I stand stand in time to hello one two one two, Hey, what's
up? You're here working? We're live, We're live, right right.
Glad to have you guys back. It's been a while, it feels like
forever. Yeah, it's been It's good to come here again as well.
I mean we recently had to show you and I. Yeah, you and
I did. That's right, all right? Yeah, yeah, it's been
a wide for me. I've been more working on the French side of things
with them. I'm still in touch if if everybody, and and yeah,
we've got we've got some projects. Yeah, so everything's doing great. Cool.
Do you want to go ahead and get started or do you want to
go into some of those projects? Tell us what you're up to or just
get into it. Oh. On the French side, we've we we've been
working with some local monasteries, uh, doing some crowdfunding. We've we've made
that piece of first ever icon of some local saints, so yeah, dautiful
bysant in style and all um. We also started a YouTube channel and four
now we're just making like mega reviews of some church father So we've got five
documentary on Urineers of Lance. We've got uh probably it's going to be more
than ten hours on Clement of Rome. So he's just studying everything, historical
context, is studying um linguistics, um theology, proper everything. So is
that is that only in French? Or is it going to be both English
and French. It's in French, but translated to is getting better by the
day. So that's that's the question we're asking ourselves. Should we do a
English production, but oh no, it's going to be in French? But
over time resort is it going to get translated, whether by yourselves or automatically?
Okay, cool, Well, yeah, remind me afterwards and I'll put
the link to that channel in here. Sure. All right, So today
David and Snecker joining me because, as some of you may or may not
know, the Vatican has recently approved of yet another keyad chad style document.
It's known as the Alexandria Document, and so we're gonna kind of talk about
both of those and once again we see a lot of admissions. In my
understanding, my assessment is that, you know, post Vatican two, we
had a lot of attempts at reconciling tensions I think between the theology of Vatican
One and the theology of Vatican two, and this in part led to a
lot of looking at Eastern theology. You know, people like von Balthazar,
another Roman Catholic theologians, felt that they could in some way give breath and
life back to the Eastern quote lung of the church. However, this proved
to be in my view, really difficult and as I said, in a
lot of tension with what the documents of Vatican one actually say. And so
we have these meetings and these documents produced by these committees which are papally approved.
That's another key point that I think it's next probably going to get to.
I'm just sort of setting a stage and I'll let you guys make your
points however you want. I've got a bunch of screenshots and things that I
saw in these documents that I can pull up here when we're ready to get
to them. But I think that again, both of these documents are tremendous
in their admissions. And it's not just because of on Balthazar. There's also
you know Dvornik, who wrote the Phocian Schism. This was one of the
first key text on sort of admitting and get granting a lot of concessions to
the east eaves Knegar's nine hundred years together after nine hundred years, right,
These are texts that made so many concessions that you know, a lot of
Roman callitis will be like, well, look, you guys are getting all
your points made, so why don't you just go ahead and join us.
Well, the problem is not are you conceding our points? And the problem
is that this is a system that has already dogmentized a certain view that such
that these admissions are admitting that the Vatican one position is not correct. That's
the key issue here. And so whoever wants to you guys, go ahead
and take it, take it away wherever you want to start. Yeah,
yeah, I just want to make a short comment. Yeah, So the
point that you made about the Roman Catholic Church just saying, you know,
we're going to give you these concessions as long as you accept people supremacy.
I mean, in this very document, in the Alexandrian document in three points
eleven, this document already admits that because it says that Pope Leo the Turteine's
letter Oriental Adignitas is basically and praclera ult in eighteen ninety five, it says
that it invited all the Orthodox to union with the Church of Rome on the
condition that they recognize the papal premiacue of jurisdiction. And what it previously said
is that it recognized the district distinct rights of all of the Eastern churches and
gave respect to Eastern traditions. So we're basically seeing here in three point eleven
that the only thing here is it doesn't matter the doctor, doesn't matter,
the practices, none of these things matter. The only thing that matters,
according to this document, according to the Roman Catholic Church, is as long
as you licked the papal boot, all is fine, basically, and that's
the viewpoint of the Roman Catholic Church. And again, before Snick moves on,
I also want to make this key point that chapter five, I think
it says the quiet part out very loud. The Roman Catholic Church essentially in
some sense things that it has lost some senses of what it calls synodality,
and the Orthodox Church is the church that has that snoidality. And so there's
this attitude of as you said, like you know, the Western Church and
the Eastern Church being actually just one Church of two lungs, and they're supposed
to be reunited. From an Orthodox standpoint, this is just we see this
as an admission that Roman Catholic Church itself is recognizing that it is a defunct
church of some sorts, but we don't admit that. We actually do believe,
you know, we have primacy, we have sinoidality. We have both
of them working in conjunction already within the Orthodox Church that is apostolic, and
the Roman cathoit churity self admits that its doctrines are not Apostolic by admitting that
people primacy in its own terms is doctrine development. I believe they say this
in one point five, that they admit that Roman primacy is doctrine development.
Doctrine development Roman Catholic system is basically them admitting that this doctrine is not Apostolic.
It just logically develops to its logical conclusion. That's kind of the viewpoint
of the Newmanite understanding of doctrine development. So these are the things that I
want to point out. Yeah, I think this document is really interesting.
So of course the scope of it Rome is concerning a lot and as David
said, I think the point for them is to is to get people to
join, because you know, they just want people to recognize in some capacity.
I think that's the name of the game. Um. But still like
these admissions that at least for a lot of apologists apologetic you know, Roman
apologics into the fire some of them. Some of them really look like it
was written by by one of us guys, Like some of the points looked
like, I don't know, like Ubi, Patris or Salves could have written
it. Because it's specifically answers arguments we are seeing all the time. You
know, the Orthodox are not have councils. The Orthodoxers did not retain a
traditional position. You will see that even in the time of Peters, a
great even at the darkest time of the Church of Russia in terms of ecclesiald
power, they still say, well they retained there s noudalities that is antique.
Um. I think I think you will see we'll see that as well.
At some point they try to mudie water a little bit. They try
to, for example, do not place the Council of Constants as a display
of sinudality, because that would be too damning. So they're still retaining things.
But as long as the Pope is safe. It's all right. Um.
So yeah, this document is going to be important, and we need
to stress that this document, if it is like Kitty, it's going to
be part of the magisterium at some point. Kitty was cited by the Pope.
So I can already see opponents, you know, doing curls, you
know, just just just thinking and going back and forth. Um. But
ultimately it is an official position of the church. Yeah, and I think
I think this is a rather short read. You should like probably post it
right away so people can can have a look. And it's interesting that this
is many of the points. And I would say that outside of the part
that criticizes Constants for being too secular, which which is a bit weird because
this criticism can be extended to any other council before before this schism, and
the later part that tries to equivocate, it tries to make an equivalence between
the Orthodox councils of the second millennium and the Um the very ecommunistic statements.
So that's funny because we would say that, for example, balament is not
is not a universal communical binding decision, but Rome here says that it is
so that's quite funny. We're gonna, we're gonna, we're gonna cover that.
But a part of that, it's it's a pretty well summarized history of
compared the classility for a second millennium. I think someone who just wants to
to diving to church. So we can easily pick up this this text,
yeah, exactly. And first thing I noticed at the beginning, early on
the document, it says, despite this is one point five, at that
time, despite the doctrinal development of Roman primacy, synodality was still evident.
So we have again a kind of an admission here early on the document that
prior to the twelfth century, and this will get into the period of the
greg Royan reforms and all that, it notes that Roman premacy developed. So
we have an admission now of what appears to be the Newman doctrine of development.
But when I read Poster Attornis, and when I read Satists Colognidum,
I don't see development. I see no, this was always from the earliest
days of the church. The case in fact, that's I think the first
few paragraphs of Leo the thirteenth Satists Colognidum. So how is it the case
that it's always there. It was always clear in the Fathers. I mean,
the wording of Southeast communion is very very strong. It does not leave
or give any place for quote development. And yet we see here early on
this document that yeah, it's a it's an admission of development, and it
was the premacy of Rome. It seems to say it was kind of evolving
parallel to synodality, and that both were still evident at this time period prior
to the twelve I guess the tenth and eleventh century. Yeah, yeah,
I mean that's that's a big thing. Like basically, the argument that Matthew
sixteen eighteen equals Pope of Rome if supremacy it as a church. The idea
is that this is clear as they no, like this is this is a
dead argument now because it requires an extra step. It requires the idea of
doctrinal development, which is something else that needs to be proven. So all
the arguments you know, oh, Matthew sixteen eighteen clear as a uh no,
no, you you request a specific exegesis and a specific doctrine of development
to prove it. Now, Um, the document that Vatican won papacy since
the time of the apostle that's done. So that's from the get go,
that's it's a huge admission. And then we have another admission, which is
the point that we made, which is that the selection of bishops in Rome
itself actually underwent a Revolutionist says during the twelfth century the role of the Roman
synod was replaced with the consistory, meaning the cardinals. Now I mentioned this
many times because this is a revolution, not just in the governance of the
Church as a whole, but we begin to see in the Roman Church itself
an alteration in how we see we get a bishop of Rome. And the
reason that matters is that there were no cardinals. Okay, there were there
was There was no cardinal, no consistory in the first eleven centuries. And
so the documents saying yes, we get this transition to a Roman cardinal system
in Rome itself, which leads to the election of the Roman bishop. Now,
somebody might say, well, but that's not that big of a deal,
but the prior way that bishops and metropolitans were elected was not this way.
So if Rome itself can revolutionize the way that you know, the Apostolic
canons, for example, talk about the metropolitan or talk about the first the
protos. This document will talk about the protos. Right, if Rome can
revolutionize that, then it only makes sense that Rome could then revolutionize the way
that all the bishops in the world are chosen. And so eventually it becomes
the case that known Rome now chooses and approves all of the bishops in the
world. But this is admitting that it wasn't that way prior to that.
So again it's another revolution, and then we have to then every Roman cathlcropolis
comes back and says, yeah, but see it evolves, it develops.
We need this development, this evolution, because it's it's just it's a it's
a seed that grows into a tree. Okay, Then it's not like Sneck
said, then it's not clear as day in Matthew sixteen. Then it's not
something that was always there that the popes could have called on, like a
Bara says, who was always there. They just didn't always have to use
it. They could have, but didn't. Okay, so they chose for
seven eight centuries not to use the most obvious, effective, efficient, pragmatic
clear way to settle doctrinal disputes. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
Yeah. And another point in regards to this is also that in one
point three it talks about it basically admits and this is already admitted by the
Roman Catholic try it cel, but it's nice to see them reaffirming the fact
that part of what allowed for the doctional development kickstart at the time is due
to the forgeries and the false decretools and the donation of Constantine and end things
of that nature helped develop the Roman Catholic Church into becoming what it is today
in some sense, and this we see a lot of Roman Catholic apologist trying
to downplay these things, but the Roman Catholic Church itself admits that these played
a huge role in the further developments and the controversies that surrounded it. Another
point that I want to make, maybe it's kind of like a change of
the subject, but at one point a what I found very interesting is that
a Roman Catholic Church actually admits that it's schismatic because they admit that in the
Crusades they've established parallel jurisdictions contrary to the Orthodox bishoprics and the Apostolic sees.
