Speaker 1: From the force of a ball with the forced sprain
with the ball sprain with the ankle sprain, active and
passive spiration. Josh also said, uh, uh, philoque.
Speaker 2: Is that you spell it? Or like, how do you
how do you say you say that loque? Is that fine? Yes?
Speaker 1: No, Philly okay okay, I didn't know. Uh, I didn't
know how you us to pronounce that. One says the
spirit proceeds from the father and the son, but what
he's arguing is from the father through the son. That's
not what the philioque says, though, lame semantic argument from
r seas Uh Maximus. Jacimus says someone gives him a
pillow to bite on because Jay is going and dry.
Speaker 2: That's a weird statement.
Speaker 1: Tiagawanowski Uh said, if you can prove the Holy Ghost
is from the division, you win the debate, because Christ
says otherwise. When accused of expelling the demons in the
name of the Prince of the Demons, he says that
Satan is divided against Satan. Saint Augustine says the byrate
means to breathe. The spirit breathes on whom he wills.
Y'all are fools. Everyone lost apparently true. Forty one he said,
found out I was the father today because I was fathered.
Gotta find my non existent child now. Late night two
girls said I really like the mod By the way,
votes Jay seventy four percent, RC is twenty six percent.
Orthodox is an extreme minority in the West, and we won.
This will carry far and wide.
Speaker 2: Thank God.
Speaker 1: Maxims DESCMSSUL said, I'm interested in I'm telling us what
his pope did in Chile. We also have a quantrum
merit said, shout out to Tim for restoring masculinity to
Christianity and recentering the importance of patriarchy in the family.
He's a good dude. We also have Ianassius, said Gordon.
You said the spirit is a passive spirator. Does this
passivity imply a potential potentiality in the Holy Spirit?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 3: Hold on, are we going to superchech question?
Speaker 1: No, I'm just I'm just reading some of these right
now because we'll do some questions at the end. I'm
trying to skip the questions right now. They also said
Maxims to Tim, we will never accept your dumpster cult.
Speaker 2: You should apply more lou because Jay is going and dry.
What is it with these.
Speaker 1: Sexual six of spades that Jay Catholics can't address these arguments,
you are obviously a big meanie.
Speaker 2: And then we'll leave this one as well.
Speaker 1: Servant Nick Tario said, let's all submit to Pope Katie
Perry instead just get along, all.
Speaker 3: Right, that's a good point to say that, so I
argue with him.
Speaker 4: I just want to say that for those that are
interested in what I'm talking about, because it can't be
cashed out. And two second answers, I shared two things
on my Twitter. They can check those two articles out
what I'm talking.
Speaker 2: About, all right.
Speaker 1: You know, we did to have to moderate some very
gross stuff in the chat, so let's avoid the derogatory
sexual nature of comments, unless, of course, you're on our
locals can sign up there on locals at lad to
share at locals dot com if you want to support
this channel as we grow and you want to join,
We usually do an extra segment every single time as
well on here, and shout out to Andrew Wilson the Crucible.
We'd love to have you on for some debates again.
Stick around because Monday we're also having Joel webbinon, who's
representing the Protestant position. He may be and we're trying
to set up a debate between him and Adam Green
and some of the guys who say that, you know,
Jesus is a Jewish myth and that basically he's a
you know, irrelevant and so we're trying to set that up.
So encourage you to check that out again. Go to
Elijah Shaefer dot locals dot com and if we have
the thing to pop up, but it would be good
if you guys could meet us there. Well in a second, yeah,
you can find that. The leak's on the screen and
the description. We'll be back talking about the papacy apostolic succession.
Speaker 2: This is an interesting question of mine.
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna say this, like before I come out
and say this from my history and what I've known
about the papacy, that's this is the issue that is
most confusing to me because of that one time when
some pope got excommunicated and the other pope came in
and he conquered that pope, and who's the pope and
how do we even know who's the real pope? Is
do we need to follow the pope? Is the Vatican corrupted? Right,
There's a lot of things we need to discuss. We'll
be right back. Don't go anywhere like share and subscribe
to this channel. We are on Rumble, YouTube, Facebook, and
on x We'll be right back. I've decided to take
a different approach to my life and not go to
Israel and not kiss the wall because I'm not Jewish.
I am a once practicing evangelical raised that way, turned
to atheist, then returned back to the to the church
to Pentecostalism, and then fell back into sin, into vice,
and then went back to the church to try to
get help. And it was an absolute horrific show of
retarded people, is all I can say.
Speaker 2: And I became very disillusioned.
Speaker 1: And then as I've gotten older, man, people were talking
about Jay Agent. You and I have the same comments,
like you guys are getting old. Unfortunately we are, and
that's what happens. I don't know what our excuses, since
the guy with the most kids in the room looks
the youngest, so that's the problem. But in the end,
what I'm saying is that it's coming down to the
fact of like these questions. You know, the Bible talks
about not getting lost in like arguments, just about words
and names, right, So we don't want to be arguing
for the sake of arguing. A lot of people, especially
in Reformed theology, even in this Catholic Orthodox debate, can
just argue for the sake of arguing. But I don't
think there's anything wrong with searching. And it's part of
the masculine spirit to fight right and to come against,
to come against falsehood and things that are untrue. And
so in the spirit of not debate, in the spirit
of truth, right, the spirit of God. This is an
inspiration going to have these guys out here to really
seek the truth. And we were talking a bit off
camera as they're just getting their notes together preparing for
our topic three.
Speaker 2: For a second, I just wanted to inform you guys.
Speaker 1: You know, that we were they're kind of explaining to
me where they they misunderstood or where I was misunderstanding them,
I should say. And the differences of what they believed
about the Trinity is very fascinating, and especially someone who's
not from either discipline of theology or Orthodoxy, and not
as the Church itself with the Orthodox belief of our
very very precious faith of Christianity.
Speaker 2: It is nice and it's a.
Speaker 1: Reminder just to remind you guys like myself, you know,
let's member to never always just get caught up in
the words and the meanings of words. To remember who
it's about. It is about Christ, it is about our
God and the Spirit. It's about you know, depending on
what you believe or the iterations of what you believe,
also remember that you're living it out. And I ask
somebody who's not fully living it out but wants to
and admits wholeheartedly that I struggle, you know, with with
sin and vice at times in my life, like many
men before me, do want to know how to walk
in the spirit of God in order to be an
example for my beautiful sons, to lead my wife, and
to be a good friend, you know, and.
Speaker 2: A good brother.
Speaker 1: And so we're gonna be they're gathering their notes here
for just a second and gathering their voices. So you know,
I appreciate you guys that are in the chat, and
it is important, you know.
Speaker 2: And like you said, yeah, words matter all this, Yeah,
of course they do.
Speaker 1: So it's not that we can't argue these things, just
that you know, sometimes people can get, you know, so
so into arguing that they forget that what the point
of it is is like government. They get so into
fighting for their party to get into office that once
their party gets in.
Speaker 2: Office, the party doesn't do anything for the people.
Speaker 1: And then they're just happy that you know, the parties
and powers, but what are they using the power for?
So I just feel like this is very helpful for
me because I want to know am I doing the
right thing?
Speaker 2: Am I part of the right church?
Speaker 1: And I think Jay and Tim are ready now to
begin our discussion on their third topic for tonight, which
is absolutely fantastic.
Speaker 2: So as we go on, we will move on to.
Speaker 1: This next topic, which of course we're talking about what
I've heard called is apostolic succession, this idea of is
there a handing down of the church?
Speaker 2: Is there a visible head of the church? Right? Who
is at the head? Right? And so.
Speaker 1: Let's begin and let's sell some of the Elijah one
in the comments that's like say nothing. That's how a
woman wins an argument. Really they think it's they think
they win. But if they just shut up, you know,
I think we'd like them a lot more sometimes anyway,
at that, all right, let's go ahead and we'll leave
us up because we gave each of you guys an
opportunity here. So I'm going to go ahead and uh
and give you guys a chance. I will ask Jay, Jay,
would you like to go first or would you like
to give him the opportunity to go first?
Speaker 2: On this question. You have the choice because you were
first before.
Speaker 1: Huh okay, all right, Jay Dyer, I'm gonna ask you
this Christ, did he or did he not establish a
visible head of church? Representing the Orthodox position? You have
an opening statement. I will give you ten minutes on
the clock. Let me reset it here for a moment.
Your time will begin in just a second. Here all right,
For everybody that's here, it's jayder You can find him
here on YouTube and on Rumble and on x.
Speaker 2: Your time begins. Now you may answer the question right well.
Speaker 4: They real issue here is, of course, the Vatican One
definition of the papacy, not just the question of did
Jesus establish quote a visible head? Because for the Orthodox Church,
we would say that all the bishops, as many of
the church fathers argued apologetically in the first few centuries,
all the bishops are actually Peter, something that Saint Cyprian said.
So there's no specifically unique special role that Peter gets
amongst either the collegey of the Apostles nor amongst his successors,
other than canonical privileges, which for example, Canon six of
Nicia says, is equivalent to other patriarchates. Not only that,
at the Council of Ephesus, I don't know, I've never
heard him talk about this.
Speaker 3: I don't know if he knows about or not.
Speaker 4: But the Church at Ephesus granted through the Ecamenical Council
autocephaly to the Church of Cyprus. That means that it's
autonomous and independent. This is usually unheard of in the
world of Roman Catholic apologetics. They're not aware of the
fact that there were autocephalist, independent churches. And that's because
the Roman Catholic Church developed eventually to have a monarchical
autocratic position, which isn't just about indefectibility, infallibility in universal
jurisdic or a kind of papal autocracy. It actually went
much further than that in the eleventh century with the
Gregorian reforms, to where the papacy became a de facto
world emperor. Now, the Canons of Chalcedon say that civil
rulership and authority and power is forbidden for clerics to have.
Not only did the Roman bishop go beyond this, the
Roman bishop actually, in Dictatus Poppe in ten ninety, declared
itself to be the only church founded by God, the
only one that could be called universal, the only one
that could reinstate in depose bishops, the only one that
had the right of quote the imperial signia, the one
in which all the princes in the world should kiss
his feet, the one alone who may depose emperors, et cetera,
et cetera. Really extreme and by the way, and can
never er and will never err.
Speaker 3: Unto the end of the world.
Speaker 4: The problem is that Dictatas Pape and those claims in
the next few centuries are actually based on known famous forgeries.
Now again I want to promote my buddy George's book
Airs the Latins.
Speaker 3: Volume two is three hundred.
Speaker 4: Pages just on all of the infamous forgeries, whether the
Samakian forgeries, whether the Galatian decretals, or whether the donation
of Constantine, and many many others. All of these really contributed,
even according to Congar himself and other Romancolic scholars, to
leading to this evolution of the papacy into a geopolitical world.
Speaker 5: Power.
Speaker 3: Now you might say, well, that's not a big deal.
