The the the the the the the the the the the the the the alto
the the although the the the the the the the the the the the the
the the the the the the the the the the the the don't think the
name the the the the the the the the the the the the the the
the the all Right, what's up? Welcome a lot of indication this week.
I mean, it seems like a lot of the stuff we've talked about
for many, many years, it's happening, it's unbailing, it's emerging from
the closet, but for real, Nope, to get serious, sort of
you can't have this system running without morals to go along with it, right,
And if the morals collapse, the theology collapses in as Father Moses talks
about, the collapse in the morals usually is what leads to the collapse in
the theology. Right, it's not primarily intellectual. Moral issues happen first,
and then you get the bad theology as a result of bad morals. And
that's why you can't really ultimately separate these two things. And in the Roman
Catholic world, especially since the time of the gradual adoption of the strict Augustinian
view of the sacraments, which in the West develops to be even something beyond
what Augustine believed, because Augustin didn't believe that atheists necessarily or Muslims could baptize
you. Now, the theology that he had for the sacraments would eventually lead
to that you would eventually get the three elements necessary for a sacrament. In
the Romancalthic view, matter, form, and intention. Those are three things
necessary, and that develops over time to be specified eventually in the Scholastic the
medieval Roman Catholic period. One of the problems, though, is that the
idea is that you can have a mechanical operation of this stuff going on with
the grace of the sacraments, not just with sin that would be the Donutus'
position right moral failures, but even without the faith. So we don't even
need the correct faith anymore. The correct community doctrines and belief and celebrates the
sacraments. Now you can have this divorced from the faith itself, and that's
a distinguishing point between developed Latin sacramentology and Orthodox sacramentology. I would argue,
that's my take. And another one of the effects of this is the eventual
medieval distinction in Roman Catholic theology between having the faith and having charity. So
if one commits, for example, in the Romanchalic system immortal sin, one
loses the charity necessary to experience the beatific vision. In Roman Catholic theology,
you then go to confession, which then absolves you of the eternal debt,
and then you still have most likely to boorld debts that you still owe.
This is where indulgences come into play in their system. Oh, that's a
much Romancalic sacramentology, but it's relevant to this because the root of all of
this, what's going on with the Roman Catholic system is precisely this divorcing way
back at various junctures in Catholic theological development, the divorcing between the morals and
the dogmatic theology, such that, for example, you could have Borgia popes
who are completely wicked. They've got Alexander has tunnels underneath the Vatican from the
Borgia apartments to the whorehouse that he has, and would that they were only
into the ladies, not even in the ladies anymore. Right, But he's
still the Holy Father right now. I'm not saying that again, any sin
suddenly invalidates the church quote unquote right, So this is not donatism. Their
response to donatism, though, went in the opposite direction of basically formalizing everything,
making everything a kind of juridical institutional thing, saying to the extent that
the institutional body begins to gradually replace even God himself. That's my view.
Now, of course Roman Catholics are going to differ, but what are we
seeing the papacy do. Not only does the papacy make what you could argue
in the even in the High Middle Ages was in I mean, I think
the theology is wrong, but you could argue, well, they're making rulings
on different different positions and different issues and judging between issues. Right, Oh,
it's it's Roman clitics. So it's like Moses, he's making judgments between
cases. Even if that were the case, I don't think it is.
What happens when we get to the point where now even natural law, according
to the Roman Catholic system of what natural law is natural justice can now be
altered, updated and changed. And we've shown multiple times that that as in
fact happened, particularly with Pote Francis. But it's not just Pote Francis.
This actually goes back to the high the Renaissance period. And I keep talking
about this book because it's really good for those interested in the specifics of the
real hot bed of time between for the split between East and West. Right,
when is that hot bed time nine hundreds to fourteen hundreds. That's the
time period where the two churches go in different directions. And so the question
becomes, then, who's the authentic church of the first thousand years? And
if the thesis is right of Father Moses that theological errors are usually rooted in
moral errors, we will eventually see moral errors regardless of what we know of
the theology. So we can set up aside people's knowledge of medieval scholasticism and
who has mastered the suma, and who understands the nuances of sua res versus
Bellermann. We don't even need any of that. You can set all that
aside, because, as Father Moses says, eventually the moral errors, which
were the root of the theological errors, will surface, and you'll get moral
errors evidenced in theology. You see, in other words, if the papacy
is the institution that has innovated and that has moved away from the conciliar Christianity
the first thousand years, which is the Orthodox thesis, then we would begin
to see the diagnoses of that problem from the Orthodox mindset proving true. And
the diagnosis is exemplified again by Father Moses if you watch him on Coteil Stream
a few weeks ago, the diagnosis would be from his vantage point, which
I think is correct. Is it? Well? The real issues here are
moral corruption, which will then lead to a corruption in the dogmas. And
morals are actually part of the dogmas, and so eventually you will see a
corruption in the morals. And that is precisely what we have seen. But
the most recent development is not just a development in the morals. Development in
morals and a contradiction in one topic. There have been plenty of others.
The position on the usury by the papacy has changed, the position on the
death penalty has changed. In fact, I think Tim Gordon even had a
debate with Trent Horne on that. I think they had to have been on
that. I think that debate is on Catholic answers. I haven't actually heard
this debate, but I've taught ten mentioned it to me a while back,
I haven't heard it yet, but point being is that, well, if
Francis is there to clarify, it's interesting that we're having debates on what the
Catholic position is on the death only because I mean it shouldn't change, correct.
