progressing and evolving over time. Right, I'm pulling it.
I'm pulling it up. Okay, because Christian Wagner has a tweet right
where he basically says, you look at all the look at all the times
in these duvia that Francis affirms like our basic categories against modernism, right,
saying that you know, revelation is once given an immutable you know, he's
just fought. That's just the cope. And the that's the bureaucrates where they
they I mean, it's the same thing that they do with a quitas.
It's like, my my argument is that Aquinas contradicts. Their reply is look
over here where he says something true. That's exactly this is all they ever
do. Yeah, and what now we're seeing is is the two other things
that I found really interesting is one the extent to which Francis quotes from the
Magisterium of you know, the supposedly conservative post Vatican two people, right,
and it's really like this is your bed, you have to lay in it.
In this sense, it's almost the message it feels like he's sending because
you know, these these kind of conservative cardinals from another age were kind of
willing to support the previous pontiffs, right as long as there was this sort
of veneer of doctrinal integrity. And Francis is sort of saying, like,
you know, this really is the Vatican to church, and there was a
there was It's it's gonna be interesting to see what conservative Catholics, what their
response is. And it's going to be a consistent response, right, And
I think I saw one guy had this video where he basically said, yes,
this is making us realize that our doctrine of the papacy is more complicated
than previously thought. And he actually cited, uh, the stuff about the
synom of sinidelity and the census fidellum. Right, you know, the idea
that the lady have this sort of a census vandillum and they've reconceived it to
be this sort of we need to listen to the lady type thing, which
is not not what it was really you read the original Catholic sources on this,
but he says, I'm using my census fadilla to know that something's wrong
here, you know. So it's this weird, it's this weird. Yeah,
the whole system is the whole system. The whole system is lack dialectical
Marxism, constantly making you accept contradictions, even though it's supposed to be a
system without contradictions. Right, So trad cat, you know, Thomas Roman,
Catholicism is the ultimate contradiction free system that constantly makes you accept contradictions,
exactly like their supposed enemies, the dialectical materialists who are just really more advanced
in their philosophy of evolution of doctrine or evolution of the I mean Hegelianism.
They don't understand and Wagner doesn't understand that the Vatican is very adept at Hegelian
praxis. And let me give you an example of this, when who did
uh Benedict write a book with? Does anybody know who's the famous name a
famous Marxist that Benedict wrote a book with anybody? His name is Jurgen Habermas,
the most famous of the critical Marxist Frankfurt school. Critical theorist Francis wrote
the book with him called Dialectics of Secularization, Reason and Religion. So you
understand that the Neo Marxist dialectical position is at work with its synthesis, with
with Benedict to produce the outcome the dialectic here is hober Moss versus Benedict to
produce the synthesis. And they don't understand that, just like their Marxist cousins,
the acceptance of contradiction and the acceptance of the synthesis is the very thing
that is that is what underlies doctrinal evolution. Hegelianism underlies doctrinal evolution because thesis
antithesis, synthesis which produces a holy new truth right, which is not the
previous two truths, but the synthesis of the elements of truth from the previous
two positions and the rejection of supposedly the false in the previous two positions.
So it's an acceptance of contradictions to produce a new higher level synthesis, supposedly.
But that's exactly the ideology of doctrinal evolution that they have to defend.
So when Lamentabilli says that the Church does not accept evolving doctrine, Lamentabili is
the condemned propositions of nineteen oh seven under Pius the tenth, the sainted Pope.
For them, Lamentabili son the condemned the syllabus of errors of the Modernists.
When you read the errors of the Modernists, it's all the stuff that
Francis does when he gives you one statement about what the traditional teaching is and
then gives you it's antithesis, which is the new evolved moved position thesis,
antithesis synthesis. And that's why Wageran. And these people know anything about Marxists,
Marxism and dialectics, and so they don't understand they're being played by people
who are masters at dialectics. Yeah, and well, one thing that's interesting
about the doctrine doesn't change, right, that's gone from being basically some kind
of form, right, the doctrine is the old phrase is literally truth's fallen
from heaven. Right, that it's like a form in your mind, and
it's it's this one to one with what the church is proposing. And obviously,
yeah, so what France is going to do is reject you know,
the super outland is clearly modernist proposal. But then you could find these documents
from like the Theological Commission that say, yes, doctrines are one hundred percent
true, unchanging, but they're historically media right, they throw in these little
things, but they're analogous, right, they're historically mediate. They could be
unpacked more, right, is the is the new way exactly exactly the way
they're saying, How is that not an evolution in the essential thing? It
is? But they then and they and they believe in evolution of doctrines.
So problem solved exactly, Yeah, and it goes back to Tahartism, right,
like, uh, the idea. You know, even the more right
wing people in this whole thing, it seems like they just wanted a sort
of based perennialism that eventually merges into this sort of one world moral force that
seems to be what Tahart one and that seems to be what von Balpas are
and Deludback and all that wanted as well. Yeah, I think at root
they are believing in and operating on a principle of dialectical synthesis, even if
they don't know it. That's what I'm trying to say. And so the
idea that you could find, for example, I mean, look, look
how silly this is. Lamenta Bailey is condemning the notion of changing doctrines and
doctrines having a newer, different sense. That's condemned multiple times in the sixty
five propositions that are condemned. Now Francis has already had conceded and says that
that is the case, but he can also affirm that divine revelation itself doesn't
change our access to an interpretation of that evolves and gets becomes greater, more
rich. Right, So he's affirming two contradictory things, because for him,
truth is the synthesis of two contradictions. Yeah, well the whole I guess
this is behind the driver union. Right for accumunism as well, is yes,
absolutely, acumenism is. Acumenism is based on dialectical synthesis and process philosophy,
because what does every acumenists say, We are in search of the church.
We're in search for the union of the church. So the union of
the church and the church do not exist. The church is an emergent thing
that we discover on the basis of dialectical, diological process and praxis. That
that's why this book is so important that Ratzinger wrote a book with Harber Moss
on dialectics and practice. Yeah. Well, the idea of being that the
true church is somehow a dialectic between Eastern citidelity, yes, and Western monarchy.
Yes, right, but the truth. But the truth is actually going
to be something that emerges the truth. Yes, the truth is what emerges
that we discover via our academics and global elite patrons when we have the New
Union of twenty thirty. Well, and this is also the uh with the
intercommunion, right, the idea is, and even with the gay marriage stuff,
the idea is is, we don't necessarily I mean, obviously they need
to have these academics come in and make all the teas and you know,
dot everything so it all lines up. But the real emphasis is on the
practice of intercommunion, right, or in this case, the practice correct practice,
practice practice, find out what happens. Yes, So in other words,
for change to occur, you you institute this by revolutionary action. So
doing the intercommunion will in a reciprocal way change the theology in the doctrine correct.
Yeah. Yeah, Again, if you guys go back and watch the
livestream that I just did on dialectical materialism and instead of materialism, just replace
everything that I talked about in that discussion with Hegelian for when the Hegelian synthesis
and Frankfurt school stuff, you will get the exact same approach and model for
what Francis and the Vatican too. Francis and the Vatican are just using the
dialectical technique that the Marxists did too much greater effect. Because the Marxists have
kind of lost They're not really around now. It's kind of these neoliberal powers
and the Vatican is one of those things, and it's using that to great
effect. So again, if you understand dialectical Marxism's acceptance of country addictions,
because in their view you have to understand truth is process. It is not
an abstract, transcendent thing. From the human vantage point, we're all in
the process of discovering truth. So their presupposition for all of this is not
the immutability of the transcendent. It's the ever changing and evolving human subjective interpretation,
the phenomenological interpretation of religion, and so it's always it's always subject to
limitation and to change. And so truth is the ongoing process of what we
come to in the contradiction synthesizing. That's so crucial. So you, yeah,
there's a there's actually so this reminds me of a I think when I
was first starting to come into the church, I was in my university library.
I found this book of Roman Catholic dogmatic systematic theology is used in semin
areas all over the world. It's called Truth is a Synthesis. And in
the first probably twenty pages of the book, they say the Orthodox Church doesn't
have tradition because the Orthodox Church doesn't change, and it's like, you know,
of course the Bible Church, that's an admission that where the true church.
Yeah, no, because because a lot of the Russian apologetics talk about
this like Homeokov and stuff like, you know, the whole point is that
the spirit, it's one spirit, one faith, doesn't it's not supposed to
change, right, The Body of Christ shouldn't be able to just completely ecclesiastically
renovate itself in the year one thousand, right, yeah, exactly. Yeah.
But what do you think though, is is gonna be the response of
the sort of traditional Roman Catholic camp to this, because it seems like you
either have to say, you know, start start adopting some we're you know,
we're we're bishops and resist since type ecclesiology, and then you know,
one thing that I've seen happen a lot is a lot of the stuff about
how much you have to obey the pope has finally started to push itself out
into Catholic conscious I think because of the multi apologists. Right, But I
mean, if so, if if it's really going to be between the sort
of neoscholastic let me see how many distinctions I could draw to make this look
normal, and the people who are going to have to basically say we have
to reevaluate doctrine. I mean, I guess it's it seems like you could
kind of go one or two ways. And I was just curious on what
you think is going to happen. I mean, are people just gonna keep
swallowing the cope or are they gonna do some SSPX thing all the above,
So you're going to have more people converting to the Orthodox Church, which we've
already seen thousands of people convert Orthodoxy in the last four or five years,
so we'll continue to see that as well as we will see people saying,
hey, maybe the Trads had it right. I'm gonna look at the SSPX,
I'm a look at the FSSP, I'm gonna look at the set of
a contest groups. And so they're gonna have to probably many of them find
out on their own. They'll have to, you know, learn for the
learn the hard way that these options are not viable real options. And for
those that are considering and toying with the idea of set of a contism,
I would recommend that you watch my stream right here where I argue that set
of a contism proves Orthodoxy, and I argue that on the basis of the
book by my our friend John Pontrello, who I just everything that is in
his book I basically just summarized in that three hour live stream. But I
do recommend getting his book. It's right here. How Vatican choose clash with
with tradition really proves the orthodox view. So basically, again, you know,
Orthodoxy is saying set of a contiest stuff on a thousand years ago.
So the link is too long and won't let me link it, but you
can just get the book if you really want to go ahead. You see
any possibility for well, yeah, because this is really the issue. I
think, based on people I know in my own life, this this would
be the issue, right that really breaks the camel's back. But it won't.
It won't be the issue. It won't be the issue because well,
I had friends that were holding out, that were tried for a long time,
and then when there was a some sort of bishop's meeting discussion about women
ordination that was being had in Rome three or four years ago, and that
led my good friend and his entire family basically to go to Orthodoxy. So
I think it's different for different people. And what seems to usually happen to
the diehards and the holdout is like there's a there's a last straw. So
I think with a lot of people, they're already doubting, they're worried,
they're concerned. They have been for many years, especially people that are newly
coming back to the Romancolic Church or converting to it, and they're seeing these
things and they're wondering, and so usually what happens is they try all of
the different explanations, which I did this. I did the exact same thing
that people are doing. I went through the well, we just got to
find a Latin Mass to go to. Well, I just got to find
a base trad, you know, priests, base trad, bishop, I'll
check and then that that eventually led me to SSPX, and then the SSPX
spent seven or eight years going to Latin Mass. There. That's a whole
world of madness and insanity on its own. All the corruption they have all
the same, maybe not to the same degree, but that's full of a
bunch of sex scandals as well, a bunch of insane people, weirdos,
creeps, literally, con men, shady corporation. It's just crazy and you
don't know, and you want people don't they choose not to believe it until
they go and experience it for themselves. So people will test out all the
different options. Uh. The Sata world is his own world of insanity.
