The the the the the people, the people, the people, the people,
the people, the the the the the the douting to the boy the
the the people do the the the people do? All right, what's up?
Welcome everybody? Uh, we are live. Hopefully you can hear me.
Okay, and this sounds good with Luigi, Christian Mario, Christian Luigi,
we got it all. We got. Next up, we got Christian
Peach, Christian Toadstool. I'll be Toadstool. I'm the best. Is that?
Yes, good job on the debate. Man. We're gonna be reviewing
it today. We're gonna get deep into the conversation. I've got it pulled
up here. I'll give you my initial assessment. I thought that it went
pretty good on both sides in the sense of it being a good civil informative
debate. Both sides brought I guess, probably better versions of this argument then
we typically hear on a lot of apologetic channels. I mean, I think
that the orthodox side usually wins this debate unless there's somebody that I haven't seen
is like really low tier or something. But yeah, I think that the
Rocky Balboa voice, Dude, he tried his best. I mean, I
think that if he's new to all this, I don't know how long he's
been studying this, you know, he's doing good for being a new guy.
I guess. I think you are relatively new, which I think is
pretty impressive because you did really well in this debate. So thanks for joining
me. Where do you want to kick it off again? I think overall
it was a lot of the typical quote minds, and even though I said
that it was a good debate, even though it's using a lot of the
same old quote minds, I think that this debate handled the context of the
quote minds very well, because a lot of times what happens in this debate
is that the machine gun quote minds are spit out and nobody ever gets to
deal with the context. And I think you, guys, at least not
in every passage that he threw out there at the beginning, but in many
of the passages, you actually got to go into the context and to show
the Roman Catholic audience that, hey, wait a minute, a lot of
these things that you think are kind of like kill shots, there's more context
to this, and it's a lot deeper, more charitably nuanced. When we
get deep into it. So welcome, Luigi, I appreciate it, thanks
for having me on. Yeah, I would agree with your assessment that I
think in many ways their strategy is to just machine gun fire as many points
of papal primacy as they can, so that I you know, that we
don't have an opportunity to actually look into the context. And that's why I
started my opening statement very intentionally with clarifying what our position is and what their
position is. Because his burden of proof, as per the actual title of
debate was Vatican one, right, and so that's why I read the definition
well, this was this was a huge mistake at the beginning on his side.
I couldn't believe that he didn't actually read the definition or define the PayPal
view all oft Vatican One. He immediately went into the proof text and as
I recall, I read in my notes, where did he actually give the
definition of what Vatican one says it is? And in my view this is
typically because most Roman Catholics don't actually go read the text about it, and
one they don't actually know what it is. I'm not saying that Alex doesn't
know what maybe he does, but he should have included that in his in
his opening statement, Yeah, and you know, I think a lot of
times what I see, especially on Twitter and you know, other various debates
with kind of low tier is people are convinced of the Roman Catholic position because
they don't understand the Eastern Orthodox position. They think that these quotations by Saint
iron Ais that talk about the significance of the Roman See, that this somehow
proves the Roman Catholic position. And that's why I was clarifying right off the
bat with my opening statement that we our position perfectly allows for these statements of
honor towards Rome. And then I've demonstrated how a lot of these quotes are
applied to Constantinople, they're applied to the emperor, and so we have to
be consistent with this type of language. We can't just only apply it literally
to the Roman See and then not apply it literally to the emperor or to
content. Yeah. I thought that there were men examples that you use that
came up. I've got some of my own pulled up where we see this
that doesn't fit the Roman Catholic model. So I think that the key point
at the beginning here that you're making I totally agree with is that a lot
of the quotations can be understood in either model, so they don't necessarily prove
either paradigm. We're gonna need more than just this or that quote. You
know, Rome has a Peter spoke through Leo that can be interpreted in either
system. It's not a knockdown kill shot. You know, a lot of
these older proof texts just don't really work like they used to now that people
are digging into the material. But another thing I would say is that the
recentch essentially book that's come out that's really good Orthodoxy, the papacy in the
Orthodox He has a great chapter, I think it's chapter three four. Chapter
four is all about the Roman Church in the first seven centuries and what that
role is. And he actually works through a lot of these classic quote proof
texts and points out that some of these that were used by Lofton, Luigi
and not Luigia Lofton and Voice of Reason and others, they're not even used
anymore. In fact, he mentions like the Clement text. Clement hasn't been
used as a proof text for Vatican One in the scholar literary literature. According
to Scrushinski, since the nineteen sixties, and we're going to look at the
Alexandria document as well to point out that the updated Vatican approved Alexandria Document and
the Chiady Document of a few years before that really also undercut most of the
or many at least of the proof texts that he relied so heavily on.
So in his opening statement, you know, he starts out, we'll get
into this. He talks about the Richard Price text, and so'll if you
want to comment on that, you can. But my first thought when you
mentioned this was, well, actually, if you remember, they had Richard
Price on and I think that I'm not positive, but they might have actually
taken this interview down. Maybe it's still up. I don't really follow that
channel. I don't know, but they were kind of embarrassed when they interviewed
Richard Price on this very question that Alex raised in the debate. Have you
seen this clip, Yeah, the one where he admits that the East didn't
recognize the supreme authority coming from the Paples. He I mean, he just
blatantly admits it, and you can see walking in the part. Yeah,
let me play that. It's a real brief clip. And then I'll let
you comment on whatever you saw in his opening statement that you first wanted to
go after. Why did the bishops and calcid On feel they needed to judge
Theodora if Leo had already reinsated, Well, they didn't. They didn't recognize
jistic So uh, there is saying that has been made in the East?
Okay? Uh? When the anyway? So it wasn't recognized in the East.
And why might he say that? Well, one reason he might say
that is the last statement in uh where I've got it pulled up here,
I've got so many tabs up and it takes me a second to find it.
The last statement in the Sartica one, by the way, is great
on So yeah, let's go ahead. And because he hinged a lot or
attempted to hande a lot on Sartika as Mbara does. Which is surprising to
me that Bora. I don't have his book, but I mean, has
he even read any of the responses on Sartika from his own team. The
Vatican website for Eastern Affairs put out this document. It says, over the
centuries, a number of appeals were made to the Bishop of Rome from the
East indisciplinary matters, such as the deposition of a bishop. An attempt was
made to the Senat of Sartka in three forty three to establish rules for this
procedure. Sartika was received at the Council of Trello in six po ninety two.
The Canons of Sartika determined that a bishop who had been condemned could appeal
to the Bishop of Rome, and that the latter, if he deemed appropriate,
might order a retrial to be conducted by the bishops in the province neighboring
the bishop's own. Appeals regarding disciplinary matters were also made to the Sea of
Constantinople and to other seas. This is a point that I made in my
original Bara debate, and here now Rome admits it. Such appeals were made
to major seas and always treated in a synoutical way, so not in a
unilateral papalway. In a note away, appeals to the best of Rum from
the East express the community of the church, but the Bishop of Rome did
not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East. This is a papal
he approved ecumenical document from Francis, admitting the very point that Luigi was arguing
contrary to alex in the debate, was that the Alexandrin or the Kietie.
This is Chiadi. It's the last paragraph to the Katie. Yeah, and
then there's similar quotations in the Yeah, we're gonna go to Alexander henmantute another
point, you know, And I brought this up in my rebuttal, and
I hope people caught it, because there's significance whenever the tone of Leo is
brought up. I mean, follow Richard Price does them no favors when it
comes to the tone of Leo. I mean, he specifically says, and
this is the quotation that that I think is significant me. He says that
nothing could be more indicative of the mood of the council than the fact that
even Theodoric had to defend the tone of Leo by appealing to the authority of
Cyril. And I read the entire quotation in my in my rebuttal. But
it's demonstrating that the tone of Leo was under scrutiny. I mean they took
days. Yeah, this was actually this was by the way, this was
in the Denny book. So Denny a long time ago had made this thesis
Roman Catholics that would attack that, by the way, and now here's price
backing up the very thing that Denny argued. Yeah, and another point there.
So they took days to place the Tone of Leo under scrutiny. They
paused the council. I think it was Attaicus who requested that the council be
paused so that they could review the Tone of Leo to make sure it was
orthodox. And actually this is a quote from the Acts as well. It
says Ucbs, the most about bishop, said, I judged the letter of
the most Holy Leo, Archbishop of Senior Rome, to accord with the definition
of the three hundred and eighteen who assembled that nicea with the council of one
hundred and fifty assembled in the great city of Constantinople, and with the council
that took place at Ephesus under Blessed Cyril. And thus I have signed did
so. And there's quotations by almost everyone that signed the document at the council
stating the reason why it's orthodox is because it's aligned with these other councils that
we've already had that that that say the same thing. Yeah, the councils
actually begin that way too, right, The councils when they if you read
the canons for example, they'll often later councils will oftentimes appeal and say we
in accord with the previous councils and canons. They don't say we in accord
with the Roman Sea and its judgments. Yeah, anyway, did you?