I mean, come on, in Middle Ages there was a
power vacuum.
Speaker 4: Ah, but wait a minute, did you know that a
few centuries after Dictatus Pope in Unum sanctam, the last
paragraph of this bowl by Pope Boniface the Eighth in
thirteen oh two, states that not only must you be
in communion with the Roman see to be saved, you
must also believe in the worldly temporal power of the
Roman bishop to be saved. Now, nobody had ever heard
of this doctrine before, and so how are we going
to defend this. Well, that's where the forgeries come in.
You must also believe that the Pope is the Quisa
Todd or the universe is super being to be saved,
which nobody else believed or required for salvation prior to this.
Speaker 3: This is a new doctrine.
Speaker 4: Now, not only is this a new doctrine, I'm going
to show definitively from the Roman Catholic teaching it from
their own dogmas, that this is actually now no longer held.
Well wait a minute, maybe this one didn't count. Maybe
this is one of those things that I can throw
in the not dogmatic ben as you're going to see
they arbitrarily do all the time. Well, actually, in the
Syllabus of Errors, when I come all the way up
about nine hundred years later, from the time of dictatas Pape,
all the way up to Pious the Ninth. In the
Syllabus of Areas, which is attached by the way to
Vatican one, we read that in paragraph seventy six, the
abolition of the temporal power of the Roman Sea is possessed,
that it possesses that it would be great for the
Church to get rid of this condemned to the proposition
of condemned, and there's others that relate to this as well.
Interesting because John Paul the First was the first pope
to cease to use the papal to your that is
the three tiered tr which signified all levels of his
power and authority, including temporal power and authority. But when
we come to the documents of Vatican two we find
the exact opposite of this. Not only is the temporal
supremacy of the Roman bishop, which was for centuries necessary
for salvation discarded, we're actually told that quote in the
Church and Modern World document Jesus didn't actually come to
bequeath any political mission to the Church, it was only religious.
That's paragraph forty two. We read, for example, in the
Church and the Modern World over in section eighty two,
that the promotion of a world government is really the
only solution in terms of internationalism, globalism and entities presumably
like the UN. It doesn't say the UN, but it
mentions surrendering power to international organizations. And then on paragraph
eighty four it actually says the exact same thing. So
the papacy you see in the next page says that
all Christian and non religions can work together in human
institutions for an.
Speaker 3: End to war.
Speaker 4: So now we're going to have an end to war
through entities like the United Nations. And if we slip
flip over to the Religious Liberty Document, chapter two, it
says the Vatican declares that human persons have a right
to religious freedom, that everyone should be immune from any
coercion by any individual or social group, any human power
at all in religious matters. Interesting because that exact phraseology
and terminology is actually condemned in the Syllabus of errors
numbers fifty five, seventy seven, and seventy eight. So in
John the twenty thirds Pachaminteros, we're told that we can
now begin to work towards a globalized government. This idea
basically makes its way into the documents of Vatican two,
and we're even told that the state should in no
way at all coerce, and it should first and foremost
respect people's liberty.
Speaker 3: Now, maybe you think that sounds good.
Speaker 4: Maybe you think, oh, that was a Cold War thing,
and maybe they needed to promote religious liberty.
Speaker 3: For the Cold War.
Speaker 4: But remember, for all of these centuries, all the way
up until the Syllabus of Errors, you are required for
your salvation not just to believe in the Roman Sea,
in its spiritual supremacy and universality and infallibility, but also
as a world emperor and highest. The ninth condemns anyone
that would dare go against that. Next, I would point
out that in these same documents we are told, for example,
in Mortalium Animals so Piest the eleventh, the Catholic Church,
the Apostolic Sea, has never allowed its subjects to take
part in any of the symbolies of non Catholics. A
few paragraphs earlier, before fourteen, it talks about how pan
Christians should be condemned humanist ceremonies and religious events are
in no ways lawful for Catholics to be a part of.
That is paragraph nine, so nineteen twenty eight. It is
always universally the Roman Catholic teaching that you cannot be
involved in these ceremonies, rituals, and rites of at that
time Protestant groups. But now in the post Roman Catholic world,
the Apostolic Sea supposedly has actually made itself part and
party with other world religions, including Pacha Mama and other
such bizarre ceremonies that took place in the Vatican. In fact,
Tim and his own website, on his own channel, has
talked about how, in his view he thinks it's heretical
that the approval of communion for adulterers was given by
Pope Francis. And we can of course list a long
litany of problems with Francis.
Speaker 3: Now, I'm sure that we're going to hear a two.
Speaker 4: Quoque that you have corrupt bishops too, Orthodox have Acuminist bishops.
But we don't have everything hinging on one dude, his infallibility,
his indefectibility, and his universal jurisdiction. In fact, the Vatican itself.
In the Chia eighty document, paragraph nineteen admits in the
very last section appeals to the Bishop of Rome in
the first thousand years. It's talking about express the communion
of the Church. However, the Bishop of Rome did not
exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East. Now
this is on the Vatican website. I'm not saying they're
dogmatic statements. I don't need to say that they're dogmatic
statements because essentially they're admitting the collegiality and the sonidality
that the Orthodox Church has been arguing for the last
thousand years against the Roman Catholic Church. Now that was
eighty and twenty, I think sixteen, and then a couple
of years ago there was a part two to CHI
eighty called the Alexandria Document. In the Alexandria Document, you
have all the things that I've been talking about admitted
by the Vatican, including paragraph one point three, the false
decretals and the donation of Constantine contributing to this geopolitical
world power of the papacy.
Speaker 3: In the Middle Ages.
Speaker 4: Again, it has now been discarded. So I want to
know why is it that it was necessary for me
to believe in the universal geopolitical quisatsaderack doctrine of the
papacy to be saved in the year fourteen hundred. It
wasn't necessary in the year five hundred because nobody taught
that or believe that in the year five hundred. And
then now again we're back to it doesn't count and
you don't have to believe that anymore because the Vatican
now says that religious liberty is the highest of all
of the excise me religious liberty is the goal that
all states should pursue when it comes to the role
of church and state.
Speaker 1: You have forty five seconds, and lastly, I want to
I want to talk about let's see.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I got through shady now I'll go ahead and
stop there. I think I got to puppy. Yeah, that's
that's all my saying.
Speaker 1: Okay, great, And you know, obviously there's a lot of
a lot of questions here, and so the Catholic position
I feel like is more well understood by people. But
like I mentioned, you know, it is very very hard,
especially just just so you know for myself. You know,
some of the nuances of how we know that the
papacy is divine or that we know that it's been
passed down apostolically and there hasn't been you know, bribes
and confusion. I think I'm not I'm not convinced, and
I know not a lot of you know, some people aren't.
And just to clarify, this isn'tciting with the Orthodox or anything.
But you know, sometimes I meet a lot of young
Catholics and they, you know, believe in this very very strongly,
but then don't know about some of the nuances. And
so I hope you can answer some of our questions,
you know, during this time or understand them.
Speaker 2: So you have an opening statement, I'm gonna give you.
Speaker 1: I give him ten minutes and thirty seconds, So let
me add an extra thirty seconds here to the clock.
Speaker 2: Give me a moment. I appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Arguing the Catholic position here on the is that? Is
it correct to cull the Apostolic succession?
Speaker 2: Here? Is that? Or it was slightly different? The papacy
a little bit different.
Speaker 3: The papacy is a special instance.
Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, great, you have ten ten minutes and thirty seconds,
Timothy Gordon. You can find them on YouTube and all
across the internet. Your time starts now.
Speaker 3: Well, Jay's wright, the church's sonatyl, and every synod requires
a head. The prompt to this section that I didn't
hear one word from jay On is did Jesus establish
the patrine office or the papacy or something which is
a chronology two thousand years old. It's either a yes
or a no. And if it's demonstrated that Jesus established
a papacy, then it doesn't matter what might have happened
eighteen hundred years, nineteen hundred years into the papacy, for
better or for worse, what would matter? I guess at
that point Christianity would be destroyed. It wouldn't be Roman
Catholicism that would be destroyed if and only if Jesus
established a pontificate to head his one church. And that's
the fact. When Christ built his church, he didn't leave
us with a theory of unity, but with a living office.
Because again synods require heads, the rock, the keys, the shepherd,
all of these have meaning. From the first sent to today,
that office has always been recognized in the Bishop of Rome.
The question tonight and third prompt is very simple. Did
Christ intend a church with a center of unity or
did he intend a circularly premised epistemology question begging vetteration
of fourteen or more churches that fractures whenever disputes arise,
and where you define the councils as being ecumenical when
we accept them, but the accepted councils are how we
know they're ecumenical. That's the Orthodox way. That's the way.
Anytime you have a synod without a head, there has
to be a visible sign of unity or else it
doesn't make any sense. Remember, throughout this debate, if Christ
established the papacy, which was universal to all of Christianity
for over a thousand years, which is why Jay won't
address the point in time that Christ established or didn't
establish the papacy, and the papacy has later disproved, and
then it's Christianity that is false, not just Roman Catholicism.
So that's really really important. I hope that that point
resonates with people. Either Christ did or Christ didn't. We're
going to assess that. I'm going to assess that tonight
because that's the prompt. And by the way, yes, all
bishops can be said to succeed Peter in a sense.
Many of the Patristics say this, but Rome succeeds him
in a special way. The debates not whether or not
the Church has visible unity, but where that unity is
concretely safeguarded the papacy, the good popes, the bad popes,
the mediocre popes, it's concretely safeguarded there. Jesus want all
to be one so that they could believe in John's Gospel,
Chapter seventeen, and Orthodoxy simply doesn't have it, which is
why Jay won't address this. There is no oneness, no
one holy, Catholic, Apostolic. You can point out incoherencies that
you believe in here in the papacy. But if Christ
established it, then that disproves all of Christianity. The Catholic
position is that I'll show it tonight. Christ established the
papacy as a perpetual principle of unity. The Vatican two
document restates this. Orthodox often will affirm papal primacy but
deny universal jurisdiction, which is a nonsensical distinction. The question
is did Christ intend a merely honorific primacy or a
juridical universal one. In other words, can the pope actually
make decisions for all of the churches around the world.
There's three scriptural foundations for the papacy. It's Matthew chapter sixteen,
verse eighteen to nineteen. You're Peter on this rock, I
will build my church. I will give you the keys.
There's Luke chapter twenty two, verse thirty one thirty two.
Christ praise uniquely for Peter among all of the twelve,
that his faith may not fail, so that he alone
may strengthen his brethren, confirm his brethren. John twenty one
is the third papal scripture. Peter is entrusted with universal shepherding.
He says three times feed my lambs, feed my sheep,
ten tend my lambs. This triad shows something jurisdictional. It's
anagogical language. So let's go to the Patristic testimony, because
once again we're trying to assess whether or not Jesus
actually established the papacy, not whether or not Pope Francis
signed the Chady Document or whatever. Two thousand years later.