Basically there's no church. But again in the Sata world, there there's no
way to have another church, and so what usually happens is another pope to
save the church. Right, what usually happens is that they default to apocalypticism.
And when you default apocalypticism, now you're right for like crazy cult stuff
and for the more sane elements amongst them. Uh, they won't find that
very satisfying or intellectually convincing for very long. They'll they will soon see the
insanity of all that. I saw all that firsthand. What's what's left Orthodoxy
or Protestant? Yeah, yeah, because I mean if you look at stuff
like Baywatch, right, it's like so obviously pray list, so obviously demonic.
They watched the TV show Watch. I think I think it's it's one
of these appearances where the lady was saying, you know, have Bayside you're
talking about Bayside. Yeah, no, no, no. In Taylor Marshall's
mind, it's Baywatch because to let when Mary appears to him in his dreams,
it's engorged. It's engorged Milkers according to Taylor Marshall. But no,
Bayside is a totally a Cold War SiGe out. There's a great paper that
I covered about that. Yeah, yeah, but I guess so. But
the thing is, it's easy to say, hey, here's this, here's
this really awful thing. I'm going to tell you about it. Pray for
the church. I think with this, it's like, okay, you know,
you know, the Roman Catholic influencers are gonna be accountable for giving some
kind of explanation. And also, what I was thinking is is do you
think we could actually see like a schism, because you know, you know,
Conclavism is like a you know, we have these like five bishops,
right, so it seems like at this point in the church we got like
five high ranking not high ranking, they're they're minor positions, but five people
in the hierarchy who actually believe the stuff they believe. Maybe they don't,
but it seems like they believe all the whole thing are you talking about the
thought the ones behind the DUBI A question then Schneider and some of these other
bishops, like, do you think they would legitimately say, like Francis is
of the pope, We're going to have like a conclave to do something like
that. I think that's highly un I mean, not impossible, but highly
unlikely. And because I don't know like how they would conceivably even solve this
issue, because you know, I mean, I'm not some expert on Roman
cally canon law. It's super boring. I don't really care that much about
it. But I don't understand how they would solve this dilemma canonically, I
mean, because unless they want to try to just I mean, they could
argue something like the SSPX argue with an extremists that canon laws are suspended in
extreme emergency situations, and so it's an emergency situation. So the all of
the canons that relate to how the pope is elected and all that. But
the problem is that guess what, that's already been done, That was done
by groups called conclavists, and how well did that how well did that work
out for all the kook quack conclavist cults that are out there. It didn't
work out at all. And by the way, here is Taylor Marshall saying
his mystical vision. So you don't think I'm making this up. This is
what these people want to turn to. So rather than orthodoxy, you're gonna
listen to quacko tradcats talking about visions of engorged milkers. Well, I'm not
a visionary and turning out of prophet. I have seen supernatural things in my
life as a Christian, as a Catholic, and one of those things happened
last night, and I'm reluctant to share it, but I think it'll be
of comfort to other people. So yesterday I went to confession and one of
the things I confessed was being prideful and judgmental and worried and concerned about the
state of the church and corruption in the church and scandals, and it's been
a kind of a struggle for me lately. So anyway, I confess that,
and the priests had some very good things to counsel me on that.
And later that night, which was last night, I was doing examination of
conscience before bed and I was thinking on that point of being worried and concerned
and judgmental, and all these negative thoughts and emotions about the Holy Catholic Church,
Mother Church. And as I was suddenly like, I saw this beautiful
woman. She had blonde hair, she was perfect, no wrinkles, no
spots, and I immediately discerned that this was Holy Mother of the Church.
And she was writing in pain. She was in a bed and there's sheets
on her, and she was very sick, and I noticed that her breasts
were engorged with milk, tons of milk, and there were babies and children
crying out to her that were hungry, and she wanted to feed them,
and she was upset, but she was so sick she could hardly sit up
from her bed. And then I thought to myself, Oh, she doesn't
want she's poisoned. She doesn't want to nurse the children because then she'll go
of them the poison. And then there was this voice, it was like
God or an angel, I don't know, and it said, no,
the milk is still pure. And so I saw her there and all for
beauty, but so sick and struggling and loving those children, and then seeing
her all that milk stored up there, and I realized that the sacramental graces.
The dog Andrew needs to put this on his lunatics on the Internet series,
right, I mean the engorgement and he keeps stressing really interested in that
milk, milk, milk, milk, those breast milk, the breast milk.
Anyway, but remember that is good stuff. I'm mean and bad.
I'm a bad man. I'm the bad man. That's all good, solid,
traad stuff. Just a bunch of fucking quackery. Dude, I'm kind
of I'm kind of sick of it. I'm gonna be honest, I'm kind
of sick of it. Ranger, what's up? Go ahead, and I
mute. Ranger. Thank you very much, but also no, thank you
for reminding me of that horrid video. Now. I just had a quick
question regarding people infallibility. How exactly do we argue against that? What do
we use as an argument against Well, I mean, there's a lot of
different ways to argue against it. You could argue against it biblically. You
could argue against it from you know, patristic teaching, or you could argue
against it from outright you know, contradictions in remy Catholic canons and pronouncements.
I mean, I think the easiest route is to argue that the canons from
each of the seven ecumenical count every ecumenical council contains canons which contradict the claims
of Vatican One. So I've done multiple streams on that. I just put
that stream up on Twitter today, so you go to my Twitter feed and
you can find my two hour live stream on specifically the canons that contradict the
claims of Vatican One. I think that's the strongest because typically their approach is
to stack up quote minds from the church fathers, and our approaches, well,
the academenical councils and the canons actually express the universal collective mind of the
Church, and that's more powerful and more authoritative than any single church father as
even Roman Catholics have met. Even Roman Catholics think that individual church fathers could
air and can air and have aired, and even saints and doctors of the
church, and the Roman Catholic view have aired and made mistakes. Right,
Aquinas disagreed with the Immaculate conception. Every Roman Catholic rejects that view in Aquitas,
So the most effective and powerful approach historically in my view is the canons
of the of the seven Echemical Councils, and I have an whole essay on
my website where we have all of the ones list that contradict what Vatican one
claims. And then secondly, I think the strongest argument is the contradictions between
pre and post Vatican two dogmatic teaching. If you read a book like Popes
Against the Modern Errors from Ten Publishers, which is basically fifteen or sixteen people
and cyclicals and dogmatic documents prior to Vatican Two, they condemn most of the
theology and the positions that are touted post Vatican Two. Gotcha? And would
you say the same concerning ex cathedral like biblical examples? Yeah? I mean
I think, for example, do we see Peter teaching ex Cathedra in Acts
fifteen at Jerusalem? No? Do we see Peter teaching ex Cathedra or having
that type of authority when Paul rebukes him for the theological error in relations?
No? Goutcha. I think that's all. I had just one more idea
to throw out there. Okay, you think we could get some cheer already
and nuanced stickers for the discord server, Yes, And I will actually buy
those bumper stickers and put them on my car. So correct Temple hat.
What's up? Hi? Jay? Hey, what's up? I just wanted
to bring up that I wanted to kind of focus on something that you talked
about. Oh wait, are you a woman, because I just want to
be mean to you, because when because I wake up to figure out and
pick the women that I want to be misogynist and mean to go ahead.
I've been in the military, so I'm not trust me. You don't,
so I'm gonna have to be extra mean, extra mean for me, extra
means to me. I thought it was really interesting that you're talking about in
your review of Marxism the other night, about herod bitis with regards to the
Vatican and their attitude, which is the contrary when you get Vatican one and
then Vatican two, and how they contradict one another, and the contradiction makes
everything completely truth. You can basically make anything true correct, you know,
And I just thought that was like so hit home with me, and I
just wanted to thank you for saying that, because that totally I was just
like, yes, thank you, because I've been going back and forth with
my mother about this I'm just like, you got either a religion of contradiction.
Everything is a contradiction. Yeah, just like the just like the dialectical
materialists who embrace that and say, yes, let's take it on. And
when we take it on, when we take on the contradictions, it will
produce the synthesis. The only difference is that the Roman Catholics claim to not
accept contradictions, but their system forces them to it, whereas the dialectical Marxists
say, no, we embrace contradictions because that is the process of truth itself.
Truth is process. I mean, it's Hegalianism. It's very, it's
very it's sounds obscure and crazy, and oh, I got to read all
these philosophers. No, it's just it's just embracing contradictions as a means of
the furtherance of revolutionary action. That's the Marxist view. And I would just
argue that these guys are just religious religious Hegelian pseudo Marxists. I mean,
they're just they're just doing the same thing as the dialectical materialists, but with
religion, because they serve the same masters. What they don't realize is that,
like they like read Vatican One, you have to submit with the docility
to the pope. And then you see all these Roman pacts that's going crazy,
saying, oh, we're going to call the popa heratic, We're going
to pray for his conversion. You can't pray for his conversion. You have
to follow him, like it's ridiculous, it's so crazy. That's all I
saw yesterday was like, oh, we're going to pray for his conversion,
you know, or maybe you know, are we going to take him out
of the church? So the supreme Pastor and teacher of all Christians is not
a Christian. That's what that means. Yes, And it's just it's insanity.
I don't understand how people in the system, and I feel bad for
them, just don't get like, I don't understand how they don't see it
like I've tried to tell because the problems aren't intellectual. Doesn't this demonstrate the
point at the beginning of the stream, which is that everyone in this domain,
just like Protestants, they all approach these issues like, oh, I'll
find the book and the intellectual doctrine that solves the algorithm, Like Matt Dadbod
when he's solving the big math problem, right, is a goodwill hunting and
he walks in from sweeping up vomit when he's a janitor and he sees this
big algorithm and he's like, oh, give me the marker, and like
he plays with it and solves this super algorithm. Right, that's what they
think that it's a big intellectual dilemma. No, no, it is not
an intellectual dilemma. It's a moral problem that all of us have that cannot
be solved with new proposition and new statements, new commissions, new documents.
Father Deacon, would you comment on that? Because you actually make this point
quite a bit, and it's important because a lot of people say, oh,
Father Deacon and an i As and those people in his circles, they're
all intellectual. They think that everything is sold with intellect and philosophy. Are
you there? All right, he's not here, but you get the point,
right. He can comment on that when he comes back. What I
what I think is so refrescting about Father Deacon is that he is so and
you're cutting out. Can you bring everything into perspective? Can you repeat that
you cut out? Can you repeat that you cut out? What is so
wonderful about Father Deacon is that he is so humble and he is yet he's
incredibly intelligent, and he lays his message out there and it's and it's so
easy to take and he doesn't put up pretenses. He's not he's not a
controversial person very and I find him to be like one of one of the
best writers and one of the best minds that I've come across. That's just
has been my perspective. And well, God bless him, by the way,
I'll send you the check. I do I do appreciate. Yeah,
I do find you to be so humble because you are an incredibly intelligent in
how you speak, and you don't get riled up when people are like coming
at you and screaming at you. And I think that's it's hard for all
of us to do because I know if people were coming at me like they
come at you, I would just be like are So I do appreciate that.
Well, I'll tell you where that comes from a lot of suffering actually,
and in our lives that suffering can be a very humble like once you
go through really really difficult stuff, people screaming that you doesn't it doesn't really
mean much. What would I wish upon people. But it's a good medicine.