They did this in various different churches. One of them being Cyprus, and
they admit that Cyprus had autocephaly. It's alpha was recognized in the thirty Chemical
Council, right, And it basically saying, yeah, we established these parallel
jurisdictions in the eleventh century after the schism bit the Greek Church setting up parallel
jurisdic is the definition of schismatic activity. And so it's quite ironic that it's
the Yorkstocks that are referred to as schismatic, but it's reading the Roman Catholic
Church. They established parallel jurisdictions, right, Yeah, just to be clear,
So this admission is interesting. I'll read this point. I'll read let
me read one point three real quick, because like David said, it's a
great admission. It reads I've got it on the screen here. I'm trying
to get it to where everything fits just right. But it says consequently,
a more judicial ecclesiology was developed. The false to Credles and the false donation
of Constantine, which were mistakenly supposed to be authentic, suppressed the central figure
of the pope in there give me stress, the central figure of the pope
in the Latin Church. The new mendicant orders in the thirteenth centuries, such
as Franciscans Mensica axempted from papal episcoal authority, prompted a conception of the papacity
as being entrusted with pastoral care of the whole church. Now again, this
is like, like next said, it's almost like an UBI level document,
like with all the admissions that it has in it. Oh yeah, like
everybody gets mad when we mentioned the forgeries, but that's not those here.
And by the way, I'll let you go sneck. But so the other
point is uh that I always like to bring up, is well, if
the papacy was entrusted with this special divine terrorism, as Vatican One says,
then how come it took so long for the papacy to recognize that these were
fake and forged documents? Why were they having to back up their claims on
something that, yes, later was discovered to be fraudulent and we're forgeries.
But I thought the correct chroism and got into the Holy Spirit would have protected
them from knowing that these were completely forged documents. And somebody could might say,
well, we threw not protected and chroism for everything. It's only faith
in morals. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that the issue here is faith in
morals right, the governance of the church and whether it has a supreme earthly
head or not. Yeah, I mean, that's that's a really interesting point
that brought up, because the question is not like like today many many Roman
Catholic apologies who say, well they use this, but they didn't. They
didn't need to, Like they had all the better documents, but these were
seen as a as the strongest one. And for example, they couldn't just
come up with Matthew sixteen eighteen to the business tines, because of course they
had the envision as us that Peter is a is a Catholic meaning a universal
figure that applies to the entire episcopate. So of course they had to rely
on on on judicial civil civic argument. And that's why the later part of
what constant folds a little bit flat for me, and we're going to see
it a bit later. I want to go back on the idea of Cortinlet.
So this is really interesting because as you said, um, the Roman
position is that the pope is he is a bishop that has a special charism
within the episcopacy, and that the power of all of the bishops come and
is legitimized by the communion with him and the approval by him. For example,
today you cannot consecrate a bishop in the Roman Church without papal approval.
So that's really interesting because if that, if God's plan was to set up
this charrism really clearly, why is there possibility even for it to happen?
And the cardinal it comes into that because before that the pope was elected just
like any other patriarch, meaning by his directs, a fragent synod. So
yes, great point. You know, it works a variety, some of
them cast lots things like that. But the idea that the cut dinner it
gets installed, which was subjected by the Bysantine. By the way, so
you can see when Ambert, Cardinal Lambert is a man who made the schism,
comes to Constantinople, is received only as a deacon, is not received
as a presbyter or an episcopus or something like this, and he gets really
pissed about it. It is quite it funny historically, but the establishment of
this conton it means that the pope can pick from wherever he wants people that
he that he likes. That that's a universal solidification of power. So saying
that this is not historically reflected in the structure and election of the papacy.
I think that's that's that's already showing a shift, and it is that quite
clear about this. I would like to talk about the fact that they recognize
the cannon that makes Cyprus autocephalis. How many times have you heard, hey,
autocephaly doesn't make any sense exactly. Yes, I bring it up all
the time to Roman Cathopologists in the last year or so, and yeah,
it's all I hear is Yeah, that's insane, that doesn't exist. In
fact, a lot of Roman catelic apologists actually use the very existence of autosophalist
churches as somehow something that makes us ridiculous and not the Catholic Church. That's
how deluded these people are, not recognizing that the Council of Ethics granted autocephaly.
Yeah, and on that point, I want to read a part of
one point eight to kind of give an idea to people. What I'm referred
to specifically says, as a result of the First Crusade, a Latin patriarch
and the Latin hierarchy were established in Antioch and in Jerusalem instead of or parallel
to the Greek patriarch. It it says the same about Cyprus and various different
other bishoprics. Now this is a very crucial point because according to Roman Catholic
Church, in fact, we do have sacraments, we do have holy orders,
and so from the Roman Catholic perspective, actually the Orthodox Church at Antioch,
at Jerusalem and the other patriarchs that were established by the Orthodox Church,
we're already you know, actual jurisdictions and althorities according to the perspective of Roman
Catholic Church. So even if you're a Roman Catholic, even if you believe
that the Roman Catholic Church is a true church, even within this logic,
the Roman Catholic Church by definition is doing something that is schismatic, right,
schism is setting up parallel jurisdictions and althorities. We already existing alterity and jurisdiction.
The Roman Catholic Church has done this historically, and it basically says,
yeah, I guess we are skismatic at the end of the day. And
this can be further shown, especially today by three different patriarchs. You know
the fact that there are three different patriarchs at Antioch, then in the Roman
Catholic Church. Then it's the Roman Catholic apologists that say, you know,
oh you have all of these bishops in America. It's like which Orthodox church?
I mean, you have that issue in Antioch? You have the exact
issue with the patriarch of the Antioch. You have three different bishops at Antioch.
That is impossible to occur unless Roman Catholic Church is a schismatic church.
It's almost like, yeah, it's to see this admission. It's almost like
Snack said, like not just ubi, but like, were the people at
this conference literally just replying to all the things that all of us have been
saying for the last five years. It's like and sees even go further.
The next point talks about the Fourth Cruisades. That's not even theological. But
if you dare brings the Fourth Crusade, everybody gets mad because oh you're not
You're not to Busantine, so you shouldn't be bad about this. But well
we'll see it's significant. But yeah, all the points are covered. Is
great. It's just a start. The slave is going to be good.
Okay, I've got one point eight up. Do you want to go into
one point nine with the crusade there, yeah, sure you want you want
to go over one point nine, or because because I have some things written
about one point nine as well that are that are important, like the main
thing about the Forth Crusade. And the usual argument that you see with this
is that, oh, you know, what about the Latin massacre and eight
you know eleven eighty five and so and so forth. I think a big
difference between that is the Fourth Crusade was papally sanctioned. Now people will point
out, oh, well, the pope regret it, right, he condemned
this event. But actually Pope not so innocent and she Senski notes this in
his book and phil Okay in his documents called Reductio Grecorum. This is his
epistol seven point one fifty four. You can find this in Petrologility in the
volume two hundred and fifteen. He actually says that, well, at the
end of the day, the Greeks deserved it, right, In a very
simplistic manner, he basically said, well, the Greeks deserve it because there's
schismatics and heretics. So even though you know the things that he didn't endorse,
the things that happened in the Fourth Crusade. Eventually he used it to
his own advantage. And guess what, he set up a parallel you know,
the Roman Catholic Church set up a parallel jurisdiction in Constantinople. So they
continued there's schismatic activities even in the thirteenth century. And again this is an
important point because it's not just they didn't just have these wrong ideas in the
eleventh century. Now, they were continuing schismatic activities even in the thirteenth century.
And this document is admitting that, and that's a big admission. Yeah,
so that's a great thing. But the Fourth Crusade, the Fourth Cruisade
obviously was a terrible historical event. But I mean, you're American, you're
Turkish and French. It doesn't affect us, of course, like personally or
no blood. I mean, David live lives in Istumble, so maybe maybe
it does affect him in an ancestral sense. It doesn't affect us in an
astress ancestral sense, but it's it is affecting the Church. And I think
I think this is not a clear reference or direct reference, but it is
implied to the reduction record and to the ideas that yes, the papacy did
not sanction the crusade, but it greatly took advantage of it afterwards. It
I mean, maybe you should read a passage of the reduction. It compares
the authoction to a rebellious daughter that was quelled by by providence of the of
the spillage. So of course this sets up the ideas that coercion became the
norm in the in the East, that that all this, that many of
these documents that try to reconciliate both parts and so on were made on the
and the coercion of the West against the weakened East. So it is significant
in an ecclearsal sense. And the classic argument is to say, don't you
dare bring up the Fourth Crusade, the pope condemned thing. That's it.
No, here it is clearly showing that it had ecclesial repercussions. So that's
another arguments that just a way, yeah, those are great points. Um,
do you want me to bring up a different section or do you want
to keep going with us? Which point by point, maybe we should read
the part for the US so it says, yeah, during the twelfth century,
the role the Roman. I'm sorry, that's the wrong point. The
wrong point. It's about the crusade part as that we're saying. The Fourth
Crusade resulted in the plundering of content and Open and established no parallel Latin hierarchies
in the remaining anciencies of the Greek Church, though he discouraged the Venetians from
conquering content and Ople. Pup Instant the Third consequently appointed a Latin patriarch and
Constantople, as well as in Alexandria. Hold on a second, Yeah,
here we go, I got something. The decisions of the fourth latter in
Council in twelve fifteen were imposed, particularly on the churches of Jerusalem and Cyprus.
The principle whereby the Greeks could keep their liturgical rituals but had to accept
the Bishop of Romans their head and commemorate him, was practiced, especially in
Cyprus. Cross reference the Latin centies of Limasol of twelve twenty and from Augusta
twelve twenty two and the Bola Cypria of Pope Alexander the Fourth in twelve sixty.
In many such cases, the great clergy consisted from now on as belonging
to the Latin Church were forced to participate in Latin liturgical actions. The atmosphere
worsened with the polemical attitudes of the political attitude of the theologians, denouncing the
Eastern usages, of the errors of the Greeks or the errors of the Schismatics,
which, by the way, contra Era Gricorum is based on forties.
Yeah, but much of it is. And the next point that I that
I had it it talks about Saint Philotius Kocinos and others. It kind of
makes a statement about recognizing the so called Palamites, which I don't think it's
it's I don't think they just said it just to say something, because especially
today in the Roman Catholic Church, though historically center your Polomos was seen as
this villain and so and so forth, today in a Roman Catholic Church he
is recognized as as a saint. In the Eastern Catholic churches, and even
Pope John Poled the second refers to him as a holy man, as a
saint, and so this reflects a very big shift in the Roman Catholic attitude
towards the East. One of the many examples of it, I think one
point eleven very much. I mean, I'll read one point eleven for you
guys. It says, during the second millennium in the East, the Concilier
institution functioned according to the canonical principles of Apostolic Canaturty four. Very the Patriarch
of Constantinople, as the protos and the bishops present in cost Santinople participated in
sessions of the end of Musa Synod. Through the end of Musa Synod,
the Church expressed a form of permanent snodality in which the patriarchs of the East
present in Constantinople or their representatives and other bishops were convoked by the Patriarch of
Constantinople to make snodo decisions. So this is an admission that the Orthodox ecclesiological
system is Apostolic in Ancient They're basically admitting that. And you know, Chapter
five is already trying to make an argument by making that admission with the whole
like, you know, two lungs of the same church kind of language,
an idea. Sorry, but I think it's very important that we recognize this
admission, because again, this is a Roman Catholic Church admitting that the Orthodox
ecclesiological structure is patristic, it's ancient, it's apostolic, and it's canonical,
whereas it admits that some of the things that the Roman Catholic Church did in
history were uncanonical in advents against the ancient canons. So as as Snake and
Jay has pointed out, I mean, this might as well have been written
by any of us, because these are the arguments that we had been making
four years. By the way, you see, I've got that right there
on the screen. So and I think this one absolutely. Cannon thirty four
is a big admission, and the Kyad document too, right, we already
mentioned. Yeah, so just for people who don't know, because I know
they have some uers that might just you know, come to Autholoxy just learn
a little bit about it. Appostly, Cannon thirty four is significant, so
it's part of a collection of cannon. The usually agreed upon date is that
it's it's from fourth century Seria. So I don't know if they admitted it's
apostolic, but the debate concerning the cannons. The Roman should historically did not
accept the collection of cannons up until I think twenty at least they didn't accept
the full collection of the appostle Cannon, and this is part of the later
collection of the appostlely Cannons. And that's that's already mentioned the previous document in
Katy that this was a principle and appostly Cannon thirty four is just a p
of of early orthodoxically theology. It establishes the relation between a primate so at
first, but strictly restricts the ideas that this primate as a supremacy. It
says that the church is organized a head of bishops for nations. But that's
also another argument. You know, oh you have national churches. Well you
have fourth century documents within the Roman Empire that says that the church can be
organized by nations. Exactly. Interesting. Yeah, I made this point many
times, and it's like this, don't you understand this is the ancient synodality
view is that the bishops to be chosen in this way and then you would
have a protost amongst them. It's from the from the from these ancient cannons.