I mean, in classic Catholic moral theology, the death penalty is a
manifestation of natural justice. And when Francis actually it was John Paul the Second
that changed the position initially, but when Francis made it even clearer that the
position has changed. Francis said that the death penalty is contrary to the Gospel,
even stronger than it's it's abused. You might you might make an argument
that, well, the death penity is abused in certain societies. Okay,
but does that mean it's inherently morally wrong. Well, the abuse of something
doesn't make something wrong, right, father's abuse are Oh, I guess we
should ban dads and fathers right because it was abused. No, it's silly.
Nobody would argue that unless you're unless you're a pope's planner, then they
would. They would argue that because they're at the maximum peak max meta level
of coping, such that no one the world has never seen, we're at
the new level. But the new level of pope's planning is a manifestation of
the original pope'splaining that began in the tenth and eleventh century. What do I
mean by that? That is the century when we got Dick Tatus poppe.
That is the century when we got Auto and a hundred years of Germanic princes
appointing the pope the papacy. Oh but wait a minute, I thought this
was the accusation against orthodox Cicero papism. What about papal o Crism. That's
why you should read Christianity, the Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy
by mayand Or and Papa Dooccus, because the book will demonstrate clear as day
this massive alteration and revolution known as the Gregorian Reforms. And it is from
this period that we get Dick TASiS Pope, which has the most outlandish and
ridiculous claims for the papacy, some of which still exist in Roman Catholic canon
laws, such as the First Sea is judged by no one that comes from
a forgery. Still. There by the way, guys, if you do
want to support the stream, you can via superchats. We got a nice
six hundred here, maybe we get up to about seven hundred eight hundred tonight.
Superchats are done via stream labs, and the stream labs link is right
there all right, So so giving the big bird's eye view here, the
point is that you've got a revolution in the papacy in this century eleven hundreds.
And this revolution is precisely what many of the Orthodox at that time called
out. So if we come over to the academic site here ford them dot
edu, it lists for us the entirety of Dictatus poppy, Okay, and
it's one page, and we got a lot of lazy boys out there that
can't read. So let's again look at this. The Roman Church is founded
by God alone. The Roman pontiff is alone universal. He alone can depose
the renstate bishops. Everybody should realize that this is not the way the church
functioned in the first thousand years, right, And most educated Roman Catholics they're
totally aware of this, and they said, well, this is a legitimate
development, This is a revolution, totally different ecclesiology. Clearly, he alone
can depose emperors. He appoints and approves all the bishops in the world.
No sinas are ecumenical without him, nothing is canonical without his authority. So
he now judges and is the judge of canon law. He's not subject to
the canons. You see other councils prior to this subject to the Roman Pontiff,
to the canons. Allah Honorius being excommunicated, that means he's subject to
the canons and the decision of the Church. Now it is flipped. The
Church is subject to the decision and the determination of the Roman Pontiff. Everyone
honest with themselves should be able to see that. This is clear as day.
Dictatus Pope ten seventy five, included in the Papal register by Pope Gregory
the seventh. This is a revolution, as clear as day. Have you
heard the Roman Catholic apologists address Dictatus Pope. No, they handwaive it because
it's extremely embarrassing and it's a killer argument. No one can judge the first
see see that number nineteen. And yet what do we have today in the
Roman Catholic world and yesterday in the Roman Catholic world about fifty I'm gonna guess
forty fifty of the Roman Catholic world judging the first Sea in the first Sea's
decisions on moral issues. What does Vatican one say about the terrorism of Peter
protecting the Roman Sea when it teaches on faith and morals, it is preserved
from error. And it is said that in that same phraseology all the way
back here at least to dictate his Pape twenty two, What does that one
say? The Roman Church has never aired, nor will it err unto all
eternity, as scripture says, even though it had already occurred that Honorius taught
error as a bishop of the Roman See, he taught Monothelicism. He's not
just condemned by the seventh Council and a sixth council, He's condemned by three
successive councils in the Sonaoticon. So it is simply false that the Roman Church
never aired from a couple centuries prior to this. And remember Dictatis Pape is
partly based on forgeries that we're not yet admitted to be forgeries. Now it
is admitted that these are forgeries. What this is based on things like the
Simachian document, Samockian forgeries, the Galesian de Credles, donation of Constantine,
right, all the big ones, and yet things like the first he is
judged by no one is still in Roman Catholic canon law, so it's not
that difficult. Quite simply, the system itself is an air tight system that
istructed that either works because there aren't errors and contradictions, or there are contradictions
and it doesn't work. It's that simple. And rather than all of the
nuances of the theology, which is important, we could spend all day.
We've done years of streams on the theology and the nuance in Rome and all
that. As Father Moses pointed out, can we not just look to the
morals and have there been changes in the morals now? When Francis says the
death penalty is outdated in its contrary to the Gospel, to me, it's
pretty obvious that's a change in moral teaching. To the Roman Catholic. No,
it's it's time for me now to engage in what's called casustri. Somebody
said, why are you using eight dollars words? I don't know what's eight
dollars word? That's at least one hundred dollars word, bro. Casustri is
the term for when people engage in sophistry, particularly in the domain of ethics
to make their obvious nonsense work. Now, we already saw it, as
we said with with the change and the death penalty, and we've already covered
it. And you'll notice that they just ignore it. They just move on.
Lofton says, oh, it's not a change, and he moves on
and ignores it. Hand hand waves it. Even meanwhile Tim and Trent are
debating it. But if we needed a clearer change in morals, I can't
think of a clearer change than what has just happened. And outside of the
Trads and Tim and people in that sphere, they're lying. They're outright line
because they know that it's a change, and they're doing the same old bureaucratic
trick, and the people are falling for it. Right that the Vatican always
does. You do the double speak, move the over to window. And
you know that the psychology of human psychology is to double down and keep defending
the position when there's been an obvious change. And I'm going to show you
an obvious change. And even Tim admitted it. What's the obvious change?