Would you comment on that, you know that point which actually you've made
a lot, which is a lot of times people approach these issues and they
think, well, this is a big intellectual dilemma that i'll solve, but
it's not an intellectual problem at root. Yeah, exactly, And that's that's
always a trap of the devil. You know, you just have to understand
that orthodox is a life, and first and foremost it's a life with Christ.
It's a person, truth, a person, it's incarnational, and we
worship a trinitarian god of community. To invert that and think that you start
with the realm of ideas and facts, that is contrary to Christ and his
kingdom, and so that the demons are very good at at this because their
domain is the noetic realm. And so what do they do. They always
use the same kind of tricks, pride, oh you're smart enough to figure
this out, and ideas. They're messengers. Here's this idea, and what
they're trying to do. They're masters of distraction. That's why we pray in
the liturgy and when we sing this lay aside all earthly cares lay aside all
the distractions and have a you know, an encounter with the living God.
So demons have to distract us, and one of the ways they do that
is with messages and ideas, Oh, we'll just solve this intellectual problem.
We'll just build this system. And you'll notice that, especially at the turn
of when we're turning into modernity and the enlightenment, what is it that we
notice about all these you know, anti Christian ideologies, the secular ideologies.
There's system builders. Yes, I'll build the system. I'll build my own
tower. And by the way, system building itself is part of the dialectical
that's a self a dialectical project. It's saying that, okay, there's all
these guys that came before, I can take the true and the false out
of them and I'll construct a new system. That's not the same thing as
church fathers looking at this philosopher, that philosopher and saying, okay, this
was true, that was false, because it's not a system building project.
The church's role is to comment on and explain the immutable truths of divine revelation
that have been revealed. It is not a dialectical, diological, historical process.
Philosophy of which all of these people are doing because it all comes out
of Hegelianism and the Hermetic tradition. Hegelianism is processed philosophy. We've taken out
the doctrine of the news. Your it's your it's your heart. Like I
think that was the biggest problem with Rome, is they the of the news
because man does not. We have so many facts that we can build upon,
and we have infinite knowledge. But if your heart is not is not
linked with your mind, it doesn't really matter at all. Right. The
very rejection of the news is presupposing that man's problem is intellectual correct now,
and man does have intellectual errors and problems, but those are an effect,
not the cause. The cause is the lack of correct heart orientation in relation.
Heyjah, remember when we're over uh my parents place in California and we
had a a I won't name them by names, certain somebody that came over
that. Well, you see with the problem with the all you know,
all the problems in the world are that people not enough people went to college
or what he said, what he said people went to college. Yeah,
remember that all the world's uh problems could be solved by people going to higher
education, going down to college degrees. Yeah, man's problem is not intellect,
it's his heart. It's made a bunch of made everybody a bunch of
communists by going to college. Now we're worth at college, and we're forgotten
about the evil genius exactly. I mean he goes an idea of somebody that
knows all the facts and is evil. Yeah. I mean think about Dostievsky's
Notes from the Underground. I mean the point of Notes from Notes from the
Underground is that evil, uh is a moral thing? It's not. Oh,
well, if we could just better educate people, right, This is
underlies all modern progressivism, right, social programs. Oh, if people were
just educated, they would never choose This goes back to the Greeks. The
Greeks had that proto Pallagian idea that if you just give man more education,
he would never knowingly choose vice over virtue. But that assumes that man's not
fallen and that all man needs is more education. If man has fallen,
then he will not always choose vice over virtues simply by giving being given more
facts. Good points there, tenfoil Let's move on to absolutely. Next is
tradig or Ormond tradg Ormond. When it connects, just hit on mute if
you can connect. If you have a hard time connecting, you just come
out and come back in. And sometimes that works for people that can't connect
for whatever reason. While he's trying to connect. Here is the livestream that
I did about the cannons that contradict about it can one and you can find
that newly posted on my Twitter feed right there. Go ahead and subscribe to
me on X. I don't care to me, it's still to me.
To me, it's always Twitter. To me, it's always Twitter, always
was, it always will be. I'm like the people who think that Benedict
is still Pope, right, It's like it's always Twitter to me. The
guy that's crying about wrestling being real, right, all right, didn't the
connection didn't work for him? Following Jazz me, what's up? Are you
following the cryptocurrency jazzmye? Yes? Okay, go ahead, Yes, So
I was calling because I'm new to learning about orthodoxy, been attending an inquirer's
class, and I really thank you for you know, bringing up the subjects
you do, because a lot of this for me is is new and I'm
definitely ignorant to a lot of this stuff. But my question is that in
regards to the foremarks of the church and if this relates to the current situation
with the pope, because you know, I understand that Orthodoxy or the Orthodox
and communion, and I guess uh main reason I'm asking is because the Catholic
Church a sorry how to call come in? Is the Catholic Church part of
the true Church? Or are you know, meaning, are they like a
church in error? Or are they not the church at all? They're a
parachurch. They're a parachurch, and so it's true that they have some of
the key issues kind of in union with us, the Trinity and the incarnation,
but strictly speaking, after the Council of Florence, Saint Mark and everybody
called them a parachurch. So they're not the church. So they would not
have the four months of the Church then no? And would that have started
with the schism or is that something that goes even prior to that or I
think that the definitive, you know, ten fifty four is the communal severance,
and then the official dogmatic severance would be at Lyons in twelve seventy four,
and so really for us twelve seventy four, the Palamite Synods and then
Florence is the key point of departure. But you certainly had tendencies towards you
know, the phillyoquoi as we would be defined at Lyons at twelve seventy four
prior to twelve seventy four. Gotcha, gotcha? And do any of the
videos that you are already have up on addressing Catholicism, do any of them
addressed like the foremarks of the church specifically where I can go? And or
do you have any further reading that you would recommend in the cards to that?
Are you Roman Catholic? No, No, I'm actually Protestant. I'm
going to Orthodox Church. I'm going to turn to the Orthodox Church for several
months now. And yeah, I would say read something like read something like
Rock and Sand from Brother Deside Trent or read uh. Doctor Clark Carlton has
a three part series addressing Catholicism and Protestanism. Okay, all right, thanks
so much, Jeff. Good questions. Let's see who's next. Joseph mhm.
Just hit unmute, Joseph, unmute. You have the floor. If
you want to speak, if you want to unmute. I think Joseph's having
some uh connectivity issues. It says he's connected. It says he's connected.
He's just not unmuting. So Joseph, are you there all right? Reception
or something? Yeah, no, it's it's said he was connected. You
can try, Joseph. Just come out and come back in Big Texas.
What's up, Big Texas? Just hit I mute. It says you're connected.
Do you have nightmares? By the way, where like nobody will on
mute, I don't have to have I don't have to have night I don't
have to have nightmares because it's not a repressed fear. It's an experienced fear
every time we do it life. Okay, all right, Oh, Shankar,
since he can't unmute, maybe now everybody's having this problem. I don't
know. It could be an X issue. I'm mute, dude. You're
raising your hand, but you have the microphone. Go ahead, Hello,
course, dude, what are you talking about? Come on, Big Texas
on mute. You're raising your hand on you Okay, just come out and
come back in man, try again. Okay, Sean car, do you
want to try again. Hello, yes, sir, oh kay, what's
up? Man? What's on your mam? That's how it's going. What
time is it? Really? Well? Uh, why do we need to
know that? Because way up you can I can't hear it. What time
is it? Jesus's three pm? Extremely afternoon? All right, so not
a sane person. All right, let's move on to mister Christo. What's
up? Did America's internet go down? The entire celsor Verizon go down?
What's going on? Like nobody can connect? I hear everybody else. Okay
for the deacon and temple heard them, good, But it seems like everybody
has a hard time connecting. So I don't know what's going on. By
the way, so it's open for him. If you want to come on
and ask a question, make an argument, disagree, state your position,
tell me where I'm wrong, and I will call you back to If you
don't answer, I reserve the right on my platform to interrupt you and bring
you back to the point, so you don't get to just ramble off forever
on rad herrings and rabbit trails. I will bring you back to the point.
That's how we do it around here. If you have a problem with
that, probably not the place for you. So again, come back out,
come back in, mister whatever, Lee, what's up? Boomer jokes,
that's a nice handle. You're unmuted or unmute, I should say you're
you're connected, just unmute? Yes, sir, Hey, can you hear
me? Yeah? What's man? So I was wondering. I had a
couple of questions. I'm trying to get the history kind of squared off in
my head about what happened between Rome and Orthodox and Byzantine Empire. I watched
that one documentary that you did, the Rise and Fall of the Byzantine Empire.
That was pretty interesting. But that I did you mean that I recommended?
I didn't do it. Yeah, that you recommended? Yeah, yeah,
okay. And I was wondering if you read a book by Joseph P.
Ferrell. He works a lot with the dark Journalist about the Venetian Vipers
or the battle on banksters. I know Ferrel. I've read a lot of
his books. I've not read that one. It was pretty interesting. He
was talking about the origins of her Meticism, and he agrees a lot with
you that it might have come from ancient Egyptian philosophers, and I was just
wondering, like, yeah, well Plato says that, yeah, yeah,
and I was just wondering what kind of happened. I know, the phillyoquay
was one of the biggest reasons that the Orthodox and rom split, but like,
historically, what was kind of happening in that period, because I really
like to learn more about the historical Yeah, a good introduction. A good
introduction to the history is the Michael Welton book Two Paths Gets, which gets
into exactly what was going on with a lot of German kings, French kings
in ten eleven, twelve, thirteen hundred that really wanted to control the papacy
and at one point Germanic kings installed I think the pope for about one hundred
years, so it was an entire one hundred year period where you had a
papalocesserism, where the papacy was an institution of Germanic kings. You also have
the period of the Frankish captivity of the Church, or the Orthodox view is
that the Latin Church went into Franco papal captivity post Charlemagne. You also see
this with the Borgia Alexandria, Pope Alexander, the six and Medici popes.
That's another period of captivity to these oligarchic type families, where again the papacy
is not this you know, independent of geopolitics institution. It is in fact
a geopolitical state power. We saw that in Dictatus Pope, which I was
highlighting in the first hour of the stream. Again, this is the you
know, eleventh century or Growing Reforms period, where the papacy is now above
all emperors and is basically a giant world power. And that is not what
the church. In fact, the Canons of the Church in the first seven
Councils forbid clerics from being in state offices. And this is precisely saying that
the pope is actually the ultimate state office. And again totally foreign, nothing
like this in the first thousand years of the Church, and this is why
it was all based on forgeries. Then once the forgeries got exposed, Rome
resorted more and more to evolving doctrine to prove this stuff. So good question
there. You can check those things out, blue blocker, what's up.
By the way, you can support the stream via the super chats function.
You can send super chats via stream Labs right here, and I will read
those right now. A couple of the go ahead, blue blocker. What's
up? I'm mute, Yeah, can you hear me? Sir? Hey?
Thanks for well me give me your give me your time. I had
a concern about the Bible, if you wouldn't mind, sure is it is
it relevant to the topics today or what? I just didn't I'm I'm non
denominational, So I just wondered what I might get some insight on what the
church saw saw something. What's the question it would be about in Revelation mhm,
where Jesus speaks to the seven churches, And I was wondering where or
what the Catholic understanding was, where they fit in that or with that,
maybe the Roman Catholic understand understanding of what exactly the seven churches of Revelation,
Yeah, and how it fits in in the in that in that schematic of
what how Jesus spoke to them? Well, I mean, I don't think
the Roman Catholic view has any specific per perspective on what the meaning of the
seven churches is per se. I mean they're for the Catholic or Orthodox.
