I don't see. The logos is the icon of Father, and man is
the icon of God. We are the image of Godha dire Wave three Yes
s s s ship dire Wave three. The arts reflects the soul, the
spirit of the architecture reflects the soul the spirit because therefore you can see the
degeneracy. You can see the degradation and the loss of aesthetics, the loss
of the idea of there being harmony, order, symmetry in esthetics. It's
connected with the loss of a coherent and philosophy. Is this this this this
this this this this this this this this, this is a this dire Wave
three. Yeah, there we have then, yeah, there we have the
Yeah then we have then yeah, there we have there we have there we
have there we have now then don't have to see? Now how can there
a narrow there? Now? There have now now count now show there have
the narrow there narrow there there there there dire Wave three from from f dire
wave. Science comes out of medieval universities. This may have been totally lost
on modern people, but no, actually, modern science comes out of universities.
Guess where universities come from? Byzantium, What is the theology of Byzantem
orthodoxy, the longest running empire, the most successful economic empire in the history
of the world. All right, welcome, you're here. We've made it.
I'm not in jail. I'm not having lost all my belongings due to
all the lawsuits. Oh man, we're here. We're having fun, and
we're going to do a stream that we haven't totally done. I mean,
we've kind of hinted at this stream quite a bit the last year, and
now I think it's just obviously the time to do it. And twenty twenty
two is gonna be lit. It's gonna be lit with different foci. But
I can tell you that two of the foci for twenty twenty are going to
be Rome, Catholicism and Calvinism. As you know, we didn't do a
whole lot of Calvinism in the last year. We did a couple of streams
with David Patrick carry where we got into overall, you know, two hour,
three hour critiques of Calvinism, and that worked out good. They bore
a lot of fruit. Ten twenty thousand people across various platforms saw those,
not counting the audios, and then you know, we had a lot of
Calvinists reach out, a lot of I have a former Calvinist buddy who wrote
a book about the orthodoxy of predestination. So you know, we've seen a
lot of fruit in the last year especially, and as the audience grows.
That's why we're seeing the effect that we are seeing. So ultimately, yes,
that's up to divine providence. But as Paul says, we are co
laborers and he will brag. Paul says, I will brag about you my
labor in Christ, that is the people that he helped to convert. So
thankfully we've seen so far at least thousands of converts, even though William A.
Alberg says that's completely made up. There are no converts, it's all
a fraud, it's all a scam. Even though I said, you could
like within a minute clicking to Discord and get a survey of I don't know,
eight thousand almost people in there, most of whom are either inquirers or
people who are catechumens or are now converted. And so you know, we
had seen that tremendous growth in the last two and a half almost three years
of Discord, which again was all kind of not expected, and that's not
even counting you know, the other outlets that we have, so really thankful
for that. We've got so many awesome educated people in the discord, and
we've got you know, really solid clergy apologists in there, people with degrees.
We're not talking about a reason in Theology fan group that's full of jokes
about semen. We're talking about people who actually talk about the issues and the
theology. Now, as everybody I'm sure I has seen, there was a
lot of drama this week. This is not going to be a drama stream.
Those guys kind of rely on that stuff every now and then. We
do make it a point to reply to drama when it is necessary, and
everybody who's followed this channel out of you know, in total, I had
to remove some older videos and move them over to rock Fan because they were
just too edgy for the soft softness over on this side of the internet.
But all that old content is still available over at my rock Fan, and
there's a unique material that's uploaded over at rockfin so you can go over there
to see all that kind of stuff. Somebody was asking about that a minute
ago. But some stuff, you know, you just it's not fitting to
discuss over here. By the way, I don't even host Lord Voldemort's Fourth
Hour. All Brooks says, that's made up. That's all made up.
I guess I photos, they're all phishing pages, like I photoshopped all the
video. It's all deep fake, right, So it's not actually me,
it's my face over Lord Jones's face. That's apparently what the Roman Catholics think
that. I'm not joking, that's what he said. It's all made up.
Even that is made up, so that I think that this is actually
signifying kind of a new phase, like their their system, their channels are
unraveling, and to rely on just ludicrous claims like that and the replies from
you know who. I mean, it's just I think it's kind of almost
we're at the verge of victory here in terms of like they're almost done right.
I mean, it's like meltdown level. I mean, if dude is
like claiming that he's getting death T H R E A T S. And
if he claims that he's going to sue me for deformation when like he apparently
he's never actually talked to lawyer about this, because like what you can't sue
somebody for them believing that you use sock puppets. I mean, this is
just crazy, right has he is he gonna It's like a boomer approaching like
I'm going to sue the Twitter for them main posts on Twitter? Right,
I'm going to contact the Google and have my content removed to It doesn't work
like that, dude. It's like boomers not understanding the Internet. Welcome by
the way to being a public figure. By the way, you goober,
you can't if you're a public figure. You know how hard it is to
prove defamation. Yeah, see, And I know this because I've had multiple
harassers in the past that I've talked to multiple various lawyers about. So I've
already heard all about this multiple times for many years. So you can't really
prove any of those things, and hardly any lawyer will take those kinds of
cases. But I think everybody who is at least reasonably saying realizes that a
lot of this meltdown is because of the inability to deal with the issues.
So you know, we saw last year Loten implying that UBI was a ped
o, no evidence at all, But of course he does the very things
that he says everybody else is doing. And he's done this for two or
three years now. I showed where he was trying to get father Deacon defrocked
by emailing the diocese over somebody making a joke about him. So this is
like a super thin skinned dude, and anybody that thin skin is not going
to make it as a public figure because it doesn't matter what your positions are,
it doesn't matter how cool you appear or try to be. You're going
to have people who are going to obsess over you and try to come at
you. And you have to just be able to deal with this stuff.
But some people just they have meltdows. They can't deal with they can't deal
with criticism, They can't deal with people who make fun of them, even
right, they'll say that jokes are slander. Now, that's just satire,
that's a humor. Man. You got to get used to being made fun
of. I'm sorry that you're that much of a beta that you feel like
you have to try to take people to court for making fun of you.
I mean, that's just pitiful, right. So you know, reason in
theology is that that's the model that they chose. Right after what after they
refuse to debate UBI. After UBI basically destroyed a borrow in multiple videos,
it really just fell apart and turned into a drama stream. Not every stream,
but a stream relying upon let me feed off of anybody with a larger
audience is what it turned into. And he gets what forty to fifty live
years now when two three years ago he would get what three four hundred.
So yeah, I mean, that's just what happens when you don't rely on
the logic, the argumentation, objective facts. You're just repeating quote minds.
You're just repeating old hash rehashed material that UBI already dealt with, like both
Trent and Reason that theologies replies, a lot of that was already dealt with
in ubi's replies, And it's like, so obviously they didn't watch any of
that, right, And so I think what happens is that these audience they
just rely on if I can make Jay look bad, if I can make
the Orthobros look bad, right, that's what he's going to fall back on.
The problem with that, though, is that the audiences that follow drama
and audiences that if you rely on this as your model and give him a
little free consultation here to reason and theology. When you rely on that,
it doesn't keep converts and it comes off as a desperate attempt to maintain whatever
he's up to over there, whatever that thing is with the cult that he's
starting in his garage to Saint Maximus Fellowship or whatever that is. So let's
get into the issues. That's enough on that. I mean, if you
if you want to look at the you know, the video that David did,
you can go over to David Rhon formerly David the Real Med White Channel,
and David just put up a video basically outlining the entire discussion right and
an issue and the problems with Lofton's motors OPERONDI constant underhanded activities, and I
mean just the idea that making fun of somebody making jokes that they think this
is slander. It's not what slander is, dud, I mean, it's
just it's it's pitiful really. But so what we're going to do tonight is
that promised stream that I talked about a lot in the past year, which
I didn't really get around to. We did a really hefty in depth stream
last year or the year before where we went deep into set of a content,
and we did multiple streams last year, you know with Snack David,
Father Deacon UBI, where we got into papal claims, quote minds Vatican One.