Yeah, and and basically these plotos is not supreme. He has a
prime exactly that that the synod can still oppose him. The synod can oppose
him, the seenot can oppose his decision. It derives his authority from the
synod, but the synod needs to obey him inasmuch as and let's make one
last point where before you go on, because every Roman Catholic will say,
yeah, but it's not talking about the Bishop of Rome. He doesn't count.
No, there's never an exception. You see, there's never the by
the way, this applies to everyone except the Bishop of Rome. And that's
how they treat every cannon and all the councils that goes against the Vatican one
view. As they just say, well, but that's not counting that Rome
doesn't count in that it never makes the concession that well this is for everybody
except Rome. Yeah, I mean you can even you can't even say that
it applies to Roman as much as as it shows what the primacy is understood
at that time. So I'm just going to read it because well, it
also applies to Rome. Yeah, please do. But it also applies to
Rome by the fact that the document just admitted that the Roman way of selecting
the Roman bishop changed in the twelfth century. Yeah. So Cannel thirty four
says 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 these things only which concern his own parish and the
country places which belong to him to it. But neither let him who is
first, do anything without the consent of all. For so there will be
unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit.
So that's really good because it shows that the primarcial head has a real power.
But this power cannot go against is on synod. So this cannon is
a proof that we have from you know, we believe them to be Apostolic.
But even if you want to be critical about it, from the fourth
century onward a very clear definition of church relations that include birth, sinodality,
and primacy and when and when a bit later it would says that even under
the Automan Turcs, and even under Peter's a greage which reforms the Russian choos
legs of Lutherans, and when they says that we retain and we continue to
follow this canon, it means that even in the all these adverse consequences,
the main basis of ecclesiology which is primacy inci metality was retaining the autos.
That's great. And on that same point, let's look at what the Key
eighty document said in section eighteen from a few years earlier. It says,
from the first Ecumenical Council onward, many questions, major questions regarding faith and
canonical order in the Church were discussed and resolved by appealing to the final authority
of the Roman Bishop. Oh wait, no, it doesn't say that.
It says by ecumenical councils. Although the Bishop of Rome was not personally present
at those councils, in each of those cases, he was represented by the
League gates, and he agreed with the council's conclusions after the fact. The
church is understanding of the criteria for reception as a council ecumenical developed over the
course of the first millennium. For example, prompted by historical circumstances, the
seventh Ecumenical Council of Nicea too gave a detailed description of the criteria that they
understood. The council itself says that the agreement of the Symphonia of the heads
of the Churches in cooperation Synergaia of the Bishop of Rome and the agreement of
all of the other patriarchids. Thus, an ecumenical council must have its proper
number in the sequence of ecumenical councils and teaching in accord with previous councils.
Thus, reception by the Church as a whole has always been the ultimate criteria
for the ecumenical nature of a council for ecumenic city of council. So wait
a minute, that is exactly the opposite of what every Roman Catholic apologist says.
They say, what makes it an ecumenical council is the approval of the
pope. Ultimately, that is not what this says. Says. This says
no reception by the church as a whole, which is what Orthodoxy always argue.
And they always say, don't you can't know what countries because they ain't
going to be the whole church, blah blah, And their own documents say
what we say, We repeat their documents, and they think that we're being
weirdos and crazy. You know, that's what your documents say. That's that's
key eight right there in section eighteen. Yeah, and on that point,
I mean the Roman Catholic system, It isn't any different when it comes to
you know, receptionism, because at the end of the day, the pope
is determined by the same factor. Right does the church recognize the pope as
a pope? Well, any decision that the pope makes us recognized on the
on that basis right. So why is Qope France the pope and not an
anti pope according to the Roman Catholic system. I think even one Peter five
was that the website, I mean they have they have an article of making
this exact argument that it's the reception that how the pope is received is how
it is very fine at thee is indeed the pope. It's the same.
It's a very similar logic at the very least. So I'll also add that
there's also actual you know, episcopal um standards that are that are employed,
right, that the patriarchs have to accept this in a snodal manner, right,
So to these things are also factored in to understand how the church receives
councils and the decisions made by those councils universally as well. So, um,
there's that point as well, and I think that I think in a
sense I will say that Alexandra document does, for the most part accurately reflect
the Orthodox ecclesiological system, I referring to it as synodality um for the most
part. As I've said, snackers, you want to say anything here or
up before I pull up another key eight section UM, I mean, yeah,
you can. You can go to Kitty. I think I think it's
important. I think we're going to cover as this a bit data, a
bit um. This, like the new document, as copious examples of Orthodox
second millennium vis of the papacy binding councils, and it mentioned Coquinos because there's
a dogmatic civil war in Rome, right, the Neotomis faction, which was
leading at some point, is no longer leading. And this is a quiet
endorsement of the the genius of the Palamites quote unquote. So yeah, the
difficulty, Yeah, yeah, yeah. I just want to make one short
comment one of them, one of the councils that it is hinting at in
one point twelve at the last sentence says that the profession of Lyons was rejected
by the Church of Constantinople in twelve eighty five. It doesn't know the council
but this happened in the Senate of black Day, where the Council of Lyons
was promptly rejected. Yes, and what happened. What that council did is
in fact elaborate an Orthodox understanding of energetic procession as a counter understanding to certain
statements about Church fathers, specifically one of Saint John Damascus, where he says
that the whole two proceeds from the Father through the son. The Council of
black Grenade basically exemplified, basically showcased an Orthodox theological understanding of the idea of
the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father through the son. Right, So it
is referring, in fact to another Orthodox council that again was accepted by all
Orthodox Christians as an official response against certain arguments from the Roman Catholics. And
doesn't the document, I think it's the new one, doesn't it admit that
the Palamite theological quote development was from Maximus and the Cappadocians, Which, yeah,
like it says, it's let me find it. This is it's in
one point thirteen. Yeah, one point thirteen. So yeah, so one
point ten says in spite of this trial, So the difficulties after after the
Crusades, and all says steel Wes in the East wotivated good eclearsing relations and
work for the restoration of unity. So or you know, we're other bad
schismatic Greeks, great patriarchs with deep theological understandings, such as Philotios Cochinos.
So a disciple of Gregory Palamas examined the possibility of convoking in the Chimerican councils
that will provide a solution for the division. And in point thirteen it says,
during the fourth centuries, the hesicast controversy provoked by Balam, a monk
of Calabria, arose in the East. The monks of Montatos delegated Saint Gregory
Palamas to answer the challenges of Balam. During the fourth century, fourth Synods
in Constantinople defended the distinction between the essence and the uncreated energy of God developed
by Saint Gregory Palamas on the basis of fathers of the Church are just Saint
Basil of Caesarea and Saint Maximus, a confessor. These events in the indicate
the continuing practice of sinodality in the East. That's a wonderful text so it
says that, well, Palamas didn't just just pull this thing by himself.
Balm was the one who was a clear attacking a previous tradition that was held
in Mount Athos, and the Synod of Constantinople were reunited to formulate a dogmatic
and binding defense of this doctrine. And this shows that sinodality remained in the
east. Uh, the banks doesn't. Doesn't say that sindality was maintained that
well in the west. So that's really interesting. Yeah, there's a lot
of emissions, we had many, I've got thank you. Yeah, so
I've got if I finally got that part put put up on the screen here.
So um, you'll notice a snack read right that it's admitting the essence
synergy debate. It says it was caused by BARLEYM, provoked by BARLEYM.
But it note that the energy uncreated energy distinction is developed by Palma out of
yoga, out of made up theology of the Middle Ages, out of polytheism.
No what all the Roman Catholics say, all of that nonsense. No,
it's it's developed quote unquote from who cappadoceans in Maximus exactly as we always
point out so this is literally what we say, fourteenth fifty century witness a
radical change in the political sphere. And I want to note this because they're
admitting everybody knows what's in Unam Sanctum, right. Unam Sanctum is not just
a document that says you have to also every creature on earth must be subject
to the Roman Pontiff for salvation. Yes, it says that, and everybody
knows that. But that's not all it's saying. It's saying that you must
be subject to the Roman Pontiff in all in matters temporal. In other words,
you have to accept the temporal supremacy of the Roman Bishop overall the world
as also part of your salvation. You see, it's not just are you
accepting the quote Catholic faith to be saved? No, No, it's the
Cavoic faith, which includes the universal temporal supremacy of the Roman Bishop to be
saved. You see. The document is admitting that it says to reaffirm papal
supremacy in the temporal order. So they're admitting that, yes, this geopolitical
earthly papal power right is also the basis for the Western schism of the Three
popes. This is this is what we bitch about all the time. Wait
a minute, So Peter moves his seed to France for seventy five years,
and I'm supposed to accept that. That's all what That's what Jesus intended in
the first century was to set up a giant palace in France where the Sea
of Peter's in Avignon. And why did that happen? Well, it happened
because the papacy became a geo political historical power tool. Right, it's not
it's not primarily a thing to adjudicate doctrine. It's the Pope's now calling his
own wars. He's got his own army, right, if you watch the
Borgias, he's got his own army at this time. This document is emitting
all that. That's all the stuff that we met about all the time.
That's really interesting because many people will quote Unam Santem in a vacuum without understanding
the context. And here's a context exactly. Sometimes says, oh, if
you do not submit to the pope in any in every way, you're going
to hell. But it was it was a claim of the pope to try
to curse people who have the factual temporal power kings. The name is the
king of France and Frances is going to come up again and again. So
we can see that the French kings simply didn't didn't take kindly to it,
that the papacy was basically subjugated short left to this send. We had a
talk talking specifically about that um. So that's interesting as well. It just
means that they isn't protected and when and when ye, when someone puts when
them sunk them saying, hey, is that that that's the church showing the
full power. No, it was pretty much an active disperation at this point
because it ended up captive. They called it, they called it. This
is this is basically admitting the Frankish thesis exactly. Yeah, I mean it's
a little bit after after the Frankish, right, it's after Charlomagne, but
it's it's the principle that the papacy has become a political tool, right uh,
And that principle is still exaggerated by the fourteenth fifteenth century, right,
so Charlomagne's eight hundred. But the point is that there's this revolution that has
taken place in the East, which is a meta by Devarnick and by Kongar.
Right, So the Gregorian reforms and after the Gregorian Reforms, I mean,
you have that period of one hundred years of Germanic papacy and then we
get the shift over into Avignon papacy and all that. But it's the principle
that this is a world power now and it's mainly focused on geopolitical world power,
and theology and doctrine become secondary. And the reason I'm saying that is
that that's still the case. So the reunion attempts that we get later on,
like Breast and others, those are actually other further manifestations of this point,
which is that it's no longer primarily about the theological disputes. Look at
the first seven councils. Is it about geopolitical temporal power. No, the
disputes and the councils are about Christology, trinity, incarnation, energies. Icons.