We're trying to say, did Jesus establish this at the beginning?
Well in the most and most people don't know this.
It's been either hidden from them or they've been brainwashed.
Clement of Rome before the year one hundred successor direct
successor Peter intervenes authoritatively in Corinth while the apostle John
is still alive in Ephesus. This is the early known
exercise of Roman authority. He intervenes Clement of Rome. This
is the year ninety six AD, and it's a well
established thing, though most Christians know nothing of it. Ignacious
of Antioch. Just eleven years later, one of the earliest
Patristics calls the Roman Church the one presiding in love
the way this term president comes from this idea of
presiding in love. In his Letters to the Letter to
the Romans, Ierinaeus less than a century later, in one
eight AD, insists that all churches must agree with the
Roman Church because of its pre eminent authority direct quote
and against heresies. Pre eminent authority. Have you ever heard
Aeronaus cided this early on, before even the year too,
almost halfway before the Nicene Council, the first ecumenical council.
You have three of these guys saying pre eminent presiding.
One of the earliest popes intervenes in Corinth two fifty
one AD, Cyprian of Carthage. Though he classes with Pope Stephen,
he still calls Rome the chair of Peter in the
Principal Church from which sasserdotal unity has arisen Principal p
Pa l. This is all before Nicia. People don't know it,
and it's a shame that they don't know it. What
they also don't know is that among the ecumenical now
there's this this circularity operating within Orthodoxy because they don't
have a principle of unity or oneness on earth. They'll
say the councils ecumenical when we accept them. When we
don't like them, we won't accept them. And we know
because they're not ecumenical. So it's a classic question begging
er potisio principio the first ecumenical Council Nicea three twenty
five has Canon six, which Jay referenced this. Actually, i'm
glad he brought it up. It presupposes Roman primacy as
a precedent for the Alexandria and Antioch patriarchies. It's a
precedent for them. It's really important. It grounds Alexandria's authority
by appealing to Rome's customs as the standard. So it's
not saying that they're equal, it's saying that Rome has
primacy a complete misreading of this. Rome isn't local, so
it would make no sense to compare one of the
Eastern churches to Rome. Rome is the standard bear. It
is an established, far away authority. Rome primacy, not equality.
That's right there. Canon six Council of Nicea and Nicea
also establishes the four marks of the Church, which the
Catholic Church alone really claims, as far as I know,
one Holy Catholic Apostolic Orthodox can claim because they have
sacraments and real bishops. They can claim two of them
wholly in Apostolic, but they can't claim the other two.
One certainly, I've never heard of it. Maybe I'm wrong,
but the Federation of Orthodox Churches can claim too. At
the Council of Aphesis, which is the third ecumenical council
accepted by both Catholics and Orthodox what happened is you
had an appeal to Rome to the Pope to excommunicate
the Patriarch of Constantinople by another Eastern father, the head
of the whole, Sorry, Holly and blessed Peter. It's written
the Prince and head of the Apostles, the column of
the Faith, the foundation of the Catholic Church received the
keys of the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
that tim was given the power of binding and loosing sins,
who until this day and forever lives in judges in
his successors. So it's not just Peter alone, in his successors,
he binds the head of the whole faith, the head
of the Apostles is Blessed Peter. This comes directly from
that third Council ephesis. The head of the whole faith,
the head of the Apostles, is Blessed Peter. This is
not an honorific this is direct. Cyril of Alexandria, who's
the one wrote writing the Pope asking him to excommunicate
what would become the number two in the church, says,
we rely on the authority of the Blessed Apostle Peter,
on whom the church was founded, and whose successor, the
blessed Pope Celestine is. He writes directly to Pope Celestine,
and he says, your holiness, who holds the place of Peter,
the Prince of the Apostles. They're all princes in a sense,
but Peter's Prince of princes has rightly judged this matter
and condemned this Storius. In what honorary sense would you
appeal to someone and say, fire this guy, excommunicate this guy,
which is an extra important firing. You wouldn't. It's absurd.
At the Council of Chalcedon, the very next council, after
Pope Leo's tone is read, it says Peter has spoken
through Leo, showing that there's a lineage, a very direct lineage,
and it's Peter the prince. Leo's now the prince. Because,
by the way, at this Fourth Ecumenical Council, it shows
the epistemic flaw in Orthodoxy. You know that it's circular.
The councilors are ecumenical when we accept them, but only
the accepted councils are ecumenical. There is another group, the
Oriental Orthodox, who broke away and they never accepted the
Fourth Ecumenical Council. We have what we Catholics have a
way we agree with the the Eastern Orthodox. This is
a valid council. We agree with each other about that.
We have a way to show it. We have a
visible sign of unity. We know that synods all have heads.
The Orthodox can't the Orthodox, the Eastern Orthodox and the
Oriental Orthodox are still at odds over the fourth Ecumenical
Council Constantinople three. Uh, Peter is Prince of the Apostles
who continues the promise undefiled to the end. And I
see it too. Primacial authority every jay agrees with this council.
Primacial authority everywhere on earth was given by the Redeemer
of the world himself to the Apostle Peter Constantinople four.
It's their council. It reads the letter of Pope John
the eighth, the chief of the Apostles. Peter has the
authority of universal binding and loosing. This is indisputable that
at the time of the founding of the Church and
the immediate chain of evidence thereafter for the next seven councils,
you have a universal appellate jurisdiction of the Pope, which
is why he could excommunicate, and he was being sought
for excommunication.
Speaker 1: All right, you're gonna complete your thoughts there, because I
think we probably should haven't on the time right there?
What's it that we should probably on the time? Already
in the bleed, you're hitting towards a minute. If you
one another minute, you don't have to concede a minute
on the next round.
Speaker 3: Uh no, that's fine, all right.
Speaker 1: There with the opening statements, I want to one in
the chat if you think that you know, we're getting
to a point to where you think that Timothy had
a better opening statement right there, or two in the chat,
if you think that Jay had a better statement, Let's
go right into the rebuttal. We'll read some super chats.
After the rebuttal, I think we'll just go yeah, we'll
go to Jay.
Speaker 2: Jay.
Speaker 1: From that opening statement, you're writing down some questions. Give
me your best rebuttal. I'm going to reset the clock
to put it down to five minutes. Let's try to
keep it tight at five and not go over in
any bleed. You can't have a thirty second bleed if
you need, I'm resetting it to a standard time.
Speaker 2: You can begin now.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Well, the reason that I didn't go into the question
about Matthew and the passages in the Book of John
or Luke or whatever is that we don't disagree that
there's apostolic succession from Peter, but I don't know if
he's aware of it. Peter is actually called the father
of three Ce's. In fact, you can read Pope saying
Gregory the Great in his letter number forty where he
talks about the Apostolic see being three chairs, so as
late as Gregory the Great in his day, he's still
calling Rome, Antioch and Alexandria the patrine sea. So nobody
disagrees that Rome is first. And he cited St. Erin
As and against heresies, but he didn't tell you why.
Irenaeus says that it is given this honor and authority.
He says it is doubly apostolic Peter and Paul. Maybe
he's not aware of the fact that by the time
of Vatican One they actually reject the position of the
argumentation of St. Aernaeus that you cannot say that Rome
has its supremacy because of Paul in any sense. So
even though Paul is honored still in Rome because he
was martyred. There the only reason that Rome has this
supposed indefectibility, it's universal jurisdiction and so forth, is supposedly
because of a petrine tradition and terrorism. However, Pope saying
Gregory the Great, who himself was a pope, doesn't have
a problem still talking about there being three petrine seas.
Speaker 3: But of course Roman Catholics never.
Speaker 4: Talk about that because they don't give you the context
behind these comments. In these statements, let me read what
the Canon six of Nicia actually says. It says, let
the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pantapolis prevail. Now
noe the references to customs. There's no reference to a
divine terrorism, to divine law. It's only two ancient customs
that in all of these the Bishop Alexandria has jurisdiction
since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome. Likewise,
in Antioch and other provinces. He just assumed that Rome
was a universal and so it just doesn't really count.
But the jurisdictions are being likened to Rome, and his
argument is just that, well, but yeah, but of course
everybody knows that Rome was universal jurisdictions really because he's
not aware of the fact that appellate structure and the
synod and Canons of Sartica actually prove our position, because
what Sartoka says is not that the Roman bishop has
the final say. Rather, they actually say that the Roman
bishop could be appealed to as well as other patriarchs
and bishops can be appealed to and we're appealed to
and he can order a retrial in that jurisdiction. It
is the opposite of the Vatican one papal autocracy position.
Allow me to read his own Vatican statement from the
Chi eighty document, which he should have read. Over the centuries,
many appeals were made to the Bishop of Rome from
the East in disciplinary matters, such as the deposition of
a bishop. An attempt was made at Sartika in three
forty three to establish the rules for this procedure. Sartica
was received of the Council of Trello in six pot
ninety two, which his church rejects. The Canons of Sartaka
determined that a bishop who has been condemned could appeal
to the Bishop of Rome, and that in the latter,
if he did, inappropriate, might order a retrial. Oh, that's
not the autocratic Vatican One view that he was arguing
for that he hoped would be the kill shot. Rather,
this could be conducted by the bishops and the province
neighboring that person's bishop. Appeals regarding these matters were all disciplinary.
Matters were also made to Constantinople and to other sees.
Oh dang, that's Snodl. That's collegial. By the way, Athanasius
and people who are in these situations to read the
letters of Saint Basil. As I mentioned earlier, he wasn't
aware of the Malician schism, and as Denny notes in
the chapter in Papalism, constantinople One had called and closed
outside of commune with Rome, and in fact, later centuries later,
Rome accepts constantinople One retroactively.
Speaker 3: That's a problem for his position.
Speaker 4: But out of all this, I would amind him that
he seems to not be aware of Pope Vigilius and
the really strong case that we have there. As Ubi
brought up to Ibarra, if you remember Arbara saying, oh.
Speaker 5: I haven't found actually a good answer to that question yet,
but we'll come moot the way it eventually. Maybe Why
is this? Why is Vigilius such a key point? Virgilius
submitted to the Ecumenical Council after reversing his position four
different times. So wait a minute, let me get this right.
Speaker 4: Vatican one, which says that the Roman bishop is the
head of all the churches, has universal jurisdiction, even though
his own Vatican documents like the Chieti document admit that
the Roman bishop didn't.
Speaker 3: Have universal jurisdiction in the first thousand years.
Speaker 4: Now Virgilius has to submit to and does submit to
the ecumenical count's judgment and being removed from the diptys.
That's a problem position for him and for Ericubara. I
don't have to prove every single specific to disprove rom Catholicism.
All I need is one dogmatic contradiction or one papal
failure such as Vigilia submitted to a council, which shows
that Vatican One is false, that ecumenical councils are inferior
to and always subordinate to the Pope, to prove his
position is false, just like when he tried to cite
other examples like well, Orthodox don't have any position that's
really consistent.