So I'm not chiefly gonna be dealing with quote minch tonight. We're we're
gonna look at a few of the claims. But what the largesse of the
Roman system rests on is, of course Vatican One. Now Rouman Catholics always
refer to Vatican One as kind of well, we know Vatican One settled the
issue of the papal debate, but hardly any of them have actually read the
documents. Now, when I said the documents, I do not mean ewtn's
two to three page summary, which we're going to look at first, because
we're going to see that what's in ewtn's summary of pastor returns here, which
is abridged. Notice that abridged leaves out not intentionally. I don't think they
were intentionally doing this. I just think they wanted to give the basics leaves
out. What is if you go over to Papal and Cyclicals dot net the
full treatise, right, So the full thing printed out is about fifteen or
twenty pages, probably most of them just skipped over to read this, or
they, you know, picked up something like uh Oughts Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma
and turned to page two seventy nine, which we'll look at in a minute.
So this is gonna be a little long, it's gonna be a little
born, but we gotta do it this way because there's no other way to
look at the actual texts and the actual documents. So then we're gonna get
to some of the texts in Denzinger, and we're gonna look at the canons
of the Councils again that demonstrate the mind of the Church is not Vatican One.
And we're gonna, yeah, I'll mention some of the casustri and some
of the soft strying deflections that they always go to. And I know because
I made all these same arguments. I did all the same deflections, all
the same casustrie when I was Roman Catholic. And that's because most of the
time the context is not given right. It's just like when we saw Anthony
Rodgers trying to prove faith alone in the Church Fathers, when Perry over on
Sam Schremun's channel did that five hour lecture deconstructing this is just a total demolishing
of the fact, showing that these are quote minds. And the problem with
the quote mind is not wrong to proof text, but a quote mind is
where we're just kind of cutting out of the context anything that gives the appearance
of something that will imply Vatican one, because hardly any of the texts in
the first thousand years, even the ones that speak of the premacy of honor
and the role of the bishop and the Roman bishop and canonical procedure, none
of them amount to the claims that we will see are in Vatican one.
And one of the key issues there is the universal Magisterium, both in its
ordinary and extraordinary form, now locked into a stream replying to the at basically
trying to make all these nuanced ways that Vatican two clarifies. That that's nice
that there's all these clarifications in Vatican two. But I'm more interested in the
actual theologians of the Church who comment on the issue and not some random dude
on YouTube, right, people that have actual prowess within the Roman Calloic Church
in terms of theological recognition. And so we look at one of the theologians
over at one Peter five, who gives basically the same explication of what Universal
Magisterium both ordinary and extraordinary means. It's the same stuff I said, right,
And in order to understand that, we're gonna have to look at what
Vatican one actually says in those texts, not from the abridged version over here
at EWTN that probably most people look at when they search this. And the
reason I know this is because it took me a long time back in the
day to actually find the full text about before I had Denzeen, like way
back when I was in my twenties as a trad Catholic. And so yes,
the Papalincyclicals dot net version is the full version and it's about fifteen or
twenty pages, but most of them do not read that, right, That's
the point I'm trying to make. Then we're gonna look over here at the
cannons and we're gonna go through each of these and see how they do not
lin up with Vatican One. And I'm gonna probably repeat this many times because
these guys don't listen to the arguments, right, They twist, they malign,
they just ignore. It goes in one ear out the other, especially
with a bar up talk to note, I've known a barrow for I don't
know, five or six years. We've interacted for a long time many times,
and so that's really the source of frustration, is not that everybody just
wants to be nasty, but what happens is that when there's obstinacy and just
not listening and then twist, and then then it turns into nasty stuff after
everything was perfectly fine for a while. Now of course they said you were
the ones that were mean. Yeah, not really. I mean, we've
we've gone into that many times. We're not gonna do the drama. We're
gonna look at just the flat out, straight up documents, and then we're
gonna play a little bit of David's video again because it's so good and because
it really outlines one easy way to prove this. So even if we don't
want to dive into, you know, piles and piles of pable documents and
all these printouts and all these essays, one of the easiest ways to demonstrate
why this doesn't work is precisely the evolution of how Eastern Catholicism has progressed.
So this is byzantine, right, Catholics, Uni Aids, et cetera.
And how the reversal of positions on Saint Photius and Saint Gregory Polam and even
some of the Uniates who revere basically all of the of the the pillars of
Orthodoxy, so even Saint Mark of Ephesis, right, I mean, I'm
amazing to think that you can oppose Florence, but Roman Catholics will accept you
as a saint, and then others not. And so what we begin to
see is that really what the Roman Catholic Church is is a vast umbrella that
is supposed to be a unified system and a system that provides clarity, and
it does not do that. In fact, its only strength is in affirming
the papacy as an end in itself. Meanwhile, you can do and have
any of the views that you want. Now, that's a long time criticism
that Roman Catholics of course scoffed at, especially during the more traditional pre Vatican
two periods. However, since Francis, that criticism and Vatican too, I
mean that criticism has really hit home, right, because nobody can, honestly,
especially an our day, especially in the years of the Francis Pontificate,
say that Francis has been a source of unity I've never seen. I mean,
I came in to Rome Catholicism under John Paul the second back in the
day, back in two thousand and three in the Novasordo, by the way,
before I went to the trad Latin mass and at that time, I
mean, it was still a bursioning trad movement that was not large. But
I would say, I don't know, maybe you know, most large cities
had at least one SSPX chapel or maybe an FSSP chapel, Right, so
the fissure was not near what it is now. And the reason I bring
that up is that David's video makes at just an astounding point, not just
this video but the other one that he did on Iborro's Fatal Flaw, and
it really addresses the recent loft In video on the issues with the Moscow Patriarchate
and Africa in the easiest, simplest way. And that is just simply to
say that if you think that looking at a church and seeing a schism amongst
patriarchates is itself an argument against that ecclesiology or that church, then by your
own definition, the first thousand years of Christianity, which was which was united,
is thereby flawed because there were divisions amongst the patriarchates in the first thousand
years. Do you see how silly and stupid this argument is. He has
relied on this argument he and a barrow four years and it is just completely
dumb. I want to I want to be clear that you get this argument
right, because it's so obvious that somebody it flies over some people's heads and
they don't understand it right. So the argument is the Orthodox Church is fraught
with these problems unity because of internal disagreements between patriarchates, and that itself is
an example a way to show that because the Moscow Patriarchate is against the ep
the Orthodox Church in its ecclesiology can't be the case, aren't true and are
missing the office of the papacy. But wait a minute on that view.
On their view as Roman Catholics for the first thousand years, the church is
loosely speaking, united, and yet it contains divisions and schisms with patriarchates and
condemned popes, and it had the papacy, and yet there were these gigantic
schisms. So do you see how this argument turns back on these goobers on
head. It's just such a brain dead argument. It's like these people literally
have never had an epistemology class. Right. Often is like I had a
couple of philosophy classes back in the day. I know't you had any,
and maybe you had one, right, but I mean these And the reason
I say that is because if you had had basic basic logic, basic philosophy
classes, basicallysmology, you would know and you would be able to see the
flaws in these stupid arguments. Right. Like, David has a video which
will pull up here in a second, illustrating this point, precisely about Ibarra
where he uses this argument. I want you to see this. We're gonna
kick off with this. We might as well just kick off with this because
it's a really great point where barrow uh and David David included it in his
like ten Worst arguments video. Right, So, let's let's listen to a
little bit of this argumentation. He was a serpent? Man? Am I
the only person sick of that? Dude? Think about the if you're a
snake, how do you speak? How does the snake speak? Anyway?