Now in the second millennia in the Latin Church, the disputes keep being
about the role of the pope. Why is that, Well, it's again
because when the pope offers union to the East, it's basically look at Melkites,
look at all the scale of what the people in the Eastern Union churches
that they have a scale from I only accept seven councils all the way over
to basically being almost Roman Catholic or Latin so to speak. Right, another
argument that just cuts short like it literally says. This episode was followed for
a few years. A few years later by the exile of the papacy in
the French city of Avignon, where the popes leave for seventy years under the
control of the French monarchy. So the argument that, um, oh,
the businessine church is just like you just see the or papies, it's just
the emperor who dictates whatever you want. It is not exactly against against the
emperor. The church is controlled by that are or by putting, or by
the Turkish Sultan, all of that, like you can see that. And
the ideas that in order to to not have anything to say to the worldly
authorities, the church needs to become a state by itself and a worldly authority,
Well that that's contradicted because the pope had a state that that point and
specifically why it got subjugated by the French monarchy, and we will see that
throughout history is there's still had been this extension vi the French monarchy until an
event. And there's still also a very funny admission that we're going to see
it in a few minutes. Okay, So what's actually we're going to pull
up next? One point fifteen is I think the next big one because it
talks about the Council of Constance, it talks about Hike Suncta, and it
talks about conciliriism. So for those who don't know, there was a period
or there were three popes in the Roman Catholic Church between the fourteenth and the
fifteenth centuries. This problem was resolved by the Council of Constance, which is
an ecumenical council accords to the Roman Catholic Church. It's published a decree called
Hike Suncta, and this document says that the highest authors in the church belongs
to a council. Now, afterwards, the Roman Catholic Church said, now
we're gonn ignored this right, we're going to reject this. But it developed
this teasis in order to solve the issue of three different papal claimants, because
well, you have three different papal claimants and they all have some kind of
legitimacy, So which one are you going to be choosing. Well, you
need a council, a true counsel in order to choose the correct pope,
but you need to have a correct pope to call the council, right.
And so they try to get themselves away from this contradiction by trying to use
a temporary, temporary fix up, and once that fixed up a cure,
they just okay, we'll just ignored this. This was just just something that
we kind of just had to do for the time being. And but that's
not really a valid outlook because because at the end of the day, this
has some kind of dogmatic approval and it ended up being a legitimate position within
the Roman Catholic Church throughout many, many different years. And so this document
self treats conceliriism in a very negative fashion. But in fact, what's really
interesting is that conciliarism I myself and say it's the exact same thing as sinodality,
but it's very similar in many key aspects to sinodality. Of course,
this document again looks at it from a negative perspective, while it looks at
sinodalty from a postic perspective. But I think it's kind of them trying to
cover their tracks a little bit, at least from my perspective, and the
Council of Constance is really I mean, the whole thing is just a great
illustration of the Roman Catholic system not working, particularly in the fourteenth and the
fifteenth centuries. That's kind of how I google cat. Yeah, that's a
great point. It is a great point, and it reminds me of what
the funny satirical account on Twitter trag cat Watch said the other day, which
was that for the Roman Catholic for the trag cat especially, the papal magisterium
is a thing that exists in theory and it doesn't actually have anything to do
with the actual history of the church. It's just like when that girl called
in last night or the night before and she was like, you always want
to go to history. I want to talk about the idea of authority,
and how that kind of tells us that the papacy is the case. Oh
so you mean an abstraction and not the actual historical papacy. So this is
as it just makes sense. That doesn't make no first of all, like
we're looking for historical church as instituted and second of all, many things can
make sense, like you republicanism, it makes sense. That's that's not the
that's not the superb argument. You know, is the idea is that,
oh, there needs to be an authority. Well, you have to develop
the authority. We can have primacy the no system. Sure, yeah,
and if there wasn't so, But the usually the admission of those people is
that it took the church the first thousand years to realize that synodality, collegiality,
conciliarism didn't work the best. So the next thousand years they figured out
papalism. So it's like, wait a minute, So where was the Holy
Spirit guiding the church in the first thousand years? That the Holy Spirit wasn't
smart enough to tell the church that the best, most pragmatic, effective way
to govern the church is the top down God emperor monarchy. Well, you're
looking for historic church. So if if, if, if the claims of
the organization of your church needs to rely on modern communication technologies, that it
doesn't, that doesn't really work. Well that's why. Yeah, that's why
I asked her. I asked her go ahead, Okay, So that's why
Vatican one is U is really modern in that sense, because you can see
as a spirit of absolutism breathing it. It even says that you should not
like cut ways of communication with the pope, like you know, probably referring
to great point and circle, the telegraph or whatever. So if if a
historic church needs to rely on modern or industrial ways of communication, if that
pod and postle and then the sysithemial system, probably a system is not the
Yeah, that's and she essentially went on to admit, Yeah, the Church
of the first thousand years is not the Vatican One church. Yeah, exactly,
that's the That's our whole point. So who's the historic church? Who's
the church of the first thousand years? I mean, that's the key issue
between the key point of debate between a Roman Catholic and Orthodox person. And
if it's not the Vatican One system, that's it. That system is canceled
out. It does it doesn't matter. So that's why I always ask these
people, how would anybody the average person in the year three hundred member the
papal system is supposed to be so practical and so obvious. Well, there
was no internet, modern communications, like snack saying, so how's the person
in the year three hundred prior to the First Ecumenical Council. How am I
supposed to recognize what the true church is in the year three hundred? If
the papal system is true, am I supposed to buy osmosis? If I
if I live in Ephesus, I'm supposed to know what's going on in Rome
if I live in Ephesus. It's just crazy to make any sense, right,
So you can't make it this apologetics of post Vatican one apologetics. Right,
And if that was how the Church operated in the first seven hundred years
or the first thousand years, how come none of the church fathers are doing
post Vatican one style apologetics. They would have been simply proving the church in
this Vatican One way. Well, yeah, but it didn't. The Church
hadn't evolved yet to have this truth exactly. So all we constantly we see
that this position, on the one hand, is not the Church of the
first thousand years. Yet they constantly quote mine and pick things out of the
first thousand years to try to prove that it was the Church of the first
thousand years. Yet they then turned around and say, well, all the
counter evidence just proves development. You see, Well, this is a ridiculous,
unfalsifiable position. So it's not the church of the first thousand years,
but also it's there, but it also developed and it's a completely different structure
of the church and the second millennium. Sure, but that's because we figured
out a more practical way to run the church. Okay, but again that
what you think is more practical, It is not the point here if that's
not the structure that Christ laid down. And remember, the faith is once
for all delivered to the saints. How can there be something that's good enough
in the first, second, and third century but not good but that's not
good enough in the year one thousand, twelve hundred, thirteen hundred. You
say, you want to know? The thing about this is that the church
fathers, especially since these Epius of Cesarea exactly, do make theological argument for
a centralized administration vifa single head. They do it for the emperor, and
which was like, if it was clear that, oh, we have one
God, therefore we need to have one supreme head. Um therefore is the
papacy. I mean, all the arguments were already here. Now wait it
was real quick detour snack. I have a question for you snack because I
think you were saying this in a comments and discussion, so in terms of
Ladder and six forty nine, and we don't have to spend a whole lot
of time on this, but to me it looks like actually an egg on
the face argument against the papers. The Roman Calics want to use Ladder and
sixty forty nine as a papal proof, but to me, it looks like
it's not. Because weren't you making the point that Ladder and six forty nine
was not conceived of as acumenical at the time because the Pope couldn't get the
emperor to approve it. Is that correct? So that's really interesting that you
mentioned it. I think some would say it's acumenical at the time, nameless
and Maximus between Maximus, doesn't you know, I understand, But I'm saying
from the Roman Calic view, they don't count it as one. Yeah,
yeah, they don't count it. But if you if you look at some
of the claims there, which which of course saying that Rome is a pillow
of the faith because at the time it was the only the only jurisdiction that
maintains the faith. So it's it's well deserved, but they did not accept
it. And if you go to the act of this synod by Father Price,
who was a wrong Catholic, it would say, oh Rome is of
course, um, this is really kind and appreciative words for Rome. But
the Roman delegates themselves did not understand the synot to be be a comedical.
They understood that without the approval of the of the other patric yes, it
wouldn't work. And I found some other historians, Latin historians, um,
like Libertus of Carthage, who says this for Casidon. They says that the
legates wouldn't want a synod to happen without the approval of the Emperor and the
and the Eastern churches, because nobody would take them seriously. Yeah, real
quick, we'll go back to David. I don't want to leave David out.
The reason we're bringing up I'm bringing up six forty nine is that so
this is the first attempt of the Roman bishop to call his own counsel with
I think they had over had like one hundred eight bishops present. So with
Roman approval and with one hundred eight bishops, including bishops from the East,
president in the Roman Catholic idea of what makes a council an ecumenical council.
There's no reason why that should not be a Roman Catholic council. If in
the year six forty nine they had the Vatican One mindset, it has all
the criteria for an ecumenical council. However, Rome does not count Ladder in
six forty nine amongst us ecumenical councils. So this shows us that they clearly
that in that year in the in the seventh century, nobody had the mindset
that all that's needed for an ecumenical council is simply the approval of the Roman
bishop. And it would it would have been waysier for the church because right
off TSI there is a new whip of bisecutions and Maximus gets told to the
next side, Pope Saint Martin is killed. So, um, if there
was a poem were to definitely adjudicate forever be if everybody agreeing, it would
have been over then. And then yeah, David, I want to go
back to you if you want to move on to a specific pointer area.
Yeah, the next part that I was thinking of it talks about the Council
of Florence next. But before we can we move on to Council of Florence.
One thing I think Snake will especially will like to deal with this.
It starts to talk about Gallicanism, right, that Concilerism gave rise to Gallicanism,
and that it points out that that Gallicanism lasted until the nineteenth century until
I think Napoleon and Snack being French, I think he has a lot of
knowledge regarding Galicanism. So before we move, before we can talk about the
Council of Florence, Sank, would you like to give some comments about the
whole like the Gallicanist movement and how it kind of resisted papal supremacy in the
in the history of the vest in some form. Yeah. So this goes
back to pol to one point fifteen and it says that the Council of of
Constants issued a deposition of the Pope and the idea of all the popes and
named another one and stated that the Pope is as an authority that is under
the council. And we would agree, you know, we would say that
a primate has authority, but it cannot like overrule an echemical council in his
own And here I think it's probably the first point of the document I don't
really appreciate. So it said, oh, sinodality is great, but between
the pope got humiliated like this. It's actually not sinordality, it's concelerism,
which is just the Latin root of the same term um. And then it
says that this system is based on a civic Roman understanding. Well, didn't
you just agree that, I mean arguments that the donation of Constantine was used
by the Roman church because that was a civic Roman doc that was supposed to
be a low altonation passed by constantly. So saying that the integration of Roman
civic institutions into the church is inherently disqualifying, I mean it's a bit weird.
You know, you still have diocese, you still have you know,
even the central Rome. You know, the earliest statistication of Rome having a
central role back to Clement of Rome. It's because Rome is the center of
the empire literally, you know, Orion is. So I think it's a
bit of a cup out. I think that this is a point where the
document tries to not give in too much because like literally, if you say,
yeah, they can't give everything exactly. Yeah, So that's basically barring
this and then saying, oh this this idea conceilerism. It led to the
French Church being Galican meaning basically autocephalis under a king. But no, like
if you look at the Gallican writers, they do not say I mean.