In two thousand and three, the Congregation for the Doctrine of Fae that's Ratzinger's
office right when he was the head of the CDF, which is the successor
to let's do it this way, the successor to the Holy Office, right
of the Inquisition. I'm not joking. It's actually called the Congregation for the
Doction, CDF for the Propagation Faith, whatever, hell these different titles,
but this is the successor to the Holy to the Holy Office the Inquisition.
Ratzinger was, for many years before being elected Pope, the head of this,
Okay, And there were questions coming in in two thousand and three,
what about legal civil recognition or blessings to skittles and other types of things.
Remember, there's other options beyond just skittles. Did you think that skittles was
the only alternative lifestyle. There's thrupples, there's polycules, there's UH, there's
a I N CE S T. There's all manner of creative lifestyle that a
person might choose. Now, this document says it is problematic at every level.
There cannot be a recognition of It is contrary to according to rat Singer
right reasoning, is contrary to biology, contrary to anthropology, contrary to the
social order, and even contrary to a healthy civil order. It does grave
unjustice to the common good, so it cannot be reviewed and changed. Now,
Francis in his recent Dubia the Questions that he answered, already answered this
and compared the union between two skittles to the union of man and woman and
said that there are positive aspects to that union, even though we can't full
out say all right, it's a marriage. So now what they did the
move overton window was rather than getting you to debate about a marriage, what
about blings for couples? And then the Casustri engine went into overdrive to explain
that, well, the blessing of this sinner and the blessing of this center
is just the blessing of sinners. No, it's not. You're lying to
yourselves, because the document says, the blessing of a couple. Can you
count a couple is just two individuals. It's a couple, dummy, and
you know it, and your liars. Everybody in the world, except for
the hamster wheel of the Pope splainers in their mind and the hamster wheel it
keeps running, knows that this is a change for one. The two thousand
and three Ratsinger Congregation for the Doctor of the Faith says that it can't be
You can't allow it, and it cannot should not be promoted as a civil
union by the state, and it certainly can't be blessed even if it's irregular.
Now, blessings of couples in irregular situations within the horizon outline here the
possibility of blessings for couples. It's here in such cases, blessings may be
imparted. And all of these liars are saying, well, there's just a
blessing of people who are sinners. Did you not hear the entire conversation that
Tim gave explaining how in Roman Catholic theology this makes no sense. It's like
they don't It's like they're only concerned with the sophistry of the letters, of
the wording, the lettering, how they can twist that to make it work,
when moral theology says very clearly that you can't participate in the sins of
others in Catholic theology. Okay, Cali moral theology, I can't. Oh,
you two guys are gonna go murder. Oh well, let me give
you a blessing as a couple of sinners as you go to murder. But
I'm not for murder, and everybody in the world can see this is lying
sophistry, except for these stooges. Even James Martin says that I'm all all
aboard, all aboard the frank train. So here's what I said. If
you watched Tim's show, he explained it very clearly. Tim was spot on
in his analysis. He correctly notes that the blessing itself is of the couple,
the union, as the document says. It doesn't say we're just gonna
grant a blessing too, No, No, it's intentionally couples. This is
to warm you up to the next phase. Dummies, you don't understand moving
the Overton window. You're that dumb, You're that low IQ. This is
why you keep getting played. And you're gonna look even dumber as you double
down. And by twenty thirty, when Francis is sacrificing the infants in Saint
Peter Square or whoever his indigenous successor is, you're gonna be saying, well,
it's not an mortal sin version of infant sacrifice, because this infant sacrifice
to patcha mama, not for Pacha mama. That's the next level, right,
that's I'm being silly, but not really. You cannot bless the intention
of sin is the point, and everybody in Ron Mcauthath theology knows this because
it makes you a complicit actor in the sin, because the basis is consequentialist.
At the as ten points out, is condemned in Roman Caliic moral theology.
The post planners have already accepted the Overton window move to where now they're
defending the blessing itself, which was the original thing in contention, and the
timeline that tim will give you proves it. And then they say, but
the document says it's not liturgical, So what who said that it had to
be liturgical? Well that means it's not. It's not Skittle's marriage doesn't have
to be. This is the stage preparing you for that. And the proof
of that is that it used to be condemned. The blessing was condemned.
Now the blessing is allowable, but it ain't. It ain't marriage. You
guys, get what you deserve because you keep blind to yourself. And then
you get mad at me because I tell you the truth. The rage,
the rage I told you that this was coming. This is a big vindication.
People got mad at me. Not everybody. Most people were like,
yeah, you were right, because it's not hard to figure out where it
will go. It didn't just start at Vatican two. It didn't just start
with Vatican one. Dick Titus Pope in the year ten seventy five makes the
pope a world emperor. Don't you think being world emperor might come along with
some temptations, the potentiality for corruption. I would say so. And immediately
after Dixatus Pope, we get all kinds of wild things happening in the Latin
Papal Franco Papal West. We get Borgies, we get the Western captivity where
the papal throne is in France for seventy plus years. What yes, the
Sea of Peter in France. Again. All of this shows you that the
story the Roman Calocics have that the papacy was somehow immune to geopolitical influence is
completely false. It's just not true. And the scholarship details exactly how it's
not true and exactly what went down. So, and it's not just the
pa Papa doc Is Mayandorf book. It's in the Phocian Schism, It's in
after nine hundred years by congo are all the same admissions. So do we
need a PhD in essence introducation? No, we don't. Like Father Moses
says, if the theology is whack, then eventually the morals will crack.