So? That was my first point of attack there. A response was the
accusation that Richard Price, again, like you said, would afford him any
any real meet Another point there, kind of backing up two years to ephesis
four forty nine. What's interesting is the tone of Leo was available and was
distributed prior to Ephesis four forty nine, and yet that council, now obviously
it's a robber council. I mean, it's an obvious robber council. Patriar
of Constantinople was basically murdered at that council. But that council didn't even talk
about the tome of Leo. In fact, Leo writes to that council encouraging
them to meet. He encouraged that that council occur. But wait a minute,
if the tone of Leo was the papal document that has already determined this.
Then why is he advocating for a council. It doesn't make sense.
And then that's what fo Yeah, this is exactly, and this is a
mirror to what we're going to see with latter in six forty nine and the
way that Constantinople three and six point eighty one handles what Pope Martin had said
and what St. Maximus had said prior to that. And you'll notice it's
not Martin. By the way, this is another point I meant to mention
you before we went on air. I want to mention now before I forget
it. If you read concept and Noble three, I mean, the the
theologians of the Council are Sant Sophronius, Uh and Maximus. I mean,
and there's I'm sure there's others as well, but the confession of Saint Sophronius,
for example, is accepted at the Council as an Orthodox confession of faith.
The theological writings of Saint Maximus condemning perists and monol Thelites, that's the
theology of that council. It's not like the Council just said all we gotta
do is fact check what we believed, you know, forty fifty years ago
via Pope Martin. You know what I mean, which had they've had the
Vatican One mindset, that's exactly the modus operandi they would have had. Right.
And the significant point here is not only not only with Constantinople three,
not not just looking at it as affirming what Pope Martin had determined, but
it I don't see any evidence they even acknowledge it, like they don't aren't
even acknowledging what Pope Pope Martin supposedly determined. Well, I'm going for memory
here, and the more that I thought about this after you mentioned it before
the show, I want to say that maybe there is in Denzinger or somewhere
there is a mentioning of Martin, but it's not treated like our pious predecessor,
you know, settled the issue. It's treated as one of many attestations.
And it's not like Martin is that theologian of the Council. It's Maximus
are that. But I'm talking about that Constantinople three. Yeah, I mean
too, That's what I'm saying. Okay, I'm saying that I think that
I'm thinking back, I do think, for example, in Denzinger, I
think there's a place I'm not positive, I think there is a place where
reference is made in constant double three to our predecessor Martin, but it is
not treated like it's a definitive statement. In fact, as Denny or not
Denny, As as Denny argues, the Council investigates the letter of Agatho to
see if it matches up with prior concilier teaching. So that right there,
investigating is the same model of investigating Leo's ton against Cyril, the same model
that I think Denny says they spent like a week or two investigating Agatha's letter
to see if it matches up. Investigating to test the orthodox of the Roman
Sea is not the model of Vatican One. It's the opposite of it.
Yeah, And I mean, like you said earlier as well, I mean,
even if there is a quotation that's acknowledging Martin the fact that the intention
was for latter in six forty nine to be ecumenical, but it's not recognized
exactly as by contest Noble three, or by any Roman Catholic for that matter.
Yeah, and that was the question that you raised to him and his
response was, well, conceptin noble three mentions Martin. Yeh, but so
what that that? The point is not does it mention him? Does anybody
consider him orthodox? Because Maximus went to Pope Saint Martin in the latter in
Sina Laer and Basilica. And by the way, if you go latter and
Basilica, which we went a few weeks ago, the up front of the
church is two people put up there equally in giant statues. Can you guess
who those two equal up there are quiz question? Two equal people Emperor and
Pope. Who would Rome have traditionally considered the two equal apostles founding of Peter
and Paul exactly? So the latter in Basilica, prior to Vatican One,
when it was renovated, still retained the traditional architecture. I think it was
renovating the seventeen hundreds, So prior to Vatican One, they were still putting
up at the front at the by the the you know, the altar of
the Basilica, the ancient altar in the ancient area, Peter and Paul.
So in other words, the tradition is still that it's Peter and Paul.
I'm getting off track. I'm not trying to change the subject. But anyway,
the point is just that, so Maximus would be appealing. Maximus goes
to Martin because he wants to secure the preeminent sea. And this is the
modus operandi of a lot of people in the in churches, right, you
want to get Rome on your side. For example, Basil when he writes
letters I think sixty eight nine, seventy seventy one, seventy two, he's
writing to Athanasius and he's saying, Hey, we need to write to Rome
to get Rome on our side to help solve the problems here with these Aryans
and the Monomaki and so forth, right, And he complains in that series
of letters that Rome is a complete disaster. They failed, They're of no
use in saving the Orthodox Faith. So literally, no Vatican one mindset in
any of those letters of Basil. It's a great proof text for the attitude
of the East, which vindicates what we just saw in the Chiady document.
But also on top of that, to mention that flowery language that you brought
up quite a bit, Basil says that, you know, I think he's
talking about Melidias. I'm going from memory says he's the head of the churches.
The whole body descends from him, right. He uses this kind of
language. So I guess the patriarch of Antioch now is the you know,
the Pope of Rome. And so this flowery language is used quite often,
and it doesn't always necessitate, as you pointed out, the claims of Vatican
One, and my next critique, to get back on track, I sorry
I went so far offield, but to get back on track with you know,
the early quotes, because he kind of starts with Clement, and he
moves up from Clement after mentioning Richard Price, and he goes into Iran Ais
and he tries to give these examples of that we always hear the Roman Catholic
apologists giving. What I noticed was that there's kind of a lack of update
on the scholarship, because if you read the Sashinsky book, he points out
that recent scholarship, both Orthodox and Catholic, is now kind of saying,
look, there's a lot that we don't know about the Letter of Clement,
and it's not used anymore as a proof for Vatican one style papalism. In
fact, he says it hasn't been used for that in like fifty sixty years,
because it just doesn't demonstrate what it's supposed to demonstrate. And it's entirely
possible that it can also be read in both models, And a lot of
these quotes can be read in both models. And I think that Sastiniki makes
this great point in a lot of these you know, classic proof text,
for example, Ignatius saying that the Church presides in love, the Roman Church
presides in love. That used to be translated to mean this sort of top
down, autocratic presiding, but now they translated differently. Oh, now it's
translated as like a just a charity based relationship. And so one see writing
across to corinth or something like that, right, the Letters of the Corinthians,
like that doesn't necessitate or demonstrate anything to do with the Vatican, one
claims, because as Sashinsky points out, there's not there's no appeal in Clement's
letter to anything Matthew sixteen or Patrine, there's not. There's not there.
So in a lot of these quotes, it's like one sentence the Church of
Rome that presides in love, or you know, the Church of the Glorious
Church of the apostles Peter and Paul like, so these quotes are then kind
of given this Vatican one Isigesus when it's not actually there in the text.
So does that make sense? Yeah, for sure. And I would also
point out like Saint Ignatius writes letters to other churches too, so does this
prove that he had jurisdiction. That's a great point. From the jurisdiction over
these other churches the great point. And also, like Ibarra points out in
his book, I think it's page like eight on his book The Papacy that
the the quotation that you're referencing by Clement, Saint Clement is not an argument
for the Catholic concept of the papacy. He specifically itsmits that, and well
then he's more up to date with a scholarship than his body there, right.
Yeah, had to me to cut you off. Go ahead, Oh,
I mean that was mostly what I had to say about that. I
mean, people will focus on whether or not, you know, they'll they'll
bring up the fact that, you know, the Apostle John was still alive
at the time. Obviously there's debate over that. It's likely if he was
alive, he was in exile at the time. But I don't see,
like you're pointing out, I don't see how Corinth appealing to Rome is an
issue even if John is still alive. Yeah, because Corinth, as far
as I know, I know there's debate over this too, was within the
jurisdiction of Rome. I mean, it's like there was there was Corinth legates
of the Roman see that were bishops of Corinth that represent actumenical councils. So
I don't see why corn appealing to Rome is even like, even if John
is still alive, even if we were to grant that, I don't see
how that proves the people claims. Yeah, I agree, it doesn't seem
to be. It seems again a non sequitor. And a lot of the
moves that your opponent made in the debate, I felt like many of them
were non sequiturs. Sasunski makes a great point too, which is something that
I've argued that I think that the Roman Catholic opponents have not typically understood when
we make this point, because they'll often say, as Alex said in this
debate many times, hey, if a bishop of Rome does something unilateral and
your church accepts him as a saint that proves Vatican one. I think that's
a totally fallacious move, because number one, it's assuming the position, first
of all, because I can just as well interpret that as him exceeding his
limitations and not necessarily becoming a heretic. Saint Augustine made many theological mistakes,
doesn't make him a heretic. We have bishops at time failing and making mistakes.