Speaker 3: Wait a minute.
Speaker 4: Latter in six forty nine condemned monothelitism and was intended
by Pope Martin to be an ecumenical council, and yet
it was not accepted as an ecumenical council. And there
was another council that happened called Constantinople III, where they
themselves decided to condemn the positions based on investigating the
theology of Saint Maximus. It's not Pope Saint Martin that
is the key to side figure of Constantinople three, which
if the Vatican One papacy position were true, he would
have already solved the issue Roma spoken cases closed supposedly,
we're told right, But he also doesn't seem to be
aware that if you'd read on the history of Chalcedon,
Roma spoken cases closed isn't actually because Leo is the
standard and test of orthodoxy at Calcedon. If you'd read
any of the academic literature on it, he would know that.
Even his Roman Catholic scholars admit that Cyril is the
standard of orthodoxy at Calcedon, and Leo is checked against
Cyril by Chalcedon. For many weeks, Orsi me many days
investigating to see if the tone matches up to Leo.
Now I disproved his position by pointing out one dogmatic
contradiction amongst many, which was that for centuries you had
to believe in the temporal supremacy of the Roman bishop.
You didn't have to believe it for centuries before that,
and now we don't have to believe it anymore. Past
Vatican two in the religious liberty and ecumenist pronouncements.
Speaker 1: That's a kind tradiction. All right, I'm gonna give you
an extra minute because he took an extra minute. Go ahead, Timothy,
I'm gonna reset the clock. Give me one moment to
add an extra minute and reset. Okay, you have six
minutes on the clock for your rebuttal go ahead.
Speaker 3: There's absolutely no dogmatic contradiction, so that can two. We
have an ecumenical Council that happens after the fall of
the Holy Roman Empire, after the fall of all of
the confessional states on earth, so only the confessional states
are bound, because of course secular states can't be bound
by the pope. The Pope can tell them what to do,
but they're not going to do it. This was always
the context of this discipline. It's a discipline anyway. By
the way, the Pope has only in the last thousand
years identifiably spoken ex cathedral making doctrine twice twice count
them twice, one in around eighteen fifty one, around nineteen
fifty and in both of those cases the Pope pulled
all of the bishops first. Because this is what's consistent
with the papal power going all the way back to Peter,
he pulled to make sure that he did not make
an ex cathedral statement, or in eighteen fifty four and
then in nineteen fifty one, the only two ex cathedral
statements that would disprove the papacy by being wrong. He
polled all of the bishops because there's collegial brethren, and
then he named the third and the fourth Marion dogma
ex cathedral. So Jay's always just skipping over the fact
that the pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra.
This is a most fundamental claim. And by the way,
popes can be heretics, whether you're talking about Honorious or
other problematic popes that were borderline heretics throughout the way.
Most of the majority of Catholic scholars think that popes
can actually be heretics. They just can't contradict themselves when
they're speaking ex cathedra. And this would be really clear
if Jay had read the Rolazzio of bish Gasser at
Vatican One. It's very, very, very consistent with the collegial
papacy of the previous eighteen one hundred years. Now there
are I would say in exegiting Matthew Chapter sixteen, Luke
twenty two, John twenty one. There are Eastern scholars, Theodor
Studit Abu Karah who exegited exactly the way that we do.
Antioch and Alexandria also succeed Peter because Mark went on
to Alexandria. Peter used to be at Antioch. It's very,
very very clear that we're not reading into the text.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 3: The question at hand is did Christ establish a binding,
unifying papacy. I've shown through the scripture through Patristic scholars
in the first two centuries that he did. One of
the very first popes after literally was exercising a jurisdiction
at several of the ecumenical councils, you had an appeal
to the appellate jurisdiction of Rome. I'm not just gonna
sit here and repeat the quotations from the ACTA of
those councils where they're saying Rome alone, knowing that doctrinal
unity requires a visible sign. So, like I said, the
original argument is, if Christ established a papacy, then if
that papacy should fail, all of Christianity fails. That's just
a fact. Now, if he didn't establish the papacy, then
that wouldn't be the case. But pointing out historical difficulties,
even if I granted him, which I don't later in
the timeline, doesn't accomplish what Jay claims it does. So
if Christ established the papacy, then prevailing would require not
that Catholicism is false, but Christianity is. Remember like Back
to the Future too, when Doc explains to Marty by
use of a chalkboard, why they wound up in an
altered nineteen eighty five, Because the source of the problematic
timeline lay at the very beginning of the story in
nineteen fifty five. If you want to disprove the papacy,
you have to go to the beginning of the story
and show that Christ didn't establish a papacy. You can't
just sit and if you're a Christian anyway, you can't
sit around and point out what you don't like about
Pope Francis sheady document not a magisterial document, by the way,
definitely not infallible. It can't point at any of the
documents that Jay is going to tonight to get to
the beginning of the timeline. In the case of Christianity,
the papacy was from the very beginning universally accepted occasionally
grudgingly by these But they accepted it for a thousand years.
I mean this should be more compelling to people that
are passive standers by. Why was it accepted for a
thousand years? Over a thousand years, and then it was
just okay not to They just hope you don't see
that fact. There's a brute fact established beyond any doubt,
not even Jay's going to disagree with me. Was accepted
for over half of the timeline of Christianity, and now
they just whistle past the fact that it's no longer accepted.
Instead Eastern orthodoxy. You'll never hear a defense of this
because it's a coherentist rather than a foundationalist position. Jay's
not trying to build anything, He's just trying to poke
holes in the papacy. They insist on a popeless ecclesiology,
one with wilful blindness about its own thousand year acceptance
of the pontificate until they didn't want to anymore. Who's epistemology,
which is really just conciliarism, A valid council's ecumenical We
know that it's ecumenical because we deem its valid destroys
itself for all to see. Like at Chalcedon when you
had the Oriental Orthodox break away from the Eastern Orthodox.
They still don't agree about much. It's a circular rule
of faith, and you're never going to hear them build
this up, the circular rule of faith, because it's indefensible.
Their hierarchy can and does fall into heresy. This is
not just too quoque way. They're not bound to accept
ecumenical councils. The councils are ecumenical when we accept them,
and the accepted councils are ecumenical. This is the rule
of faith if you really press on Orthodoxy at all.
There is no epistemological framework for determining which councils are
ecumenical and why that's not true in Roman Catholicism. In
Roman Catholicism, we have this visible sign of unity, three
scriptural passages, several of the of the early Fathers, interpreting
them exactly the way we do. And with no living,
visible authority or sign of unity, how is the Eastern
Orthodox believer to know which councils to accept. They simply
won't tell you this well, because it's just true. You
just have to accept it as true. It's a question
begging Roman Catholics have the papacy to tell us, and no,
we don't just accept the papacy blindly. We accept it
because Christ established it. So circularity ends up being embraced
as a kind of theological history because this is the
last resort. For example, the rejection of Florence. Florence was
the Reunion Council in fourteen thirty nine. Thirty one out
of thirty three of their delegates at Florence signed it
and said we were wrong about the Philly Oakuay, we
were wrong about the papacy. And then they went home
in ten twelve, fourteen years later, had a revolt and
under duress, were forced to undo it. And you ask them,
how do you know that council wasn't ecumenical because we
didn't like the outcome. It's that simple, all right.
Speaker 2: I only hear us one's in the chat.
Speaker 1: By the way, if if you think that Timothy Gordon
had the better rebuttal, and I like to see two's
in the chats. If you think Jay Dyer had the
better rebuttal, will be give them a second to get
ready for their cross examination. Just to read a couple
of the super chats here, Tiaguinowski said orthodox were actually.
Speaker 2: The first Protestants. Lonian S.
Speaker 1: Just said, they want to tell you, Gordon that the
Orientals and Assyrians don't have autocratic popes that had bishops
are first among equals, just like the eoposition the fourth century.
Speaker 2: They didn't have RC papism in mind either.
Speaker 1: Orthodoxy Phrenosis said Roman Catholicism has the papacy, Orthodoxy has
the church only one heels taint.
Speaker 2: Nothing, said Tim, That's just a fact, Gordon.
Speaker 1: We have Lauren first that popes can be material heretics,
but not formal, and we've certainly had our share of
material heresies in the last six decades from popes. Plays
on the right thing. Also, the pope is a local,
metropolitan and universal bishop. The Canon six of Nicea is
simply referring to the pope's metropolitan duties.
Speaker 2: No contradiction.
Speaker 1: We also have Orthodoxy, Chloroquins, and Orthodox and Muslim countries
have zero World Cups and a debate. God doesn't like
schismatics or heretics. Haydes Undead at twenty three sixty six
said Jay despite being the oldest is still the best
EDVA masterclass rapper on this show. I appreciate all the work. Jay,
you're killing it as always. Jamie owes you an octople
espresso shot. I can witness that I did. I remember
he was here and he asked for coffee, and like
most people, put a little milk in your coffee. Some
people say it's gay, it is gay. It's very poppy
to be gay today. But milk is good in coffee.
And then he said he just wanted coffee and proceeded
just like just shoot like double espressos into a cup
of rice. He just ate like bitter dark espresso that
burns his throat. It's the kind of man that he is.
It's good stuff. You're just seeing the way his wife
was looking at him, was just down.
Speaker 2: In that coffee.
Speaker 1: What a chad colveto Antiquity said, as prought with the
following j one ask you're not even done? Ask cast
seven seven seven cent fifty dollars. Thank you so much
for I said, why does the pope wear a little
hat and kiss the silly wall?
Speaker 2: That's more of a rhetorical question, for sure.
Speaker 1: Mike Hanson twenty three ninety three said, win Jay, Tim,
the greatest moment of twenty twenty five would be to
see you and your wife come home to the Orthodox Church.
Speaker 2: May God guide your journey, Bro. You also have a
couple here.
Speaker 1: Another Australian said, can confirm life essence from mister Fista
is still spirriting from Joe Rogan. He has not passed
away yet. Jesus will not take him until he's fought
liver King. We also have Edgy eb one six one
Oho said rock paper scissors, lizard spock.
Speaker 2: It's all so clear now.
Speaker 1: And then we have a Nathan Slippery said if a
woman is graped, she's passively graping the man.
Speaker 2: Tim's theology. All right, we will okay.
Speaker 1: Else read one more scalf seven seven seven el sad
twenty dollars and said why does the pope pray and
synagogues and musk?
Speaker 2: There's a lot of questions about that.
Speaker 1: All right, we are going to go to the cross examination.
Speaker 2: We will start with mister J. Dyer.
Speaker 1: You will have five minutes on the clock. Give me
a moment here, let me reset the clock. You may begin.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: First, I want to note that he seemed to be
saying that there's only guidance and infallibility when it comes
to exca theater statements. He must not be aware of
the fact that Vatican one says that all things are
divinely revealed and to be believed, whether in the Word
of God handed down by the Church in solemn judgments,
which would be ex cathedral by her ordinary, and universal teaching,
which is proposed for belief as having been divinely revealed.