Of course they mentioned Xana, of course they mentioned the Council of Basil.
Of course they mentioned these. Of course they mentioned Honorious. But they're not
saying they're not saying, oh we we we do it because of the Roman
institute, civic institution, or because of of Xancta proper. They will quote,
you know, you have people like Bosuns and they will mention the mayor
Visian cannons, they will mention the canons of the ancient Church of Gold,
they will mention the car Lindian cannons, they will mention all of these councils.
That that shows that this count. This system, you know, concelerism,
which literally is the nodality, was already established, and we had a
whole talk about this. But there even was a triple proclamation, you know,
the like in like in the business in numpire, meaning that the king
like he's not the one who chose the bishop, but he he approved them.
He approved them, and the people also acclaim them, which is something
we see in the author of Church. So I think this is a bit
of a couple. I think they're trying to uh to give as much,
to consider as many points as possible to the offdox, but not concede either
Gallicanism or or concelerism of accent that we would agree with I eccenta and actually
going to the Council of Florence. A big part of why the delegation came
to Florence is because they looked at what was happening in the West and they
say, oh, look the Roman Church, just as the council is above
the pope. So maybe we'll be able to discuss again and we'll see that
that's not exactly what happened. Actually the opposite happened. But basically, I
don't think we can sweep Gallicanism under the rug. I think it's coming later
again in the documents, so we'll talk about it later. But essentially Gallicanism
is a notocephalist church. Well, I was going to say, didn't didn't
you make an argument a long time ago one of our streams that the ancient
French Church was autocephalous something like that. Yeah, yeah, I mean,
I mean it recognized Rome as as a patriarch. Yeah, it was organized
by itself, and you needed to go through the king, and the king
so himself as a protector of the church in Israel. Um. And and
of course you know, even the subjugation of the papacy in Avignue was an
action to protect his church. And you have, for example, Council of
the Clergy. Um. You know, at some point kings were getting assassinated
by the way, most of the French kings that got assassinated, we were
assassinated by by by Catholics, theocrats. That's interesting. And they proclaimed,
for example that the king is a is a statue of God. So he's
basically saying that he's got an iconographic role and therefore um attacking him is attacking
God. That's exactly the same thing you have You've got with Bysantine emperors.
That's the same rhetoric. So um the idea that this was a novel thing,
that was um, that didn't have any no that that's that's not what
it was. You know, you can see it from the conversion of the
Frankish people from from Clovis in five to eleven. The day is the year
he died. He convened the sling. You already levels it already the rights
of bishops being preserved. You already have the triple triple approval of the bishops.
This is already in place. This is not something that was invented,
so something that was solidified, especially when Rome medalled, but it was not
a new thing. Were clear about that, by the way, for those
and that, I want to remind everybody in the chat too, that the
link for the Alexandria document is too long to put into the YouTube chat,
So I'm going to include the link I did put a Twitter. I tweeted
out the link and you can go to my twitter and get the full document.
But after this, I'll put underneath the show description both documents so you
can pull them up. They're not very long. I highly recommend everybody read
them because I mean, there's like ninety percent conceding all the points that we
make. So look for the documents. If you're watching this. Later on
in the show description, go ahead, say you want to continue, No,
I think I think we're going to touch the Gallicanism a bit a bit
later. But oh, let's go to Florence and this is this is ZEPUALI.
Yeah, well I suppose so. Yeah, So the Council of Florence
Snack already made this point. There was at the same time a concilious assembly
in in Basel, which is what convinced a lot of the Orthodox bishops to
go to Florence, like to to well, not to Florence specifically, but
to have a council of Roman Catholics because they sold the encouraging developments. But
later on the church again it basically ruled, oh, well, that decision
we made, actually we don't follow that decision anymore. We're just gonna,
you know, scrub it off. And the Council of Florence happened instead,
and there were various phyteological debates. I think, um, I want to
kind of note some some specific things. A lot of people kind of I
think mistake some people online do is that they look at the kind of the
pet theories of certain figures in the in the Council, and they use their
views in order to push all this is the official view of the of this
specific issue, like the fully occur or whatever. But one of the biggest
blunders of the Council of Florence is that it says that the Holy Spirit proceeds
from the Father in the sun as a cause. Right. It says,
it's very explicitly that it does so in the Greek sense, and it the
Council also rejected the interpretation of causality as having any understanding of mediate causality.
So when it speaks about the Greek sense of causality, it spasically refers to
being unused, like not on caused cause, but being cause at all.
Right, So the sun is not a cause of the Holy Spirit at all,
verreas the Council of Florence says it is. But the same confessor says
that the Holy Spirit, that the sun is not a cause of the Holy
Spirit. So this is one of the big blunders of the Council of Florence
is that it directly contradicts Saint Maximis as this letter to Marion, which at
first the bishops that the Count said, oh, yeah, this is in
fact, or this is in fact from Saint Maximus, and then it says,
oh, actually it's not from Saint Maximus. It's kind of So there's
a lot of really interesting things that happened to council from us. But we
see the same team in the Council of Florence in spite of the very different
theological disputes, which at the end of the day, as long as you
kissed the papal feet, everything is fine. And one of the things that
Alstomov notes in his book on the Council of Florence is that after the Council,
right after the union occurred the Greek the Greek bishops didn't even commune with
the Roman Catholics. They didn't even to minologs, they didn't even even say
the Creed with the fulca, they said it without the Folioki. And they
pretty much literally they pretty much acted as if nothing happened. But a key
part of this and many Roman Catholic apologists pushed misinformation about this, They said,
the Council of Florence is proved that Orthodoxy is wrong, because apparently the
Orthodox world completely accepted it. Well. In fact, the only church that
can be spoken of accepting this council is the Greek Church. And the patriarch
died before he even signed it. And it's well known that the so called
the signature of the patriarch is not in fact, it's in fact forged,
it's not the real signature of the patriarch. The patriarch died before the council
was signed by the Greek Church, so the patriarch didn't even sign the council.
And this document admits, in fact this was not received. It says,
it says so in one point nineteen that this council was not received by
the Greek Church. It wasn't even being contested to being received by the other
churches. It was not received by the Greek Church, right and you know,
even by the Greek Church. And it was officially rejected in fourteen eighty
four. And it also had the participation of the East four Eastern patriarchates.
And it says true this President Snodal Thomas, we overturned the council which was
convened in Florence, along with its definition and the propositions contained within it,
and be declared by this Thomas that the council is null and void. Now
this is the official declaration. Prior to this, the Council of Fornce wasn't
accepted either, right, not by Consciantinople nor by any of the Orthodox Church.
So it mostly has a couple of rogue figures becoming Roman Catholic and that's
the end result of the Council of fun. So a lot of Roman Catholics
used this as a gotcha against against the Orthodox Christians, But in fact this
document admits that the Ordodox Church didn't accept this council, that it was really
only the Greek Church that was that could be spoken of accepting this council at
a time, and even by the very standards of the Greek courtsdoct church itself,
that didn't occur. Those conditions were not met. So it's similar to
the Council of Lyons in a sense that the Greek Church and the ordsdouct Church
in general did not accept the Council of Frons. Right. The document also
says that the Council of Lyons was rejected by the by their church exactly.
Well, you know the arguments that, oh that excuse them never happened.
Oh you know, like you actually in union with us because you accepted Leon
and Florence, and no, no, like exactly they see that we reject
it is even mentioned a council that authoritative at least rejected it. So again,
the Orthodox Church has the ability to make binding decisions into second millennium.
Well, they already admit I mean, you know, Benedict and his books
admits that the Orthodox Church maintained its faith for the last thousand years. Oh
okay, then that isn't that an admission that we don't need the papers?
If we maintained the Orthodox faith for the last thousand years, then what is
it exactly the papacy gives us? And when I look at contemporary papism,
I don't see all of the practical unity and guidance and uh, you know,
clarity that it's supposed to get, like all the things they claim it
gives, it doesn't actually give. But um, yeah, I didn't want
to add too that if you guys, remember I love bringing this up,
not because it is necessarily one percent approof of anything, but the when a
lot of these dialogues started happening, you know, more recently there or publications,
and you know, Catholic apologists that we're already noticing, Hey, wait
a minute, we're already basically admitting that Vatican One's universalizing claims our contrary to
historical fact. And so here is this one. I love to note that
since publishing Orthodox in premises in two thousand and eleven. I continue to follow
the dialogues doctor Adam de Ville, and he says, uh, yeah,
it's just a fact that the first thousand years the papacy weren't Vatican one.
Yeah, exactly, regional limitations to the Bishop of Rome. Regional limitations to
the Bishop of Rome. That's our admitting our point. Now, Roman callous
always say, well, who cares, He's just one guy, doesn't matter.
Yeah, but these are these are documents and counsels and synods, assuming
not counsels, but documents and theological commissions that Francis has no problem with.
He doesn't. He approves of these things. And as next said, what
Francis cided? What Ballamont or the one of these, Katie, one of
these was cited by the papacy, right, I mean they're papally approved commissions,
right, so so many of them proofs. Let me pull up the
documents. This is part of a mega series, by the way, um,
so you can say it isn't the document of the Pontifical Council for for
promoting Right Christian and it is amavicum and the Pope mentions it mentions Ravenna it
mentions Kitty, it mentions Balaman, so yeah, you can, you can
just pull up. Now. The reason we want to mention this is that
now the Roman Callegics will say, well, yeah, but it doesn't matter
because it's not a binding. So but here's the thing, and this is
why I always stress this, is that for the Pope to teach or promote
error, or any other bishop or lay person in the Callegs church, there's
no requirement that to be a heretic it has to be binding. Because if
that was the case, then nobody could be a heretic in the Roman Callic
church because it would require that you that that person bind everyone to it.
Martin Luther couldn't bind anyone to his heresies, and yet he's condemned by the
Pope and he's called a heretic. So likewise, it doesn't matter who is
saying it or what the degree of authority that they have is. If someone
is publicly teaching and affirming and promoting heresies or schism, then they're guilty of
the sin of heresy and schism in Roman Catholic moral theology and canon law.
So if Francis is promoting and pushing these documents and citing them and saying that
it doesn't matter the level of authority that he's putting behind the documents. He's
promoting and pushing something heretical, heterodox, something wrong theologically. So if if
if we are in error as Orthodox, and if these documents are admitting our
positions, then the documents are in error and our heterodox, and Francis promoting
and pushing them makes Francis in error and heterodox. And so it doesn't matter
how many thousands of times Roman Caltis come back with saying who was newably binding?
It doesn't matter. Infallibly binding has nothing to do with whether the person
pushing it is pushing Harris he or not. It's a really simple point,
but they always deflect under this ridiculous reply that yeah, but he doesn't blind
us to it, so it doesn't count. Martin Luther couldn't bind anyone to
his heresies, So does that mean it doesn't count? No, the Pope
still excommunicated Luther Firs Harres. He's a really simple point, Roman Calvix.
I think it applies to Florence here too, because it's one key takeaway from
how it discusses Florence here is that the pope wasn't really in the mindset of
uniting the church. Is here, it was in a mindset of asserting his
authority because there was Concealrism going around in the West or resulgence of it.
So the ideas that the documents of Florence that just show a pope in a
strong position that just asserts himself as he is not really it shows him in
a position of weakness, trying to fight for keeping the control of his own
flock at the expense of unity with the East. So it's so again the
Greek bishops came thinking we're gonna, you know, Considrism is back, We're
gonna be able to be treated as um as equals. And the pope just
tried to be as strong as possible in order to reign in the Western bishops.