One of the early bishops of Rome, right becomes with Stapoloitis was an
anti pope, and then he repents of this right. We have who is
it put Virgilius signing not vigilious, signing the Arian creed under durest and then
repenting of that right. So you have these these papal errors, people making
mistakes and still being saints. Okay, So the mere fact that bishops of
Rome in the first thousand years makes certain unilateral moves, we we can fit
that into an unorthodox model without necessarily saying, oh, they're antichrist, right,
Because, as Tashinski points out, which is the very thing I argued
to Ibarra in our debate years ago, the Roman position is a thing that
develops, it evolves. It's not like there's just this one, you know,
unilateral move. And then from that point on all the bisterms Rome continued
that unilateral tradition, you get kind of a push pull move. They'll try
things, they back off, as we see with the next example that he
gave, which is Pope Victor and the attempt to excommunicate the East in terms
of the quarter of esseemn Aarian controversy. And we know, and I'm glad
you brought it up that and you actually called him out very well in this
in the in the discussion, because he says, at one point in the
debate, and I wrote the note down that nobody opposed it. They all
just everyone in the church acted as if he had the ability to do this.
That is not true. Saint aaron As rebukes him for doing this,
and he backs down. So the idea that just because the pope acts unilaterally
is not itself a proof of Vatican one. Yeah. One. So you
brought up the Arian confession or profession of faith. That was Pope Liberius Liberius,
That's what I've been to say, Felix. The second though, was
an actual Arian. So Pope Liberius was obviously under duress at the time,
and even Saint Athanasius says like he shouldn't be discredited because he was under dress
at the time. But Pope Felix, the second who I brought up,
is a like was a legitimate arian, and they'll try to say he's a
he's an anti pope. But what's interesting about when they make claims about anti
popes is that there is no canonized list of popes. There's a document in
Ouario Pontifico that is is compiled by scholarship, but it's not canonized. It
is not a dogmatic document in the Catholic Church. So they don't have a
real list. How can you say someone's an anti pope if you don't even
have a list of who were legitimate popes. And a major issue that you
brought up many times is the avenue on papacy where we don't even know who
the true pope was. You got three people, now we had an acumenical
council decide who the pope was, which is not Vatican want by the way,
but yeah, exactly, And and there's a lot of these kind I
remember if you get the not Henry Chadwick Jan dy Kelly's book Oxford History of
the pope. He'll list in that book the anti popes, and I think
it's even admitted in there that there's dispute over some of the status of some
of these. So you're absolutely right, because we don't have all the historical
documents and attestations that we might like in these early centuries, so there's some
dispute about these things. In fact, Sosinski brings us up about Clement's letters
that we don't know exactly what was going on as to the reason why he
wrote the letter to the Corinthians. There's a lot of scholarly debate and speculation.
There's scholarly debate about to what degree Rome accepted Trollo and its decrees.
I know you talked about in the debate that's been brought up. There's a
lot of books, in debates and scholarship on this. I do think that
who is a Hadrian? I think eventually accepted Trilo when it's read at and
I see it too, and a lot of Roal mccallays forget that Trollo affirms
if I recall the way it works as Trolo affirms Carthage, and then Trello
is read and accepted at Nicea too, and then you get after that papal
reversal and say no, no, we don't accept this, this, this,
this this in in trollo. So that's my understanding of how that goes
down. To know you, I know y'all got into that. We'll get
into that a little bit. But did you have anything else you wanted to
say on the Pope Saint Victor Irenaeus issue, because I felt like he was
really lagging behind on that one, not even aware of the fact that you
know, Santa Ornais famously opposed him on this. Well, yeah, and
not only did Senor in Aus oppose him, but like I bring up the
pope prior to Victor, and to see this on the same issue was was
was confronted by Polycarp and he backs down, which is evidence to my point
that and this is actually what sat iron Ais writes about. He writes about
the Apostolic seas having a higher authority than the other seas, which is which
is why when Polycarp, who comes from an Apostolic line directly from Saint John,
he was literally disciple of Saint John, and ass backs down when Polycar
confronts him. So that how does that fit into a Vatican One model.
Yeah, that's a great point. And the other thing too is that you
know, uh uh, you know, I feel like he was really in
a between a rock and a hard place defending the idea that the Vatican One
system was always there, which is again something always point out that most Roman
Catholic apologists in the academic world don't defend that thesis, even though that's pretty
much what I think status called edom and a pastor attornis Vatican One say is
that it was always there. Yet when a lot of questions are raised,
we'll often see them shift over into the well, it was a sea thing
that developed the Newman thesis. Right. What's interesting is that we basically have
Sashchensky is saying that the norm now in the scholarship is, and we see
this in the Chiady documents and in the ex Alexander document is that no,
this is a thing that develops. Okay, because the excuse that we've heard
from Obara and from your opponent the other day that well, they always have
this power, but they chose not to exercise it except in a few rare
instances where they end up getting rebuked by the half of the Church. So
wait a minute. So this power is there to guide the church to settle
disputes, and then they fail for centuries to appropriate it, to utilize it,
to execute it at the most opportune times, and so we only have
these scant, weird examples that are proof texts that are actually hugely contentious examples.
So to me, this is just super duper stretch, right. I
mean, he has this power to guide and protect the church, but does
it exercise it except for scant ridiculous examples that are basically big scandals. But
it's there to ground the church and protect it makes no sense. Yeah,
And I would say that in regards to them making claims of Vatican One being
exercised in the first millennium, they'll usually point to like the tone of Leo
or Agatho's letter at Constantinople III, or the first version of the Libellus of
Ormistos. But what's really interesting is in Bishop gasser interpretation of pastor Eturnals.
Bishop Gasser was literally the bishop assigned by the Vatican to interpret pastor eturnos.
He was the official interpretation of pastor eturnals, and he writes the only documented
first millennium example of a pope exercising infallible autocratic authority that he points to is
the second version of the Libellus of Forrmistas, not the first version, which
is the one they always quote that Roman Catholics always use in their argumentation.
The only one he lists is the second version, and so that what he's
saying is that in Pastor e Turnos he's literally saying that all these examples that
you guys are using tom of Leo, it's not an example, it's not
an example of infallible authority, and mentioned that Gasser's reladio is the official reading
of Pastor Turners. Correct, Yes, exactly. Yeah, and you see
there on the screen, I've got Ubi's essay where he explicitly makes the point
that Luigi just made right, which is that the original only lends itself to
a pro Vatican one understanding if you start from the presupposition of a vaticand one
being true, and it has not been traditionally seen as a proof of infallibility.
In fact, that Gasser makes this very point. Now you did get
into the two versions. Did you have any other comments on that, because
a lot of people in the ID that they might not be familiar with this.
Could did you want to go into any detail about explaining what this is?
Sure? What I can just say is this right. So, in
the first version of the one that's usually referenced, and the reason why they
reference it is because it's signed by the patriarch of Constantinople. Now the picture
of Constantinople signs it with the caveat that Constantinople is with Rome alongside Rome in
authority. So that's the only reason why the patriarch of Constantinople signs it,
but none of the other three patriarchs sign it. And then in the second
version, none of the patriarchs sign it, not one, Not even the
patriarch of Constantinople signs the second version, So that was even less right.
So if this is the only example that Roman Catholics can point to as an
infallible decree, why is it that not one of the other patriarchs accepted it?
Yeah, I think, yeah, great point. If you went with
the first version, it's only the patriarch of Constantinople that accepted the other three
not Yeah, and I think you had some good So basically we've got the
move they try to make with Sartica. We pointed out a second ago here
that if we look at the way that the gad document explains Sartica, it
points out the appeals process is not for a unilateral final word from the pope,
it's for an appeal for a retrial. It's a snodal move. And
then Rome even admits here that the Bishop of Rome was not exercising canonical authority
over the churches of the East. So, in other words, the Sartica
of apple It structure is not a proof for universal supremacy and jurisdiction according to
Rome. Yeah, what, let me just need this quote here on the
topic of the formula, because this again the first version is the one they
always will go to, even though, like I just pointed out, that's
not acknowledged by the Roman Catholic Church as an example of infallible decree. But
I want to read. This is from Edward Denny's Papalism. It says the
Greek found in the Acts of the Fourth Council of Constantinople omits the greater part
of the references to the Roman see running as follows, the chief means of
salvation is that we should keep the rule of right faith and in no way
deviate from the decrees of God and the Fathers. Then are omitted all the
remaining words down to following in all things the ordinance of the Fathers, and
the document proceeds at once with the Anathmas and concludes concerning the most reverent patriarch,
ignacious, and those who think with him, whatever the authority the Apostolic
throne has decreed, we embrace with our whole mind this profession of faith.
So basically it's saying that the Greek, the Greek actually omits a large portion
of what their whole argument is about the Formula Formanistas, which is the universal
authority that it includes, and it's completely omitted in the Greek. That's a
really important part. And maybe we could if you don't want to go to
this with don't have to, But so much of this hinges on Sartika,
it might be good if we just get the rest of Sartaka out of the
way. Because he talked about what canon's like three four five or something.
You went to No, he said three seven and eight. You went to
a couple of the canons and then talked about what turn to remember the point
you made I've got it in my later notes, but I talk about Canons
three and nine. That's it I have right here. OK, go ahead,
Yeah, So tell us first what he was arguing, Sartika wise,
and then your response is from these cannons, right he was, So,
he was pointing out in Canons four and five that Rome was being acknowledged as
the first seed. That's really what is occurring here at Sartica. Is there
being acknowledged is the first seed, the first among equals, which is the
Eastern Orthodox position. So it doesn't prove anything in regards to our position.