So do you agree that you also have to believe
the universal ordinary teaching and the execa theater.
Speaker 3: They're both under the charism you have the submission in
mind and will. That's religious, but it's not it's not
protected by the charism of infallibility.
Speaker 4: Universal Ordinary isn't universal ordinary? Are you talking about councils
or popes? Universal ordinary teaching? Teaching of popes is not
is not infallible.
Speaker 3: That's what Vatican one says. No, it does. Yes, do
me to read it again, Vatican again.
Speaker 4: I'm gonna read Vatican one Ordinary Universal Ordinary teaching. There's
three structure. Do you disagree with your own and theological manuals?
Of course, not to talk about the three tiers. No,
that's that's really fine. Okay, So there's ordinary magisterium. There's
extraordinary magisterium and there's universal ordinary magisterium. So I think
you're confusing the ordinary and the universal ordinary because.
Speaker 3: We're talking papal magisterium. That's the only magisterium. Only the
papacy is magisterium. No, so you think that ex cathedra,
he thinks ex cathedra means which guarantees that extraordinary only two.
Speaker 4: No, I'm asking you about Vatican one saying that universal
ordinary teaching is also part of the terrorism.
Speaker 3: It's part of the keroism, so it's not protected under infallible.
Speaker 4: So the terrorism is an infallible No. So the so
you just get refuge doing it again. You're doing it
again when you slip up. It's my fault.
Speaker 3: No, you think that ex cathedral teachings by the pope
the sole papal teachings that enjoy the terrorism of infallibility.
Vatican one says that the Pattican one does not say. So,
I'm reading it to you right now. You have to
read thee.
Speaker 2: All right. If you think you're interrupting that, almost stop
for a second.
Speaker 4: Well, furthermore, all things are to be believed with divine
Catholic faith contained in the Word of God written or
handed down. Yes, which the church either by solemn judgment.
Speaker 3: That's ex cathedral. That's not yes, it is. It's a
solemn judgment of solemn judgment. It's religious submission in mind
and will. No, you're misunderstanding.
Speaker 4: This is talking about ex cathedral or the Universal Ordinary
Magisterium as divinely revealed.
Speaker 3: Both of them to bishops. Both of them. You're talking
about bishops. This is talking about the Roman sees.
Speaker 4: Two things that are that are protected by the terrorism
extraordinary and ex cathedral.
Speaker 3: You're wrong on this. Ordinary. You're just flat wrong. Ordinary
and universal is all bishops, not just pope. You're wrong.
Speaker 4: You understand wrong, your own your own manuals teach the
there's three.
Speaker 3: There's three. I know that. What are the three? What
are the three? Read them to me? Well, I thought
you knew. No, I do know. But you're trying to
say that the three.
Speaker 4: Cathedral is is uh, that ex cathedral is not the
only way that a pope can speak from the chair
with the charism of Yes. It's called universal Ordinary Magisterium
and it's not the ordinary magisterium. No.
Speaker 3: Yes, you're you're just right here. You're lying show it
to me.
Speaker 4: Ordinary magisterium is the regular teaching of the building.
Speaker 3: I'm not like, can I see it? I'm going to
read it to you, the ordinary teaching of the bishops.
That's or tell me what orinary magistrate is.
Speaker 2: You don't want to see it?
Speaker 3: You want to see it? I want to. Yeah, this
gives me timpoole situation. Yeah, so I can explain to
you what these are ordinary magisterium, individual bishop groupings of bishop,
Bishop of Rome. This is ordinary. This is not protected
by extraordinary magic. There's no protect protectionist college issuing a
solemn definition while it protected. Yes, that's what I'm.
Speaker 4: Arguing, that's the college of No, you're talking about the pope.
I said, that's not the pope, that pope, And you
said it's not the bishops, the Bishop of Rose issuing
a solemn definition.
Speaker 3: You know that two of the.
Speaker 4: Two of you're deflecting two of the three are protected
by the terrorism.
Speaker 3: No, yes they are one of them. Council one of
them can the pope speaking? Councils are protected the Pope speaking,
But there's only one way that speak. Ex Cathedral read
the bottom one, Jay read the bottom one.
Speaker 4: The universal ordinary magisterium, according to Vatican one, is said
to be ordinaries. Pope, stop interrupting me. There's two things
that are protected by the Chroism of Peter according to
Vatican one, solemn judgments or her ordinary Universal teaching, both
of the ease solemn judgments.
Speaker 3: Interrupting me, Yeah.
Speaker 1: Let him finish the statement. Let let him finish the
statement trying to make a statement, and then we'll end.
Speaker 3: You have sorry, I'm not trying to interrupt you.
Speaker 2: You can't handle this for a second. Ahead and finish
the last statement. You have thirty extra seconds.
Speaker 4: These two things, solemn judgments and the ordinary Universal Teaching,
are divinely revealed and protected according to this.
Speaker 3: Can I see it now?
Speaker 4: Can I? Can I rebuke? You know he's just but
he's darning out the time. Now keep going. He doesn't
want I can explain it to you explain it because
I'm cross examined me on it.
Speaker 3: Hey, the only statements he's supposed to be asking me
a question.
Speaker 2: Well, he hasn't gotten made a mistake.
Speaker 3: Trying to run from the Universal magisterial teaching. No, you
are cas statement.
Speaker 4: So the only statements by popes in under Vatican one
in pastory turnis the only.
Speaker 3: Single one off you didn't read.
Speaker 4: You didn't read the whole document the said otherwise universal
universal Ordinary Magisterium. According to Vatican one, is also protected
under the terrorism I told him not air popes.
Speaker 3: Ordinarily, popes in their ordinary have to be followed with.
Speaker 2: Answer the questions. Don't want some time to ask the
one question?
Speaker 3: Why are you not answering questions? What's the question?
Speaker 2: Answer? Answer?
Speaker 4: You know what the question was hot the time? Yeah,
thank you the question. Ask the question you screwed up?
How did I screw up? Because there's only one infallible
way a pope can speak.
Speaker 3: That's not that's not what the question was.
Speaker 1: The question simply right now, and then he can't say
he didn't he didn't hear it, or he can't can't
dodge it, and he'll answer it and then we'll be fine.
Speaker 2: There.
Speaker 4: You got to get one teaches that there are two,
which is two of this three that are protected by
the petrion kerosm and by infallibility and by the Holy Spirit.
What one of them is ex cathedral, the other one
is ordinary universal teaching the thing, Council, Stop interrupt freaking council, dude,
you're reading it all right, I'm reading it wrong when
I read.
Speaker 3: It literally, you're not understanding.
Speaker 4: No, you don't know your own documents because this isn't
part of postertornity.
Speaker 3: This is a different You don't know it. I do
know it. Okay, let's let's let's switch this up because
you don't want to do this.
Speaker 4: Tell me in the first thing, stop why can you
not answer the questions?
Speaker 3: You are literally the worst at this, Jay, this is
really bad, man. You got yourself trying to dig in.
Speaker 1: It's a you won't you literally you your father, But
but ask the ask the question, don't interrupt him, and
then and then answer simply here we go. Go ahead
and finish your statement, question whatever you want to call it,
get it, get it out.
Speaker 2: Don't say anyth until he's done.
Speaker 1: When he said you say, I'm done, when you're done,
and then he'll come in and he'll he'll he'll respond,
and don't interrupt him either.
Speaker 4: There's three levels. The level first that is and can
err is ordinary teaching. That's individual bishops, groups of bishops,
and even the Bishop of Rome. The next level is
the universal ordinary magisterial teaching, defined as in whenever the
college of bishops throughout the world issues a united judgment
with the Roman Pontiff to be held in faith and morals. Okay,
this one is protected by the charism of Peter according
to Vatican One.
Speaker 3: Which one the one I just read? Oh my gosh,
do you want me to explain it?
Speaker 4: No, because you don't know what you're talking about?
Speaker 1: Then question, let's not let's your stupid positions.
Speaker 3: I promise you're reading.
Speaker 2: I'm reading it.
Speaker 3: I'm literally reading the text, his own text, and I'm
reading it choir's interpretation.
Speaker 2: Okay, Hey, let's okay, Ken and his mic for a second.
What do you mean his mike? Two?
Speaker 1: Here's mike, and then I'm here his mike. When you
answer a right, mute his mike and then we'll talk.
Speaker 2: We'll go here. Here we go. Go ahead. The MIC's muted.
You can say whatever its.
Speaker 3: Just deflect him because he doesn't want to go into this,
because he's the god man.
Speaker 1: Just just go all right, it's muted, go ahead and
go ahead. I guess it took a second there.
Speaker 4: The first was the Ordinary Magisterium that can air the
ordinary teaching individual bishops groups of bishops.
Speaker 3: Bishop of Rome.
Speaker 4: The next level is the Universal Ordinary teaching whenever the
College of Bishops teaches anything in union with the Bishop
of Rome that, according to Vatican One, is literally said
right here to be believed by divine revelation and magisterium
ordinary universal teaching has to be believed, and thus it
cannot air. So the only one that could air was
the first one Ordinary teaching. Universal ordinary teaching, accordingy Vatican
One cannot air because just like the extraordinary or the
ex cathedral stuff, it is also protected.
Speaker 3: Two of these are protected. The one is not.
Speaker 4: What I want to know from you is, can you
give me an example in the first thousand years of
the Church where there's anything like what's in Unham Sanctam
or what is in uh Dictata's Pope, or all the
way up into the Syllabus of Errors showing that the
Bishop of Rome is a geopolitical world power and that.
Speaker 3: You must believe that to be saved.
Speaker 2: All right, Are you done?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 4: Because because I'm pointing out a contradiction in their teaching.
Speaker 1: Okay, so now mute mute Jay's mike for a second
if you can, just because we're gonna be fair here,
we do up both sides here.
Speaker 2: Just just get through this question. But the rebuttal.
Speaker 3: As me ya ya yeah, yeah, yeah yeah, find of
this muting thing again.
Speaker 1: No, I mean no, I mean if he doesn't want
you to, if he wants to, then yes, but you
know what, I'm to interrupt you, so I'm just but
I'm gonna try to be fair too. So it's just
with no interrupting here. We're gonna end it here because
we're over on the time on this. Go ahead, Jay,
and then just go to him and then we're just
going to get it a clear.
Speaker 3: Okay, answer the question clearly, uh un, I'm sanctum is
a papal bowl, which is a lower level of magisterium
than you're thinking it is. And according to it, uh no,
there's not something in the first millennium that's quite like it.
It's not saying everyone must personally recognize the pope or
they're damned the way you're thinking it is. Instead, it's
asserting that salvation comes from Christ Church, and since the
Church is visible and hierarchical, submission to the pope is
the ordinary means of union with Christ's body. Now now
ordinary in because you asked me a question, this is
the physwer.