And again that's a that's that's that's a big problem. It shows that
that Rome here failed. Like if you think that this is terrible, this
is tragic, his chism is bad. That's a huge failure by Rome because
of the pope trying to inflate himself. That's literally what but Paul says,
is going to cut you off from the church and to the Roman Church in
Romans eleven. Yeah, it doesn't count. It doesn't count. It doesn't
count. He's not talking to the church. He's talking only to delay people
in the church. So that these are the deflections that you get with that.
Yeah, yeah, I mean no, like, I'm not making a
feel of complete theological augment here. I'm just saying that, No, I
agree with you, I agree that. I'm just saying that they have all
they all have all of these just ridiculous replies, right, Like Paul clearly
is saying to the entire Roman Church that if you're arrogant, you can be
cut off. No, he's only talking to the lay people in the church.
He's not saying what he's talking about. He's talking about the Church of
Rome. It's the letter to the church at Rome. That's all the people
in the church at Rome warning that you can be cut off anyway. I'm
just going on a tangent. Sorry, go ahead. No. So,
so that's the first take away that he's assertion, just like when i'm sometimes
it's not an assertion that that's made from a position of par a bit of
desperation, And that's what stops stops the discussion. And then of course it
explains that the council was held and the coersion, so coersion according to Saint
definitions, according to Roman Catholic apologies themselves. When it comes to Liberius,
I was gonna say, they'll say, they'll say Liberius doesn't count because it
was under coersion. Yeah, but here it says, oh, it doesn't
count because it's under coersion, like Florence was under coersion. It literally says
that it was accepted under pressure. So if we have canonical norms, if
we understand, you know, I think that's quite easy to understand, you
know, like we everybody agrees. You know, Epesis too is not a
comenical because they started to to ride during the council. Coersion is sufficient to
reject the authority and the legitimacy of of a council. And here it says
that there were coersions. So, um, you know I've seen apologies.
Oh actually no, actually it's not true. That's an Orthodox lander. That's
only in their sources. Well, we seem to agree here, so let's
be let's be charitable and um and go to the to the documents that both
churches approving or at least your church approves it um in terms of discussing with
all church. So yeah, that probably should be an important part. So
Um mentioned about Florence upholding the cannons at least at least giving lip service,
but that doesn't amount too much. But yeah, key takeaways. Rome doesn't
speak in a position of power, a bit of desperation, and that's what
derails the council. The Council is rejected on canonical grounds by the Greeks,
you know, as well as I do want to touch on, I don't
want to close out yet on this because I want to touch on Sardica and
Trollo because it admits a point that I said a long time ago that I'm
sorry. I don't mean to cut you off. I just don't want to
close out yet because that the paragraph nineteen is also an interesting admission to go
ahead and finish your thought. I just want to go to nineteen for sure,
like and another key takeaways that the Orthodox Church could, indeed and had
the authority to unite a dogmatic bindinge counsile in specifically rejecting the Council of Florence.
So that's also points we've been making all the time. Yeah, go
ahead, go ahead, David, whn' gona Wren't you gonna make a point
about Yeah, I want to. I just so, I don't want to.
I want to give everybody the chance to talk. I just didn't want
to close it out without going to the admissions in paragraph nineteen, because I'll
pull it up in a second, but it says I'll read it. Over
the centuries, a number of appeals were made to the Bishop of Rome from
the East in disciplinary matters such as the deposition of a bishop. This was
made at the Synod of Sardica. Now, remember the Roman Calicism made a
huge deal of Sartica, and by the way, UBI has covered the Sartican
issue quite well over on his website, but it says that it established rules
for such procedure. Sartica was received at Trolo six ninety two, and the
Cannons of Sardica determined that a bishop who had been condemned could appeal to the
Bishop of Rome. Now, if you remember when I was arguing with a
bar years ago, I said, yeah, there was an appeals process,
and their argument assumption was that, oh, this is only to Rome.
Everyone could only just appealed because there are presupposing that the only appeals process was
just to Rome. Sardica is mentioning it was a local canon in the West,
mentioning, Yeah, you can appeal to Rome. However, listen to
this. It says the cannons a start determined that a bishop could be condemned.
If he was condemned, he could appeal to the Bishop of Rome,
and that the latter, if he deemed it appropriate, might order a retrial
to be conducted by bishops in the province neighboring the bishop's own. So number
one, the appeal is not Rome make the final decision. The appeal is
for a retrial with other bishops, which is not a Vatican One style thing.
Appeals regarding disciplinary matters were also made to Constantinople. That's exactly what I
said. I said the appeals appelate structure and system was not just to Rome,
because it's mentioned about Athanasius, as mentioned about Alexandria as also if I
recall up in this as well as Constantinople. No, you're looking it up.
It's just a row. Oh, here's your document admitting what I said
that there was an appeals process to other patriarchis yeah. And oh, by
the way, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. One last point, the last
sentence. I forgot the last sentence, it's the most important part. It
says, appeals to the Bishop of Rome from the east expressed the community of
the church. However, this does not mean the Bishop of Rome did not
exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East. Huge admission in point nineteen.
However, the Bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches
of the East. I'm sorry, this is Kiati document. I went back
to the Kiati document. I wanted to mention that I've got both of these
documents pulled up and they're on the exact same website. So I was on
the wrong document. But Kiati document, paragraph nineteen is one of the key
points I wanted to mention in regard to the Avara. They excuse me,
Oh, yeah, that's yeah, that's fine. I guess we can move
to the section from the Reformation to the eighteenth century right chapter two, where
they talk about some of the things that occurred. Two point one. It
reaffirms the admission that Orthodoxy continues to practice the apostolic understanding of synodality, whereas
this document admits that there's further developments due to the Protestant Reformation that occurred,
and it's as synodality was still practiced in the East during this difficult periods.
And you know, while the Roman Catholic Church was dealing with certain issues in
the Vest, the Orthodox Church was dealing with issues of being under for example,
you know, Ottoman captivity and so on so forth. In two point
four it reaffirms this. Oh, it talks about various different other councils that
the Church accepted. Right, so this further disproused the whole You know,
you Orthodox can't have councils, you can't make decisions. I hear this over
and over and over and over again by many, many different Roman Camolics,
and they think that if they repeat this lie enough then it's just going to
end up being truth. But I'll just read the entires of two point four
because it's very important. The juridical Millet system assigned all Orthox living in the
Ottoman Empire, irrespective of ethnic considerations, to the room milet dependent upon the
echumenical patriarch of constant opal ecclesiastical and civil matters. This emphasized the latter central
position within the Orthodox Church known already from the canonical order right. This was
establishing the Second Council, then really very much confirmed in the four Tech Medical
Council Right Account twenty eight, and enhanced its importance visa v. The other
ancient patriarchates. Despite this new situation, the spirit of synodality was nevertheless preserved.
Councils were convoked by the chemical patriarch to resolve issues in a sonodal way,
such as the Council of constant Amum in fifteen ninety three to confer the
title of Patriarch granted early to the Metropolitan of Moscow, the Council of Yasi
to adjudicate the confessional faith of the Metropolitan Kiev Peter Morkila, and the two
Great Council of Constants Noble in sixteen thirty eight and sixteen forty two. Furduston
Alsfer convoked the Constants Opol sixteen seventy two sixteen ninety one, and by Patriarch
Dossitius in Jerusalem sixteen sixteen seventy two, which condemned the confessional faith attributed to
the patriarch Kira Lacariz So what we see here, and there's a there's a
different debate one can make about therese various different councils. But what we see
here is an admission from the stock and from the Roman Catholic Church that the
Orthodox Church did indeed make dogmatically bounding, concilier decisions even after the schism,
which showcases that from the perspective the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church can
make snodal dogmatic decisions that are bounding to all Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics have
to understand this. This is not just us saying that your own church is
admitting this right now. You're not just listening. You're not just not listening
to us, You're also not listening to your own church. And that's that's
just ridiculous. And doesn't this prove, by the way, how ridiculous and
terrible the apologetics of Lofton and a Bara are. I mean, this is
basically constantly admitting every argument we've made against a lot of their arguments. I
mean, Trent Horne, where are you at bro This is this is admitting
all of our points. So when are the Roman caw that's going to stop
giving up their their tired old pop apologetics and start dealing with what their own
experts in Francis are admitting. Yeah, something else that's interesting from this same
section at two point seven, So talking about Russia, it mentions the reforms
of Peter's a great you know, it could be leaky, which basically like
it says it and it's just probably it's probably true to a large extent that
the church administration was reformed and the president models patriarch it was abolished and then
was a civil servant that administered a permanent synod. And it says that even
even even when strongly under the influence of the state, even at that point,
the synodal structure prevailed. And that's what we see today, like today
the Moscow patriarch it was re established, so um so sinodality even under this
sort of captivity, even with this kind of meddling, you know, which
is a classic argument as well, you know, or the church wasn't was
controlled by by the state, it's still prevailed. It still managed to to
take decisions and to participate to other decisions. You know, some of the
council we've mentioned were approved universally through also the reception of the Russian jurisdiction.
That's really interesting. Yeah, before we move out to chapter three, I
think there's some other additional comments made about Gallicanism, so people will be time
that if you also covered the whole Gallic history of Gallicanism. Uh, it's
specific, the specific part I am referring to give me a second, So
as you while you're looking for that, I want to be while you're looking
at that, I'm gonna note that. So in the chat, a lot
of the Roman Catholics and the people that are asking questions or whatever, it's
like, these are the you guys are bringing up the same old stuff that
we've always talked about for a million years, all of the same old objections
if you want to deal. So if you want the formula of her missed
us, there's ubi's article on that. We've covered that. Ubi's covered all
of this, So guys, look, just go read these articles because today
we're talking about the document from Alexandria and in the Kiati documents, so those
are the document We're not covering all these tired old Roman Catholic objections. We've
covered those a million times, So go look at those documents from UBI on
those specifics yeah, so yeah, I think we can go to Gallicanism.
I'd like you to have a word on Unionism as well because as a section
of this. But what's really interesting that um it shows that, of course
the vision of the pope was reinforced as a Council of Trent, but that
basically France maintained its own system. And I'm gonna I'm gonna read two point
three provincial synod aimed at implementing the Trenance in reform took place in Italy into
German Empire, in France, in the Polish between Commonwealth. Under political pressure,
the Roman Catholic bishops of Many Kingdom thought greater autonomy with regards to papal
primacy. So this was not being accepted. So all the arguments so you
know, oh, we're based monarchist and all like, no monarchy was seeing
seeing itself in conflict with people supremacy with these kind of claims, these episcopalis
tendencies example, Gallican them in France for Robbianism in Germany continue to advocate for
Conceleavism. This is a system that was in place in the Amber of Indians.
The ideas that bishops had specific rights this see that in cloth already.