But he was arguing that this demonstrates that there was a supreme authority of the
Roman See. And then I pointed out that in Canons three and nine,
what it describes is what you already have pointed out that at Cannons three and
nine, it specifically says that the Roman See can be appealed to if neighboring
bishops have already made a decision and you decide you don't like that decision,
you can appeal to the roman See. But the roman See only decides whether
or not there will be a retrial, and then if he determines there is
a retrial. He sends the case to a neighboring province, and he doesn't
even get to attend it. Specifically says he can send legates, but he
can't even attend the final appeal. So all he's doing is reviewing this appeal
that already had a neighboring bishop make a decision on. He's determining whether or
not Desert deserves a retrial, and then he's sending it to retrial. He
so, like you're pointing out, it's anod, it's a model. It's
not a it's not a universal immediate authority that's being exercised here. It's a
it's a conciliar model that's occurring with accountability with the neighboring province. And I
can do you want me to just read the guy? I can read.
Wow, I've got it pulled up on the screen, but you can ahead
and read it. Yeah, so canon free. But if perchance sentence be
given against the bishop in any matter, and he supposes his case to be
not unsound but good, in order that the question may be reopened, let
us, if it seemed good to your charity, honor the memory of Peter
the Apostle, and let those who gave judgment right to Julius, the Bishop
of Rome, so that, if necessary, the case may be retried.
Wait a minute, if necessary, the case may be retried by the bishops
of the neighboring province. And let him appoint arbiters if it can be not
if it cannot be shown that his case is of such a sort as to
need a new trial, let the judgment once be given, not be annulled,
but stand as good as before. So, in other words, the
pope can stick with the original decision. That's what it's saying at the end
there. If he chooses he can. He can decide that this case doesn't
need a retrial. The bishops of your province got this right. But if
he decides, no, I think they may have gotten wrong, then he
can send it to a neighboring province. And like it says, he can
send arbiters, but he cannot attend. And then Canon nine is similar.
It says, but those who come to Rome ought, as I said before,
to deliver our beloved brother and fellow, Bishop Julius, the petitions which
they have to give, and and so give his own advocing care, shall
send them to the court. So that's canine, that last part on nine.
Can you repeat that because you robot it for a second. Oh yeah,
I'll just read it's short. But those who come to Rome, as
I said before, to deliver to our beloved brother and fellow, Bishop Julius,
the petitions which they have to give, in order that he may first
examine them, lest some of them should be improper, and so, giving
them his own advocacy and care, shall send them to the court, which
is a counsel. Yeah. So, in other words, not the autocratic
model here. Yes, that's great. So yeah, I think Sartaca was
a big uh. I think he really thought that was going to be a
kind of a kill shot and ended up I think shooting him in the foot.
Is there anything else you want mentioned on Sartica net? There was one
other point you did make about that canon thirty five of the Apostolic Canons,
right, excuse me, thirty four to thirty five. The bishops of every
nation must acknowledge him who is first among them, and account him as their
head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent. But each may do
those things only which concern his own parish and the country places which belonged to
it, but neither let him who is the first, do anything without the
consent of all. For so there is unanimity. And that's of course the
Concilier model. And then you tied this into also the Canons of Sartica and
then being accepted at Trello. So you were making the point that Trollo and
then back and then Nicee, it too is affirming this sonodal model. Correct,
Yeah, and then sorry, I guess my my batteries getting low.
That's why it I was plugged in. We're good, and that's why it
was lagging. But anyways, Ibarra in his review tried to say that this
isn't that cannon Abosol Canon thirty four is only in reference to the first of
the Metropolitan so like in this context it would have been like similar to like
a patriarch, even though this was before the patriarch. And what I find
ironic is so even if we were to grant that you're reading, you're you're
going to assume now that this doesn't apply to the first among the patriarchs.
What so if it applies to the first bishop in the metropolitan, why wouldn't
it apply to the first of the patriarchs easy, well, I mean,
but Alex made the very same type of move when he said that if a
patriarch, if a bishop has privileges within a synod, and a patriarch has
privileges within his jurisdiction, then there has to be a super patriarch with privileges
above all the patriarchs, right, which is a fallacious move to begin with,
because that it doesn't follow that because a patriarch has privileges, that there
happen to be a super patriarch with super privileges. Yeah, the first,
the first among equals is not a super bishop, which is which is what
my entire point in my opening statement was especially highlighting obviously the case of Vigilius
and this, like you know, we're going to get into this, but
this is a point that you had alluded to earlier that is really important is
there were popes that thought they had more authority than they did exactly. And
so of course you might be able to find a quote from a pope,
you know, implying that he has that authority. What you need to look
at is how did the church react to that quote? Not the quote I'm
well, yeah, and not just that, but also all of the all
of the canons in every acumenical council, right and Trollo as well, which
isn't exactly ecumenical, but it's it's received that and I see it too every
council. As we pointed out for many years, this is a classic article
written by one of our old school mods who went on to become a deacon.
He might be becoming a priest, I'm not sure, but saraph Armaud
years ago twenty eighteen or nineteen, he made this big list of all the
canons in the councils that actually conflict with the Vatican One mindset. And as
we know, the response to the Roman Catholics, as Alex said many times
in the debate, well I don't care about all the canons, because the
popes above the canons. But the point is that the canons demonstrate the mindset
of the entire church. So unless you just want to assume the Vatican One
papal mindset and that the only thing that matters is the Roman bishop, well
maybe if the model is to nodal, then that's going to shift to Now
we're concerned with the mindset of everybody, and if everybody's mindset at the councils
is enacting all these canons that conflict with Vatican One in every academical council,
Then maybe Vatican one is not the mindset of the ancient church. Maybe Vatican
one is a temptation mindset of the Roman bishop at times. You see,
that's two different models. Yeah, and he for some reason he asked me
for a canon an ecmenical council that shows Constantinople had applate authority. And I
was kind of like shocked at this question because Canon's nine and seventeen I said
of Constantinople one, I was wrong. It's Ken's ninety seventeen of Chalcedon.
I misspoke. But they grant Constantinople appleed authority, and he and then he
was trying to say that he was asking me if it What it meant was
that the authority was the same as as Rome. Well Canon twenty and that's
when we started talking about Canon twenty eight. Canon twenty eight says it uses
the word privileges. It says all the privileges that apply to Rome applied to
New Rome. And then in his refutation of Canon twenty eight, he was
he was desperately trying to prove papal supremacy, and what he The point that
he made was that Leo rejected calconon Canon twenty eight, but then another pope
later on accepted it. So in his desperate attempt to try to prove people
supremacy, he just refuted their whole talking point that a pope can't change sacred
tradition. Let's say, well, but then he backtracked on what countsils sacred
tradition by appealing to the ambiguous terminology of quote faith and morals, which,
accordingly to him, only applies to divine revelation. So, first of all,
what's binding is not restricted to quote just faith and morals. You're also
bound by the decisions of the Roman See and the Roman Congregation, whether you
deem them to be faith and morals or not. So you're bound by much
more than just some ambiguous thing of quote faith and morals. You're bound by,
asvatikan One says, all the extraordinary and universal ordinary and the ordinary teaching,
which, even though it might be fallible, you must submit to with
docility. So you're bound by a lot more than just a generic idea of
faith and morals. Because that allowed him, as you're pointing out in the
debate, to say, well, the pope can just sort of toss out
and then retroactively go back and say, well, that council that canon is
good now, and then by eight sixty nine or whatever, they can say,
okay, now we do accept Constantinople as new Rome. So the very
thing that he was saying that Leo was rejecting Canon twenty eight of Calcidon because
of papalism, that's not even the reason that Leo rejects it. Leo rejects
it because he thinks it does violence to the canonical structure of Canon six of
Nicea, and he explicitly says that it's not an appeal to papalism. He
says it's not fair to Alexandria to move constant Noble ahead of it. So
but it doesn't matter because eventually, by what like eight sixty nine or somewhere
in there right the Roman Catholic version of the eighth Acamenical Council, they do
accept it. Well, And that's what I'm getting at is, so if
a pope can change a canon of an ectomenical council, I don't even know
what Roman Catholics mean when they say that a pope can't change sacred tradition.
There's nothing more sacred about There's nothing more sacred in tradition than an ecumenical canon,
except for scripture itself. That's the most sacred tradition other than maybe the
liturgy, which he also changes. So I don't even know what Roman Catholics
mean when they, Well, I think that what they end up meaning by
that is that really tradition is the pope, and the Pope is the tradition.
And that's what Vatican That's that's what Dolinger said, Vatican one would do
to the Roman callity Church. That's exactly what it does. I mean,
Pope Pius the ninth explicitly says I am tradition, I am the Church.