So let's look at this fatal flaw argument. It's essentially repeated by all of
this crew as if it's a good argument. And again, what it shows
is just a reliance on their audience not paying attention or not looking into these
things, or not thinking about this. Right, So let's be really clear
what this argument is. And you're gonna notice Abara make a different version of
it. Right he bar is not going to be talking about the Moscow patriarchy.
But it's the same argument at work here. So let's let's let David
make a few points here because I came across this comment by online apologists Eric
Yubara. Now this is someone that we know, and the comment is mind
numbingly stupid. I will be Somebody said Lofton is getting a PhD. I
don't even know if that's true or not. But my point, by way,
there's a lot of dumpy hds. My point was that, uh,
he doesn't understand what it means to justify claims and to and to do good
argumentation. That's what I'm trying to say. So you can get a PhD
in all kinds of things. Remember when I debated JF, Well, JF
has a PhD just having a PhD mean the argumentation was good, No,
of course not so I don't who cares about a PhD? Earlier? Very
harsh in this because this is one of the stupidest comments I have ever read
concerning Orthodoxy ever in my life. For those who don't know, Quby is
a Roman Catholic papal lawyer apologists. His main his main verk is that echo
collecting a bunch of quotes from church fathers that speak nice things about Rome and
acting as if that means they're defending the Council of the First Council of the
Vatican. That's really what he does. But when he goes outside of that,
you see what happens with him. And I will read this this writing
really quickly, and then I will step by step go across what's wrong with
this writing. So he says that there's a bit of a jungle vaiting for
the convert, the need a communion. For a while we speak of Orthodoxy
in the singular. There are, in fact orthodoxies, if you respect,
other Eastern bodies, such as the Beast and the Ciac Coptic Epic Indian Orthodox.
The Byzantines famously stuck it up with the vest Hunts of the second millennium,
but there are earlier breaks within the East. Of course, today there's
a severance between Moscow and Constantinople, Antioch and Jerusalem, the significance of which
continues to be downplayed in light of some category of half medium schism, and
finally the true because so there you go. There is Eric pointing out basically
this argument, right that the Moscow patriarch versus the ep which, by the
way, people, we've covered that in previous podcasts a long time ago,
and I actually talked about this being a problem ten years ago, right,
I was talking about the problems with Bartholomew. So it's not like this is
some like like they discovered this big like whoa, we got him. There's
like this problem. This is a problem that has plagued the Church since the
earliest days, divisions and schisms between patriarchates. Do these people not understand that
Constantinople one, as we've pointed out many times, was called convoked, convened
outside of communion with Rome, dogmatized the Trinity on the basis of the Cappadocians,
and this was presided over by Saint Melidius, who also died outside of
Rome, and the Roman Catholic Church today accepts Constantinople won the Second Council as
dogmatic, guided by the Holy Spirit, and presided over by a saint who
died out of community with Rome. How in the world does that match up
with Unum sanctum, which says that no one can be saved outside of communion
with the Bishop of Rome. How does that match up to Cantate Domino the
Council of Florence, which says that even if you're a martyr, if you
do this martyrdom for the name of Christ outside of communion with the Bishop of
Rome, it does not save you. You are damned. Of course,
they'll just say, well, but Vatican too clarified this on the basis of
evolving dogma, and we're gonna look at some articles that discuss the living Magisterium
and how it evolved. We're gonna look at aunt saying the same thing too,
but at the same time as it evolves and the understanding new information.
Oh well, it wasn't clear in the first issue, but oh actually it
was. Everyone always believed in Roman supremacy, infallibility and jurisdiction. If that
was the case, then well, if one of those is the case,
then the other one can't be the case. It can't be the case that
it was always known and believed in and it was clear, and that at
the same time, it's a doctrine that was a seed that evolves into a
tree. But let's look at this argument from the fact that there's divisions in
the Orthodox world or what's called the Orthodox world, schisms between patriarchis, et
cetera, and the idea that from that perspective, the ecclesiology is therefore suspect
or fails. That's comedians, all of which never tie from finding all sorts
of reasons to condemn world Orthodoxy as well as the other non canonical bodies that
don't agree with their particular mission and Catholicism, you had the breakdown of credibility,
morality, and clarity from the hierarchy in the pope himself. One should
choose either one while also not putting their trust in princes. All right,
thirty hours ago is maybe it's later, but I came across this very recently,
so I wanted to comments on this. And this is the clear example
of what someone will say when they have absolutely no knowledge but they're trying to
criticize no knowledge about something, but they try to criticize that something. Eric
Kubara has shown in many instances like this one that he has no idea what
he's talking about when he's talking about the Orthodox Church. So let me get
through step by step what's wrong with it. So, first of all,
he's attributing the schisms between the Church of the East and the Monophysize churches Syriac,
Coptic, Ethiopik and whatnot to us. And this is and and if
you remember, this is exactly what Timothy Flanders and Taylor Marshall did against us.
They did the same exact thing. Now, none of them know church
history, so they might be a bit surprised, but with a two minutes
Google search, you can find out that these churches skis him in the fifth
and sixth centuries. Now, if you're a Christian, if you're Apostolic Christian,
you know what the problem with this is. If you're attributing these schisms
to us, you're inadvertently admitting that we are the true Church. And you're
also admitting that you didn't even exist back then. Because if they believe that
they existed back then, they will attribute those schisms to their own. They'll
say they schism from us, but instead they're saying they schism from the Orthodox,
meaning that yeah, I mean, hopefully we understand the argument here right
that Ibarra thinks that the Nestorian Church the Coptics, that that's a schism in
the Orthodox Church. Are you serious they schismed from when you believe it was
the Roman Catholic Church united East and West for the first thousand years. Can
you see how stupid this is? At that time, Viva the true Church
and they didn't even exist. Back to this is very simple. I have
no idea why people even make this argument. It just makes them look even
stupider than they are. And it's frankly speaking, in embarrassment. I mean,
if this is the level of apologetics that we have to do, give
me a break. This is this is You can look up Google two minutes
and you'll already know what's wrong with this argument. But I also want to
add this. If you'll watch my East in Catholicism refutes Rome video, it's
one of my most so people are saying that he's low. Let me try
to up this popular videos. You can find out that this argument actually applies
to them because they are while they're not. I emphasize, they're not a
community with us. They're not a communit Orthodox. They're not in community.
Volume here, son, we're grabbing burgers for dinner, if you're interested.
I'm Vegan Walter video spontaneously because I came across this comment by online apologist Eric
Yubara, and now this is someone that we know, and the comment is
mind numbingly stupid. Refutes Rome video. It's one of my most popular videos.
You can find out that this argument actually applies to them because they are
invalid. They're not. I emphasize, they're not in communion with us.
They're not in communit with Orthodox. They're not in communion with the Church of
the East, nor are they in communion with the Monoposide churches. However,
however, they are in community with the seramla Bars and the Kaladeans, which
believe the same exact thing as the Church of the East. Police. They
are in communient with the business in Orthodox, which believe the same exact thing
that we believe. They are in communion with the Coptics, which perhaps they
believe or not. I'm not one hundred percent sure, so I will not
make comments on it and unlock ubara. When I don't know about something,
I do admit that I don't know about something, but I do know that
the business in Orthodox and the Church and the seramla Bars and the Caldeens do
believe something that the Roman Catholic Church does not believe. However, they are
the Roman Catholic Churches in community these people. So as a matter of fact,
this argument applies to him, not to us. And again you can
watch Eastern Cafalism refutes Rome video. It's explained right this thirteen minutes moron.
He says we stuck with them into the second millennium, which is again very
funny. He's actually been discuised him to us. But then, oh,
you know, they stuck with us. So I don't know what's going on
with this guy. But they are earlier breaks within the East, earlier breaks
within the East. It's actually so he actually doesn't realize that his examples are
the earlier breaks within the East that were part of what he thinks is the
Roman Gallic Church. Do you see how stupid these people are? These to
us makes no sense. Again, makes absolutely no sense by the way I
want, I want to I want to also mention this. He confuses us.