They're actually seven historic churches in Asia Minor that for the Orthodox still exists,
right, the Church of Ethicism still exists to this day. So no,
if you mean, like, are they ages of the Church, Like a
lot of Protestants try to say, no, we don't believe that they're not
seven eras of the Church. And Rome doesn't correspond to the lukewarm Church or
whatever. That's a bunch of dispensation. Algibberchever Joseph, Hey, j,
I got a quick question for you. I'm trying to figure out why I've
been trying to figure this out for like twenty years, why Roman Catholicism is
so attractive homosexuals, you know, with a vocation to the preset. And
Richard Sipe was an ex priest. He said that it was primarily mandatory celibacy.
And then but then I've heard like and that I think that could be
it. A lot of the traditional people will say, like, you know,
it's post Vatican too, Belladod was, you know, planting homosexuals in
the church stuff. But I think it it goes further back than that.
I was wondering, let me just throw this at your vero quick, and
I was wondering if what feather Deacon thinks is it. I wonder if it
has to do with the different emphasis in Catholicism on like an extreme form of
suffering in penance that I guess you could see like an inflagellation, and I
think that's attractive to gay men, and you know Orthodoxy does not do that.
It's it's it's apostle centered faith on the resurrection and illumination and not on
the stigma. So I mean, I'm kind of wondering with what you think.
Thanks jaferving need to Yeah, there could be a deeper seat to drive
in that regard, but it also could be people figuring out that hey,
that's networks where I can meet new guys, right, I mean, couldn't
it also just be and also the notion that there is this office of power
or authority that I will get. I think ultimately Roman Catholicism's main central issue
is that it is a worship of authority, so it's no longer about what's
true. In the last final analysis, I don't think that that doesn't mean
that every Roman Catholic is not concerned with what's true. I think many of
them are. But the chief default, the chief defect in the system ultimately
is that it's a worship of authority that requires the person to then do anything
possible to make the authority structure stay there and stand up at all costs.
Authority worship though also I think affects us in a psycho sexual way, where
we as human beings, the more that we're falling and the more that we're
turned into more and more sort of deviant ways of living or operating in terms
of human relations, people more and more have their sexual drive turned into things
like BDSM type stuff. So they and I'm saying that I think that's a
direct connect to the worship of authority and this kind of wanting to be abused
by the daddy figure. I'm not joking. I'm being absolute, one hundred
percent serious. I think there is something there to that, And in fact,
some of the people who left Roman Catholicism famously were actually into this and
talked about this. In fact, I think that who's the famous postmodernists always
go blank on him? Who became who was gay was going to be a
priest? Left it, wrote all the books on BDSM and the history of
sex in the West. Who's the postmodern philosopher? I just went blank,
Father Deacon, do you don't talk about fuco fu COO? I think talks
about this discipline and punishment, this idea. I mean, does that not
echo the Roman Catholic attitude of penance, discipline and punishments. I mean,
I think there's absolutely something there. What do you think about that, father
Deacon or either Yeah, I think that's right too. And then I think
you already pointed this out to the small you know, aquinas small state mistakes
in the beginning become large miss stakes in the end. And I think even
kind of these kind of Manicheanism stuff that enters in on you know, anthropology
and human sexuality, it's incorrect doctrine, and perversions, they fester, they
become you see them in other areas too, So I imagine there's several points.
I do think that there's something with the kind of incorrect notions of the
human sexual relation in this kind of Augustinian Manicheanism, that the notions of supremacy
in terms of authority and stuff like that, all of that probably makes it
very ripe for these perversions to come in, and also too the very ecclesiology
when bad things come in. If it's all centralized power. Then it's almost
it's nearly impossible to remove errors and perversions when they come in. And I
think that all kind of coalesce and you get what you get. So it's
not an issue. Oh, we just got a lavender mafia and bad guys
and we could just get rid of them. It's like, no, you
have a systemic issue, is what we've always been arguing. Well, somebody
was talking about self loathing loathing. I agree with that. In fact,
yeah, self loathing could be the So due to the desires that people are
experiencing and consenting to and whatnot, the guilt becomes very heavy and they have
this sort of self loathing and that creates this perpetual cycle where there's never healing.
There's only this sort of punishment guilt payment attitude, which is precisely what
Fuco is talking about. I'm not a fan of Fuco. I'm just saying
that when we were studying him in my postmodernism classes in undergrad it was like,
wow, this actually does sound like a lot of like Roman Catholic attitudes
towards like whipping yourself, flagellating yourself, right, I mean, that's kind
of what Fuco's reacting against and saying, look, rather than this weird,
repressive sexuality on the outside of Roman Catholicism, in the Augustinian libido dominandi stuff
on the inside of Roman Catholicism. Within there is this absolute just abuse and
you know, going crazy with it. So it's sort of like the it's
like the ultimate double mind right of human sexuality. It's like Roman Catholics are
are double minded on their theology, they're also double minded dealing with this contradiction
of their own natural drives and what's I'm not saying that that, I'm saying
natural and unnatural drives, both the hetero and the uh, what's considered unnatural
even in the Roman Catholic world. Right, Those drives then produce the guilt,
which then produces the feedback loop which produces the secret abuse. Yeah,
that way, So you engage in a sin, you know you're disordered,
and you make a mistake, and then rather than being like, oh,
I'm guilty, and you fall into shame, and shame is where you lose.
You take your eyes off of Christ and forgiveness and you punish yourself,
yes, and you shame yourself, and then what that does is it weakens
you so that the only comfort is to then re engage in the sin.
Well, remember, and abuse is like this, they can't get out of
the cycle. And remember, Augustine very clearly laid down the principles that would
be the normative until very recently in Roman Catholic teaching, which was that you
cannot have sexual relations in marriage without at least venial sin. Right, that's
Augustine's position. We critiqued it, we've shown it, we demonstrated it many
times. It's part and parcel of his dialectical view of man and willing.
He believed that you're either willing towards God or towards creatures, and if you're
willing towards creatures, then you are in some way involved in willing sin.
So it's in either or. It's a dialectical right. He doesn't conceive the
possibility of many goods or willing many goods, and this goes back to his
neoplatonic presuppositions. So if there's not the possibility of willing different goods, then
marriage can't be a good and sex can't be a created good without sin,
it's a sacrament. So he has this weird position of it's a sacrament in
the church, but it's also necessarily involving some degree of sin. Why is
that because of man's fallen libido dominandi instinct? Libido dominandi, the will to
dominate, is also connected in him to sexuality. So it's only natural than
in a church that accepted this for a thousand plus years that they would have
a master slave weird view of scxuality, right, I mean, it's exactly
what is in libido dominandi. And I haven't read Fuco at length. We
only read him in various actions, but I would guarantee, I guarantee you
he probably goes into this in his History of Sex and Punishment or whatever his
whole series is. I'm not going to read four volumes of this creep.
Next up is Adam. What's up? He can you? Yeah, I've
got question. It's not directly related, but it's about natural theology, Okay,
Yeah, I was just thinking about it with the result of the fact
that they in that system you can never directly know God, not be that
you can't even actually have access to truth in the end, I think so,
I mean, that's Palomas's argument against Barlem as that would lead to atheism.
Yeah. Yeah, it's like it's not just it's not just there's no
there's no grace or you don't have access to God's grace or mass. It
would if you were consistent, if you were consistent, it would lead to
the Enlightenment guy's conclusions. And in fact, when you read the Enlightenment guys
like for example, John Locke, when he critiques the sort of medieval tomistic
view, he actually makes this argument. He says that we really can't know
the transcendent or truth itself, we're really only knowing what appears, what presents
itself to our senses, And he actually discusses things like the medieval view of
modal collapse and divine simplicity. Right, So, I think you could actually
even show that in the Enlightenment philosophers that touch on the classical arguments from Aquinas
and others, they're actually taking it to a more consistent step and saying,
well, you know what, if we can't actually know God himself, then
all of these transcendent principles also go out the window. Yeah. Yeah,
it's like it destroys a whole epistemology of the whole system. Absolutely that you'd
be able to reason up to God. Yeah, I have an old essay
where yeah, I have an old essay where I critiqued. There's a contradiction
and Aquinas on this because he says, even natural revelation or natural theology,
the principles that you know of natural theology, Aquinas thinks are actually grounded in
the divine mind. But you don't have access to the divine mind because that's
the divine essence. So even the thing that he grounds universals and uh,
natural natural theology in is something that you don't have access to. In can't
ground exactly you need to. You're supposed to be able to reason up,
but you can't ground. But you can't ground the the coke to or whatever.
Because he's like, how he's supposed to know truth anyway in the first
place, to ground your right. So in Aquinas. In Aquinas, he
accepts the Aristotelian dictum of the peripatetic axiom. There's nothing in the intellect that
is not first in the senses. And so people like David Hume just simply
take that to its logical conclusions and say things like, yeah, and teleology
is not in my senses cosmog the cosmological argument is not in my senses.
The parapatetic axiom itself is not in sense data, so therefore it's self refuting.
Yeah. Yeah, Also, I mean, yeah, you'd need to.
I mean the source of truth, God is supposed to be the source
of truth in their system. Also, I'm sure obviously, so I mean,
how how do you how do you have the parapatetic axiom? I mean,
like, how do you how do you just Well, they believe in
the fan foundationalists of pistemology, as you saw from the Trent Horn debate.
They say, it's just just just true, just self evident. Just is
Oh okay, then my position just does And by the way, when you
say something just is just is what mhmm. Yeah, But like the like,
how can you it's kind of his circ obviously, isn't it because exactly?
And Trent said, sure, I'm fine with that. Mhm. Like
you needs to he needs to start with the parpestic axiom. But but then
that leads you to the to the the result of of you know, of
proving God supposedly, but and and and then you reason that all truth.
They claim that all truth is from God well, they don't believe people belief
in God. You believe that you start with the propestic axiom, as he
said, right, But keep in mind when when Aquinas says proving God,
he doesn't mean it in the sense of absolute proof proof. He believes it
in the sense of a high degree of probability. So he thinks that you
he's an evidentialist, So he doesn't actually believe that God's existence has proven because
that's a that's an element of faith. Right. But then so you can
say you can't prove God, but God. But God is the source of
truth. So I mean, so you can't really be like confident that you
have any truth ever at all. Yeah, I mean that's why hundred percent
is still it's just going to be probable in any case. Well, because
that's a it's a theological idea, right, and theological ideas or have a
degree of you know, leap of faith to them. So first principles are
absolutely certain, and those are science, those are the things of like you
know, Arisitelian logic and you know natural theology. That's first principles. Then
you build on top of that when you establish your first principles supernatural truths was
built on that, which are things like the Trinity incarnation. But the doctors
the Trinity incarnation are not as foundational and certain as the doctrines of First Principles.
Right, But if God is the source of truth, then surely they
just they just have it. They just have it backwards, you know.
Yeah, the proptestic vacciom would need to come from God also, but then
they say that this prize is the reason up to God. So yeah,
it's just obviously inconsistently correct. Yeah, a good question, thanks, Yeah,
great questions, Alex. What's up? Alex? All Right? My
next starting to hurt. So if anybody's got a disagreement, Alex gotta unmute
man. All right, So we got Jayson at ten dollars. Can you
help explain how the death penalty is Orthodox? Uh? I think there's a
whole thing at the Russian Church Social Statement. So if you go to mosspad
that ru there's a whole statement on this. I think Father John Whitper has
written on it. Sneezy sneaed one dollar. What coat will Catholics come up
with once they attempt to canonize Francis? All the same coaches that they use
when they canonized John Paul the Second, who engage in all kinds of the
same types of actions. Nicky lehn yelle two dollars. Wouldn't surprise me if
they would eventually have a woman pope. Yeah, that would be a long
time coming. But yeah, it starts with female acolytes, which the Romanchelly
Church already has in the novs Ordo. Then it moves to women deacons,
then it moves to women priests. Then you got opened, and then you
got it. It's it's slippery slow, Then it's bishops, then it's lady
pope. Uh double o, honeybee ten dollars, Thank you so much,
CS ten dollars. I was an Internet non denominational Protestant until with humility,
I recently began searching the origins of the church. I started attending a local
Orthodox Paris three weeks ago. The research that you've done is inspiring. Hey,
thank you c us glad to hear that, and God bless you on
your journey. Bend over, young liege one dollar. Who was Copernicus?