So I mean, like so this this, it's it's just a meaningless talking
point when they say that a pope can't change sacred tradition. Yeah, well
I have a clip I want to play on that because and of course,
uh you know, Tim's our friend. But I think that what Tim said
in this new popular documentary, particularly at this point right here Ill straits at
the very point that Luigi just made so let's listen to what Tim says as
the Roman Catholics in this documentary are struggling with whether Francis has the authority to
change the right to change the liturgy? Can he update the Latin Mass to
be the nova sorto vernacular, et cetera, et cetera, under two kinds
receiving? You know, can he do that? Well, first a bishop
comes on and so let's see what he thinks, and then we'll see what
Tim Gordon says about what the nature and extent of papal supremacy is, and
that supreme authority is subordinated to the Word of God's pure tradition, including liturgical
tradition. Do you think the pope can say the Latin Mass is completely forbidden?
Well, I don't know. I love that that bishop is like,
I don't know. I think he can't do that. I mean, I
think, you know, as the extreme pontiff, I think he has the
power to do that all over the world because unnecessary harm. Vatican won it
says some clear things about papal authority, but I don't know what it means
to be supreme and yet not unlimited until you give me hypos to test cases
to say, oh, can the Pope say four persons in the Trinity?
Well, then how come Vatican one didn't give all the hypothetical test cases?
Like why is Vatican one not good enough? I thought the point of dogmatic
definitions was to make it clear what the thing in question really was, to
settle the issue. But now, basically, and that's not really clear.
We're got to have all these hypotheticals to know. Can Francis tell us that
I have to sell my backyard to the Vatican? Can Francis tell me that
I have to believe in four persons in the Trinity? Right? It becomes
all these Basically, the definition is then useless because now it's not telling me
anything unless I have an infinite series of hypotheticals to apply to it. Can
the Pope say that every practicing Catholic must attend at least two NBA games per
season? Folks need to get hit to the idea that already has not been
laid out yet. But I thought Vatican One laid it out, Like,
what what do you mean? This is? I mean, I love tim
but this is I just don't get that anyway. Yeah, well, I
was gonna say I think that We are often criticized in each Orthodox Church for
not having all these little doctrines worked out, like why isn't there why isn't
there a magic sium that that's established our doctrine on contraduction? Yeah, you
know, and this is you know, this is what's often criticizing the Orthodox
Church. But then what ends up happening is in the Roman Catholic Church,
you have all these documents that just end up contradicting one another. I mean,
there is no there is no way to reconcile Vatican two with Florence.
There is no way, no shot. And so that's what occurs. That's
what occurs when you attempt to define every little thing and put it in the
document, is end up contradicting yourself. Well, and there's a noticeable transition
to I think, you know I mentioned earlier Dictatus Pope, because Dictatus Pope
comes in the eleventh century right when we get this crucial shift in what the
church understands itself to be between East and West. So right when the schism's
happening, right before the schism, we're already seeing two divergent models and understandings
of what the church is, what ecclesiology is and part of it is due
to what we're talking about tonight, which is that it is a think of
seed. It's a seed that's growing in the Latin Church. Unfortunately that's turning
into a worldly, geopolitical organization. And the Nude Papadacus Mayandorf book is great
on that because it's treating specifically this period of ten seventy one to fourteen fifty
three and how the two East and West, the two sides so to speak,
of the Church, how they there diverge. And it's in the West
that you start getting at this very points Pope, all the outlandish claims,
all of the new ecclesiology, where if you look at the canons here you'll
notice the Canon's talk about let a bishop be ordained by two or three bishops.
It doesn't say the Bishop of Rome confirms every bishop in the world.
Yet by the time of the Gregorian reforms and after we get the new model
of ecclesiology, which is a revolution. Eastern Catholics call it a revolution.
Congar he's not Eastern Catholic, he's Dominican. But in his book Nine ordw
Years to Gather he he talks about a revolution. Focian schism adorn it calls
it a revolution. Any any treatise of the Gregorian period calls it an ecclesiological
revolution. Why because the seeds of what Luigi's talking about are coming to fruition.
So I actually do think it is an evolving doctrine. Newman is correct,
and that's really the only way to make sense of this. It's certainly
not the case all that it's always there from the earliest days. I'll you
know, Leo, the thirteenth well and male priests was in seed form with
all those female deaconesses, you know, that were baptizing people. So that
was in seed form. So now we can now we just have female priests
because there. Yeah, it's weird, but yeah, this is a great
point because I remember when I was a trad cat, I always felt like
the papacy was the bastion of tradition, the conservative institution that would protect tradition.
And then I started realizing that maybe the papacy all llah the critique of
Papadoccus, Welton mayandorph and others. What if it's the revolutionary institution that innovates
that then prepares for revolutions. That don't have to go in a conservative direction.
In other words, can the seed not grow into a liberal form?
As the point, which is the point you're making. I mean, there's
nothing about this that necessitates that it's only going to be a seed that grows
into some trad thing. Why can't this, yeah, exactly, why can't
deaconess has become the seed for female priests? Ambiops, yeah, exactly,
all right, I'm sorry, I got way of course there. Let's get
back to the debate. So let's say we covered uh, gastros latia,
we covered uh, the formula for business. The next thing I noticed that
he was doing was, uh, he hinted the whole argument on the tone.
There's a lot of papal letters written with a tone of authority and magisterial.
Wee, okay, so what doesn't prove Vatican one? Many people at
this time wrote in a flowery uh pros prose that you know, might suggest
all kinds of things, but it doesn't prove Vatican one. So a lot
of moves were made that you know, it's it's always a stretch. It's
like it's like, let me pull together all these stretchy things and stretch them
into this, and man, can you kind of see a little bit of
Vatican one in there? To me, that just is just a big fail.
Yeah, And I mean I point this out in in my rebuttals.
I think I I went too fast through it. But Saint Cyril distributes his
five tones against Nastorius before ever even talking to the See of Rome. So
they love to go to they love to go to his letter where he writes
to the See of Rome regarding excommunication. Before he does that, he distributes
his five tones telling the stories he's a heretic, so he didn't need to
he didn't need to write to the See of Rome to do that. He
knew that the Stories was a heretic, and he distributes those tones to the
churches. Yes, sorry about that. I was trying to I was trying
to unmute. I had to click over to unmute. Yeah, did you
Is there anything you wanted to say about Prose eight language or the tone the
quote, the tone argument. I also noted that at that point he said
something like ex cited two sources and it was like two Roman Roman Catholic,
like I imagine going to if we were debating it, you know, and
all we were doing, was citing like Orthodox sources. I mean, to
be fair, he did pull in I think schmeiman So they always go to
like one Orthodox source. It's always Schmeimann or Warer. That's like the only
Orthodox people they look to. But guys, you guys should read some I
mean, I take that back. Oh, I remember now Sashensky. He
did cite Shasensky and it's about Leo. And that's important because there's something that
was missing here because when he cited Leo or no, I'm sorry, it
was about Gregory. Yes, so here's the quote that he gave about Pope
Saint Gregory. He says, Gregory provides a model modern wait. Gregory thus
provides modern ecumenical discussion on the papacy with a two edged sword. For on
the one hand, there's no doubt that he defined the premiacy of Rome vigorously
and grounded the pre eminence in it sees patrine origin rather than any concilier decisions.
So he stopped the quote there, giving the impression that Pope saying Gregory
the Great taught quote Vatican one ideas. However, if you read on,
it notes that first of all, premacy doesn't equal Vatican one. So the
premiacy can be in both models. Okay, So just stopping the quote where
it says by a Bias Sushensky that Gregory the Great believed in quote Roman premascy.
That doesn't mean Vatican one. That's the thing that's in question. And
if you go on, he says, quote, although he recognized the Canons
of Constantinople, Oops, and even admitted the existence of the Pentarchy. Oops,
he didn't appeal to it as an authority. So there's an admission of
that structure as well, even though Gregory's not appealing to it. But that
doesn't prove Vatican one, I mean, is probably the last quote that a
Roman Catholic wants to quote. Yeah, and we're gonna go to the let
me give one more quote because the net he he didn't read the rest of
the paragraph, because the next paragraph says, According to Mindorff, however,
Gregory stressed the petrine episcopal power, did not consider this power was communicated through
Rome only. He is therefore a major witness to what's called an ecclesiology of
communion, which kept East and West together in the first millennium of Christian history.
His writings against the title of universal patriarch affirmed the rights of all the
individual bishops against a singular universalist claim, even of the Bishop of Rome.
So had he read on, he would have realized that, no, the
full context of that quote is not admitting that Gregory the Great Slovatican One proponent,
the full context of the quote admits that he's not that. Yeah,
I mean, this is straight from Gregory the Great, and he writes in
book five he says, for he himself, Peter exalted the sea in which
he designed reigned even to rest in the present life Rome, he himself adorned
the sea to which he said his disciple as evangelist Alexandria, he himself established
the sea in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for
seven years Antioch. Since then it is the sea of one and one sea
over which, by divine authority three bishops now preside. Whatever good I hear
of you, this I amp to myself. So this is the last person
that Yeah, that's a great point. And I have it on screen because
of course that's the famous three patrin cees quote from Gray the Great. You
can see it source there in Father John's article. And then I'll link it
in the chat for you guys right there if you want to go read the
rest of it to see we're not making it up. And then Roman Cathoch
quote counter this and say that, well, Peter died in Rome, and
it's like, okay, why is that? Why is that significant? Like,
can you tell me why? Just the fact that he died in Rome
is that that's what makes it Signif okay, he found an Antioch person,
I could equally say that he found an Antioch first, yeah, and they'll
say, well, but he consecrated it with his blood and his martyrdom.