He confuses us because we have the name Orthodoxy, right. He confuses
us with the Church of the East who call themselves Orthodox, and with the
Orientals because they call themselves Orthodox. He confused us because we have the same
name. Right, we both we all call ourselves Orthodox. I mean again,
these these low iq comments. So UBI just did a two videos on
the history of Orthodox evangelism. So the idea that Orthodox don't care about converts
is just like, get these tired old questions and objections that they're just easy
to rebot. Dude, just go do some research. Don't be lazy.
This is the mistake that not even even an elementary school student, let not
even that a preschooler will not make this mistake. A preschooler will understand that
you will have two people, let's say there're two people and they both named
Samuel. A preschooler will understand that, oh, this Samuel and this Samuel
they had the same Yeah, so these people literally think that the names right,
It's like that level, it's like, well, they use the word
Orthodox, so they're the same. Uh. Now we're gonna get to his
video. But that's the essence of that argument, right, So this attempt
to use the Moscow patriarchate versus the EP problem, which is absolutely a real
problem. Of course, obviously we are opposed to the EP, always have
been in terms of at least learning about this issue. Probably seven or eight
years ago, I was aware of what was really going on with the EP
as basically an adjunct of the US State Department. And by the way,
that's the case for the Roman Catholic Church and Vatican two. By the way,
so I don't know why, I mean, Timothy Flanders can have this
person on right, he can have David Wimhoff on to interview about this eight
hundred page book which vindicates the deep state American intelligence apparatus utilizing the Roman Catholic
Church, particularly at Vatican two. And after Timothy Flanders has this guy on
right interviews, and then when I talk about this, they say it's a
conspiracy theory. I mean, these people are like, it's unbelievable, really
what these people do, what they think. By the way, if you
want to support I'll be answering the superchats. You can superchat through the stream
Labs link, which is right here, go ahead and like and share and
a little bit we'll get to David Zoo. That's the essence of that argument
there, and hopefully you get the point here is that the problems in the
ecclesiology can't be applied as an argument themselves themselves. When you apply that argument
to the first thousand years of what you believe is the Romancolic Church, that
would mean your church schisms and has problems. And by the way, the
last sixty plus years and the present day schism going on within the Romancolic Church
over Francis, does that then disprove the church. Well, if you believe
in papal supremacy, yes, if you believe in a decentralized form of church
government that Orthodoxy does believe in, then it's not a problem. So all
of their arguments are actually just premised on the papal understanding of church governance,
acting as if the EP is a pope, acting as if the Moscow patriarchy
is a tinier pope, like the Church of Rome is the big pope,
and then the EP is a littler pope and then Moscow patriarchy. And that's
the irony of You can see that that's obviously how the error in Rome evolved
from canon law, how they went from first in honor and senidality and custom
according to the early Canons, that Rome's honor is custom, as we'll see
in the Canons, not divine law. How that evolves into the patriarchal system,
the patriarchy system itself also wanting to have, especially with the EP Roman
Catholic type power. Now, ultimately, as we know, the moves of
Bartholomew and the EP aren't really about a jurisdictional squabble in the Ukraine or in
Macedonia or wherever. These are, unfortunately geopolitical issues that relate to Uncle Sam
versus Russia, and it goes back to the Cold War and even before that.
So ultimately, yes, it's unfortunate that this occurs. But my point
is that this occurs in the Roman Catholic Church, and so it's not an
issue of who has worse problems. It's an issue of which ecclesiology is true
or false, Which ecclesiology accords with the first thousand years, which everybody agrees
is basically the unified East West Church and the canons of the Councils are the
easiest way to see this because they reflect the mind of the Fathers in council
ecumenically and locally, so ecumenical councils in the Canons, they even trump individual
father's opinions. Now, I'm not even saying that that that there's this wealth
of evidence for papal supremacy in terms of Vatican One in the first thousand years.
There's not. And so the whole thing is premised on honor for the
Bishop of Rome, canonical privileges for the Bishop of Rome, and Rome and
Peter, that all equalling Vatican I. That's their whole thing. So anything
that you read anywhere in the Canons or in the Church Fathers about Rome is
merely interpreted to mean that. And they act like Protestants that texts don't require
interpretation, they just mean what they say. Really, is that how you
argue with a Protestant over soul scripture? Don't you say that the text needs
the church slash papal interpretation? Of course, that's every Roman Catholic apologists point.
But when it comes to the papal quote, minds, Now, there's
no context needed. Bro, It's literally just one sentence out of Augustine one
sentence out of Pope saying this thing over here, that thing quote mind,
no context most of the time, most of the time. Every now and
then when he gets really academic, yes you can find academic Roman Catholic apologists
or writers or scholars who will give some contexts. But most of the time,
at least in the pop uh scam apologetic crowd, they don't do that,
right, it's just click paste over from Catholic answers. So let's look
at then Vatican one first, according to EWTN. And we're doing that because
I want to show you precisely why so many of these people get this wrong.
And it's because they don't read the full thing, because they're lazy,
because they copy paste, because they quote mine. So at EWTN the summary,
the summary of Vatican one, which, by the way, we're gonna
it's decent to have this summary. I'm not saying it's wrong to have a
summary, but we want to have this summary and the full point about the
Universal Magisterium play here as we look at what they try to do. Vatican
One's dogmatic constitution poster attornis first dogmatic Constitution abridged on the institution of the episode
premacy and blessed Peter. Now, why are we doing this because we want
to show that the myriad of opinions. By the way, every Roman Catholic
has his own view of what papal primacy means. Have you noticed this?
Supposedly this is the foundation dogma of the unity of the church. It's going
to supply, it's going to provide, it's going to enforce unity in the
church. The papacy, the living successor, not the idea of a papacy,
the living successor in Rome, as we're going to see in a moment,
the living magisterium that's supposed to give this unity, and that the premissive
jurisdiction is going to be exercised such that this unity will be there. And
yet, as we will see, ninety five percent of them don't know what
the actual dog of papal supremacy is. They have not read Vatican One,
they don't actually know what's in it. I've read all of Denzenger mold at
more than once. Okay, so well, we can break up the Denzenger
if we need to. I've always got my Denzinger handy. When we're going
to go to the Roman Catholic world, and we're going to scroll through the
online full Denzinger here in a moment, and we're going to look at the
specific sections that refute various traat approaches. So ninety five percent of them think,
I only have to follow the extraordinary teachings, and the pope in any
other ways can err and I don't have to follow it, and I can
decide whether he's faithful to tradition or not, because they will say the pope
is bound by the tradition. The problem with this is that according to Vatican
One, the pope determines and judges the tradition, not you right, you
don't have that role. In another forty and we're going to see this in
the Vatican One documents very clearly. But remember first we're looking at the abridged
thing that most of them read because it comes up so easy in the search
engine. We teach them declare that, according to the Gospel evidence, premacy
of jurisdiction over the whole church was immediately directly promised to Peter and conferred on
him by Christ the Lord. Now there's nothing in the Gospels about universal jurisdiction.
This is read into the passages that everybody knows, right Matthew sixteen sixteen
eighteen, and that that must only mean that Peter can get so basically,
Peter gives the keys to the others. If this were the case, we
would see Jesus breathing on Peter and then Peter breathing on the apostles and saying,
whoever sends you, they're remitted. Whoever sends you retain, they retained.