What were his ties and his beliefs? Why should we accept his model?
I don't really get into Copernicus, so I know he had a lot of
neoplatonic and alchemical influences. But I don't really care. If a person questions,
Copernicus h five dollars, can you respond to the argument of Ernaus that
every church has to be in union with Rome? Yeah, So, in
fact, what he says is is that Rome is pre eminent because it's the
church of Peter and Paul. So he gives it a doubly apostolic status,
which is the Orthodox view of Rome. Santa Arnaeus did not believe that Rome
had unilateral infallible authority because he openly wrote against and rejected the teaching of Pope
Victor. So you can find that if you read Denny's book Papalism, there's
a whole chapter that deals with Eronaus. And you'll also keep in mind that
Vatican one says that you cannot accept the interpretation of Rome's status because of anything
to do with Peter and Paul. So it explicitly rejects the Orthodox and Iranaian
understanding of Rome being doubly apostolic because of Peter and Paul. So the very
reasoning that irenask gives as to why Rome is pre eminent is rejected by Roman
Vatican one net infection five dollars. Yeah, I wondered if there was local
restrictions missing Orthodox churches in certain areas. Can Orthodox churches hold a liturgy in
a Catholic church? I don't think so. I've never heard of this,
Father deacon, Do you know about any canonical permission to have an Orthodox liturgy
in a Catholic church? There's no restrictions. I mean, I've seen it
happen where people don't have buildings and stuff like that. I've seen, so
it's probably better just to think about it in terms of I'm using a building
rather than some type of Yeah, well not an incumenous reasons. But my
only question would be about the requirements for like the altar and the relic,
Like what if a Roman Catholic altar doesn't have a relic or something. Yeah,
I mean, I'm renting from Roman Catholics, and there's the church isn't
consecrated yet, so we had to Now the Roman Catholics aren't using that,
so it's a mission parish that Bishop Maxim started, but it's not consecrated yet,
and we basically had to kind of redo the altar and make it look
more Orthodox. But you might have, and I know people who are not
in the same position. They're kind of renting from Protestants or Roman Catholics,
so you can't move anything, you can't put relics in or anything like that.
So they just got to make do Okay, Yeah, I mean you
can serve anywhere you have the antimates. Okay, Yeah, I didn't know.
Basically I didn't know. Yeah. BMX nineteen six dollars, great,
awesome video and intro. Thank you, Thank you, BMX much appreciate sl
web seventy two ten dollars and with your spirit, Thank you so much,
sl web and with your spirit as well. Yak yak three dollars. Is
there any chance of an influx of Skittles that will boaster the number to stem
the tides of those that are leaving? I don't think typically Skittles hot dog
people want to come to the Orthodox Church for the most part, so I
don't anticipate an influx of them. Traged Day five dollars. What about Satan
taking over the Vatican and the Pope, Well, even the trads themselves have
this legend and this story going back to you know, the accounts that I've
covered in when I covered Malachi Martin's books that you know, the story of
the smoke of Satan has entered the Church of Rome right under Paul the Six
and all of that, right, so you know, they have their own
kind of stories and rumors of this. I do think there have been actual,
you know Satanists in Rome. Father Gabriel Imors for their famous Exorcists said
the same thing. So you know, there are these networks, there are
these cults within the cult in Rome. There's the Saint Gollan mafia that does
exist. So I would say, yeah, but it's not like this is
like this new thing. I think we've really reached like the apex of the
revolution in Rome nowadays. But the revolution has existed all You can go back
to the Renaissance papacy and they had all the same stuff going on. So
and by the way, the Renaissance papacy was doing Acumenus stuff. They were
super mega perennialists at the time of Pico della Mirandola and the Medici's and they
were all into this Acumenus stuff and perennialism. And you can read about this
in Hoffman It's occult Renaissance Church of Rome. So yeah, I think quote
Satan took over a long time ago. That doesn't mean that everybody has been
completely demonically possessed, but it means that the institution has been subverted a long
time ago. And that's that's really what the Orthodox position has said for the
whole time. Catholic man, what's up, Catholic man? Just unmute cook.
Hi, It's just I'm associated with the thought trods just Twitter orcan tried
tried and Latin Earth trads. Yeah, flat trods. Anyway, I just
wanted to sort of you mentioned, like a lot of your points about Catholicism
about the Modernists. I completely like, we completely agree, so I'll be
with the resistance position, which is started to the rite of the SPX.
Essentially. I don't like when you got to talking about the SSPX in their
position and not to defend them because we don't agree with them, because we
they partake with the Modernists to a certain extent, and essentially, like the
only thing you mentioned was just kind of ad harms in relation to kind of
abuse scandals, which can be found pretty much anywhere anyway. Yeah, but
I've argued that's because that's because today's discussion was not addressing the SSPX position.
We've addressed that specifically doctrinally in countless live streams. But I'm happy to address
any argument of the SSPX or yourself at this point. Okay, yeah,
I don't know. I totally accept that. I mean, you wanted to
get on people from you know, who are going to defend Pope Francis,
and that's fine. I just like I agree with you. It's completely on
the like, you can't defend Pope Francis. So and for us, you
know, Neomodernism, like the SSP would sort of agree at this point.
Maybe still Neomodernism begound ifo A can two when it defined explicit heresy. I
just wanted to also point out your kind of position, which because a lot
of people mistakes what set of a contest and we don't agree with seat of
a contest. Hey, let me, I mean, let me let you
know something. So I went to the SSPX for seven or eight years,
so I'm very familiar. Okay, all right, Okay, sorry I did
not know that. Yeah, and so okay, well then, so,
so the chief issue here is that the SSPX position is a rejection of Vatican
One in the four places where it says that you must accept the ordinary teaching,
both magisterial and non magisterial ordinary teaching from Rome. Yeah. So so
for us, you know the because your your crucial point is you know,
the you know, the physies in with what you're saying about the papacies just
by no one? Okay, so hold on, did you hear what I
just said though? Yeah? So the for us there is a distinction between
the ordinary and the extraordinary magisterium. I mean, hold on, what does
Vatican one say about the ordinary magistrate? Okay, so the pacing the Vatican
One just SAIDs to define simply that there is such thing as extraordinary, as
such thing as infallibility. But you know, no, false, I have
it pulled up right here. It is not just saying that there's infallible teaching.
It explicitly says that you must submit to the extraordinary magisterium and the ordinary
magisterial teaching of the Pope and the bishops. Sure, but it doesn't define
the ordinary magisterian Yes it does as what Yes, it does, Yes it
does. That is that is why that's why you're in schism. Do you
mean to read it to you? See the question right so here's saying.
Yeah, no, it's okay. I mean, we have these debates.
So what you don't want to hear what Batican one actually says? You want
me to not do that? I mean, that's something I don't want to
I like, like, I don't think you know what it says? Okay,
but I do. But what does it say? What does this in
front of me? I have it in front of me, I have it,
I have it. What does it say? Okay, Well then you
you're going to read that obviously, Now will you tell me what it says?
You said, you know what it says, not by heart? But
well no, wait a minute. So does it teach that the ordinary magistrum
is protected by the charism of here or not? Yeah, but it's not
in the same sense as as it's not in the same sense as protect It
doesn't matter if it's of course, it's not the same thing. It is
protected in the exact same sense. Kay, okay, But okay, so
you want me to read it, let's just read it. Whereby divine and
Catholic faith, all things are to be believed which are contained in the Word
of God, has found in scripture and tradition and which is proposed by the
Church as matters to be divinely relieved, whether by solemn ordinary judgment or by
the universal Ordinary magistrum. Now, okay, that's not the only statement.
Okay. So the main issue for us is that the majority theologians and this
is where set of const is running against us. And so it was interesting
that you did remark how Orthodoxy a similar set of contism, and I actually
kind of agree. There is a lot of tendencies there. The issue is
fundamentally we can see the majority theologians have clearly shown that there is a possibility
of a heradical pope. No, that doesn't matter because that's prior to Vatican
one. Well, I know that's the common response is the Roman Catholic Church
defined by the majority of Catholic opinions or by the papal dogmas. So for
us, there has never been a hit. Have you read Vatican I don't
think you've actually read about it one I have. Okay, hold on,
so what does it say about successors until the end of the world. Like
I don't have a photographic memory. I have it in front of me.
It's not that long. I can tell you what it says. About successors
to So does it teach that there's successors to the end of the world.
I have no issue in letting you speak, but I just want to make
it preally simple point. I'm trying to be quick because I understand platform you're
about to get booted because you're not going to answer the questions. This is
what some people say, you're just interrupting. No, no, I want
you to answer the questions. Does Vatican one teacher? There were? So
you're not gonna see you disinterrupted. You're not going to answer these questions.
You say, I don't have it in front of me, but I got
it right in front of me to read it for you. Would you like
me to read it for you? Yeah? Cool head. But I was
about to make a point. But anyway you make cures, okay. So
the point was is very simple, is that the argue I was responding to
what you just said. Okay, I just what you said. You said,
here we go, So, yeah, not going to talk about the
issues going off into this that you said this that what what is Vatican one
teach? Is it not clear before Vatican one? Okay? So I said
the majority in order to understand exactly what the council Vadican one actually means in
a lot of the things when I say, except that an economic ecumenical council
is not going to define something that went against that goes against the majority position.
Of course it can that the majority has nothing to do with whether this
is a ridiculous argument, the authority the infallible. Trump's the fallible. You
don't believe in it. It's not a democratic church where it's determined by the
majority opinion. Of course it can define something contrary to the majority, but
speak this was retarded. I just don't have the patience for this stupid ship
anymore. Flat Earth trads good luck. No. In fact, the Roman
Caloary Church is very clear about it can one that there are there are successors
until the end of the world to the office of Peter. The Church militant
would be the Son of God provided for the Church militant unto the end of
the world. Notice that that's at the beginning there of Constitution three. The
Roman pontiff has a worldwide premissy that succeeds the office of Peter. That Peter
is given to govern the entire church throughout the entire world, throughout the whole
world, the fullness of the whole world. Mhm, scattered throughout the world.
Where's the statement till the end of the world's let's see, maybe it's
return. Where's the statement about is it return of Christ or the end of
the ages? That's it? End of the ages? I gotta remember the
phraseology of it. No, that's not it. There's the where's the statement
where he says that the Roman pontiff would have successors in the seat in the
chair of room to the end of the age or to the return of our
Lord. It's something like that. Right, does anybody in the chat remember
this? So here's the statement that you have to believe as divinely revealed both
the extraordinary and the ordinary magisterium. Right, that can't err? Which I
was trying to say that they're different. That's not true. They're different.
That doesn't mean that they're that one of them can err. And then the
statement about the successors to the end, let's see successors. That's the way
to find it. I think it's so let's see, we'll read this or
Lord Jesus Christ, Prince the Shepherds established Peter, the continual salvation and the
permanent benefit of the Church. The office of Peter is of temporary or permanent
benefit. It must have necessity here it is remain forever until the end of
time. That's what I was looking for. Chapter two, Table of contents.