Have the morals cracked? You tell me if now the death penalty is outdated,
Remember it used to be a part of natural justice. We don't do
it anymore. It's against the gospel. Number two skittles. Unions are a
kind of union, according to the Dubia. It's not exactly male female union,
but it's a kind of union. You know, there's kind of rubbing
up on another part of another body. It's a union, okay, kind
of like it could happen between a mom and a son too. That's a
kind of a union. I mean, between a man and an animal is
a kind of a union. They're all kinds of unions. So they're pale
reflections of It's still sin but you know, maybe if we blessed, the
sinners will repent. That's the logic of these idiots. It's so stupid.
It's so obviously casustri. People are like, you've been saying this word issustri
for so long while because it's perfectly what this is. And Roman Catholics are
no strangers to Kasustri. For example, alfonsis Lagwari in his twenty three plus
Reasons and Bases for how you can lie. Now, I don't have a
problem. Mean, there may be situations when you know, you look at
the example of you know Ray Hab or you know David engaging in deception or
I'm not trying to be some sort of puritan. But the point is that
even though Tim is right when he says that technically Roman Catholic morality doesn't accept
consequentialist ethics, actually some of the moral theologies of the trad Catholic world,
actually they do accept quite a few consequentialist argumentation. I mean, and this
is actually its own whole niche rabbit hole debate. You can go down in
the world of tradct moral theology where it just gets it gets into literal,
like insane pharisee levels of debates, right like, well, my what if
my intention to deceive was for a greater outcome? I mean, that's kind
of consequentialist ethics. And you actually do see alfonsis of goory reasoning in that
kind of train of thought. But anyway, nobody even cares about that it's
not. But my point is that I would actually argue that no, there
already was consequentialist ethical reasoning in Roman Catholicism. A lot of people like liguory,
but whatever it's that's not the main point. The main point point is
that if you've already accepted the basis of consequential's ethics, then this is a
I mean, you've opened Pendora's box. And that's what people who are naive
and domb don't understand social engineering and moving the Overton window. They know good
and well that they can't immediately tell everybody in the world it's time for outright
skittle's marriage. So what do you have to do. Well, you got
to warm people up and ease them into these kinds of things. And the
way that you do that is you begin with things like the blessing. And
that's why they were asking. The very people that Tim talks about in his
timeline back in the nineties and two thousands were already asking about the blessing,
and it was rejected as immoral in two thousand and three. Now, what
happened between two thousand and three to twenty twenty three twenty years that suddenly we
need a development in Roman Catholic theology. Remember this is a system where there's
theological development. Of course it is because this is this is going to make
the Romancalics mad. But guess what. The papal position it itself is a
revolution and innovation. So the very thing that you think is the bulwark of
trad the papacy itself, eleventh century Gregorian reforms admitted by your top academic scholars,
people like Kungar admitted to be a revolution of the eleventh century. So
we have a different account, We have a different story. Papalism itself is
the revolution. So it is not surprising to us that we would see evolution
in morals coming out of the papacy. Of course, it has been revolutionized
and evolving for a thousand years. And this isn't the first example. Usery
is an example. The death penalty is another recent example. And everybody with
an ounce of discernment and an IQ above room temperature can see that this is
exactly what's happening. And let's look at Tim's timeline of events, because he's
spot on, and i'm i'm I was really impressed with the honesty that Tim
had in his stream that he did yesterday, which got a lot of views.
So if you haven't watched it, go watch it, because what Tim's
going to do is show you that everybody knows in the Roman Catholic world who
knows moral theology, you can't be complicit in other people's since it's no different
than saying, well, you know, the I n ceest relationship that's here.
You know they're they're individually sinners, but I'm gonna bless them as a
couple in hopes that they will repent. It doesn't work like that, and
they know that, and that's why the very people who are the goblins and
lagons were the ones asking for the blessings back then. So let's look at
this. Here is the history timeline for the Pope Splanners. And when Tim
talks about the sunked Gollan mafia, he's talking about this inner group within the
you know papal cardinal you know circles that is the most radical. Okay,
that's what he's referring to. And they're the ones that have for a long
time really been pushing for the extreme changes. So that's what he means by
sunked Gollan Mafia. Now I'm not poop pooing this. I think this is
true, of course. I actually just again you know, we as Orthodox,
we placed the problems away earlier than that I can or the song to
Gollin Mafia. The problems go back a long time. But in terms of
the historical timeline, yes, this group within has absolutely been very radical and
pushing for big changes. And this will again show you this is the obvious
plan, this is what they want and all the people trying to explain it
because and it's so funny, because it's like they haven't figured out the double
speak, right, It's like, well, the document says it's not changing
anything. Oh okay, well in that case, it's not a change.
Really, you guys can't figure out a contradiction. I mean Tim has pinned
at the top of his comment section on his video the two things that contradict
in Francis's new document. Let's look at the two paragraphs. Let's see what
Tim's argument is, and then we'll get back to the timeline. But I
want you to see this because you'll see, I mean, everybody's too lazy
to go actually look at this, So all right. So here he's got
pinned at the top for those saying that the document affirms church teaching. No,
the document contradicts itself. Finally, here we go a Roman Catholic who
can recognize that saying double speak doesn't count as a good argument. Right.
Props to Tim for this right, because look, the document contradicts. So
the fact that it says in one paragraph that there's nothing changing doesn't mean that
when it contradicts there's not a change. You can't see this, You guys
can't see this. This was done on purpose to confuse absolutely, and that's
why Tim is correct to say that in romancauth theology, the contradict is to
usher in the idea of blessing in mortal sin. Also, Tim points out
Francis's change in whether divorced and remarried people can have communion is a change.