Speaker 1: Full time he's answering your he's part of your time.
He's just answering you. Real fast answer, not real fast question.
Speaker 3: You gotta you gotta, you gotta let me answer this
ordinary ordinary magisterium is there is no one's time. Ordinary
is the pope. Okay, Ordinary is the pope ordinary, and
universal is all bishops. An ordinary universal is protected. But
for bishops it's it's that.
Speaker 4: It's just that clear, what Jake, All well, I'm not.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's a complex looking charge. All right, it's difficult.
We're going to only one type of teaching that you keep.
Speaker 1: People can all right, moving along, moving along here to
to your ability to go ahead and ask him questions
and go ahead and go there. He obviously don't feel
like he answered the question. You feel like he is
skating right, sorry, I mean his mic, Sorry, the boards shorted.
Speaker 2: That's why it just messes up right now.
Speaker 4: The last question was about the geopolitical power of the papacy,
which is not just an unam sanctum as necessary for salvation.
Its stated all the way up until the Syllabus of errors.
You tried to castigate that, to cast that as a
discipline that you're saying that it's not there in the
first souveny thousand years, but it was required for salvation.
Speaker 3: The temporal power. Now I answered your question. I said no,
there's nothing. I said no, it was a it was
a yes no question. I said, no, there's nothing quite
like it. But what I followed up with is Boniface
the eighth language was sharpened by a political fight. And
this it's sharpened by a political situation. You guys in
the should understand this very well, because the emperors made
your decisions for most of even the latter.
Speaker 4: Like the dramatic popes that were were political dramatic kings.
Speaker 3: Catholic theology recognizes this principle. It recognized the principle apart
from polemical expression and the principle that it stands for.
The proposition it stands for is the unity of the
Church under the successor of Peter. So yes, that's defensive.
Speaker 4: So there was no geopolitical power. It was necessary for
salvation belief in the first thousand years.
Speaker 3: Thank you, not dogma. No, No, this is discipline.
Speaker 4: It is it's stripped from the disciplin is it faith
in morals, it's rhetorical.
Speaker 3: It's a lot of rhetoric.
Speaker 4: It's disciplinary to get around papab a level magisterian.
Speaker 3: It's all the way up in the errors.
Speaker 4: What's the Roman sea I'm just explaining your your question
about I'm saying it's a papabull.
Speaker 3: You thought it was more important than that. It's for
salvation for nine hundred years, and now it's not.
Speaker 4: And it was necessary for salvation. The doctim says it's
necessary for salvation. Read that I'm necessary our salvation to
be subject to the Roman Pontiff, not just in spiritual matters.
The last paragraph of when I'm signed them is about
the temporal supremacy also being necessary to be saved. Okay,
it is absolutely necessary for salvation for every human being
to be subject to the Roman Pontiff in both the.
Speaker 3: Temporal and the spiritual. That's so that refers to confessiontional states.
The context is confessional states. Did the Holy Roman Empire
still exist?
Speaker 4: Then it says every human being must believe in the
context state, Okay, where was.
Speaker 3: The temporal supremacy in the first thousand years? It didn't exist, No,
it did exist. Where where was this doctrine in the
first thou years? I mean, can you name a church
father that teaches it?
Speaker 4: Can you name uh uh? Can you name a church
father that teaches this? I mean no, because it doesn't exist. Well,
so this is a development of the power.
Speaker 3: Exactly its development. Now it's developed a way because do
we have to believe it? Believe it? The way it
developed was.
Speaker 4: So anything that is a dogmatic contradition suddenly now disciplinary.
Speaker 3: Yes, So that's exactly. Thank you. Well did you to
show Jay where was Christ didn't establish the contivity?
Speaker 4: So run off to something else. No, run run off
to the prompt of the debate. But you haven't addressed
all I had this was that there's one contradiction. No,
you don't because Christ established patrain ministry. Christ established a
petrine ministry. I've shown it does I exited it. I
showed it. There are there are developments in the pontificate.
Speaker 3: Over the years.
Speaker 4: The Petrie ministry was supposed to in the first seven
country geopolitical world, in the first seven country political world.
Power there there are where's that good popes, bad popes?
There media where in the first thousand years is a
geopolitical world? That is what we call it disciplinary distinction.
And the Church has said it multiple is it disciplinary
if it's necessary for salvation for nine hundred.
Speaker 3: Years, it's disciplinary in so far as the modern church,
as you said yourself, doesn't even hold that this doctrine
is true.
Speaker 4: When there's a contradiction, it's suddenly disciplinary and it can
go away.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 1: We are all right, all right, all right, We're gonna
move on from there. I'm gonna give your time. Theoretically
you would have unlimited time after after the length of
that situation. But but also to be fair, I'm gonna
give you five minutes. But if you guys want to go,
you know, you guys want to still still ham my
the point. If you don't think it is, I'll give
you the ability to hammer it out as well. Since
since since Jay got that from the chat, I'd have
no idea who won that, because the chats it's like
we were someone who was saying Tucker won, you know
what I mean, like just throwing in chat, just throwing
and ideas in there. Uh. But you guys need to
be very very dogmatic on who you support. I'd like
to know once and for all before we go on
to this rebuttal that rebuttal, do you believe ones in
the chats that Jay one two's in the chats that
Timothy won. Let's go ones ones for Jay twos for Timothy.
I just want to see a little bit what's going
on there and what's happening. Sometimes I can tell about
your names as well, what's going on.
Speaker 2: All right, as we go.
Speaker 1: Into there, I'm gonna give your time on the clock.
Theoretically you have five minutes. Again, if for some reason
there's a contention and a challenge, I'll give you that
way more than five minutes. Well, I said the middle
ground was nobody's. I was like, because it was just
a separate issue as were. If we weren't gonna mute,
if we're gonna mute, then it would have been his minutes.
But since we unmuted both, it's like, okay, then we'll
just go at it.
Speaker 3: And you guys cross that right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, go ahead. This is a theoretically five minutes.
Speaker 1: But if for some reason you can't get done in time,
then you know we'll get it done.
Speaker 4: Here.
Speaker 2: We go go ahead and begin.
Speaker 3: You can start your questioning, all right, we'll go to
the three Papal scriptures. In Matthew sixteen to nine, Jesus
gives the Peter the keys alone to the kingdom. Do
you know the typological reference of the keys in the
Old Testament? You know what there of Isaiah and what
mean the householder? I'm aware of all that. What do
they mean though, specifically to which king the steward, to
David the king. So yeah, this is well, this is
a typological reference the house of David. I'm aware of that. Yeah. Okay,
so the keys of the House of David. You think this?
Does he give these keys to all of the apostles? Yes?
How does he give all these keys to the apostles?
He gives them to Jesus, to Peter alone.
Speaker 4: Well, in two chapters later he says exact same, Dame,
to the whole college.
Speaker 3: He gives the keys of the kingdom to the whole
college of cardinals, to the whole college of Apostles. Yeah,
can you read that for me? Yeah.
Speaker 4: Matthew eighteen says that the binding and the loosing, which
is what the key is signify, is literally said to
the entire college.
Speaker 3: Two chapters later. Yeah, no, no, I did know that. Oh,
but binding and loosing is given as the operation of
the key. The Third Ecumenical Council and the Sixth Ecumenical Council.
It's affirmed as given to Peter alone primacial authority everywhere
on Earth. Sorry, this is the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Primacial
authority everywhere on Earth was given by the Redeemer of
the world to the Blessed Apostle Peter. Through the same Apostle,
the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church has till now
and will hold for all time primacy and sovereign authority.
Are you How does that square with your interpretation right?
Speaker 4: Because that language is also used Matthew sixteen is applied
in the Seventh Ecumenical Council to the Emperor.
Speaker 3: Now, the Emperor doesn't have the binding and loosing can
forgive sin.
Speaker 4: No, I'm saying the Council also uses that terminology for
the Emperor.
Speaker 3: So it doesn't prove what you think it proved. It
does prove what I think.
Speaker 4: It proves everywhere on earth the Emperor can can confess
sins can be You don't understand that I'm saying. I
don't believe that I'm saying what the Council also says.
Speaker 3: The Council crimacial authority.
Speaker 4: It says that the keys and Matthew sixteen also applies
to the Emperor, which I don't believe.
Speaker 3: But the council also says that where does it say
that it's brought up in the Ubi Borro debate?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 4: I mean, but where does it say that in the count?
Can you read me something? I don't have the documents
with me. No, but you can look it up.
Speaker 3: So you think that I just want your best estimate.
You think primacial authority everywhere on earth? Because we're talking
about the the areare the passage? Hold on? I know
what that says. We're talking about the passage that I
brought up, the three the three passages, particularly the keys
everyone on earth given by the Redeemer of the world
to the Blessed Apostle Peter through the same Apostle, the
Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church. How about that it doesn't
give it to to the Empire the way it would
be the analogatet for the Emperor. It's only given to
the Roman Church hold now and for all time through
privacy and sovereign authority. How how does that square with
your interpretation?
Speaker 4: Because, like I said, the keys is used at times
in that flowery.
Speaker 3: Language to say the flowery language. It is.
Speaker 4: I mean, the entire debate between Ubi and Obarrow is
about primacial authority.
Speaker 3: Everywhere on earth is flowery. Yeah, it is primacial authority.
It's specific.
Speaker 4: You have you heard the term i've trained attorney. This
is how we describe the tachnology that's used in the
ecumenical councils for the patriarchal constantinoples. Similar how about Council
of Calcidon. Peter has spoken through Leo. Are you aware
that they examined the tone against Cyril?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 4: Of course, Oh so Cyril was a center. No, so
Peter spoke through Cyril finacial authority. Well you're retroact, But
did you have authoritatively saying that you didn't? You're retroactively
reading the seventh back to the fourth.
Speaker 3: How how about this is this flowery language from ephesis?
The third council is head, the head of the whole faith,
the head of the apostles, blessed Peter. It's it's in
the octa. Are you sure?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 3: I think it's in the octa. I mean, I could
I could check it. Do you think that every state?
Speaker 4: I think it's you think that every state from a
legate is dogmatic, because of course it has to be
in wait, I said, it's in the octa. The Pope's
legates say something, and you think that that's now the
head of the whole faith, The head of the apostles
is Blessed Peter. So what excuse is it?
Speaker 3: Is it that? But none of that proves Vatican won.
I wasn't trying to prove Vatican one cross.
Speaker 4: I was trying to prove that Jesus Instituteodox don't disagree with.
Speaker 3: That Jesus institute of the papacy, and you don't disagree.
What does it mean at your own counsel? Doesn't mean?
What does it mean at your own council at eight
seventy Constantinople four, in your own council that the chief
of the apostles or has the authority of universal binding
and loosing? Just explain that to.