Chapter two. Right here the permanence of Peter. This is what ultimately
destroys the SSPX and set of a constiest positions, because number one, the
set of a conscious position is destroyed by the argument that you can reject the
ordinary teaching of the church. The set of the SSPX rejects both all of
the post Vatican two papal teaching, which is full of ordinary teaching, magisterial
and non magisterial. And they reject the Ecumenical Council known as Vatican two,
which is on faith and morals for the entire church from the see of Peter.
That's all that's necessary to make it binding on you in the Roman Ceolic
Church, and they reject that. Therefore their position is fundamentally schismatic. They
reject also Canonie saints like John Paul the Second. You can't reject Canoni saints
in the Roman Catholic system, because if you can, you can now conceive
we reject all of them. But let's read this key point. Vatican One's
very clear. The Prince of shepherds has provided shepherds until the end of time.
This is for the permanent benefit of the Church, and it must have
necessity remain in the church. No seventy eighty year, one hundred year vacancy,
sorry, set of a contest doesn't exist. In Vatican one. No
one can be in doubt that in every age Peter was the head and had
the keys, and was the foundation of the Catholic Church. Therefore, whoever
succeeds Peter has this office over the whole church. That means Francis has that
office. There's no such thing anymore as a heretical pope. Prior to Vatican
one, there's all kinds of Romancolic positions that doubted whether you could have a
heretical pope. Sorry, not after Vatican one. So when you cite visions
like las Lette las lett is prior to Vatican one one. So when Laslette
says that Rome will apostatize and become the seat of Antichrist, that is trumped
by Vatican one, which says that Rome will forever be the Charipeter, it
will ever preserve in the rock like strength which has had and it will never
apostatize to the end of the world, to the return of Christ. And
all the people who say that it can reject their own counsel. They reject
Vatican one right here. In fact, it's an essential element of the Church.
So for one holy Catholic and Apostolic, the four marks of the Church
as per Vatican one, to deny Francis and Rome that position would be to
deny the marks of the Church in your church's view, in your church's dogma
of what the marks of the Church are as per Vatican one. Roman Catholics
go read Vatican one and don't sit there and lie to me and tell me
that it's not actually saying that that there will be successors to the end of
the world, or that I actually have to follow the ordinary teacher. Everybody
in the Roman Catholic world that goes to a novasorto church is told that you
have to accept Vatican two. That alone tells you that it's the universal teaching
of the Romancolic Church. Everyone in communion with Francis, which is what defines
Roman Catholicism, tells you you have to accept Vatican two. There are no
Roman Catholic in communion with Francis churches except the SSPX, which are in a
schismatic contradictory position. And by the way, you're never going to get a
conservative hope again. All of the cardinals that elect the pope are Libs.
You're not going to get a magical, mystical trad pope out of that horde
of goblins that crime syndicate. You're deluding yourself, Dan, what's up?
Dan? Perpetual Successors, perpetual to the end of time, Perpetual, perpetual
to the end of time, Perpetual Successors to the end of Time, Perpetual
Successors to the end of time, Vatican one, Perpetual Successors to the end
of Time, Vatican one, Perpetual Successors to the end of Time. Vatican
one, Perpetual Successors to the end of Time, Vatican one. Do you
blockheads? Hear me? Did you want to talk? What is the use
of mean? No? I get heated over this stuff, and I don't
I kids can't tolerate the casustri and the deflections and the lying, and it
just gets old, especially I've dealt with this for so many years. Random
here one dollar in the Diocese of Serbia. They have kissed the Pope's hand.
Yeah, I don't have a problem saying that they're all wrong. That's
wrong, that's a scandal. AC ten dollars, Thank you so much.
AC. Did you want to talk dude on mute? What's up? Yes,
sir, I've been listening to you for a while, listening to a
couple of videos last night. I'm a Protestant by the way, so sorry
about that, but dragging my sheet on becoming a catechumen. But the church
nearest to me, which I actually like, is Antiochian. And my question
is more, I was listening to debate with you and Eric Kubara that you
I mean, you referenced it quite a bit and you're opening uh talks this
one. But he asked you at one point when did you join the orthoch
Church? And just I think his point was to say, like, did
you join when Curial and whoever had kind of falling out? But the question
is you mentioned today that Bartholomew is kind of aligning with the pope? Sure?
Is that what he said? Sure? And so I know that you
mentioned there like now you're in roal corps. Is that right? I've been
in rocor for about four years. So it's not now that I mean that
that debate was like that was debate was like almost five years ago. Dude,
I'm new. Okay, well I didn't. I didn't. I didn't
flee from Antioch to ro Corps when I moved. When I moved, My
question is just my question is, like you mentioned today about bo when I
moved, can I explain something? Sure? So when I moved, the
Antiochian church near me here was all Arab speaking, and it was not really
what I was looking for. So the church that I found where I gibed
would the priest here was rokorp. I can go to an Antiochian church.
I'm not banned from the Antio. I didn't leave the Antiochian Church. Some
of these traps have just made up a bunch of lives about this kind of
stuff. So that's fine. My questions for myself and like going so with
Bartholomew aligning with the pope, and that's kind of like lining up that way?
Is I mean, would you say, can you explain to me kind
of like the lineup is like Antiochian is in line with Bartholomew and then no,
I don't think most of it. Most of the Antiochians are not in
line with Bartholi. Okay, gotcha, So like Antiochia would be fine.
Still too well, there's no perfect jurisdictions and every one of them can have
problems. Because again the argument is not, I know you're not saying this,
but the argument is not the Romanclloic Church has problems and we don't have
problems. Right. Every time Loten responds, he actually, that's what we're
saying. Systemic level problems in contray addictions of dogma is different than saying that,
yes, we have liberal corrupt bishops and priests like you do. Yeah,
we agree with that. That's not the argument. But when it comes
to within the Orthodox world, the problems are there's some overlap with problems that
Roman Catholic side with just liberal stuff, but we have a lot of unique
problems that are not the problems of the Roman Catholic world. So the jurisdictional
issues are a totally different ballgame than what you would typically find in the Roman
Catholic world, although there are some parallels with all the different Roman Catholic acronym
groups like SSPX or whatever, but the tendency is that some of the jurisdictions
are more liberal, like the Greeks in America, but you can find liberal
jurisdictions in any of them, or liberal churches and in the jurisdiction. So
it's just going to have to be a case by case basis. Is that's
a better approach in Orthodoxy than trying to say, oh, are the Antiochians
the non liberal jurisdiction. It doesn't work that way. All the jurisdictions are
full of human beings. So you know, for example, ro Corps was
the least locked down jurisdiction, but that doesn't mean that there were no liberals
amongst ro Corps. Gosha, Okay, I have a second question, if
that's fine. Yeah, this is more about I heard you on one call
and this won't have to do with it is more about councils and origin.
If that's fine, Yeah, I can, I can table it if you
want, go ahead. It's more it's probably my Protestant perspective, and it's
just a question like I have no opinion about this, but so from what
I've run on origin, he lived from like the one fifties and did the
two hundreds? Is that right? Uh? Huh, and then Epiphanius am
I saying that right was the one who seemed to initially take real issue with
him, like in his teachings. Uh, well, Saint Optatus, did
I mean he was one of the first to call him a heretic and then
local synods condemned him at that time? Rare? Is it? I mean?
I guess I'm I'm wondering this is all opinion, But was it heavy
handed to because I read I read something like Origin was condemned as a heretic
after he had already died, and like that was weird or something. Well,
he was condemned. He was condemned by some synods when he was alive
as a heretic, and he was subsequently condemned after he died as a heretic,
multiple times over by three ecumenical councils. Gotcha, and he does te
cherrasee. So he's he teaches crazy stuff, didn't he? Also he like
kind of four run some good stuff. Yeah, but it doesn't like it's
not a scale of like, well, if you have fifty percent good theology
and fifty percent heresy will cut you. It doesn't work like that. So
it depends on what the heresy is and what you were teaching. I mean,
Origin is condemned specifically in the six Ecumenical Council in a four page condemnation
of the entirety of his neoplatonic system. So he teaches a neoplatonic eternal world's
model of universal restoration and eternal cycles. That's completely crazy and completely rejected.
Is that not because I don't know, I'm dissasking? Is that not?
I read that like the Cappadocian fathers also, or at least one of them,
had some sort of universal everybody. So Saint Gregory of Nissa had the
opinion of a pocketstasis, but he did not teach subordinationism. He did not
teach all the things that Origin later taught. So we don't believe that Church
fathers are infallible, but there is a standard by which you can go too
far. And so the Church deemed Origins heresies to be so far that they
compromise the fundamentals of Christianity, such as the incarnation and such as the what
happens in the escaton? Go okay, thanks, yeah, good questions.
So to the Roman Catholics who are doing the what about isms and their favorite
good go to. You've got your church loves divorce. Your church loves divorce.
Oh, I could do whatever I want again, do you understand that
your own church accepted the Canons of Saint Basil from the East for centuries?
So you don't even recognize your own contradictions and hypocrisy on this issue. And
UBI made an entire documentary for you to help you out on this instead of
your incessant one liners and spamming this stupid crap every time you come on here.
Joseph, what's up, Joseph? I'm you Henry, So I guess
everybody has a hard time connecting. Go ahead, sir, thanks for answering
my call. I got a question. So I'm Orthodox, and I always
hear about you know, Padre Pio and his his hand thing is stigmanic.
Would you say that is demonic? It's either it's either demonic or it's a
fraud or a scam. Yeah, that's what I was thinking of fraud.
But also, what's up with the Catholic Uh why is roses like a holy
thing? I always I always see like roses being in association with uh,
well, they're always talking about Mary. Yeah, that's a good question.
I don't know actually know the history of that connection to Mary. I don't
know. Yeah, I'm not sure either, but uh thanks thanks Jay,
I appreciate your work. Yeah, good question. I'm sure somebody could tell
us what Marion Roses are all about. Alex, what's up? Alex?
Are you there? I mean you requested to speak? Do you want to
speak? All right? Whatever? Uh? AC ten dollars, Thank you
for that, super chat. I want to mind you guys too that if
you can heading over to chalk dot com and boost your testosterone with those amazing
chalk products that will absolutely work to help you get a nutrient dense diet.
We all have nutrient deficient diets in the West because of the elites, the
technically that's all the goobers and the goblins and the goons that are running us,
and they want you in a nutrient deficient situation. So head on over
to chalk dot com. Use the promo go J fifty. Do you have
fifty percent off all those great products? If you look over here, I
will show you what I'm talking about. Chalk is the best source for better
than organic supplementation. So you can head on over here. Right now.
The link is in the show description. I'll put it in the chat for
you guys as well. You can go to Chalk and you'll notice that don't
do that twenty five percent off because you actually get a much better percentage off
with my promo code. So if you use the promo go Ja fifty that's
Jay five zero, you have fifty percent off that male Vitality stack right there,
and I guarantee you're gonna love that, ton Cattalie. It does actually
boost to a sauce rum and you can knock fifty percent off that one thirty
three price there. Also, it's not just for dudes. Ladies can also
take the female Vitality Stack that's Ashwaghana, Shi Legit and Irish Moss, which
will help you, uh balance your mood, It'll help stress response, it'll
help with mental focus and clarity. So head on over to chalk dot com.