If this were the case, we would see the Holy Spirit of Pentecost
descending upon Peter and then Peter handing it off to the apostles. That's the
Roman Catholic model. This is saying that that premiacy in universality was immediately convert
in the Gospel to Jesus. And it's not it's not there. It's an
interpretation, right, And of course this is the papal authoritative interpretation. So
how do we know that this is the case because the papacy, who is
the highest authority, says it's the case that the papacy is the highest authority
according to the Gospel. This is the circularity that I talked about. And
how do we know what the Canons scripture is? According to the Roman Catholic
the papacy. How do we know that the papacy is true because it's in
the gospels. Okay, So the papacy determines the gospels, which determines the
papacy, which determines the Gospels. Okay. These are people who believe in
foundationalism and not paradigm circular argumentation. That's a circular argument, which they don't
believe in circular arguments at all. Do you understand this, okay? Do
you see that this is sayingness. So whether the Gospel itself is is arguing
this about Peter and premacy and universe reality or not. Set that aside for
a moment. I'm talking about an epistemic issue that the authority claims are circular.
The first appeal here is to the Gospels. You are the Christ,
Matthew sixteen, Feed my sheet, Feed my lambs. These are the two
texts that are given. These are the two texts that go on to justify
all of this stuff. Vatican Bank right, that the pope is above every
temporal leader in the world, that all kings must bow before the Pope.
It's all from these two texts. Now, can anybody with a straight face
act like that's not an interpretation of this text or an is of Jesus of
this text. Does anybody actually think that in the first century the popes in
Rome thought that that they had temporal supremacy over all rulers in the world.
You understand that's a medieval Roman Catholic doctrine, right, I'm not making that
up. You've read unum sanctam right. Or is this an egregious case of
later evolved doctrines which they evolve They admit this is a seed thing that develops
over time. I wait a minute. If it's a seed thing that develops
over time, then how is that the meaning of these texts at that time?
It wouldn't be You see, and remember two chapters after Matthew sixteen,
in Matthew eighteen, Jesus says the very same thing that he said to Peter
to the College of the Apostles. In other words, when the Holy Spirit
comes upon them at Pentecost, each apostle, and by extension, in the
Orthodox view, each bishop has the fullness of Catholicity. There's no city in
one place that is the Catholic city. Do you understand this Catholicity, even
according to them, is restricted to it almost always means universality numbers, big
numbers, but it's one city Rome. That's the essence of Catholicity, is
one city in Rome. And again, another way to show that this is
not the case is keep in mind that for the first thousand years, it's
only necessary for three bishops or for a metropolitan to ordain another bishop. Nothing
about Rome, right, And as we look in the canons, we're going
to see that all these canons are stated nothing about Rome in all of these
can Imagine the Vatican One mindset being at work in each of these canons,
of these councils as they make all of these canons that contradict Vatican One in
every ecumenical council and in local canons and councils too, and then turning around
with a straight face and arguing that this view of Vatican I was always the
case, but it also evolved. It can't be the case that the doctrine
is clear taught by the Church fathers there from the earliest days and it evolves
over time from a seed to a tree. Those are two contradictory, mutually
exclusive claims. No one can be in doubt. Indeed that was known in
every age. Here we go what that blessed Peter, head of the apostles,
pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church received the key.
So in every age they're saying this interpretation was true. But we're going to
see in a moment this doctrine was not clear and evolved, but it was
known in every age, and the popes it in every age. And when
you ask Abarrow, why didn't they exercise it in every age? Well,
the pope didn't have bus just to everything. He couldn't just read and look
at everything. Oh really, then how is he going to ratify every bishop
in the world. A Borrow's own argument that the pope has to confer with
everyone to know what's going on makes it impossible that the pope ought to affirm
every bishop in the world. But that's what Roman Catholics after the first thousand
years believe Bishop of Rome signs off on every bishop in the world. And
obviously that wasn't the case in the first thousand years because the most that you
would have in the snodo collegial patriarchal model is a patriarch, which is an
honorary title that comes out of ecumenical councils for big cities signing off on people
in his jurisdiction being ordained, and in the Orthodox you guess what, it's
still that way. Another point too, I'd like to add, is that
have you ever heard of autocephalist churches? You know this exists in the first
thousand years, right, the idea of an autocephalist church. We still have
autocephalist churches in the Orthodox Church. Do you think that model, which clearly
comes out of the first thousand years of Christianity, makes any sense at all
in the Roman Catholic system. Not talking about uniates, Okay, I know
Roman Catholics have uniates. I know they have apostolic you know, groups that
report directly to the apostolic See, I'm aware of all that, right,
That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about this specific notion of autocephalist
churches. If there's an autocephalist church, there's not a super bishop that has
universal jurisdiction over the autocephalist churches. And if that idea itself was inherently flawed
and wrong, then there would not have been autocephalist churches under the first thousand
years, which Roman Catholics believe was the Roman Catholic Church. Do you see
how silly this is? But note that in this summary there in point to
again, this is the one. This is the text I'm always hearkening to.
No one can doubt, there's there's no doubt that in every age everyone
knew that Peter was the head of the Apostles, the pillar of faith and
the foundation of the Catholic Church, Peter himself, and that he received the
keys from the Lord, and that to this day he lives and presides and
exercises his judgment in the successors in Rome. So let's get clear, Roman
Catholics. He's not a symbolic person. He's not a It's not like he
doesn't actually represent Peter in every living successor. Peter is in the successors,
judging, and everyone always knew this in every age, in every age,
no doubt, that's what it says. Keep that in mind when we look
at the canons of every ecumenical council enacting canons with the mind of the whole
church in that time period, in each council, that are totally contradictory to
that, meaning that not in every age and in every council, there's doubt
that no one believed and thought that way. Have these people not read rat
Singer? What did he say in Introduction of Christianity? The first thousand years
of the church was collegial snodl and the Orthodox model. This is why there's
autocephalist churches. And do you begin to see then, why this model has
for so many years, and for so long in the last millennium been backed
up by forgeries, frauds, deceptions and scams that the Vatican now admits are
forgeries. Again, as UBI has said, many many times, if you
guys have the goods, if Rome had the goods, why was there a
need to create all these Roman forgeries to back up things like the temporal supremacy
of the Roman bishop. I mean, you understand that pseudo Isidorian decretals are
appealed to in the Catechism of Trent. Where was the Holy Spirit, by
the way, in allowing the pope to know that forgeries were there? Wait
a minute, so the Holy Spirit didn't guide the Roman see to know the
forgeries that we're backing up the temporal supremacy of the Roman sea, the Galatian
de Credoles, the donation of Constantine, all these famous forgeries Simachian forging forgeries.
Well, the pope don't know everything. He got to talk to other
people and figure it out. Oh it borrows this. Oh wait a minute,
So is that why Leo's Tome is investigated at Chalcedon? Does it sound
like this model of the church is a model where the council investigates the pope's
letter to see if it's Orthodox. Or does it sound like the pope investigates
the council and decides if the council's orthodox. Okay, Come on, anybody
who knows anything about Vatican One knows that it's the second one. The second
one is the Roman Galley view. The first one is the Orthodox view.
And that's why they examine Agatho's letter to see if it's Orthodox. That's why
they examined Leo's Tome to see if it's Orthodox. If they believed as Point
two says that in every age everybody knew that Peter judged in his successors,
they would not judge for days and weeks. In some instances, the pope's
decisions and decrees and letters to see if they're Orthodox. Therefore, whoever succeeds
in the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ, the premiacy of
Peter over the whole church, so that the truth has ordained and stands firm
blessed. Peter preserves the rock life strength that was granted and does not abandon
the guidance of the Church which he received. For this reason has been necessary
for every church, that is to say, the faithful throughout the world to
be in agreement with Rome because of the preeminent authority. In consequence that,
I'd say quote from Ernaeus, which we did a whole stream with UBI by
the way, which all link below if you want to see how that's misused.
The funny thing about that is that the actual full quote of Irenaeus says
that the reason Rome is preeminent is because of the doubly apostolic foundation of Peter
and Paul, and Vatican One later says that you cannot say that Rome is
preeminent because of Peter and Paul. Paul has nothing to do with this.