It's a contradiction. He's right about that. But that's not even like as
big as this stuff. Why do I say that? Well, in Roman
Catholic theology, skittles is one of the sins that Christ to have in for
vengeance. So in Roman Gotha theology, there's certain mortal sins that all mortal
sins damn you and remove charity right from the soul. But certain mortal sins
are extremely bad in Roman Catholic theology, and one of those is skittles,
and hence in Roman Catholic moral theology, it is said to be one of
the sins crying to have in for vengeance. That's why this is so subversive,
is because this is now ushering in the blessing of people who have the
intent. And it's everybody knows that to do immortal said in Roman Catholic the
els. So Tim argues correctly that paragraph eleven contradicts paragraph thirty one in Francis's
new document, basing itself on the CDF. Blah blah blah. It is
not possible for the church to bless right or have a liturgical celebration for this.
And here's what loft dog and everyone who ain't changed nothing, I don't
it ain't change none the right heard all. And then by thirty one here
appears the possibility of blessings for couples. Couples in irregular situations, by the
way, is that just people living together or is that like mom and son?
I mean what we don't know, right, it's and couples of couples.
Does it say adamized individual units, lying pope slainer people. No,
it says couples. So that ends all of the liars. That woman on
Twitter who's trying to talk smack and wouldn't debate me. I offered her debate.
She said, you can't read. You can't read? Oh really,
do you want to go into the I said, let's have a public debate
and we can go into the papal documents and see who can read. I'm
busy, I got things going. I can't do that. Did you guys
see that? Exactly? Sure? So there you go. It's clear as
day a contradiction because what was all of the post Planner arguments. It's a
blessing of two individual sinners at once. No, it's a blessing of couples,
because that's what the same people who got this pushed through were asking for
in the nineties, dummies. So in the nineteen nineties, the son to
galland Cardinals Mcerrick Daniels had already been pushing for Brigolio to be elected. They
pushed it in two thousand and five and in the twenty thirteen conclave. This
was in the nineteen nineties, and these were the pro Blessing faction. You
see twenty ten, arch Bishop Brigoglio comes out in Buenos Aires for civil unions.
So he wasn't even the pope yet and he's already in his jurisdiction pushing
for civil unions. Do you guys remember a few years ago when this happened
and they were pushing for it, And do you remembermember, remember met Fred?
Mitfred's thumbnails and he's crying on his straight He's got thumbnails of Himseff crying.
What's with these He's pushing for civil unions that don't make a mistake.
No, let me, Pope's playing for the next five years. By the
way, Jay dawes mean, look at how pious I am on met Fred,
I'm super bious. And then by the way he invites people on to
be mean in debates, I'm not joking. Did you remember the klip where
he's like, guys, want to come on, you want to get hated,
go ahead, go aady. But I'm still a bad person because I'm
mean. Remember that. Remember Eric Obara when he sues it's a civil union.
He's not talking about merging the churches, just a public civil union and
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. All
of these people are wrong and I was right. Where's the apologies? Because
I told them, I've been saying since two thousand and seven, this is
the pathway to skittles marriage. Are we at skills marriage yet? No?
This is the pathway? Nummies? Do you think these apostate goblin cardinals total
demons? You think they're not smart enough to figure out how to ease you
into these positions? You are SAPs who buy into this. And because I
told you, your SAPs, you're furious at me. And what have we
had for years? Now? Think of all the podcasts, all the live
streams, all the tweets, all the attempts to get me deplatformed by these
goblin trad cats and these goblin Roman Catholics for so many years, and here
we are with total vindication. So here's my extension to you, guys.
I don't want to be your enemy. I want to be your friends.
How's that? But the only pathway to that reconciliation is honesty. Does that
makes sense? And a lot of the problems that you have with Orthodoxy,
maybe it's time to rethink the position. Maybe you didn't hear good arguments.
Maybe you heard bad arguments for Orthodoxy. Maybe you just latched onto easy,
lazy approaches to why I'm a bad person and didn't hear me out. Maybe
now it's time to hear us out because a lot of what we've been saying
for twenty years, no, thirty years, no fifty, no a thousand
years has been correct. So back to the timeline. So remember the first
thing was to say, hey, look, not in the church, guys,
but for the civil legal sphere, the secular sphere, maybe those people
should have their libertarian freedom, they should be able to have a civil union.
That's the stage one. Twenty twenty, Pope Francis, I'll excuse me.
Twenty fourteen, Pope Francis makes a midterm report the first Synod that extoles
from Francis a positive aspect for skittles. And this was a big deal at
the time. Everybody's whoa, what, what and what did all the Pope
spleeners do at that time? It's not official, it doesn't count. So
we got Roman Catholics in the in the chat doing the whatabouts what about the
Greek Orthodox archdiocese, what about the blah blah blah blah. No, no,
I'd say, here we go. Romikalocs are in the chat. Oh,
you're just mad. He doesn't know what he's talking about. What do
you mean, I don't know what I'm talking I'm showing you the documents from
one of your top guys. I don't know what I'm talking about. Is
this not a two thousand and three rat Singer rejection of blessings? Do you
want me to put it in the chat for you lazy liars? Don't know
what I'm talking about. Stop lying to yourselves. Look, there you go?
Or won't even it's so long the URL won't even let me put it
in there. Done. See, you don't even have arguments. You guys
are pathetic. You don't even have an argument. You just have I'm bad.