Speaker 4: Me the same way that your documents of that of
the Vatican explain it. I vers does your Vatican documents
explain it?
Speaker 3: Can you? Can you unpack what that means? So it
sounds like.
Speaker 4: Your appeals are made to the Bishop of Rome, but
they're also made to other bishops.
Speaker 3: And as Cyprian says, all bishops are Peter, but the
power of universal binding and loosing.
Speaker 4: But that same flower language is also used of other patriarchates.
Speaker 3: In flowery language, this is a pelt language. This is
literally the language apellate.
Speaker 4: Jurisdiction argument according to the Chiady DOCTORSCU mean the Alexandria document,
the Ciady documents.
Speaker 3: Who's my position?
Speaker 4: Because appleate jurisdictions allow for retrials in the local jurisdictions,
it proves.
Speaker 3: Your position that he has an honorary uh, non jurisdictional power.
No are you? Are you aware what Peter in Rome?
Speaker 4: No Sartica allows noble to say, the chief of the apostles,
Peter has the authority of universal binding and loosing.
Speaker 3: That is that's also no, you're not listening to what
I'm saying.
Speaker 4: That terminology in that phraseology is also used of the emperor,
and it's also used of other patriarchates and bishops to
do the same types of things.
Speaker 3: Okay. In John, that's insane.
Speaker 4: In John twenty one, Jesus tells Peter three times, feed
my sheep. He repeats it, give an orthodox in term,
Why would Christ trust entrust the universal flock to one man?
Speaker 3: If his role was just honorific. It's not.
Speaker 4: What do you mean, It's not you're just assuming that
those passages teach Vatican one and the universal jurisdiction.
Speaker 3: Talking about Vatican Vatican one wouldn't happen for eighteen hundred years.
You're obsessed with it. I'm asking, literally, because that's not
what's increasing Vatican want it happened at the time of
John twenty one. Obviously not Jesus tells Peter three times.
He tells Peter three times back in whatever the year
thirty three, because my sheep, why would he? But I'm
just asking why would he entrust the universal?
Speaker 2: He didn't.
Speaker 4: That's just your assumption that the scripture. Where does this
say the entire universal flock?
Speaker 3: Is there? The whole flock, not just the local church,
because he's not referring to the local true, that's why
he says it. Why does he say it three times?
Jay den him three times? Duh? But okay, bring up one?
So why why what is the authority of Peter denying
him three times and this being undone three times? The
authority of it? I don't know what that means. So
you you think that price is not interesting? The universal flock.
Speaker 4: To Timothy was Timothy was Timothy was in Ephesus.
Speaker 3: Peter isn't over that right, And and the authority of
universal binding and loosing is just flowery. Jesus gives the
keys too, and that's just flowers.
Speaker 4: I should have watched the U be a Borrow debate
because they talked about all the flowery language.
Speaker 3: I've seen it, uh, And it's it's absurd to just
say anytime you don't like that a power is given,
you say language. No, it's not I see it too.
Primation authorities everywhere on Earth, that's flowery.
Speaker 4: That's because you try to try to very trying to
cite legs dogmatic.
Speaker 3: No, this is nice. The councils of this earlier. Why
would Pope Hadrian be read and stuck into the see
saying that primatial authority everyone on earth has been given by?
Does this strike anyone else? Can I answer? Flower? Can
I answer this question?
Speaker 2: Some people in the chat were saying Jay likes flowers.
That's what that's what that's what they're saying the chat.
I don't. I'm not gonna have an opinion.
Speaker 1: I take other side of Can I answer, Yeah, you
can answer, then we should probably probably cut that off
and go to the conclusion right now.
Speaker 4: Uh So, I'm not trying to say that every statement
is flowery language. I was specifically talking about some of
the statements. Let me give an example where Basil says,
when he's talking about the Malician schism, he says that
the church in Antioch is the head of the entire body,
and the whole body listens to the head. Nobody believes
that the Bishop of Antioch is the head of the
entire universal Church. It's one example of the flowery language
which came up multiple times in the.
Speaker 3: Debate between Ubi and Obara and other debates.
Speaker 4: So all I'm saying is that the case in Matthew
of Matthew sixteen and the Sun of the Commentical Council
doesn't go very far because it also applies to the
Emperor in the acts of that Council, which I don't accept.
I'm just saying that they use that terminology and they
cite that text for the emperor.
Speaker 3: What I'm also saying is that do they cite it
in the same way though. Do they cite it in
the same way where the same primatial authority or he's
a confessor of what.
Speaker 4: They say is that the gates of Hell will not
prevail against the empire nor the emperor, of course, citing Matthew,
but nobody believes that because the empire fell right. But
I'm just saying that Matthew sixteen in the councils can
be used and it doesn't necessarily prove the Vatican one position,
which is what you have to prove.
Speaker 3: I'm not talking about Vatican one. I'm talking about but
that's what you hold the entire It was like a
three line specific quote and you're saying, well, they said
the later Pope Hadrian thing, can I address up? Yeah, okay,
So I do agree with you that.
Speaker 4: Over time, and if you read Sashinsky's book on Orthodoxy
and the Papacy, he discusses this. By the time of
Pope Saint Gregory the Great, he admits and agrees to
the pentarchy. At the same time as pentarchy is accepted
by Rome, Rome is also making more and more grandiose
and grandeur related statements and claims. I agree with you
that those claims are there, and they're being made, but
from an Orthodox perspective. Just because the pope at a
council says that we don't necessarily think that it's true
because the pope said, and it's in the council, right.
It could be the acts, it could be flowery language.
And we don't accept everything that a pope says, of course,
even at a council.
Speaker 3: So the real issue epistemologically is how do you say
that this is not a flowery sorry, circular reasoning. In
other words, what I kept repeating in my opening, the
councils are ecumenical when we accept them, and only the
accepted councils are ecumenical. That's why you guys have fourteen churches.
That's why you can't meet the first mark of the church.
Let me, you have three patriarchs in church, all right,
for the sake of that, you can't meet the one.
There's one head. There's one visible sign of unity.
Speaker 2: That was God telling us to the closing, all right.
Speaker 1: So in conclusion on that, let's end with the conclusion
both to look, I'm gonna we're gona're gonna cut down
the five minute conclusions. It's almost midnight and there's there's
a kid here, so it's like gotta go to bed.
But so so we'll cut out of five minutes and
then I'll go through some super chats. We went through
most of the superchats though that were out there, if
you if you I did. I read some of the
two dollars one dollar super chats, but I was mostly
keeping it the five, ten, and twenty dollars up super chats.
And I thank you everyone who gave the super chats.
Speaker 2: That was really appreciative of you that were there.
Speaker 1: And we'll try to uh make sure that we get
to them somehow because there was just just too many.
Speaker 2: But I really appre should.
Speaker 1: Don't forget subscribe to this channel if you don't, we
are live Monday, Wednesday Friday at seven pm Eastern time
right now. We have special shows on Tuesdays and Thursdays
as well that are live with the pre record of
rebens of new shows start on the channel, including Joel Webbin,
who's been working with these two guys as well, doing
a theological show trying to bring Catholics, Prots and Orthodox
together to fight what's going on in this world, together
to be masculine and take back our countries, lead our
families and repopulate this world.
Speaker 2: Am I right? That's a good idea. Plus.
Speaker 1: You can also join local support this show directly if
you want to, because every time on that we do
this show live, we end up having live segments if
it's a special show song as we don't kind of
put it all out there at Elijah Shaeffer dot locals
dot com. You can follow us on Rumble YouTube wherever
you want to. But I greatly appreciate your support. And
let's go into this. We'll go ahead and we'll start.
Speaker 2: With Jay.
Speaker 1: Let me put some time on the clock here. I'm
going to go a little shorter and we're going to
try to stick to it. Please to summarize it due
to the simplicity of that, I'm gonna give you six minutes,
so ten, let me reset the clock if you're ready
to go. This is the conclusion both of this segment
and of the show.
Speaker 2: Yep, you have the clock.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: So I'd like to address a couple of things that
did come up here. There's a really good book, by
the way, because a lot of these comments, a lot
of these quotes need to be addressed in terms of
the context and then more more sort of spaced out.
There's a great book called Papacy in the Orthodox by
Edwards Sarshchensky. He's the same person that was a Unia
and became Orthodox. He wrote the book on the Philioqua,
and he also wrote this excellent book on the history
of these disputes, and he actually begins with the patristic
era or assuming of the post Apostolic apeer with Clement
and Ignatius, and talks about how, for example, for the
last sixty plus years, even the Roman Catholic Church no
longer utilizes things like Clement because they don't actually demonstrate
what the claims of Vatican one claim.
Speaker 3: The claims of Vatican One.
Speaker 4: For example, we've read Satist kongn Needum, which is a
legal the thirteenth description and define of what is supposed
to be understood in terms of people supremacy. Satist Cognitium
says that it has always, at all times been understood
that the Roman See had the claims that Vatican One
has about it.
Speaker 5: So, in other.
Speaker 4: Words, there's no development of doctrine. According to Satist Cognitum,
it is clearly that the Roman Sea was indefectible, infallible,
and had universal jurisdiction. Now he likes to say that, well,
I don't have to accept these statements from the Chiady
document because well, it's just not infallible. Of course, there
is no epistemic criteria for the Roman Catholic for what
is actually infallible, because Tim knows that it's more than
just a few exec theater statements. You also have to
believe all the dogmatic teachings in the ordinary universal Magisterium.
And in fact, there's a whole list of I'll give
you the guys the list of these.
Speaker 3: You can look them up yourselves, so we don't have
time to go through him.
Speaker 4: Zinger sixteen eighty three, Dinzinger sixteen ninety eight, Denzinger seventeen
ninety two, Castid KNUBII one O four all say that
position is condemned. If you say you only follow the
ex cathedral magisterial statements, that is a condemned proposition. And
it's funny because you actually heard him seem to be
arguing that tonight now in regard.
Speaker 1: To just let me let him let him conclude, please please, sorry, sorry,
please four hours.
Speaker 4: Because because universal ordinary magisterial teaching would be much broader
and would bind him and everyone else to a whole
bunch other of other things. And that's precisely what the
point of Atican one was to say, now, all I
needed was one dogmatic contradiction, which I think we saw
with the geopolitical power claims that were necessary for salvation
for nine hundred years.
Speaker 3: He said, oh, it's just a discipline.
Speaker 4: That's his way to get around this doctrinal contradiction. But again,
I will go back to the famous instance that Ubi
brought up to Ibarro, which Aborro didn't have an answer to,
in which I will reassert again from the papacy in
the Orthodox Pope Vigilius submitted to the Ecumenical Council because
he was threatened with excommunication and removal from the Diptychs,
and that's where he landed. That's where he ended up.
That's why Virgilius is such a strong argument against the
claim that Jesus instituted this universal supremacy that was from
all times, at all times, everywhere, infallible and defectible from
the earliest days.