In their view, it's only because Peter died in Rome. Okay, because
they know Peter established Antioch right the Patrine Sea is known to be Rome,
Antioch Alexandra, even all the way up into Pope Saint Gregory the Great,
and yes, Rome is listed first. Why because it's doubly Apostolic. And
they also don't mention the fact that Irenaeus himself had no problem telling Pope Saint
Victor that he was wrong and that his excommunication of attempt to excommunicate a gigantic
portion of the church was in Does that sound like Aeronaeus really believed in point
two? No, because Irenaeus is not promoting or teaching the Vatican One doctrine.
That's a doctrine that evolves. So the name it goes on to say
on the power and character premacy Roman Pontiff, and so, supported by clearright
witness of scripture and adhering to the manifest explicity decrees of both predecessors of the
Roman Contifs and the General Councils, we probably get a new the definition of
the ex Communical Council of Florence, which must be believed by all faithful Christians,
namely that the Holy Apostolic see in Roman Pontiff holds a worldwide premacy,
and that the Roman Pontiffs is a successor to Blessed Peter, the Prince of
the Apostles, the true Vicar of Price, the whole head of the Church
and the father and teach of all Christian people. To him, to Blessed
Peter, full power has been given to rule into govern and blah blah blah.
This is to be found in the acts of the Ecmmenical Councils and sacred
Canons. Do you see this? So they're claiming, it's going to claim
here that this above quote is in the ecumenical councils and canons. Now,
if they mean Florence, yeah maybe, But in the first thousand years we're
going to see that is not the case. Wherefore we teach and declare,
by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses pre eminence and ordinary power over every
other church, and that this jurisdiction, the power of the Roman pontiff is
both episcopal and immediate. That means it's not given to him by a council,
it is not given to him by the Roman College, it is not
given to him by another bishop, is not given to him by the Church
as a whole. Separate from him. The clergy and the faithful, of
whatever right and dignity singly and collectively are bound to submit to this power by
the duty, the hierarchical subordination and true obedience, true obedience, and not
only in matters of faith and morals. Do you hear this? Because this
is what every ninety five percent of the Romancalichs do is they say that only
in the matters of faith and morals. When I read about it and when
I decide I'm going to follow Francis, am I bound to follow it.
I'm going to pick and choose Like the Protestants that I hypocritically always talk about
picking and choosing. I'm going to pick and choose with the papal documents,
because I'm a papal solar scripturist, only the matters of faith and morals that
I find relevant, uh oh, but also in regard to the discipline and
government of the church throughout the world. Do you hear that, traads?
Do you hear that SSPX? Do you hear that FSSP? Do you hear
that conservative Novis orders who think that you can reject Francis, who is the
living successor of Peter according to this, are you only bound to fail and
morals? Ninety percent of you of that crowd say this, I'm only bound
to what he says in terms of true obedience in faith and morals, the
very public abridged definition that all of you guys go to says that's not all
that you're bound to. True obedience is not only in matters of faith and
morals, but also in those things which regard discipline and government in the church.
That right there refutes a gigantic portion of the delusion of the triad world.
And when I was SSPX, when I went to Latin maths for many
years, I believe that I thought that, yes, I am, we
have the right to sit back, dig into the books and decide if the
pope is being faithful to tradition or not, and we're going to judge that
he's not, and that Batican two is optional. Does this sound anything like
that? Does it sound like you have the option to decide it's time to
be honest with yourself as I was, that you either stick with Francis if
you believe the system, or you're done. There's no Roman Catholicism without Francis.
And this is the abridged, clear as day doctrine of Vatican one for
everybody. Can you have Roman Catholicism without Francis? Can you have Roman Catholicism
with Francis and only the things that you want I only care about. What
did they all say, I'm only bound to the pope's ex cathedra statements.
That's half of them. The other half of them say, well, I'm
only bound to the pope's ex cathedra statements and the things that I judge him
to be faithful to in terms of tradition. That is the direct opposite attitude
of what this says. True obedience is not only matters of faith and morals,
but also disciplinary and government. That means the sacraments. That means you
don't judge what sacraments are valid, you don't judge the rights, you don't
judge who's excommunicated SSPX. You don't have the right to say I reject John
Paul the seconds ex communication of le Fever, because when you do, you
are under the condemnation of Vatican one. Thus, and by the way,
I can show you in Densinger where they get that. That's all in Densinger.
What they just said right there is in Densinger. I've covered this in
multiple lime streams for you guys for at least four years now. That very
point in this way unity of the Romancolic Church and communion the profession of the
same faith. The Church of Christ becomes one flock under the Shepherd, Supreme
Shepherd. This is the teaching of the Catholic faith. No one can depart
from that without endangering faith and salvation. Do you hear that? Roman Catholics.
If you don't believe what I just said, you are schismatic and inherented.
You will lose your salvation if you think that you can pick and choose,
and that true obedience only applies to the things that you want to believe,
to the things that you think. Francis is faithful to this power of
the Supreme Pontiff. Way in no way detracts from the ordinary, immediate power
of episcopal jurisdiction from all the rest of the bishops who have succeeded to the
place the apostles by the appointment of the Holy Spirit. They tend and govern
individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary,
this power of Theirs is asserted, its reported, and defended by the Supreme
Universal Pastor. Pope Saint Gray the Great says, my honor is the honor
of the whole church. My honor is a said fast strength of the brethren.
There do I clay, Then do I receive true honor when it's denied
to none of them to whom honor is due? Okay, yep, I
mean him saying you've noticed the way that I mean. Multiple patriarchs and bishops
speak this way. Basil says, the Sea of Antioch is the head of
the world, the head of the Church, the head of all churches.
And nobody believes that the Bishop of Antioch is the head of the church.
But they take flowery prose and then read into that Vatican one. That's literally
what they do to the quote minds. Furthermore, it follows from the supreme
power which the Roman pontifas and government the Church, he has the right and
performs the office to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the church,
to guide them into salvation. And therefore we condemn and reject the opinion of
those who hold that this communication of the supreme habit the pastor of flocks lawfully
be obstructed. So you can't obstruct the pope doing this stuff, or that
it should have on the civil power which leads him to maintain that what is
a term by absoluic ce or by its authority concern of the governments of the
Church has no force unless it is confirmed by the civil authority. Then it
goes on to say that he judges the whole Church. He's a supreme judge.
All cases fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction, every coourse, that to his judgment,
the sentence of the apic See, to which there is no higher authority,
is not subject to revision by anyone in matters of discipline as well.
And then it says, of course that the judgment of the Roman pontiffs are
not subject to ecumenical council nora, is it lawful to appeal from the judgments
of the Roman pontiffs to a council. Councils are not above the popes.
So Roman premacy, which the Roman pontiff possesses as a successor of Peter and
the Prince of the Apostles, includes also the supreme power of this teaching of
teaching. Holy See has always maintained this. The constant custom of the Church
demonstrates it in the ecumenical councils, particularly those in the East and the West,
which met in the unit of faith and declared it. So anyway,
you get the point there, which and then it goes on to quote things
like Florence, which obviously we don't accept. But the point there was just
distress that the doctrine is really clear, and it's even clear in the things
that are abridged that you can't pick and choose. Now that right there,
IFU it's ninety percent of what they do, right. But another thing I
want to point out to these people, which a lot of them are not
aware of, which we have talked about many times, is the ordinary magisterium.
So if you go to the Papaloncyclicals dot net chapter three on faith,
the Full Vatican one says, by divine, Catholic and faith all those things
would believe what you are contained in the Word of God found a scripture and
tradition which are proposed by the Church matters be believably as divinely revealed, whether
by solid judgment or ordinary universal magistrate. So you're bound to not just Sex
Cathedral, but also universal ordinary teaching. And that's I'm gonna put that in
the chat for you guys here. So the point of all this again is
just to say that there's no such thing as Catholicism without the guy in Rome.