And it's like, okay, but where does anybody appeal to that? How
early do we get that appeal? Right? In other words, if that's
what makes the Roman see unique contra Alexandria or Antioch, why is that a
very late appeal? Right? But yeah, I just again I encourage people,
if you do want to get the Sashinsky book, I highly recommend it
because even though he did cite one sentence from it, probably getting it from
Ibarra, the whole chapter on Rome in the First seven hundred Years, chapter
four, it doesn't back up the Vatican One view at all. There's nothing
in the backs of the Vatican One view. In fact, everything in that
chapter is basically admitting that, you know, look can't. A lot of
these classic proof texts just don't work and their bad argument. So it's a
great book to make that point. In fact, where do you want to
go next? I'm not sure, so let's see here and pull my notes.
Did you want to mention anything about you mentioned something. I don't rember
how you phrased it, but you were talking about head uh pre eminent I
think, oh, yes, yeah, So they were in their review they
were saying that I miss I misused the term inviolable, and I find that
interesting. So I actually try to reach out to Father Richard Price on this
because he actually missed quotes in uh in Acts of Epicists. And I was
talking with Ubi Petris about this as well, because we were trying to figure
out the Greek word used here for inviolable, but he actually misquotes in his
citation, so we tried to reach out to him to figure out what the
Greek word used for inviable was here. But I mean, the definition of
inviable is never to be broken or infringed, like what that's and that's what
I said, I said, will never air, will never air, the
seat of the the seat of the emperor will that is invilable. That's what
the quotation says. I can read the actual quotation here, let me find
it. But I found it interesting that in their review that they were that
they were going after going after my use of that word, as if I
used it erroneously. What do you I mean invilable? That's what inviable means,
is it not? Yeah, I mean there are several examples like this
where termino words and phrases are used. I thought you had some good ones.
I didn't know that. I had not heard that quote about the Holy
Spirit has dictated to the Imperial pen a no edamanut. So now is the
emperor inspired and infallible? In the Romancallou view, the use of Matthew sixteen
for Constantinople, that was something I had not heard that. So do you
want to go into some of those things and then we'll get into the I
thought your Vigilius points on the Constitutum, the two versions of the Constitutum were
really strong points as well. Yes, yeah, so, I mean this
is the quotation here where the emperor is called the divine in inviable Head.
This is from Prices Acts of Ephicis, page three oh eight, which again
citation is wrong, but he's quoting the council. Nor does my devotion suppose
that any of the most about bishops are unaware that not merely once or twice,
but even more frequently on the matter for the instructions from the divine and
inviolable Head. So that's in reference to them. So when they when they
pull a quote about the papalc being referred to as the head, it's not
an issue like we like, it's amazing how many Roman Catholics haven't even heard
of the Byzantine two headed Eagle of the vote, like and so uh yeah,
And then you brought up my quotation from Matthew sixteen being applied to the
Empire of Constantine. And so this is my issue with with all of their
with all of their talking points, they boil down to these quotations have to
be taken literally and they have to mean the same thing from now until the
end of ages. They only mean the Vatican One support is basically what it
amounts to. So it's it's a selective use of the tax to fit the
Vatican one model retroactive. It's a revisionist move. Let's get to the vigilious
examples. Explain what's going on at the Fifth Council. By the way,
Sashinski has a great treatment of Virgilias the Fifth Council as well in chapter four.
So tell us kind of what's going on here, how he is kind
of forced to kind of to bend to the will the Emperor and the council.
And we have why we have two versions of this this letter from him.
Yeah, real quick, I just want to read this quote here.
Oh yeah, sure. This is on page fifty of the book Papal Primacy.
This is the one that you referenced where the emperor is Matthew sixteen is
applied to the emperor. But yeah, it says, and with the Almighty
who rules with you, a most devout emperor, you decide because you are
appointed by God. Rejoice, O city of Zion, Zummat of the worth
the world, and the Empire Constantine ornamented you with purple and crowned you with
faith, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against your Orthodox empire.
I mean that's literally like exactly the type of quote that they use to support
Pope Agatho's letter. Yeah, and I can't believe that he thought you were
actually arguing that the emperor was infallible. I mean, that was so silly,
Like obviously that's not what he's arguing. He's making the point that these
phrases and this this prosaic, flowery language doesn't always lend to the easy,
you know, knockdown proof text that we might want it to be because the
context, the reference, the the limitations on the use of this kind of
stuff, and the and the common usage of these kinds of things at that
time. Again, it's just it doesn't work because there's so many examples of
this, right, So in other words, it's inconsistent. So again,
it's like Basil when he says that melidiosas the head of the churches, and
the whole body descends from the head. It's like, oh, does that
mean he's the pope now he's oh, but no, but he's not Rome.
Yeah, exactly so. But it's so it's a selective. It's a
double standard, is what I'm trying to say, where it only works when
it works to prove the Vatican One view. Any contrary evidence doesn't count.
It's exact same thing that Muslims do when you talk about the contradictions in the
Koran appealing to prior revelation, and yet prior revelation is full of contradictions,
and you ask the Muslim okay, but what's the principle by which I know
the prior revelations to be true and false? Well, it's the ones that
agree with the Koran. But the Qoran tells me to check the Koran against
prior revelation. But now you're saying that prior revelation is contradictory. Yeah,
but it's not contradictory when you read it in the light of the Koran.
They're doing the exact same move. Vatican one is proven via proof text that
I find in Church history that support Vatican one, the same model, the
same move. When it's not conducive to Vatican one, we throw that one
out. It doesn't count. It's arbitrary. Yeah. You asked about Constantinople
two, So, uh, you asked me to explain constant Oble two.
Yeah, So essentially what kind of triggered Constantinople two was Pope Virgilius had released
what's called the Judicatum, which, by the way, in the debate he
kept he kept using the wrong term. So there was three total documents that
were released. The first one was called the Judicatum, which was two years
prior to Constantinople two. And what this did is it sort of, uh
subtly condemned the authors of what's called the three Chapters, which had historian tendencies.
It subtly condemned them. But then two years later, after he releases
the Judicatum, he retracts it. And this is what triggers the council.
Emperor Justinian then calls the council, and Vigilius was fine with a council occurring,
but he wanted it to occur in the West, and so because it
didn't occur in the West, it occurred in Constantinople. He didn't even tended.
Instead, he wrote what's called the Constitution is first constitutum. Constitututum just
means constitution. He wrote his first version of it, and in this version
of it, he accepts that the authors of the three Chapters were Orthodox.
So he's he's first, he's subtly condemned in the Judicatum. Then he retracts
it. Then he comes forward and he says, actually, uh, not
only was I wrong by that judicatum, but these authors are actually Orthodox.
And then at the end of that first constitutum, he says, this we
ordain and decree that it be permitted to no one to write or bring forth
anything contradictory to the contents of this constitutum, or after this declaration begin a
new controversy about them. And if anything has already been done in contradiction of
this our ordinance, this we declare void by the authority of the Apostolic See.
So he gives the council his constitutum and he says, this is the
papal decree. I mean, it couldn't be more clear. He literally says,
it's by the authority of the Apostolic seat. And then the point that
I really needed alex to I needed to hear it out of his mouth,
because the council responds, they say there's no other way to resolve conflict,
resolve questions of faith and morals than in a council. And it specifically says
in their letter back to Pope Vigilius that even the Apostles, even though all
the apostles were infallible. It says they had to meet in a council in
Acts fifteen. It references Acts fifteen, and it says you do not have
the authority to assert this apostolic see over us, because the council is how
these things are determined. That's literally what they say in their letter back to
me. So this is again conciliarism all the way back from the earliest days
of the church. You mentioned canons from early antioch Sine of Antioch. We
see it in the Apostolic Canons thirty four thirty slash thirty five. We fast
forward through the canons of the councils up to the fifth Ecumenical Council. A
few people know about this, and you're pointing out that their letter back to
him is that we don't accept the unilateral autocratic model. The only way that
we understand the acceptance or see me the resolution to these issues is tonally right.
And then I asked him, so everyone that's watching this, you the
Roman Catholic position is that the bishops were wrong about that that when they say
there's no other way that the truth can be man manifest except for any conciliar
model. That's what the bishops say, back to Vigilius, and you need
to make the Roman Catholic say the bishops of this Ecumenical Council in their final
declaration were wrong. You have to make that come out of amount. And
I did it in the debate. And this is me, At what point
are you just not the Church of the first millennium? Yeah, exactly,
And that was what the debate was, right. The preminist was is the
Church of the first thousand years the Vatican one papal model or the Orthodox synodal
conciliar model. Yeah. So so then after the council, which by the
way, as far as all the evidence is concerned, was received as ecumenical.