But the ideas that it's it's it's it's a lingering tendency that appeared that after
the Council of Conscience is kind of weird. The French Revolution finally led to
the downfall of the ancier regime and to the destruction of the State Church,
which ultimately strengthened the ties between the Church of France and Rome, since after
the collapse of the order, only the papacy at the authority to reorganize the
church sees the conquered that of France and the Congress of Vienna. So this
is under Napoleon and post Napoleon. But you can see that all the arguments,
you know, all we fight against the revolution, oh we are based
monarchists and all this. No, the monarchy was seeing the papacy and these
kind of claims as a threat, and they did not allow the people meddling
into their affairs. Um, you know, to to to to a huge
extent. And the only thing that could actually make these paple centered reform happened
was literally as a tabula ras as a blank slate, the destruction of the
revolution. So the ideas that um, oh you know, That's that's really
common among many, many French frenchwoman Catholics is the ideas that all the true
friends is a monarchist friend, that that that fought against the revolution, and
we cannot accept the revolution. No. Literally, the Church of Friends was
also Cephalus Gallican. It was only snuffed out because of the revolution. Rome
came only by signing Concorde that vives the post revolutionary authorities. Literally, I
mean, I'm not saying that Rome made this happen, but just like the
Siege of constantly it benefited from it. It's the same thing that you see
at the time of the revolution in Russia in nineteen seventeen. After you see,
for example, um Roman Catholic apologies and someone saying, oh no,
that sorry is dead. So so we can't we can't, we can't go
in, we can't benefit from the tabula rasa. That's a terrible thing to
admit, you know. Basically, the only reason why the Church of France
is not a Galican autocephalis under a king church like it always was since Clovis,
since the establishment of the Kingdom of the Franks, is because of the
revolution. That's huge politically, I mean, in terms of fact, the
zoology probably less, but in terms of the ecclesial identity of a French person,
you can see that there's a Galicans were opposed to that, and you
can see that in personalities like a Begette for example, who was Gallican.
He came a little bit after because it was a resurgence of Galican he identified
clearly the papal claims, the ultimunting claims as a threat to the legitimate French
government. Yeah, because remember, as we'd said, the paper suit had
already become very much a geopolitical power. And so that's also admitted in two
point six, where it says that with all of these attempted reunion councils like
brassed, Croatia, Transylvania, uzlod Serbia, it says the motives for these
unions have been contested. There was probably some real desire, but there's a
lot of political influence as well. So it's like, haven't we always been
saying that the motivation for this wasn't anything to do with theology, but it
was it was papal all right, yeah exactly, and this document saying yeah,
I mean, it says religious and political factors were frequently intertwined. Oh
yeah, like if you see Poland, it's a it's a shift after the
end of the Regalian dynasty, the shift towards more centralism with links to Rome.
You can see that. You can see that also with the mail Kites
or in the in the far is Many. Often it was linked to the
establishment and ability to to enter some school institutions on so um it was,
it was baiting people. It was done in yes, INDs that are not
theological. You can even say coersion sometimes which again we've we've seen is is
even an instigating factor. So the ideas that unionism is actually seen proceed as
a threat to ordunity, something that Rome admits. Now, So the ideas
that oh I'm going to be I'm gonna go to an Eastern Catholic shich,
I'm going to be a union to be able to um to to evil,
that Rome itself says, I think if I don't know if it's in Baliament,
if it's in the CUBAD document, that it's not a valid way to
proceed anymore because it's perceived as a threat. Rightfully, so according to the
document. Well keep in mind too, just the mere fact that the pope
has removed the triple crown, which the triple crown was signified his authority over
the temporal domain. I mean, the Trads make a big deal about this
because it's a symbolic gesture that. Okay, by the way, I'm not
interested in geopolitical power and supremacy over all temporal authorities like I used to be.
Like when I'm signed them says you have to believe for salvation, so
so to be saved in the time of you know, when I'm signed them,
I had to believe in the temporal power of the Roman bishop. Since
the pope now and Vatican two documents say we're no longer concerned with that.
Now it's no longer necessarily for salvation. So you understand that the Roman Catholic
system evolving theology means evolving criteria for salvation. I only know what I mean.
It depends on the pope at the time, right, I mean,
ultimately, my salvation depend upon what the present day papacy sent, which is
ridiculous, and they will actually say, well, that's also the keys,
bro also the keys. You gotta believe whatever's going on now at the present
time, How can the requirement for salvation change. That's crazy. I mean,
ultimately that's a longer traditional religion. That's just a pure cult of authority.
I think Ji jac makes this point. It just says that at this
point is just followed with now that's yeah exactly, that's the same justin Popovitch,
that's the same thing too. It's a worship of authority. It's a
pure, pure cult of authority exactly. Lelinger says that at this point the
pope is just an oracle of the Tiber, meaning that you you have someone
that that is himselves the tradition and the only way to interpret previous traditions.
So you cannot look into tradition like people's done. You cannot look into a
book because you know, we're still a religion of scripture. You need to
wrap the magic lamp and ask you your question. You need to consult the
oracle of the Tiber. So that was that was an argument early early Christian
would make against against the pagan saying, hey, you don't have a solid
grounding. Yeah, yeah, like you go half of you don't believe in
your own tradition and and you don't have a unified texture towards it. We
we're back to square one, a pure pagan worship avority exactly, all right,
what's next year, I think? And I think, I mean it's
Chapter three pretty much starts with semi admitting this, right, I mean,
it talks about how the papacy adopted the douction of the Church as a perfect
society, meaning that the Church was an independent, autonomous and sovereign society in
her own sphere of competence, just as the state was sovereign in temporal affairs.
And what it says then next, well, not what it says next,
but I mean combine this at Vatican one and other papal declarations in the
past. Um, this is basically admitting that started in nineteenth century church,
the Roman Catholic Church saw itself as the head of pretty much both temporal society
and you know, heavenly that is, ecclesial society. So this kind of
like amassing of authority, right that gradually occurred over time, is really manifesting
itself in Vatican one. And it also knows in three point two talks about
an epistle where it argues that the supreme authority of the Roman puntist was always
recognized in the East it's really interesting that you know, it mentions this epistle,
but then this document self say as well, actually the epistle is kind
of wrong, and that to me is quite strange. I mean, it
doesn't say it's in the period, doesn't say it explicitly, but I mean
when it talks about papal supremacy, it calls it papal premacy, but really
the more correct term is papal supremacy. This document miss people's supremacy as being
a doctrine of development, right, and so in a sense Suprema Petrio Pistoli
said it right in eighteen forty, which got responded by Dorstock's patriarchs in the
Encyclical Letter of eighteen forty eight. This documents a meaning that throwing a Catholic
perspective is also wrong at the very least. Yeah, and it's not just
that. Also, Southeast Cognidium says that as well. And the argumentation of
postereturnis is the reasons in a similar way, which is that it's not based
on development, it's based on what was always the case and always recognized.
But they trade on that ammiguity there, well, what exactly was recognized the
peter as the korifaus peter As first peter as As. This document says that
the Bishop of Rome giving canonical privileges. Yeah, that's always been recognized,
but that doesn't translate into Vatican one's claims of universal supremacy and jurisdiction. That
was not always recognized, and so that's why they have to again, guys,
don't you understand. It's like people, it's like talking to the slow
boys out there, like you can't. On the one hand, argued that
it was always the case and clear, but it was also the case that
it was never clear and it required development. Those two things are mutually exclusive.
They can't both be true, yeah, exactly. And then it first
talks about it talks about a council that Ortodox did to condemn the philotism and
how the echemical Patriot granted autocephaly the Church of Greece, Serbia, Romania due
to the situations that occurred at the time, right, the movement in the
Balkans between the balcan you know, the Greek people, the Serbian people remaining
people against you know, the Turkish government and so on and so forth.
And it talks about, you know, the first Vatican Council, but I
think I think particularly if it does, it still makes comments about conciliarism,
though I think Jay, you will definitely be more in line with kind of
referring, like talking about what passed their turns was the first balls council talk.
I just want to retrate something I said at the beginning, which is
three point eleven. I want to read this. It says Pope Leo the
thirties epistock letter Orientalium Dignitas in eighteen ninety four recognize the distinct rights of all
the Catholic Eastern churches and show the respectful approach to Eastern traditions. So this
is where you start this kind of acceptance of Eastern traditions over time, and
it's sporadically increasing this moment sporadically increasing. Then his encyclical letter Praclea Grazola in
eighteen ninety five invited all the Orthodox to union with the Church of Roman the
condition that they recognize the papal supremacy of jurisdiction. So here you see very
clearly that at the end of the day, at the end of nineteenth century,
all all you need to do as an Orcholized Christian in order to be
united with the Roman Catholic Church. Turns out, you can keep your faith,
you can keep your doctrines, so you can keep everything that you have.
You just need to kiss the papal feet. Right, that's basically what
it's telling you. Right, And it's oh, yeah, that's a great
admission, exactly, great admission. Yeah. And the Orthodox basically rejected this,
right. The Ortodox said, this is ridiculous, We're not going to
accept this. Well. By the way, by the way, we should
add that the eighteen or nineteen of Kiaty, which we just read, says
the opposite of this, right. It notes that the very criteria that Leo
is asking for here is not the historic position of the church. So wait
a minute, Kiati says that I have to accept something that So Kiati says,
it's not the historic position, but Leo's letter says that it is the
necessary position to accept. So why am I forced to accept something that is
admittedly not the traditional position of the church. You see how these contradict Kia
eighteen or nineteen or whatever it is. Let me read it again, because
I got them both pulled up here. Kati nineteen says, quote appeals to
the Bishop of Rome from the east expressed communion of the church, but the
Bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East,
quote unquote. That's nineteen f K eighty. And what does this say right
here? It says that the requirement according to Leo the thirteenth was that you
accept precisely that which is admitted to be not the case. So that's called
a contradiction Roman Catholics contradiction. I'd like to comment on this section as a
whole. I think I think here m Philes's scope is looking towards the talks
of twenty twenty five. I think it's strength to prop up Constantinople quite a
bit. And I think it's it's absolutely displaying documents that we would say are
in debate as having full authority. So that's funny because that would be the
run Catholic side saying that the Orthodox actually have more counsels and more and more
authoritative documents, and the Orthodox themselves admit, so considering the classic argument as
to say that we don't, it's a bit contradictory. And I think it's
going to say that the primercial role of Constantinople is Um. It's is really
bolstered up to the point that it doesn't really mention, for example, the
fact that the Jerusalem Council of the o Theseus wasn't made by Constantinople. It
was made against a patriarch of Constantinople, Lucres. So I think it really
skips a little bit on this on this part, even though it admitted it
was binding council before. So I think here's a goal would be too legitimize
some more Roman powers by saying, hey, Constantinople can have that too,
but in the East. So um, this is another part of the No,
you're absolutely right preparing for twenty twelve object a little bit too, because
something in discussion within the action. Because it is true, it is factual
that autocephalis were historically confirmed by Constantinople. But you know, we can also
say that many churches confirmed them, and that maybe constant Aople gave the impetus,
but it cannot act supremely on that. And I think it goes back
to Cannon thirty four, which is which is great, which is great and
very balanced, which is to say that the synod cannot oppose the decision of
the Primate. But the Primate cannot go against the decision the decisions of the
Synod, so they need to act intendem And I think here it's doing two
proplemsatople as much as possible, but it's it's still quite tame compared to some
of the papal claim Real quick, let's do that. I just want everyone
to see, because I know how the slow boys in the audience operate.
They're not going to pay attention to what we said. They're going to blow
pass it and ignore it. Okay, to make this really easy for you
guys, on the left of the screen three point eleven, you'll see what
David was talking about. Put Leo the thirteenth Letter or Intallium dignatatas right dignata
excuse me, recognize distinct rights of all the Catholic Eastern Churches and show to
respect for their traditions. His encyclical letter Preclara rutilationis invited all the Orthodox to
union with the Church of Rome on the condition that they recognize the primacy papal
premacy of jurisdiction. Okay, that's the present day Alexandria document on the right
of the screen. You'll see the Kiati document in paragraph nineteen a few years
ago. Both of these are similar documents. What does it say there?
Appeals to disciplinary matters were made also to Constantinople and other seas. You see
that that was my point against the bar. Such appeals to major sis were
always treated in a synautical way. Appeals to the Bishop of Rome 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. Do you see these admissions
and do you see that that's a contradiction. The document on the left is
admitting that Leo the thirteenth's attitude is that you must accept the ancient view,
the traditional Vatican One view, that the Roman bishop has universal authority and canonical
authority over all churches. The document on the right says in the first thousand
years he didn't have that authority and exercise. That's called a contradiction Roman Catholics.