I don't know what I'm talking about. Evil, bad man, bad
man, he's mean blah blah blahlah blah. There it is right there.
You can't do the blessings, And here it is right here within the out
line, the horizon outline, there can be blessings. There you go.
That is a contradiction and look, if you can't see that's a contradiction,
then don't why are you even here? Just go do your Roman Catholic thing
and put your head in the sand. What do you mean, where do
you go? What do you think we argue over here? So they're like,
but you have problems in your church. You have liberal bishops. Yeah,
I know, but we're not a papal system. Can you not understand
that a decentralized system has the means, the mechanisms for you to not have
to submit to a liberal You can't reject Francis. The system that you're in
doesn't allow you the escape patch of well, I'll just go to a different
bishop who's not heterodox or not liberal. In the Orthodox world, that's possible.
In the Roman Catholic world, it doesn't work that way. You don't
get to choose the popes. You don't get to reinterpret Francis. No one
judges the first Sea Vatican One has at least four statements about how you don't
have the rights as an individual Catholic to judge what the interpretations not just of
the pope, but also of the Roman College and the Holy Office say.
Do you want me to help you again with those to explain those to you.
The Pontifical Congregation and the common teachings of its theological decisions are to be
followed and may not be reinterpreted or rejected. Denzinger seventeen ninety two, sixteen
ninety eight, and sixteen eighty three. Okay, lazy Roman Catholics, do
you even know what Denzinger is? Do you want me to reread those?
I know you guys are slow. Let's start it over. Got to remember
our numbers. Seventeen ninety two, sixteen ninety eight, and sixteen eighty three.
Those places in Denzinger allow Vatican one. They're from Vatican one. Do
not give you the right, the authority, the position, the stance,
the moral authority to judge Francis, to judge Francis's decisions or his interpretations,
or the Roman College in the CDF's interpretations. So you are bound by this
document right here. And the fact that it says in another place that is
not changing teachings doesn't mean it's not changing the teachings. It just means it's
a contradiction, which Tim can figure out. But why can't you? What
is the mind virus in you that makes you double down, get emotional and
lie. And is this timeline not true? Did Tim make up this whole
timeline? I mean, I've been watching the Roman Callolic Church throughout this whole
timeline. I saw all these things happen, the positive aspects. Twenty fourteen,
the world is in an uproar and the Pope's planner is going to overtime.
No, it doesn't mean what it says. It means, and it
means blah blah blah blah blah blah boo, it doesn't mean. Twenty twenty,
Pope Francis announces to the world in the Francesco documentary that now the civil
unions are necessary, and Tim has all of this linked for you. All
of the images are linked. What a great uh bit of sourcing he did
there, super well documented. June twenty twenty one, the CDF Ladarius says
that it releases a document denying that you can have the blessings in question that
angers Francis. So notice that they reverse the position that they so. The
twenty twenty one document from the Congregation of the Doctrin of Faith is reasserting the
two thousand and three ratsing or position from the CDF. You see that.
Okay, so it reasserts it twenty twenty one. By the way, this
came up with the Orthodox Church at that time, and I shared that as
well. It was from that tablet article. Let me see if I can
find it, Francis, okay, Union tablent. And then now this headline
is funny because it's really deceptive, right, Russian Church backs Vatican on same
Skittle's blessings. Now, if you just read the headline, you think that,
oh well, that means now that the Russian Church is on the on
board with Francis. No. No, look at what the article. This
is from twenty twenty one, dummies. Read what it says. The Russian
Orthodox Church has backed the twenty twenty one decision by the CDF to bar the
blessing of the unions. Okay, can we follow along? Does everybody have
the IQ to follow this basic point from twenty twenty one? Okay, so
kiro, but what Russian word our church says we agree with you at this
point, Francis twenty twenty one that you can't. But actually it wasn't,
Francis. This was the CDF stating the older rat Singer position that it can't
bless unions. You can't have a blessing of that. And the Russian Orthodox
Church said we agree with that. That made Francis mad, Not the Russian
position, the CDF statement of twenty twenty one right there, see, that
made Francis mad. Twenty one the Ladaria had been censoring this leader from the
German Sonoda Way. That's a movement within Romanthosism, one of these liberal movements
within their system. When you hear Sonodole, they don't mean the Orthodox view
of synods. They mean like women should be running the church and skittles should
be running the church. That's what's what's meant by sonodal Way in their system.
Right. So Francis says, all right, well, I'm going to
replace the people over there at the CDF that are annoying me with this traditional
morals morality. Francis seeks to demote Ladaria and replace him with Wilmer. The
cardinals block this because there were still some not totally corrupt cardinals I guess right
at this point, and maybe still but we'll look at that in a minute.
So then Francis uh fires he replacing it, replaces them with this other
liberal person Wilmer Summer twenty twenty three. Francis disinvites Ladaria from attending his synod
September October. Francis Fernandez answer the Dubia. So remember the Dubia from a
while back. That's what he's talking about here where we have ambiguous questions.