In fact, when Nicea two and I read this full quotations in the
debate, I can do it now if you want me to. But in
Nicea two they reference Constantinople two and they say it was ecumenical, and they
say it was by the affirmation of the four Patriarchs. They don't even mention
Vigilia's. So it was seen as fully valid, as fully ecumenical with the
with their affirmation of the four patriarchs. And then finally two years later,
after the council, Vigilius submits to the council and he agrees that the writers
of the three chapters were indeed heretics. So and we see this again and
again, and this is my question for a Roman Catholic if you is there
any example where there was a conflict between the consent of the church and the
Roman See and the Roman See came out on top. Is there any example
where the entire consent of the church said, we're wrong, We're going to
submit to you, the Roman See. Because I just showed you an example,
and there's many examples like this where the pope tries to assert his authority
as the Roman See, as the Apostolic See, and what ends up happening
is he submits to the consent of the church. Which is why the Orthodox
position is stronger because our evidence is what actually happened, not some quote mine
of Pope Agatho's letter. We have an ad actual how it actually went down.
Demonstrates that the consent of the church is a higher authority than a papal
decree. Yeah, exactly, And I mean I want to look and see
if if this quote is still there on their on their channel or not.
So I've saved it. So again, let's remember remember that feel they needed
to judge Theodora if Leo had already reinstated him. Well they didn't. They
didn't recognize Roman jordistiction in the provinces. There you go. So uh,
I just wanted to play that again. Yeah, that's great, thank you.
That's really a really strong point there on Virgilius in the Fifth Council.
Do you want to move on or stay? Anything else you want to say
on that. I'm looking at Sardikan canon as we've done that now. One
thing he knew. One thing he knew he said that I noticed is that
if you go to Sartica, he says seven and eight prove papalism, or
he said something like that. But when you go and read seven and eight,
I don't know where he's he didn't flesh out this this point. He
just kind of set it in passing. I don't know what he's talking about
in seven and eight proving papalism, because when I read seven and eight,
like it talks about what shall be granted by the Emperor in Candidate of Sartica.
So I don't know what he's talking about that this proves papalism that I
didn't get that. Yeah, well, and who was on content able to
just real quick before we move on, Yeah, he missing my point about
the about the contents of the Constitutum. He was trying to focus on the
fact that he was trying to argue that the contents of the Constitutum we were
orthodoxy in both cases, which I think I demonstrate it was not true because
in one case he affirms the orthodoxy of the three writers and the other case
he doesn't. So that's a contradiction. But he's missing my The overarching point
about Constantinople too is that the bishops in their response, are saying there's no
other way to resolve matters of faith. So whether or not the Constitutum is
orthodox, which I demonstrate it's not, but let's say I grant that it
is. Their response back to him saying that you can't assert this authority over
us is is the is the stronger point here that I was trying to make
with with Constantinople too, And I think that kind of I don't know if
we were talking past each other with that, but I think that kind of
went over his head a little bit. Yeah, and I don't want to
get off track apologize. I just didn't understand what he was trying to argue
with kenon seven and eight of Sorry, because in the by the time you're
getting into the cross examinations, it starts to get into these you guys kind
of are firing back and forth on different points. He says something about,
well, I think you misunderstood seven and eight of Sartka actually prove papacy.
But then when we look at seven and eight, it talks about that the
bishops. We don't want bishops going to the secular court, even if the
emperor summons them. I mean, it's nothing here to do with papalism.
I don't I don't get it. Do you know what he was trying to
argue. I have no clue. No, I mean he didn't flesh it
out. He mentioned it. He said to you, well, Sartka seven
and eight proved my view, and then I'm reading it. I'm like,
I don't see where he's getting any of that. Yeah, I mean,
even Ina is just Rome as a review court, you know, for appeals
that are being made. So I'm not really sure why. I mean,
I don't think educated Roman Catholics argue from startaka as far as I know exactly.
And the next big mistake was where he says, I liked your question
about the forgeries, and I thought he had a huge failure if we think
about it, because he basically argued that the Church is not infallible in terms
of quote facts, but it is infallible in terms of faith and morals.
He says, so even if the Church cited a forgery to back up something
in a decree or dogma, the dogma is protected, even if it cites
a false fact. I mean, this is crazy, This blows my mind
because now, basically the papacy is the living embodiment of epistemological truth itself.
So basically, if the papacy utilizes false forgery facts, the facts can be
wrong, but the truth is still protected by the Holy Spirit. He says
that papalism is proven prior to the forgeries. Well, first of all,
he didn't demonstrate yet that Vatican One actually is prior to the forgeries, and
the Catechism of Council Trent, for example, still relied on forgeries to prop
up papacy. I mean, I think Rome is no one Judges of the
First Sea is still in Roman Cathic cant law, and that's based on a
forgery. So just this idea that the dogmas protect it even though it's citing
or referencing a forgery, and a fact can be a fact can be wrong,
but the dogma can still be true. That's to me, that's crazy,
that's ridiculous. And by the way, these are actually not as clear
cut as I think he wants them to be, because he wanted there to
be this really clear cut distinction between something that's faith and morals and dogma versus
things that are facts or quote human traditions. He said, now, where
in Roman Catholic dogma do we actually have the list of the things that are
faith and morals and are not. Well, there's not one. There's criteria
that every individual Catholic has to then suss out supposedly what goes into what ben
But now the epistemological problem, the criterion problem, it's all still there because
we don't actually know if we're doing it right. How do I know just
on the base of generic criteria that well, that's what the Church is always
taught and it's what the Roman see has dogmatically taught. Well, how do
I know that in these mountains of pable documents, I'm actually sussing out and
putting things in the right ben And so every time they appeal to faith and
morals and not to human traditions, and the faith and morals is super broad.
Okay, And as you pointed out, yeah, well, I mean,
why would Canon twenty eight not in some way relate to faith and morals?
Why would liturgical rights and disciplines not relate to faith and morals? Saying
faith and morals could literally encompass anything potentially, do you see what I'm saying?
Like these these basic super elastic terms, that the pope is only infallible
in faith and morals allows them the elasticity to bend and stress and throw out
when it doesn't work. So if something seems to contradict, it's not it's
not invaluable, not faith and morals. Now, wait a minute, isn't
death penalty related to faith and morals? Seems like morals to me? It's
an ethical moral question as to whether we have the death penalty right blessing a
homosexual union. To me, that seems like it's a moral question. So
how and and so there's a there's no clear divide between faith and morals.
And I'm not saying that there might not be distinctions between things that are faith
and morals and things that are not. But what I'm saying is that they
don't give an actual clear epistemic criteria to know when it's what. Yeah,
So as far as your point about referencing my question on the forgeries, I
really just think it's it's it's ironic. You know that on the eve of
the Schism, like the document that was used to justify this Supreme authority in
regards to the use of leaven bread was the forgery. So the Pope isn't
referencing Agatho's letter, he's not referencing a quotation by Saint Maximus talking about how
you have to be in convenient with Rome. He's referencing the donation of Constantine,
a forgery. There's irony there, right, There's an irony that at
the schism, that's the document that got that was referenced as justification for the
Supreme Authority, which I point this out, and I think that kind of
went over his head during my questioning on this. Well, let's keep in
mind that not too long after the schism, we immediately get the infamous Dictatus
Pope of Pope Gregory the sebventh, and this is listed in his register.
It's also it's mentioned by mind or if it's mentioned in the Sashinsky book.
The scholarship basically says, yes, this is a real papal teaching in real
papal documents, not fake. I mean they're using the forgeries. This is
not a forgery, and it has all these outlandish claims which nobody in the
first thousand years of Christianity who is serious at all would believe or think that
these outlandish claims have any basis in the first millennium, I mean, they're
just outlandish. And we've referenced the dictatus probably a million times. But I'm
just pointing it out because there's a whole section in the Skashinski book. There's
a whole section of the Papadacus book. There you can see all the infamous
claims of Dictatus Pape. And this is again right after, so we're talking
right after the schism what the authors call the scholars called the revolution and ecclesiology.
This is it right here, and this is relying in some of these
propositions on forgeries, so it's not just forgeries to back up the papal claims,
which he argued, well, there's already proofs of the papal claims we
didn't really need. Then why did you need the forgeries if there's already proofs
He said, there was already proofs. Okay, then why do we need
the forgeries? Well, were mistakes and people were cropped or something like that.
But the positions are fil true. Oh really, the positions. So
the positions of Tetatus pawfare are so true where it says that the pope is
the quisosaiderak, the god emperor of old universe, I mean literally, it's
what it says. It's like the craziest outlandish claims for a cleric. And
I mean anybody's read the Canons of the Councils. I mean we just read
which which was one of these talking about how bishops shouldn't have anything to do
with secular courts because they'll come under the censorship of the canons, Like how
bishops are not supposed to be involved in secular affairs. Oh but wait a
minute, Actually, the pope is the supreme king of all secular affairs.