Do you see that counter argument would be to say, oh, like,
he didn't have canonical jurisdiction, but he still had this charism of universal
jurisdiction and beings ahead of the church that he didn't use it, and it
wasn't recognized by Zeas and it wasn't reflected in Canada. Yeah, that's called
being unfalsifiable arguments from silence. It was there always and never used it.
It was secret hidden powers. By the way, this is the practical system
which makes it all easy and simple. And the post shit, why didn't
he just use these powers? Eric, Well, the pope hurd these powers,
but he just didn't use it retricides. But the way I'm getting I
mean thing is an argument of silence. Suppose that there is no direct count
argument Like an argument of silence would would say, oh cannon, now sort
of leftist spot for this to happen, whereas we can see clearly the opposite
practice and being enshrined. You know, name needs autophais and all exactly like
yeah, Like you're pretty much begging the question if you're saying this power exists,
but it wasn't used, it wasn't demonstrated, nobody felt a need to
to proclaim it. Well, I mean again, so does that make things
easy and simple? If this power is there to resolve the problems, but
the papacy is not smart enough to use the power that it has to resolve
the problems. And by the way, the classical you know, proof text,
but this would be um, you know, papal other jurisdiction appealing to
the pope or people document being said and being ratified by everybody. But as
the document of Kitty itself says, well, this is not something that that
strictly existing the Pope. And this idea of you know, sending documents for
approval by us as isn't really right. Isn't really the papacy in his claim,
it's just manifesting is a unity or oh yeah, remember when I brought
that up to Erica barn I said, why didn't everybody just write letters to
the Pope to have all the issues settled? And he said, because the
vet can be full of paper stucks everywhere. You wouldn't have time to get
through more. Okay, uh, what's the case You can't You couldn't use
examples for example of Liqui the papercin to evening and nobody caring in case exactly
resecution and you know that I cannot clause if it was case closed because Ron
took Yeah, many cases would have been closed. Yeah, but you're east
remember they'll use the art they'll they'll use the letter of Clement to try to
act like that's how the church operated in the first century. Oh, we
just asked Clement. Clement writes a letter and solves the disputes in the Church
of Corinth from you know, eight hundred miles away or whatever, five hundred
miles what however for our Corinth. But so they'll be like, oh,
look see quote Clement is uh, just with a swipe of the pen resolving
the issues in a church, you know, one hundred miles away. Again,
at this point, it just means that had been communicating, uh,
you know, calling someone forehead means that he has follow over you against that
speaking the question. But but but yeah, but but it's but it's it's
saying, well, but wait a minute. So if it was there that
whole time, then it didn't develop as a seed form. How can Clement
be exercising full full universal Vatican one jurisdiction. It's supremacy, and yet it's
something that has to develop, you see. So it can't be both of
those things. As my point, it can't be always there, clear as
day, existing as an exercisable power, but it's also not always there.
It developed you see yeah, yeah, and two two clothing that this documentarily
says that it's it's a development and Satisco Nisum says it's not a development,
it was always there or what do you guys want to go to next?
Yeah, I mean chapter four kind of just talks about some like it gives
an overview to very stifferin eclesiological views across various different parties. I suppose the
one thing to me, this tribo really interests me too much. I guess
it talks a little bit about the constos subornos, which again it was developed
by in nineteenth century Russia, but it kind of just goes over the history
of this position, so you kind of see that this kind of understanding didn't
really influence the church as a whole, but rather a specific part of the
church, which I think SEC already got into the history of the history of
the Russian Church and kind of how it got out of the mess that it
ended up getting out of today. And other than that, I suppose one
view that kind of like some of these views are like the ecoistic ecclesiology view
and the kind of the church's communion. I mean, these are kind of
interesting views, but the Vede it is described here in this document is a
bit too broad, which is fine because it's you know, the document is
kind of just going over several different views, and the main part of the
document is interesting is kind of admissions that it makes. And I think that
I want to kind of point out actually, now that I remember the it
kind of treats it props up Creates twenty sixteen way too much. Whereas everyone
who knows a little bit about the Council of Creed knows that in fact it
didn't really have complete Catholic pan Orthodox acceptance. Many different churches didn't show up.
The documents did, but they didn't discuss what they plan to discuss um.
So basically the fourth part is it's a history of ecumunism, so um,
you know, that's something that's still contested to an extent on both sides.
Really interesting is, you know, is they share they expressed what theological
concept we're shared and for example, in mentioning so bonus so the idea that
everybody is involved, which is true to an extent. But I think here
they are just trying to to attack a little bit of in the traditionist position,
which is which is like only only clerical because in Romes they've they've really
got this um. It's back and forth in this fight right now, and
you can see that in their council that they're really doing everything they can to
promote the authority of parish council women. They're doing everything they can to promote
basically they have this fight, and I think it's it's mostly linked to the
fact that historically and socially, because of mandatory celibacy, the priest wasn't often
really included in the parish life. Yeah, so maybe less important, but
they're still saying, also bonus is interesting, which you know, yes,
it's interesting, but it also has its limits. It talks about eucharistic zoology,
and we would say that it's it's very important because that's that's the earliest
the classiology we have. That's from Sipron of coffee, that's from especially Ignacious
of Antioch, and that's how we explained communion, you know, because the
classic Roman system would be saying that the church is submission to Rome. But
here there is this idea that you know, the church can communicate with one
another through communion. Yeah, and that's important. But I think that this
document is propping it up to say, hey, maybe we just try to
re establish communion, to make your union before having all this all this um
right, which which is, like you said, is preparation for twenty You
know, even I think even banned the sixteen said maybe we should try to
solve the problems, you know, theological and actually before communion. Maybe,
yeah, the community, it shouldn't be done before in the hope that it
would be solved, but should be done after when it's done, which is
what the plentitude of the community means. But these had two points that kind
of stick out. Apart from that, it's just a history of a communism,
Yeah exactly. I mean, how can you have a reunion without the
issues that separate being sold? First, I mean, union presupposes truth,
and it presupposes union of doctrial matters. And you know, the papal system
is a system that doesn't admit to much flexibility. Even though these documents are
being quote unquote flexible and making a lot of admissions to our position. The
nature of the Vatican One papal system, which has already been set in stone,
is inflexible. So it's great that they're admitting all these things, But
why are they wanting us to sign onto a system which all of Vatican one
is completely rigid and completely set in stone. And the traads you know,
quote unquote that are constantly harping on Vatican one, contradicting Vatican two and so
forth, they are absolutely correct. There is a contradiction between what's being admitted
in these documents and Vatican one. And I'm sorry, but contradictions at the
papal and dogmatic level amount to this system itself being false. You understand that
these are exclusive systems for Roman Catholics out there, So the a lot of
Roman Caloitis will be like, well, look, why can't you guys just
we're being flexible. Why can't you be flexible? Because the nature of your
system is such that it is a totalizing system. You can't have Roman Catholicism
being true and Vatican one being wrong. You can't have Roman Catholicism being true
and Vatican two being wrong. You see, it doesn't it doesn't work that
way. If Vatican one or Vatican two, or the papal teachings of the
last seventy years are wrong, or any other papal teachings, then the papal
system is wrong. It's that something, all right, what's next to anything?
No, I think that summarizes part four. So yeah, like even
goes further than than we would in terms of the authority of the church,
especially through the patriarch prom Constantinople, but it also mentioned other patriarchs such as
Jrusalem. Yeah. I don't know if you have anything else to say about
this part, David, Yeah, I don't really have much else to say.
And I think I kind of went over the conclusion to kind of give
an idea about this document. But we can go over the conclusion again.
And this is kind of the shifty usage of words that I see from Roman
Catholic documents quite regularly, because after making all of these admissions, they just
ended well, okay, or primacy, which really is supremacy. And yeah,
the kind of and it's characterization of the Orthodox system as a federation of
self sufficient churches is not really the adequate understanding. So it basically makes the
point that okay, if we made all of these admissions, but really the
Orthodox Church as it is has also these kinds of like lacks these certain things,
whereas we Orthodox people who say no, we don't. We have primacy
and we also have you know, unity and distinction, so to speak.
Right, so we have primacy and sinodality simultaneously. It's the Roman Catholics that
lacks synodality in the truest sense because they have supremacy, not merely just primacy.
And so I see this in communication between primacy supremacy by Roban Catholic apologies
and by the Roman Catholic Church itself, whereas the Ordsdog Church we actually do
have an understanding of primacy that is distinct from the Roman Catholic understanding. It
has its own fleshed out understanding of it. So what it's basically trying to
push, and this is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church today,
is that essentially they see the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church as two
you know, lungs of the same church. Right at the end of the
day, they're basically the same church. Are just having a fight between each
other. At the end of the day, it's a fight that somehow,
for some reason last four thousand years. And you know, if they fix
all of these minor different issues, they might just come back again in union
and just become one Church in a complete sense. Until then the two churches
are just one church that are just separate from each other in some sense.
Right, And in Roman Catholic ecclesiology in the modern day, as promulgated by
even various different so called traditional Roman Catholic apologists, is that the Orthodox Church
pretty much has everything. The Orthodox Church has Christ. But as Father Peter
Hughes kind of has a has a tile to one of his videos, if
we have Christ, why do we need the Pope? Right? And at
the end of the day, the Roman Catholic system is one of paople recognizing
the Pope as the leader of Christianity. And once you do that, you
can just believe in anything that you want, which is why you have all
of these Eastern Catholics who believe in Orthodox doctrines and Historian doctrines, Monoposyte doctrines
and the can somehow be part of the Roman Catholic Church because the theology doesn't
actually matter. Turns out, the only thing that matters is if you kiss
the papal feet, and that's just it. And this document, in spite
of all of the admissions that it makes, it is still it's still at
the end of the day showcases the intention of having, however, and increasing
its own alterity of the Roman Catholic Church at the end of the day.
Yeah, I mean the document admits that it says cynodality and primacy need to
be seen as quote, interrelated, complementary, and separable realities, and it's
quoting the Kyati document. Now, wait a minute, how many ecclesiologies are
there? Does the Church have rival ecclesiologies existing within it? No, there's
one ecclesiology. And if it's the ecclesiology handed down in the first, second,
third, four phist six seventh centuries, that's good enough. Why do
we need competing ecclesiologies within the church? Right? So, in other words,
this is again admitting that, look, okay, we can see all
the points that you have been saying, but let's still have the papacy because
look, both of these systems can cohere. Both of them kind of need
each other complimentary. No, they're not. Vatican one does not have a
complimentary ecclesiology. And by complimentary, I don't mean does Vatican one ever admit
that there are other bishops in the church and that they have authority in their
diocese. I know it says that that's not the point, because the point
is universal supremacy without reference to any other bishops is precisely a non Patristic ecclesiology.
It's a non first millennium ecclesiology. So these are two different systems Allah.
That's why there's two different churches Roman Orthodoxy. So the idea that they're
interrelated and complimentary is just like David said, and like Sneck said, really
just preparing the way for twenty twenty five. And oh look see we can
all work together and come up with some new tertium quid church which has all
all of this smushed together. Yeah, I mean, I mean, Karen,
That's why I'm interested in Cann thirty four of the Apostles is that we
already ass we already have an understanding of primacy that is not completely with or
understanding of sinidality. And I think that the point here is to say,
hey, you're stressing sinidality, we've been stressing primacy. Let's let's let's let's
mix, let's do a little bit of both. No, the Awthac position
would be that we have both. We have and and that's why we have been