Use the promo code J fifty to get one hundred to get fifty percent
off that one twenty three, Or use a promo code J fifty three life
that's Jay five three l I f E J five three life to get fifty
three percent off all recurring subscriptions at chalk dot com. That is our beloved,
wonderful red Pill based show sponsor. We love chalk dot com, So
be sure and make use of that with those promo codes. Lee, what's
uth? Lee? Did you accept me? M Hello? Yep, all
right, there's a there's a little bit of a pause. So I think
the deal with the muting thing, yes, is you don't need to tell
people to unmute. So I had another question. Okay, well, let
me get it. You talk a lot about how the Vatican has a really
big spye network, especially in the Mid Ages that are probably the one of
the biggest spine networks, including the Freemasons and alex Well, Lord Voldemort talks
a lot about how the George Washington and a lot of the Founding fathers were
also Freemasons. Do you think that the people who set up America had bad
intentions? Because they have there's good ideals in the Constitute and the Constitution,
but you know, like you said, the Orthodox shouldn't get involved in political
matters. What do you think is a good way of setting up a better
world? Then? Well, I mean there's no easy answers to these questions
because a lot of your questions were really involved dense historical questions. So,
I mean, one book that deals with your first question about America is Firing
the Minds of Men, which we've been lecturing through lately. It's not a
conspiracy text. It's a very famous, mainline historical text. So that's relevant
for the specific question about the origins of the America. America is not totally
a Freemason country. It's a mix of Christian ideas, Roman common law,
English, Ancient Roman law, English common law, Biblical law, Mosaic law.
All of those things kind of went into the founding of America. And
many of the church father founding fathers, the founding church fathers of I'm joking,
the founding fathers of America, many of them were Episcopalian. There were
Baptists, there were Catholics, the Carols famously, so you have a lot
of different ideas there in the Founding Fathers. You also have the Jacobin atheist
Aluminus even represented with people like Franklin and Jefferson. So I think America is
a mix of things, and then the subsequent centuries would determine which of those
conflicting presubpositions in the Founding documents and ideology. Which direction America would choose.
Would it choose to go more in the direction of its Christian principles, or
would it choose to go more in the direction of its atheistic and Satanic principles
via people like Franklin and Jefferson. I think it's chosen to go in that
direction of the Satanic via the hell Fire Clubs, which Franklin was involved in.
So I think all of those ideas were present early on, and we've
just seen kind of America go, unfortunately in the bad direction. There's no
easy answers to how to solve these problems in the complexities of the modern geopolitical
entanglements and in the world. There's not going to be any kind of Byzantine
empire anytime soon or anything like that. Historical forms come and go. You
can never resurrect an ancient form. You can only deal with what the present
realities are. So a lot of idealistic young people think that they're going to
resurrect some ancient Byzantine empire. That's all silly and childish. So, you
know, the best hope is to focus on expanding the church, and just
like in the Roman Empire, as the church expanded it christianized the empire.
You don't do it the other way around. You don't convert some emperor and
try to impose some top down empire. I know that's not yours what you
were saying, but uh, those are my answers to to that. So,
Saint John Damascus, what's up? Actually kind of think it's you shouldn't
name yourself as a saint on a profile, but go ahead on mute.
Hello, can you hear me? Gie? I thank you. I was
gonna ask a question. It's a bit off topic, but so I see,
thank you for a gaming church. What's your opinion on a clergy's practical
idealism? Do you think it's true or not? Clergy's plan? Who clergy
count? Clergy? Yeah? Yeah? Do you think his plan is real
or no? He wrote books about it? Yeah, of course I'd bought
his book. Yeah, your practical idealism? I bought that book. But
the clergy plan is real? Sure, it's yeah, because I tried to
explain to people is in quickly and and the Fabian socialism, But most people
don't understand that it's true. They just call you kind of names and stuff.
Yeah, I hear you. I've been called names for a long time.
I tried to explain a few other people because you guided me Orthodoxy.
I went any Greek Orthodoxy in my local town in Scotland. But when I
tried explaining to people, those should call your names. But I try to
say that, know, this person was real and he founded you. Yeah,
yeah, absolutely, count couldn't have Colergy was not a fake, made
up person. He's a real person. And yeah, exactly. Yeah,
you try explain to people and did you see stuff to you like you try
to show you what clergy was real? Right, Yeah, thank you for
that, thank you. Yeah, sorry, I wish I had an explanation
as to but I mean, yeah, I mean this is he's a real
guy. It's a real book. So they're this is somebody translating the book.
But as far as I know, that's the only copy that you can
get. There might be PDFs of it floating around somewhere that but yeah,
I don't know. It's really just people are ignorant, and they're prideful,
and they're stupid, and they cling to their ignorance and their stupidity. Bosh,
Blanders, what's up? Hey, j can you hear me? Hey,
I wanted to ask about me and a Roman Catholic friend. We're having
a discussion about the ranking system of the patriarchal sees in the early councils.
M hm, So I believe it's what Rome first, Alexandria, Rome,
Alexandria, Antioch at Nicea in Kennon six, and then it eventually changes.
There's actually disputes. Leo rejects the canon from Constantinople one when it's repeated at
Chalcedon that new Rome is next to old Rome. Leo rejects it not because
of papalism, but because he thinks it does an injustice to the canonical rankings
in Canon six of Nicia. However, eventually Rome, a couple centuries after
Leo, accepts that ranking and accepts Constantinople a second. Okay, gotcha.
Well, my friend's question was if and argue these rankings are more honorific,
If these bishops don't have any authority over one another, what is kind of
the point of the ranking system? Canonical privilege and jurisdictional privileges. This still
exists in the Orthodox Church today, So Kirill as a patriarch has privileges that
the not every bishop in the Russian church has. So autocephalist churches have patriarchs,
and within the jurisdiction of that autocephalist church, the patriarch has canonical privileges
to nodal privileges that not every bishop has. That's it has nothing to do
with some super special terrorism from Peter okay, And that goes for the same
as far as like the five patriarchs being ranked. What do you mean,
Yes, it does as far because his point was like, well, why
is Rome ranked number one if they have no real authority over the other patriarchal
scenes. It's well, they're equivocating on the word authority because they're assuming that
authority must mean that it's universal jurisdiction, which the T eighty document and the
Alexandria Document admit was not the case in the first thousand years. So Rome
has already admitted that it was not a cross jurisdictional unilateral authority. That the
Bishop of Rome had its canonical and privileges within synods and councils, But that
doesn't equate to unilateral authority without the collegiality of all the other bishops speaking and
giving their opinions. And when you look at the councils. That's how they
operate. They don't just take the authority of Leo de facto. They investigate
to see if Leo's and cyclicals are in accord with what Saint Cyril taught.
The standard of Orthodoxy at Calcidon is not Leo, it's Cyril, okay,
And the same thing happens at the sixth Council. They investigate to see if
what Agatho taught was in line with what the other patriarchs and what the rest
of the church taught. Right. So that's not just saying Roma spoken cases
closed. You see how deceptive they are with these quote minds, right,
Yeah, I've recently been studying vaticle myself, and you see it contradicted all
over the place, and the cannons of the exactly correct. That's the strongest
argument. And that's why they say, Okay, yes, it's an evolving
thing, right because I one thing I've noticed is Canon thirty of Calciton.
Talk explains why the Church of Alexandria can't receive or they haven't received Leo's tomb,
not because they're an Orthodox, but because they their patriarch was deposed and
they need to select a new one, where Pastor Turnus, which I've read
recently, says that the pope has always had direct and immediate jurisdiction over the
whole church. Yep, So you don't need a new bishop if like,
you just have to take whatever the Pope says exactly. Well, if you
go to my website, we have a collection that one of our old mods,
Seraphim, put together of all of the canons in all of the seven
Ecumenical councils that contradict the claims of Vatican One. So if you want,
there's an entire list of these, and I'll put it in the chat for
those on YouTube right now and I'll share it underneath what's your name, I'll
send you this this link if you want it, like my Twitter name,
Yeah, it's at Blanderson blosh okay. So, actually, if you want
to, just go to my website and type in Ecumenical canons or the article
is called the Ecumenical Canons refute Papal Supremacy, and you'll get this list of
all the canons from the first seven Ecumenical councils that are absolutely contrary to Vatican
One. So we've already kind of helped you out. We've got that whole
list already for you right there, Okay, I appreciate it. Yeah,
and show him that. And then then when they see this and when they
read this, their default then is to always say, well, it evolves.
So yeah, they didn't think of it that way in the first thousand
years. It evolves, and that's why we have the justification for it post
schism, post first thousand years in the Gregorian Reforms. But what did the
Gregorian Reforms say? All of the stuff that prepares the way for the revolution
of today's Roman Catholic Church. The pope is above all the emperors. The
pope can oppose anyone he wants. The pope is in charge of all the
bishops in the world. He must sign off on every bishop in the world.
The Pope can, according to any need of the time, make new
laws and for him alone is it lawful to do this. So all of
the stuff that the Roman Catholics think is an innovative revolution was already done in
ten ten seventy five slash ten ninety by Gregory the Seventh in the Gregorian Reforms.
Right, yeah, and it's funny just you going over all this with
all my best friends are Roman Catholic, And so when the Alexander document came
out, we were talking about it and my friend was saying, oh,
this is like a step towards Vatican one being reconciled with the Orthodox or something
like that. It's an admission of Vatican one being wrong. It's not a
step towards union. I mean they want, they want union practically, but
it's an admission Vatican one's wrong, right, And well, I was like,
have you read Vatican One? He was like, no, of course,
when have they ever read Vatican one? Right? Just like the guy
that was on here, the trad cat that was on here a minute ago,
saying that he knows what's in Vatican one, but he doesn't have it
in front of him, so he doesn't know what's actually in it. Let's
move on. Thank you for that, Jacob. What's up, Jacob?
Yes, sir, so, I was reading through the Byzantine Theology book by
my end or huh, And I'm just kind of piggybacking off of the last
guy's question. I thought it was interesting that Mayandorf said that, and Canon
six of Nicia one when it gives the ordering of Rome, Alexandria and an
Antioch. The determining of the premiacy was not because of petrine primacy, right,
it was because of custom material status within the Roman Empire. Correct.
And that's that's why. So Canon six of Nicia says custom. It says
nothing to do with divine status. It says custom. And then that's why
when the Second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople One, when it says, and it's
canons, that new Rome should be considered next to old Rome, right,
it's it's it doesn't see any problem doing that, because they viewed it as
custom. And when Leo rejects that, because that same Canon of Constantinople One
is repeated as Canon twenty eight of Chalcedon, Leo rejects it, and all
the Roman Catholics say, ah, you see papalism. Because he's above the
canons. He doesn't reject it because of papalism. He rejects it because it's
not fair to, in his view, Alexandria and Antioch to be displaced by
what Canon six of Nicia had already given to them. Who gave it to
them, Nicia, not the Pope Nicia gave it to them. The councils
grant via custom and tradition. These snodal and canonical privileges nothing to do in
Canon six of Nicea of any special thing directly from Peter right exactly. And
also Mayandorf makes the point for that if room Roome's premacy was because of its
patrin status, it would make no sense to put Antioch after Alexandria. Yes,
and I thought that was like, well, I didn't think about that
before. Well. Another reason, another reason that it's Rome, Alexander,
and Antioch is that these are three patrine sees and all the way up to
Gregory the Great. Gregory has the letter where he says when he's writing to
Alexandria and Antioch, he says, we are the chair of Peter. Right,
So Peter is not limited to Rome, even in as late as Saint
greg Gregory the Great. It wouldn't if patrine premacy is true, wouldn't Mark
be under Peter? And since Mark was the one that was appointed bishop over
Alexandria, it would seem that Yeah, it seems like you have to say
that. Yeah, but that's all I wanted to say. Yeah, great
point. I just wanted to shout out also your philosophy one on one course.