Okay, this violates canons even back to Calstone and Calcone has canons at about
how clerics cannot be involved in affairs of state, at least they're not supposed
to. And has that been abused Yeah, I'm sure that was abused in
the East as well. I'm sure people didn't follow that canon. But the
point is that how can the head of the church change all of that to
then take on a geopolitical role, which the canons that we just saw in
Sartka mentioned censorship for it's crazy. So wait a minute, are sartak and
Canon's good or not? All? Right? So I mean if the Kansas
Articas said that you shouldn't be involved in secular affairs and now Dictatus Pope says
you're the queisaattarac, I mean this is a contradiction, right, And I
would say Dictatus Pope, I mean it's mini Vatican One for many people that
aren't like familiar with the document. It's a lot of the same concepts that
we see at Vatican One in pastor returnos. But what I find interesting about
dicta is Pope is in Vatican One is there's no way to reconcile that with
apostol Canon thirty four. So if we look at like the earliest attestation right
to how eclesial logical matters are to be handled is consent. The first he
must get the consent of all. This is the polar opposite of what Vatican
One states. It's the literal inverse. It literally says the authority is irreformable
of itself and not from the consent of the church. It's the inverse of
Apostolic Canon thirty four, the oldest atta station we have to ecclesiological matters.
So people ask, why is this such a big deal. You know,
what did Rome do that was so bad? Read dictate his pape after reading
the Apostolic cannons, and there's actually significant right And by the way, for
everybody that's super lazy, I put both of them on the screen for you
so you don't even have to go read. Then there's the canon right there,
and I just had Dictatus Pope up for you for the last like ten
minutes, So there you go go ahead. I lost my train of thought
now I'm sorry. Oh no, wait, I remember, I remember,
I remember. Uh, it's so so Swan Sona we'll argue for apostolic succession,
and he'll point out that the priesthood, the levitical priesthood, would be
ordained by two or three priests, which is exactly what the Apostolic canon say.
It's exactly what Nicia one says about how a bishop is to be ordained.
And you made this point earlier, but guess what what does two or
three sound like? Well, it's trinitarian. Yeah, that's that's like the
Trinity is is literally a model for how we conduct things in the church.
And so when we see two or three witnesses that are ordaining the priest in
the levitical priesthood, and then we see the same thing being echoed in uh
the church, there's continuity there with the levitical priesthood, and it's a trinitarian
model of ordaining a bishop. So yeah, it's a great point. And
I do have on the screen Canon one that you can see there where it
says, let a bishop be ordained by two or three bishops. No contemporary
Roman Catholic teaching is that the pope is to be ordained. It's sorta in
all bishops. Bishops are to be confined to their jurisdictions. Bishops must acknowledge
who is first. That's Canon thirty four. There let a bishop not go
beyond his limits Canon thirty five. Right, No bishops are to be ordained
within their jurisdiction. There's no exemptions. There's no exceptions ever made for the
Pope and Obara and all these people that always say, well, it's an
argument from silence. They all knew it, so they didn't have to talk
about it because everybody understood it. Oh, everybody understood it. But they're
also enacting all these canons that contradict it. So which one is it?
They understood it and they were silent on it, or they were contradicting people
authority by pushing all these canons addicted throughout all these centuries. I mean's just
constantly flip flop on what their explanations are, which their explanations contradict is the
point. So did you want to move on to anything else that you thought
really stood out? I think the big the biggest error that he made was
when he said, and I did save the clip. I can pull it
up in a second, but he says that Nestorius is not a heretic.
I thought this was crazy. And if you've read the mcguckan book, if
you've read Cyril extensively, for if you're familiar with the teaching of emphasis,
then you know that this is just a huge red flag. I mean,
this is just sad. Documents are so protected, only protected, only infallible
in the way emphasis. Uh. And then the rith we don't know.
So he doesn't even understand that it's not like Ephesus stands alone because subsequent ecumenical
councils also reaffirm all the condemnations of the heretics prior. So later ecumenical councils
and their confessions will say, we condemn Nestorius, that God hated Nestorius,
we condemn Arius. Right, They'll repeat the previous condemnations, and you get
He says after this that Honorius also wasn't a hairtake, but he doesn't seem
to be aware that three ecamenical councils reaffirmed that Honorius was a heretic. It's
not just the sixth, it's the sixth, the seventh, and then it's
restated again in the Sonatical in later councils as well. So you've got reaffirmations
of heretics being condemned. There is no, absolutely no. I don't know
where they get this other than the Acumenists move that the papacy's done to now
say that you can do the liturgy of Marno Storius and you can you can
reverence Nestorius. This is a complete rejection of ephesis. I mean, this
is just crazy to me. It's mind blowing. I mean that this alone
should be enough to tell people that this is not the true church. They
will literally rewrite history for the sake of the papacy. The papacy is the
epistemic principle of truth, of metaphysics, of reality. It changes the past.
Now this is crazy. I'm done with my rant. I don't got
nothing else to add to that. I mean, do you agree or don't
you think it's crazy to say that Nistoria is not a heretic. I mean
I cleeded out after kind of a little jab. I was like, uh,
you know, part one of stayings that shouldn't be controversial, but apparently
are Nestorius was a heretic. I mean, it's like it's just insane to
me, Like he could have gone to other examples, like I think he
should have gone on straight to Enorous, and we could talk about Onorious,
but saying that Nestorius isn't the heretic. I mean if you read his anathemas
of Saint Cyril, like he literally anathematizes the use of the of the term
of course. Absolutely. Yeah, everybody, every orthodox person knows Theotokos is
like orthodoxy one on one. So they're basically saying, as Roman Catholics,
we don't really care about orthodoxy one on one. Yeah. Well, that's
exactly what we knew all along, That's what we've been saying. All right.
So I've got that's all my notes. Do you have anything else you
want to get to before we move to super chats? And I've got your
uh Twitter is linked. I thought you did great in the debate. I
think it was a clear win. What do you want to do, anything
you want to leave with or things that we missed? I will do.
Yeah. One one final thing sure, because this wasn't addressed by by him
in the in the debate, was the I brought up the Malasian Schism multiple
times. And what the Malaysian Schism demonstrates is that you can be in communion
with Rome or with the True Church without being communion with Rome, and what
happened in the Malaysian schism. The Roman Catholics will always focus on Malaysius and
they'll say, well, Malaysius was brought into communion with Rome. But the
issue is constantinople I appoints Flavian as Malaysius's successor, and the Roman Church doesn't
accept Flavian as the true patriarch until almost twenty years later. And so for
those eighteen nineteen years, the entire rest of the Church was in communion with
Flavian, and Rome didn't recognize Flavian until they finally submit to the Church's decision
from contentinople On. I think it was like three ninety nine when they finally
submit to the Church's decision the papal see. So for all those years,
all those years, Flavian was in communion with the true Church, but not
in communion with Rome. And Rome finally submits to the Church's decision. So
all these quotes about how you you know you have to be in convenient with
Rome they quote min in Saint Jerome, which isn't even the context of what
he was saying. Well, those quotes don't matter if we can point to
an example where somebody was inconvenient with the True Church but not in commune with
Rome single handedly refuted that whole talking point. Yeah, it does, and
I'm glad you brought that up. Now we've got BMX. He sent fifteen
dollars the other day. I can't remeer if I got to that or not
thinking. Thank you'd BMX cataclysm five dollars. Very good, very good discussion.
Luigi loved to see it. I feel that it was coming for Lofton
to choose an inquirer to debate and represent orthodoxy. So it looked to me
like at one point, I can't prove this, but he he was mouthing
as the microphone was turned off. It's like he was talking to somebody.
So I don't know if somebody was sending him arguments or what, but so
it was a little odd that he was talking so much with the volume off.
Maybe he was talking to his wife or something. I don't know.
Brett sales twenty dollars. This is killer content. It's not moon Beaver,
but it's still killer content, none the less capal. Yeah, thank you
so much. We'll have to revisit our Seeds of Gaya dude, that's the
moon Beaver consciousness guy cataclosing five dollars ps. We're ready for the Jake Debate
review. Yeah, we're just waiting on Lewis and Kai and Doctor Bow to
find the time when everybody's not busy to be able to do the Doctor Bow
or show me the Jake Debate review. Guys, if you would be sure
and follow Luigi, I've got his channel or shoe me his Twitter linked.
I'll add his Instagram as well because he's got a lot of Instagram content that's
pretty funny. Popular people like his his jokes and his quips. They're good
over on ig. There is his Twitter in the chat if you want to
follow him. There anything you want to leave us with before before we close
it out. I mean, I appreciate you having me on you know.
I I just want to say I got an overwhelming amount of welcoming messages from
from Orthodox people during following the debate. I had people that said that they
they that my debate was kind of like the last straw for them, like
for leaving the Roman Catholic Church. And then one person in particular, when
his priest asked uh for a reason, he just sent he sent his priest
the debate, so I thought that was kind of fun. Nice, But
yeah, I just want to say that the Orthodox community, you guys are
phenomenal. You know. I'm excited to I just got I was just on
Orthodox Kyle. He's releasing that video soon. I'm going on Orthodox being Squad
in a couple of weeks. So yeah, you guys have been awesome,
super welcoming. So I'm excited to be here and pretty excited about the future.
So awesome. Yeah, absolutely, you did great. It was a
phenomenal first outing. So we're looking forward to, you know, some some
excellent future debates. So everybody be sure and follow Louis E. G Over
on his outlets, and I will see you guys very soon.