You gotta be with Francis or it's no thing. Right. So there
is the Papal and Cyclicals for you, which is the full text a Vatican
one and not their bridge text. The bridge text is at EWTN. But
even the a bridge text says the very things that I've been hammering over and
over. And if you look over here is the one Peter five theologian who
summarizes this point for you. I'll put that article as well if you want
a summary article getting at this point, here's the definitions, the cheat sheet
that they have. Magisterium, the teaching office of the Pope or the bishops
in union with the Pope. Extraordinary magistrum, non ordinary solemn teaching that is
ecumenical councils and ex cathedral advertisement that's not part of it ordinary magistrum, part
of the regular teaching duties, universal magisty taught by the entire church. Thus
you are not only bound. Remember what the EWTN abridged summary said. You're
not only bound by the the extraordinary teaching. You're also bound by the universal
magisterial teaching, which is ordinary. And you are bound with docility to submit
to the ordinary magisterium. That's not universal. And then it goes on to
say that infallible are the things that are irreformable, non infallible things that are
reformable. So even if, for example, I don't I mean whether this
is the case or not, if a pope, for example, theoretically say,
reversed an excommunication, even if you believe the ex communication is wrong,
you don't have the right and the authority to reject the ex communication. That's
the point I'm getting out here, because it not as you saw. It
says you're bound to submit to the disciplinary decisions as well. Now over here
on, that's not what I'm looking for. In Denzinger fifteen seventy eight,
can a Roman Catholic reject rights that he doesn't like or that he thinks needs
to be reformed? Do you have the right as a Roman Catholic to criticize
the liturgy that's approved by Rome? Well, if you read that right there,
you will see that you cannot. I'm not going to read the whole
paragraph. You can read it. Some of you guys are like super lazy,
but the spirit of God could In other words, it's condemning this position
that the Spirit of God could have established disciplines which are not only useless in
burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, which are even dangerous and harmful, leading
to superstition and materialism. These are false, rash, scandalous, dangerous,
and offensive to pious eers, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of
God by whom it is guided. And this is because some of the Jansenists
were saying Janseness were arguing that the Church could Rome could give defective sacraments and
that they needed to be reformed. Rome cannot give defective sacraments to the Church,
according to Octorum Fide fifteen seventy eight. And yet a gigantic portion of
the Roman Catholic world in the Triads, believes that the Vatican Two sacraments,
if they're not even invalid according to the set of contests, they're at least
defective and problematic. And that and that Rome has promoted the very things that
this document says cannot happen. Now, next, I want to play just
a little clip here again of David's video that really drives us home. Before
we get to the what the acumen called canons themselves say so, let's watch
David's video and remind ourselves of what is going on in terms of Eastern Catholicism
and why this is a problem. And I'm gonna play the whole video.
I don't think David will care. I'm gonna link his video as well,
so I'll be sure and go over here and support David if you don't,
because this is a great video and it bears repeating because of course the Loften
Reasona theology circles are Eastern Catholics. So let's listen to this. We'll say
we'll be Eastern Orthos because of this, this and that. And a Roman
Catholic will say, well, that sounds really beautiful, but why are you
not Eastern Catholic? And they think that's a gotcha moment. They think that's
an argument that disproves our position, but actually it disproves the Roman position.
So the Eastern Catholics refuge and this is the video where I will illustrate that.
So before we even go ahead, I will talk to you about,
well, what we're going to be talking about in this video. We're going
to be covering the meaning of Eucharist. This is very important. Actually,
then we are going to look at Eastern right theeology as opposed to Latin right
theology. And then we're going to look at Eastern right saints. Then and
now so the past and the present of Eastern right Saints. So what does
it even mean to commune? It means that you believe the body and blood
of Christ is present in that church. You also believe that that church really
does have the sacraments. Most importantly, communing in a church is an implicit
affirmation that that church preaches true doctrine. So, as an example, you,
as a Roman Catholic, will not commune in a Protestant church. Why
well, because Protestantism is just wrong. It preaches false doctrines. Right,
So when you partake in the Eucharist of a church, basically saying this church
has a correct doctrine, this church preaches truth. Keeping that in mind,
as we all know that the Eastern Catholics and rome are in community with one
another, so this should mean that they haven't unified theology, right, That
is not the case. Actually, there are many theological contradictions between the East
and West. Many Eastern Catholics, particularly today, still hold to orthodox theology.
It will not be wrong to say that the theology is very much the
same as Eastern Orthodox theology, which explicitly shows the irony in modern tradcafs attempting
to refute so called polemism. If this so called polemism in the Roman Catholic
Church today is considered just as valid, just as goddism is or toomism is,
why even argue against it. When Roman Catholics try to argue against to
Doxy, they're actually arguing against their own theology. And this is ultimately ironic.
I have a screenshot here, two screenshot actually the screen shot below,
which is from Light of Life Catechism, which is an Eastern Catholic catechism.
It says that the Eastern Catholics believe that there are only seven ecumenical councils,
and they reject, reject Vatican two as an ecumenical council. And then you
look at Rome and they will say, well, there's naturally there's pinemon Ecumenical
council. If you'r SSPX it will say, well there's twenty ecumenical councils,
right, So you have two conflicting views. You have conflicting views regarding the
essence, energies, distinction, and ADS. There's a screenshot above which is
from the Melchite website which talks about how the light of Mount Tabor was a
manifestation of God's uncreated divine energy, comprehensible by the apostles. So you can
see that they're preaching actually poleenism. So in the East you have essen senergy's
distinction, but in the West ADS is dogmatized. This is why you have
uncreated grace in the Eastern righte theology, and then you have created grace in
the Roman Catholic theology. And so the East teaches doctrines that are contrary to
Western dogma. This is very much similar to purgatory. You will see Eastern
right Catholic churches rejecting the purgatory teaching and also regarding the philiokre, Eastern Catholics
reject the Philiokra. This rejection might not be on a full on dogmatic level
as you will expect, but it's evident in the creed. Eastern Catholic parishes
several of them refuse to recite the Philo in the creed. Now, what
is the creed? The creed is an is a confession of faith. While
you can't, indeed have confessions of faith that emphasis size different parts of the
faith, you cannot have a contradictory confession. So Rome confesses that the Holy
Spirit is hyposthetically processed from the Father and the Son as a single principle,
whereas in the East they completely remove the Son, so they say that the
Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father as a whole principle. So by not reciting
the Philiokre, THECN Catholics are pretty much rejecting the doctrine of Philiokre. Rome
dogmatized closer to be celibate. This is evident in the Denzinger one one nine.
However, now that dogma seems to be ignored. If you're Eastern Catholic.
Now you might say, well, the Eastern Catholic is autocephalous, and
you might have a point there, but it still shows that there's some sort
of disrepancy between the East and the West. Finally, and this will be
a huge claim. This might surprise a lot of you. You could have
Nestorian Christology and be Roman Catholic. Hi. I'm Laura Smith. I'm a
nutritionist and director of program innovation at Delhi. So let's look at the example
of the Sira Malabar and the Chaldean Catholic Church. They have the anaphoras of
ma Adai and Marmari. They have enoughpa of theo Doret of Mapswesti, who
by the way, is the father of Nestorianism. And that's but not least,
they have the an of Nestorius. Now they don't name these uh,
these Nestorian fathers uh. And these nests fathers. Fathers will include theo Doret,
Nestorius, Theodor of Tarsus. But that is actually arguably worse because instead
of naming them, they're referring to them as Greek doctors of the church,
not only fathers, but Greek doctors. So you don't use the ana of
a heretic, use the anopera of a saint. And this show that in
the Cromlabar Church and in the Kaldian Catholic Church, Nestorius is a saint.