Francis give us clarity. Remember the papacy there to give us clarity, doctrinal
unity, clarity, certitude, all those things that the pop Roman Catholic apologists
have been selling you with their car salesman pitch. You can't have certainty orthodoxy,
dog yo. If you come up over well, well, go to
us. You will get started to remember Lofton, that's his like ninety percent
of his five hour podcasts. Is that where's the certainty? Hmmm? I
thought we're getting certainty to this. Well, let's ask Francis for certitude on
what he means by the analogy between a man and a man uniting and a
man and a woman uniting. And we got answers in the Dubia. And
what did the popsplinters say? Who's who's not infallible? So Francis now gives
us as a Christmas present, twink Old twinkle Little Star, What does he
give us as a Christmas present? A very clear normative teaching that now that
an accident, Now what was what was the phrase? Let's see now the
blessings are possible, right, So remember the Dubia of September October of twenty
twenty three, doctrinal reversal. So they noticed that tim can realize that this
is a reversal. It's clear as they are reversal, and they're all the
Roman cap the popetliners are deflecting and saying, no, no, it's it's
a blessing of two centers in union, yeah, exactly, which is a
reversal of the position. So they're deflecting away from whether it was a diversal
a reversal, to debate the ethics of the thing itself. Well, number
one, the point is that it's a reversal as well as being ethically a
compromise in the Roman Catholic scheme of moral theology. And so December Francis publishes
his recent declara rio where it can now be blessed. So this timeline shows
you that it is a change in position. What I showed you from the
two thousand and three rat Singer decision to the new document is that the blessings
themselves are a changed and all the Roman Catholic liars are saying is not a
change because the document says it's not a change. No, it's that just
shows a contradiction that hasn't proved that it's not a change. And by the
way, what is the actual practicus of all of the Roman Catholic Church when
this happens, Well, not all of it, but a large portion of
it, which is already skills. Oh, they're going crazy with it.
James Martin says, here's what we've been looking for. Thank you, Francis.
But through husband been a change. Let's look through the links that Tim
has. So I think it cut out for a minute. Ear were back,
Yeah, we should be back, So we'll be uh over there here
in a little bit. You can watch it there with the Babylon guys.
But back to Tim's timeline where he says this was I think this is Tim's
showing the cardinals blocking the appointment controversial Bishop Wilmer. That's pro skittles. So
I mean, imagine the dishonesty of the Roman Catholic guys and girls and journalists
defending all of this when the very people that are being put into positions of
power to make these changes by Francis are openly for the very things in question.
I mean, it's just so stupid. See twenty thirteen. Daniels says,
let's do it. These are the people making these moves now, dummies,
you can't see this. They all want to change the morals. They're
all operating and acting to do it. They actually do it in the documents.
The Roman Galley Church then actually does it in a lot of tons and
tons of parishes, and the liars are sitting so nothing's changed, nothing changed,
nothing's changed, of course he does. But remember when we were saying
five six years ago that this was coming, what was the charitable interpretation of
the Roman Catholics. You're a bad person, You're evil, You're the bad
you, and you know it's you and your leaders that are the bad people,
not us. And know the Orthodox Church does not have the same degree
of this problem. We've got a lot of problems with Orthodox Church. Absolutely,
this is not one of the main problems. There are skittles people in
the church. There are skittles people trying to change the church, not anywhere
near what's happening over here. So anyway, you can go read the documents
themselves. You can see Tim's timeline is absolutely correct. Tim even included videos
for the people who can't even read the one page documents, right, But
there you go. And again, I mean, the people defending this,
like, where have you been for the last ten or twenty years of this
debate raging in the Roman Catholic Church with all of the players wanting to change
the doctrine and the morals who are now in the position to do it and
then actually do it, And you're sitting there acting like nothing changed, and
nobody's you're I mean, it's dishonest, and everybody can see it's a lie.
And what has been your response to talk about how you rely on what
happened at church? Militant two weeks ago? The very guy leading one of
the trad charges against everybody else turns out skittles. Are you noticing a pattern
here? Now? Again? To emphasize and demonstrate the change. In fifteen
sixty, Pope Pious the fifth, one of their Saints, issued a constitution
called kum premium yes cum premium pun intended where skittles, he says, should
receive the most rigorous punishment skittles clerics should be handed over pious argues to the
civil state for you got it. So imagine these goober, lunatic, dishonest,
lying people when their pope at the time of Trent says that it's deserving
of the death penalty. Fast forward to Francis. This is talking about the
civil punishment. To Francis now saying that they should be allowed civil skittles unions.
And they have the gall to tell you nothing in Roman Catholic moral theology
changed. That's called lying and lying to yourself and lying to other people.
I'm pretty sure in Roguntholicism is a big sin. Go read past the fifths
Declaration and you're gonna tell me nothing changed. They have the gall to tell
you the sunk gaul in mafia to tell you nothing changed. Do you understand,
stupid people, slow people? Civil unions fifteen sixty six was considered death
penalty according to this pope kum Primum April first, fifteen sixty six. Fast
forward to Francis. Not only is Frances saying that the civil unions in the
secular sphere should be allowed. Now the church can bless the union it's now
emerged. So nothing's changed, Nothing's changed, Nothing has changed. That's what
these people are saying. Nothing has changed. And even the Roman Catholics now
are forced to admit these are some good points. Yeah, I've got other
good points too, man. And look, I wasn't your enemy five years
ago when I was saying this stuff, because I've already lived the trad nightmare
of trying to make this system work from two thousand and three till two thousand
and nine ten somewhere in there. So there you go. Time to rethink
the paradigm, time to consider orthodoxy. And look, Tim's stream was great.
I recommend watching it because pretty much everything he says is absolutely spot on.
The one thing I disagree with Tim, though, is that Tim thinks
that this, this group within the Conclave that has blocked some of Francis's more
radical changes, can somehow band together and like Judge Francis or something. No.
Sorry, First of all, I don't think that Catholic theology ken in
law will allow even the Cardinals. No one can judge the First Sea,
and that includes the Cardinals. The appeal to Bellerman I don't think is relevant,
because I mean, we're post we're post Bellerman a lot of Vatican one.