Yeah, we had a lot of good chats in there. I remember
our conversations, you and I and everybody else. That course is still available,
so if anybody's interested, you can get the philosophy course that I did
over here at the Autonomy Agora marketplace. We did twelve lectures through the history
of Western philosophy. It comes out to about thirty thirty is thirty six ish
hours with all the Q and A on top of the lectures. There's that
link. Also, Richard is doing another course this year called Autonomy. He
does it every year. It's Richard's course on becoming self sufficient, becoming an
entrepreneur, being your own businessman, being independent, self sovereign, all of
that. Don't fall into the grind of thinking that you're going to get work
for some corporation and climb the ladder and all that. Start thinking about how
you can be your own boss and be independent. And that's what Richard tries
to teach you in his course. Right there, you can sign up at
the Autonomy Agora or the University of Reason marketplace. The link will take you
to an obstacle course which you have to complete, and that really just shows
that you're serious about completing the course. And then they'll talk to you about
you know, pricing and that kind of stuff. So I might take one
more or two more. I'm getting kind of tired here, Alex Trimo,
what's up, Alex going, I'm you hello? Can you hear me?
Hello? Yes? I think Hey? Sorry about earlier man, I was
the other Alex whoever answered my computer is just dumb, right, I'm gonna
blame it on the computer. Okay, So just a quick few things because
I heard that your that your neck is hurting. So, first of all,
I was raised Catholic, I live in Mexico. This is like the
third time I'm on your stream. I just I just wanted to say that
anytime that I hear about these discussions about all of the abominations that Pgoglu is
involved with, my blove boils because there's so much information that is only available
in Spanish, all of yeah, yeah, about all of the nonsense that
he does that I'm just like so frustrated that so many people don't have access
to it because they don't speak Spanish. Let me give you an example.
He used to be a bishop in Buenos Aires, the capital city of Argentina.
Right, So this is what I'm going to tell you is one hundred
percent public information. You can find it on YouTube. These are videos that
have been up for over five years, in some cases six years. So
back then, when he was a bishop, he instructed the clerics that were
under his authority to give baptism to the quote unquote adopted children of Skittle's couples.
So this is like I don't know how long ago, but how long
has he been PopEd, Like ten years or something, So it's been in
public knowledge over a decade. Right, Yeah, that's a great point.
Yeah. Yeah, this is an interview that was given by this quote unquote
non. I don't know how she can be called a nun. Her name
is Sir Lucia Karan, and she's one of those typical frigid feminist, ridiculous
ladies, you know. She she's like unapologetically like feminists. All right,
Yeah, So she was on this leftist media newsutlet from from Spain called La
Sexta, which is I don't know, to the left of it would be
kind of like the Young Turks here kind of thing in terms of how left
they are so yeah, she was interviewed there and she said, yes,
as kittles should be accepted in the church. But it's a lot of processes,
so it's gonna take time, but I hope we get there. And
guess what now that this whole thing just happened. A few days ago,
she spoke to the media again and her attitude was like I told you guys.
She was like so happy, exactly. Yeah, yeah, I'm looking
for the the old clip, which is actually suppressed on YouTube. You can't
find it anywhere. I've almost found it. Francis is puppet mass. Yeah,
here we go. So here's Francis himself doing puppet mass. Because people
think that this doesn't exist. Here's Pinocchio, Pinocchio at the puppet mass.
So we got Disney characters Pinocchio, Jesus at the puppet mass and then mass
and yeah and then uh, then then Francis had a uh polka or Latin
dance mass. Here's a polka mask, tango mass. It's a tango masse.
Getting worse Bloomers doing tango masses in the Roal Macallolic Cathedral, where Francis
was okay, go ahead, how does it get worse? Worse like clown
mouses or what do you mean? It gets even worse. You know,
we could we could be here like until December talking about all of his mess
ups. Right, I know our time is limited, so I'll just bring
up what I think are his two biggest screw ups. So one of them
is one he commonly does. He frequently does where he will be speaking,
like giving some public speech, and he will say, there's two things that
I always carry with me. One thing is a rosary, I think,
and the other thing is the how do you call this in English? The
way of the Cross? Right? The vehicles right? And he will always
say before explaining that the other thing is the way of the Cross. He
says this, and he makes like extreme emphasis and he makes like a demonic
face when he says it. He says this story of God's failure. He
says yeah, yeah, yeah, and and with his hand he's like showing
it to the people. But he has repeatedly done it, like two or
three times. And I was like, what I mean, you think resurrection
rising from the dead is a failure and you think God can fail. If
you think God can fail, then you don't know who God is. Right,
absolutely, yeah, great, points the other one and I can maybe
send you the videos do Yeah. The thing is that you need to know
Spanish in order to know what's going on. So if I have a certain
point, maybe you want to collaborate, I can volunteer to translate. But
and the other video, he's speaking about some sort of ecumenism. He's doing
his usual doubles peak where he says one thing, but he you know,
he means something entirely different. But the point is that at a certain point,
because he's sitting at an office right like with a bunch of books behind
him, and at a certain point he says, what I'm about to say
might be nonsense. It might even be a heresy. I don't know.
And I'm like, what you're supposed to be the dude, Yeah, who
Catholics go to in order to know what is and isn't heresy? What is
in valid? And you're gonna tell me that you don't know if what you're
doing. That's like you know, you're flying, You're on a plane and
suddenly the pilot says, okay, ladies and gentlemen, true is I don't
really know if I'm doing this right? You get what I mean yeah,
absolutely, Yeah, hit me up on DMS. Dude, I appreciate that
slang gerows our last one and I'm super tired. Yeah, just real quick.
Well, also, the experience with Catholic University, man like, it
was full of skittles and I tried to battle it and everything never worked and
needed Oh you mean you went to what Catholic University in DC? No?
No, dude, I live in Mexico. Well, I meant, but
in America when we hear Catholic University, we think about the one in DC.
But you're saying there's a different one in Mexico. Yeah. No,
it's like a small town in Mexico. But yeah, and let's let's than
sixty seconds when I know you're in a hurry. But the other thing is
that I went there and like all of the heads of departments skittles, Skittles,
skittles. You know, I leave college two years I check because I'm
thinking about maybe getting a job with them, and it's even more skittles.
And I said no, no, no, no, no way of doing
it. And it gets worse. But I know that your time is limited.
They said, show us your hot dog. What kind of a dog
do you have if you want to join us. I'm just joking. No,
that actually did happen. That was not as Kittle's teacher per se.
But we didn't have like a religious uh studies subject, and the teacher did
give us an assignment to undress ourselves, put a mirror between our legs and
write down what we see. Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. That's
some serious cat of theology right there, dude. Yeah. I confronted the
teacher and she was just like, dude, don't don't make a fuss up,
because she was she was actually attracted, right, So she got away.
So you wanted to do it now? No, no, no,
no, not not even not even being I'm just but a lot of dudes
who were like, oh man, it's gonna be lit, you know,
like, yeah, sure I would love to. And I was like,
hell, I don't care. You should have just wrote that when you look
down you saw engorged milkers, and then you could say you were you were
citing Taylor Marshall. I'm considers saying that I saw her, but too much
of about it, right, Yeah, In any case, maybe you could
tell us a little bit about chalk. I would just like to say that
that it does work. And that's all for now. I'm gonna follow you
and I'm gonna send you the videos and later point you want me to translate,
we can arrange something. Yeah. Thanks man, I appreciate that you
have really good comments, really good comments. Slang arena. What's up man?
Last one? Hi? J Yes, sir, can you hear me?
Yeah? Okay, So I'm from Greece. We have a lot of
a lot of people pushing the unions here with with the psychological operations like female
alter service and you know the things, and there is there's a lot,
there's a lot of discussion in parallel to that, and there seem to be
a lot of people that actually want to learn what's going on in the church.
And I inquire about something you have previously said that hairy requires he is
a scene of will, or requires prior will. So when I engage these
people in discussions, I usually end up with them feeling like their heretics,
and I try to say to them that this hevicy requires will, the thing
that the very thing that you say like obstinacy, right, So not being
wrong is part of it, but just being wrong doesn't make you a formal
heretic. Right, What makes a person a heretic is when they persist in
not receiving any correction or any information that you know helps to show that No,
actually we can't have women priests, right, Oh, I don't care.
I'm still attached to this and you're an evil, rigorous right, they're
moving into becoming a heretic. Yeah. First of all, there's a lot
of ignorance. But aside from the ignorance, there's a part of them that
does want to learn. But we have here in Greece, we have Christianity
a lot as tradition, right, not as it has It seems that through
time it has lost its theological meaning. Yeah, so I do not know
how to express it. My English is not as well. Maybe through these
and it instantly connects on a deeper level as all on being head now and
it usually ends up like me being a big memi as you usually say.
So, is there a quick way to all the can love and actually talk
about the issues? Yes, thump them, thump them on their nose and
distract them and then bring in the truth theology. Just kidding, No,
I don't know of any easy ways. I'm sorry. I wish there was
an easy way. But I appreciate those questions. I mean, really,
we're just dealing with a lot of it's a mix of things. It's people
not knowing what's going on. It's people ignorant, being prideful, all kinds
of confluence of things, powerful interest trying to push all this crazy stuff everywhere.
So there's no easy solutions to it. I wish there was. You
just got to keep, you know, hammering away at at trying to be
nice and patient. I have a hard time with that. I'm not the
most patient person. So yeah, I just keep trying to be more patient.
And you know, if they're not if they're not open to listening to
reason, don't keep arguing. There's no point, So try to affect them
in other ways. Temple hat Girl ten dollars. Padre Peel was involved in
an sex scandal in that church. He paid uh paid an alchemist with money
to get carbonic acid to make the stigmata wounds. I haven't heard. I
have heard about the sex scandal, but I didn't know about the chemist.
I think he meant chemist storm the cat ten dollars. When w Vopwine admitted
that it's not possible for materials ate this to epismically, epistemologically justify knowledge.
This is true, But doesn't this mean that he can't justify that claim itself?
Yeah? Absolutely, I think for Qwine he would be okay with just
sort of capitulating to those contradictions and those inabilities. I think absolutely. So,
you know, Quine's not right because he's just showing that the end result
of empiricism is still a dead end, and that's why he's useful. It
doesn't mean he's he has some answer. He doesn't have an answer. He's
bringing the empirist's tradition back its roots and saying, guys, we can't answer
this stuff. That's the only use he has in that regard on that question.
Head on over to a website, Jays Analysis. You can subscribe and
buy my books there, signed copies, the red books there, the giant
six hundred pages. If you want also go listen to the Dialectical Materialism stream.
It's actually very relevant for today's stream if you missed it, because what
the process the praxis is of dialectical materialism. If you go watch that talk,
you'll recognize that the Vatican's doing the same methodology and that will be a
big piece of the puzzle that all of the trads and people fall for.
This bureaucratese and this game that they play where they throw a bone they try
to double speak. You can get my red book over there at the website
in the shop. Also, remember that David Bradshaw, doctor Bradshaw's excellent essays,
which I'm always trying to look for, his four essays that I'm having
to link all the time, and they're in this new book that's come out,
Energies and Action Exploring the Essence Energy Distinction. The first four chapters are
the four PDFs that I'm always looking for and always sharing with people. Now
it is conveniently in a single book for you, and that's very relevant to
our Roman Catholic debate that we've had theologically for the last several years. So
go get that book and read it, and you'll see that everything we've been
arguing is correct.