So if you look at the status of saints, it is just as confusing
as a theology. Again with Nestorius. Now think of it this way,
So Nestorius is not a saint, but for all this time, for more
than a millennium he was a heretic, and the Council of Ephesus, which
is an ecumenical council that both Rome and East affirms. Now suddenly Council of
Ephesus was wrong in condemning him. He was a saint all along. So
Nestorius was a great pious saints all along, and Ephesus was wrong in condemning
him. This, this is just stupid. Let's look at the Roman destroyers,
and what I mean by Roman destroyers, I will be referring as Saints
Palamas, Saint Mark of Ephicis, Ephesus, and Saint Photius. And we
know that there are saints in the Roman Catholic Church now because the Byzantine Catholic
use the Menaion vi Us, we have the same menions, so we have
the same saints as they have. And so we know that the saints Palamas,
Mark Photius are all saints in the Roman Catholic Church. Let's look at
Saint Palomas. His doctrines are considered very considered heretical, and by a lot
of Roman Catholics today they are still considered heretical. But Candy's anti Palamides,
please explain to me how how Saint Gregria Palamas is a saint now? So
for centuries Rome rejected palam i theology. Rome rejected Saint Gregio Palamas, called
him a heretic, and now he's suddenly a great pious saint. This does
not make any sense. What about Saint Photios? According to the Robert Council
of Constantinople four, which is the council that is affirmed as an ecumenical council
by the Roman Catholics, the council at eight sixty nine. Between eight seventy
Saint Photius was the Saint Photius was condemned that council. That council, I
would like to remind you, is considered as an ecumenical council by Rome,
and Rome rejects the Orthodox Council of Constantinople form that commenced ten years later.
But somehow Saint Photius is now a saint. And let's look at Manuel Fgenigos,
which we will also call Saint Mark of Ephesus. I'm sure everyone knows
of his antics. In the Council of Florence. He basically called the Roman
Catholic Church a heretical church because of the philiocre so the guy that called your
church a heretical church that rejected the union is now a saint inorger in your
church. Again, none of this make any sense. These people should not
be saints in the Roman Catholic Church, yet they are so. So really,
you have three different options here, all right, So let's play a
game called who is right and Who's wrong. Let's look at the three different
options. The first option will be that the Eastern Catholics and the Latin Catholics
are both correct. However, as you can see in this video, that
is impossible because Rome and the Eastern Catholics hold contradictory doctrines. So either one
of them is right and the other is wrong, or neither are just wrong.
Both cannot be correct. Secondly, Rome is correct and the Eastern Catholics
have false doctrines. If that is the case, the buyer in communion with
those that hold false doctrines, that still disproves your position. Third Rome is
actually wrong and that the Eastern Catholics are right, And we will say,
yes, that is actually kind of correct. But then what is the point
of being in communion with Rome by you again buying communion with those that hold
false doctrines. And now you might say, well, because of papacy.
We believe in papal supremacy. We believe that the pope is infallible. If
the pope is truly infallible, then you won't be saying that the doctrines are
wrong, because the pope will never hold a wrong doctrine under papal supremacy.
Yet you are here telling me that Rome is wrong. So what's the option,
Well, you can just be Orthodox instead, right, you can just
be Orthodox instead. And this goes to Roman Catholics themselves too. You can
also just be a You can just be an Orthodox instead, because it shows
evidently that your church holds contradictory doctrines and accepts those that hold heretical views.
Numerous church fathers and scripture tells us to stay away from heretics and their doctrines.
We see in Scripture to John eleven anyone who welcomes a heretic, anyone
who welcomes him shares his work. We see in Rome that they welcome heretical
doctrines in deirview. Of course, Saint pauland his Epistle to Romans in sixteen
seventeen tells us to separate ourselves from those who hold heretical doctrines. Saint Polycarpus
recites a story of Saint John where he flees from a bath house because a
heretic was in that bath house. So not only does Saint John take that
being in community with a heretic is scandalous, being in the same location with
a heretic to him was scandalous. So we can see in the Roman Catholic
Church they hold the opposite approach. What they're really doing is akin to telling
Areas that he can still have his own Aryan right church and being communi with
Rome. Imagine telling the stories after condemning him in Ephesus that he can just
reject Ephesus go form his own Nestorian right church and then being communed with Rome.
This is utterly absurd. It does not make any sense, and this
illustrates that the Roman Catholic Church is absurd. And so to recap Eastern Catholics
prove Rome Rome, and by extension, they prove Us right because both churches
all contradictory doctrine. Rome is also in communion with Historian churches. People that
both the Orthodox and the Catholic will agree are heretical Eastern Catholicism tries to hold
a middle position between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. The turd Newton eparch Bishop John says
in his website that you can attend Antiochian Orthodox religious services and pray with them,
basically telling you to pray with those that are outside Roman Catholic Church,
telling you that you can pray with heretics. This contradictory nature of what Rome
has become today shows that the Roman Church proves that Orthodoxy is correct. Exactly
now, in order to let me turn the volume back up here, in
order to keep the length of this video down not to three four hours,
what I'm gonna do instead is a livestream tomorrow that will be the part two
of this And instead of making it a part two that is for subscribers only,
it's gonna be public for a little while and will then also be later
made for subscribers only. So the stream that I do this Part two tomorrow
again is going to be dealing with, one by one the canons and how
the canons of each of the seven councils runs. Contrary to what we've seen
so far in Vatican One, We're gonna look at other theologians like ought,
and we're gonna look at some of the classical proof texts and the scriptures that
are used to bolster this case. And we're gonna look at some of the
revisionist examples, like David had said, from people like Saint Gregory Palamas who
wrote entire treatises calling the Philioque satanic, and then of course from many centuries
being considered heterodox, and then of course nowadays in Rome he's not so.
The mere fact that you can be a heretic for centuries and then have the
status revised, which is David's whole point here in this video shows that it's
not a monolithic, singular, consistent faith, which is what it claims to
be. It constantly evolves and revises itself and changes its positions, and it
does that to bolster whatever the argument is at the time. Now, remember
how contrary is what you just saw with this attitude towards the Uniates to what
we just read in Vatican one. Does Vatican one make it sound like that
Vatican one is optional? Do you have the right to pick and choose doctrines
and saints if you're a Uni eight? Of course not And yet the whole
thing is premised on revision I mean, you had Jimmy Aiken the other day
saying that in his video, maybe he slipped up, but he said Nestorius
and Arius were actually died Orthodox right. I played that video, and so
here we go. I mean, this is just the circus of the pop
apologist, right is. It's all built on revisionism. And this alone,
if you grasp this point about the Eastern Catholics, you understand that Roman Catholicism
is not about a unified faith because you don't have to have a unified faith.
In fact, you are permitted to have a disunified faith. The only
thing that you have to have faith in is the papacy. You can believe
almost anything you want nowadays under Francis, as long as you accept the doctrine
of the papacy, and that itself is one of the best proofs that Vatican
One and the Papacy refute one another. They're self refuting. So tomorrow,
probably in the evening, we will have part two. I'll go through each
of the cannons and hopefully this will be a good starting point for a lot
of the trads. All the Roman Catholics that you know, have been asking
me a lot of questions in the last week, all over in multiple formats,
multiple apps and whatnot. So yeah, so tomorrow night we'll do part
two, and then that Part two will not be public forever, so that
will be only for subscribers. But because I do want to have this public
for a while, I want people to see this, especially mainly the trads
that are the Roman Catholics that have been asking us questions, that are most
interested in this topic, so they, you know, I want them to
have access to it. And then probably after a few days it will be
marked private for subs only. And tomorrow also I will read the superchats that
went along with this dream and the rest of the super chests that come in
tomorrow on part two. So everybody have a good night. Hopefully this was
a more compact, easily digestible topic, and really I want to have the
two videos separate anyway, So this video focuses on the basic Principle of Vatican
One, and then the next video will be the basic Principles of the Canons
of the Seven Councils, and then the two videos together will show