Vatican one settled a lot of these issues about could it pope be a
heretic? And if you read Dollinger you'll see that Dollinger discusses a lot of
these issues, a lot of the things going on at the debates of Vatican
One, and in my mind, as I understand it, all that's been
settled, Vatican one settle a lot of those open questions like could the Pope
be a heretic? Could the Pope teach error? Vatican One's answers, No,
I can I link to it? Yeah, I've linked to it multiple
times. It's in the chat. Here's the link again in the chat to
pious. Remember remember though there's no change, nothing changed, and the trackads
are fighting on Twitter because you can't they it's the problem is the system itself.
Okay, you can do all the mental gymnastics and scholastic work to make
the system fit, and it doesn't. We don't even need that anymore,
like the I'm gonna be a Toomas to make it all work. It's way
past that. Rome has already now moved on light years beyond you into moral
decay that is now public that everyone can see. So if you couldn't see
Pacha Mama, and you couldn't see the Asezi gatherings where all the world religions
are praying together in the Cathedral Saint Francis c C with voodoo worshipers there.
If you can't see that as Aposta see, and you can't see the kissing
of the Koran and all the countless things that have been going on since Vatican
Two, and you can't see that this is a change, then maybe you
can't see it. It's just forgive it, forget it. Sorry. Set
of a contism is not gonna work. So we go, oh and I
I've already been through all this right, They're like, oh, but what
about SETA Well, I would direct you to this talk where I did a
three hour breakdown of why set of a contism doesn't work and actually it leads
you to orthodoxy. So that's not tonight's stream. You can go watch that
here. I'll put the link in the chat for you. I'll link the
chat later on. But tonight we have a show I gotta go do,
so I'll be over there. Not much else to say, I mean,
if you want deeper analysis from Roman Catholics. Go watch Tim's video. Watch
this video on why set of a contism isn't gonna work because I already know
the thought process. Now all the Roman Catholics are like, well, maybe
I'll go to the SSPX and the set of a contest route. Guess what,
that's a nightmare and it's not gonna work. And there is why we
got some super chats. I'll read those really quick. Head on over to
chalk dot com. Remember to use the promo code J fifty to get fifty
percent off all of these premium antisoy products. And uh, I think with
tonight's stream, we definitely need some antisoy. We need an antidote to the
soy. That antidote is in part chok dot com. Head on over to
chalk dot com us from go J fifty to get fifty percent off that performance
stack. Get you some of that chad Mode, get you some of that
Action two point zero, Get you some of that tonk catalid to boost testosterone.
We know there's a testosterone deficiency in the Roman Catholic world. We've proven
that tonight for sure, So head on over there for that. If you
would hit like and share, also be sure and subscribe to me over on
rockfin. Rock Finn is a great free speech based platform. Got a lot
of content over there, and you can follow me there for both free and
paid by subscribing there at Rockfinn. And we've got countless. So if you
guys are interested, you're open. Maybe you're questioning Rome clossicism, you're interested
in Orthodoxy. I have probably five hundred videos and talks on that. Go
watch those countless. I mean, we've got probably five or ten on Vatican
one. We've got five or ten of Vatican two. I probably got twenty
or thirty live streams on the papacy, twenty or thirty live streams on church
history and forgeries on the Vatic, I mean on the Jesuites. Hear what
you said. You don't need to hear what I said. Get out of
here, Siri, We don't need you. Hush right, Josh says,
he five dollars. I'm curious, why do you turn on a papacy debate
with Trent? No? I requested a geopolitics and history of the papacy debate
with Trent, and Trent didn't want to do that. Trent only wanted to
have the same old debate on the papacy, which has been had a million
times. So that's what happened. I wasn't turning down a debate on the
papacy. I said, will anyone debate the geopolitics and history of the papacy?
And none of them will. No Roman Catholic will debate that to date.
And by the way, it's still open if somebody does want to,
because my argument is that you haven't been free from the state in state influence.
But they won't debate that. Many Roman Catholics and Orthodox will benefit from
two smart people debating the topic. Well. I mean, Ubi's had countless
debates on the papacy. I debated Eric Ibara on that, so are those
not good enough? Like? How many times does the how many times you
have to have the papacy debate? There's a million papacy debates and they're always
the same debate. Will you debate a well known Roman Catholic on this?
I want to debate something more interesting than the same old papacy debate and none
of them will do it period period. Are you going to debate Timothy Gordon?
Everybody's waiting. We were going to debate ols since entergy as sinctioned in
Nashville, but I ended up getting super busy with going to Italy and doing
all that. I didn't have time to arrange that. I'm not gonna have
time around Christmas to arrange it. So I don't know when or how that's
going to work out. But maybe down the road, living to become love
three dollars. Have you ever heard of the prophecy of Malachi about the last
Pope? Yeah, I've heard it since the year two thousand and two,
So yeah, I don't have any interest in any of that. I think
again, I'm not interested in Realman Catholic mysticism and in time stuff. I
mean the set of an What happens is when you go instead of a contism,
you end up in some kind of Roman Catholic in times cult. So
Trainer Melissa, thank you so much. Twenty five dollars, much appreciated.
Running up to Scow one dollar. What's Tim's position on the papacy? Are
we not being cheered? Well? I think Tim is at the point where
he's considering that maybe there was scepterfuge in the election of Francis, and so
maybe Francis isn't a valid Pope, so that seems to be kind of what
he's speculating on in his live streams in the position that he publicly says he
might. He entertains Peyton one dollar. Your shop disappeared, Yeah, the
website. I'm doing some maintenance on the website, so don't worry. The
shop will be back. There's just some minor maintenance going on. BMX nineteen
sixty six fifteen dollars. Thank you so much, BMX, much appreciated.