Speaker 3: That's what he has to prove.
Speaker 4: That's why he was deflecting into these passages that don't
actually prove that. They prove merely that there's those passages
which can be read in an Orthodox sense or in
a Roman Catholic sense. He has a system that he
has to defend. He tried to say that it's all
coherence theory, or so I don't hold to secular coherence theory.
So he doesn't know what he's talking about. The position
only requires one contradiction for the whole thing to fall apart.
And you can read the most recent Richard Price text
on the case of Virgilius. And when Richard Price was
on Reason in Theology and they interviewed him a few
years ago, and he said that the pope did not
have universal jurisdiction in the first millennium, just like the
Chieti document says the pope did not have universal jurisdiction
in the first millennium. That means Vatican One is false.
And that's why Vigilius disproves the papacy. And there's many more. Honorius,
what two minutes were done? Okay, there's many more. There's
also the case of Honorius. Honorius is not just condemned
because he supposedly fibbed or failed to condemnse it's actually
because he wrote a letter to a bishop. So notice
the status of the text. It wasn't ex cathedral, it
wasn't a magisterium. It is a letter to a bishop
where he affirmed monothelitism, and he was successively condemned by
in the East three councils, including the Seventh Ecumenical Council.
So Honorius becomes a heretic explicitly. Most Roman Catholics, except
for a few, will admit this now today. But that
means that the pope isn't indefectible. And yet Vatican one
claimed that the ce of Peter is indeffectible. It is
never failing in its truth and in its faith. And
yet tonight we've seen, in just a handful of examples,
and I can give many many more, that it is
in fact failing. And that's why we don't put our
hope in a geopolitical world ruler which now calls for
open borders and all of that. Who used to say
you had to believe in his que's outside of rock
a list on all gie powers to be saved. Now
you don't have to believe it's.
Speaker 3: Just a discipline. Handwave it.
Speaker 4: No, no, no, The papacy is a geopolitical tool. And if
you go to my channel and watch all of my
old videos, you can find the lectures where I've walked
through David Wimhoff's excellent book showing that the CIA also
bought into and helped to buy out the papacy.
Speaker 3: Through Operation Gladio.
Speaker 4: There's multiple texts from multiple Roman Catholics even on that.
So what are we looking at with the papacy? Is
it really a center of unity? Or is it a
tool of inclusive capitalism, socialism, war, economic forum, all the
stuff that you see bat Canto promoting with the internationalism, a.
Speaker 3: New world order, et cetera.
Speaker 4: Explicitly in the Church and the modern world texts. That's
what the papacy actually is. The papacy is not your friend.
It is a spiritual cancer, and it does not produce
the thing that it claims to produce, unity, holiness and truth.
Speaker 2: All Right, That was ladies and gentlemen.
Speaker 1: Jay Dyer of the Orthodox Tradition, get the round of applause. There,
absolutely fantastic end to his rebuttal. Before we put the
ones and the twos in the chats, I'd like to
turn the time over. It was almost exactly six minutes,
like one second over over to Timothy Gordon. Just want
to clarify you're ready, yes, you're go to you a second, okay,
go ahead. In the terms of defense of the Catholic tradition.
To have your defense and conclusion, you may begin.
Speaker 3: Well, it's very clear to prove whether or not I
think the prompt of this question was Jesus institute of
the papacy. We have to check whether Jesus institute of
the papacy. Three gospels that I read, and what even
easterners thought of them, what all of the early Church
thought they meant, even if power would be aggrandized or
used in ways that Jay objects to later, You can't
object later in the timeline. You have to object earlier
to show that Jesus didn't establish the papacy. Here are
and Jay objected as orthodox do to my exegesis of
those three papal scriptures. But except here is Abu Karah.
These are all Eastern thinkers before the schism. If he
meant by these words in the Gospel only Saint Peter,
the Church would have been deprived of comfort and would
have had no one to deliver from those heretics whose
heresies are truly the gates of Hell, which Christ said
would not overcome the Church. Accordingly, there is no doubt
that he meant by these words nothing other than the
holders of the seat of Saint Peter, who have continually
strengthened their brethren and will not cease to do so
as long as this present age lasts. So is it
multiple people, Yes, it is the people who inhabit the
chair of Peter. Here's Maximus the Confessor. All the churches
of Christians everywhere have held the greatest Church there to
be their sole base and foundation. Since on the one hand,
it is in no way overcome by the gates of Hades,
according to the very promise of the Savior, referring to
the same scripture, but holds the keys of the Orthodox
confession and faith in him. And on the other hand,
it shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks
unrighteousness against the most High. This is Theodore studite. I
witness now before God and men, they have torn themselves
away from the body of Christ, from the supreme sea
in which Christ placed the keys of the faith, the
supreme sea against which the gates of Hell, I mean,
the mouths of heretics have not prevailed, and never will
until the consummation. Note all of the con tinual themes
which ring the same in all of these thinkers exeit
eating the one passage according to the promise of Him
who cannot lie, let the most blessed an apostolic pope,
Pascal rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter.
This is Theodore Studite, an Orthodox scholar, says of this.
The same time we find Saint Maximus the Confessor in
Theodore the Studite expressing the view that Rome was, in
unique sense the chair of Peter that would never fall
into heresy. This is clean a work, and it's simple
and straightforward, because the establishment of the pontificate by Jesus
was simple and straightforward in the first Christian century. And
I read you all of these places where for the
first thousand years the Orthodox accepted the papacy, and you
heard not a word, not a single word from jay
to night as to how they accepted the papacy. For
the last nearly thousand years they haven't accepted the papacy.
And of course, because this is an indefensible relinquishment of
a millennium old position, it's a relinquishment of the fundamental
pinnacle of the faith, the fundament of the faith Saint Peter,
as many many Orthodox Eastern scholars say before the schism.
He is the foundation of the faith, he's the prince
of the apostles. Flowery language, yes, But I read from
multiple councils that the establishment of the papacy in these
three passages is accepted in both East and West. And
of course this always brings us back to the fact
that in both East and West there was a pontificate
for a thousand years, and there was jurisdiction being exercised.
As I said the first time, we debated, if it's
just an honorary power, If it's just an honorary role,
like being a knight at a roundtable, and you're the
first of honor, then you are not appealed to for
an ex communication. You can't fire anyone. Dwight Shrut can't
fire anyone in the office when he's left in charge
as a kind of first among equals. That's true enough. Well,
within the first four councils there are appeals being made
to the Pope, the first three councils, appeal being made
to the pope to excommunicate the eventual number two.
Speaker 2: In the church.
Speaker 3: I don't know what else that stands for, and I've
I've tried to see it that way I can't. I've
heard nothing coherent tonight that would answer the question, what
do those three papal scriptures mean. I've read Orthodox scholars
or Eastern scholars, and an Orthodox scholar cleaner work who
exeged him exactly the way we did, even if you
ignore it. Clement of Rome, because it's inconvenient, ignacious of
Antioch cold, the Roman Church, the one presiding in love
allah a president ierinais that all churches must agree with
the Roman Church because of its pre eminent authority. Is
pre eminent authority, flowery language. No, it's juridical language. It's
jurisdictional language. Cyprian of Carthage says, while he's clashing with Stephen,
he still calls Rome, who he's not happy with at
the time, the chair of Peter and principal church from
which sasserdotal unity has arisen. This is how the Roman
Catholic Church stands for those four marks holy Catholic Apostolic
established at the very first Ecumenical Council. The oneness requires
a visible sign of unity on earth. All bishops can
be said to succeed Peter in a sense, but Rome
succeeds in a special way, and I think that way
has been made clear by these three scriptural foundations of
the papacy.
Speaker 2: Ladies and gentlemen.
Speaker 1: Timothy Gordon of the Catholic Persuau, I think we're just
having a little bit on our soundboard there. It's fine,
not gonna at cheer, not on purpose. But we actually
have a new one shipment on the way it looks
at our board actually shorted completely, so I'm surprised it
worked this whole time. Fantastic stuff. Appreciate you guys. With
that super chat in mind. I want to read a
couple of super chats here. I am Weneman said. The
Catholic Church says the Orthodox have legitimate apostolic succession, possession
of true sacraments in Christ. If you have what we
need to have you wait, if you have what need
have you for the pope? Interesting every day I'm struggling
say there's a difference between accepting go Old Rome's orthodoxy
and schismatic universal supremacy. Tim you complete bad faith actor,
they said, complete, said war Thunder said Tim is the
Byzantine Empire and Emperor Basil the first infallible. The gates
of Hell shall not prevail against your Orthodox Empire, the
bishops to Basil the first at the eighth ecumen Council.
Speaker 2: Is that true?
Speaker 3: Uh? I was?
Speaker 4: I mis cited it's the eighth and I was saying seventh,
So I was incorrect about that.
Speaker 3: I should have said the eighth.
Speaker 1: All right, late night Tweaker said Orthodox again with the
seventy four percent versus Roman Catholics twenty six percent, absolute
devastation for the Roman Catholics. I like, I didn't know
this is such a battle, Like is this this is
a whole new world for me.
Speaker 2: I just knew the churches and divided. I didn't know.
Jay's ready to go.
Speaker 3: He's like, I Gus, no, I'm just I'm trying to
get my I don't want to keep you too.
Speaker 2: Long on no, no, no. I I got a review.
Speaker 3: Of these chats. It was it was like what it
was intense.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it was over four and a half hours.
Speaker 3: I don't think I've ever done a four and a
half hour debate.
Speaker 1: So neither have I actually, uh, neither of I'll read
a few more of you, said, I want to make
sure we read the super I appreciate you guys as
my super chatters.
Speaker 2: I love you guys.
Speaker 1: And you know, you guys really come and show your
support for it, for Tim and for for Jay, and
that's why you're supporting here.
Speaker 2: Then I appreciate that.
Speaker 1: Because, yeah, it does cost money to host these things,
and I don't know if it fully paid it back
like with the super chats, but it definitely helped, you know,
and that's really, really, really fantastic. So you guys understand
the importance of independent media and that's very, very helpful.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 1: I conam Matt said, if I, as a pizza maker,
put pepperoni on a person's pizza and then give them
the pizza, does that make the person someone who puts
pepperoni on pizza passively? Does it make them a passive
pizza maker? Okay, evening, that's funny and I don't take
a side there.
Speaker 3: I wrote a play of paper Scissors Rock for it.
Speaker 1: Is there something to the paper scissors rock instead of
rock paper scissors?
Speaker 2: Why do we say paper scissors rock?
Speaker 3: I don't know. My wife tells me that's crazy. Is
it rock paper scissors? Yeah? I always thought that the
two dieads and then the monad, right, Yeah, I was
in terms of syllables.
Speaker 2: I just thought it was like, you know, like that's
what I said, Like.
Speaker 1: It's like, give me job hands. You know that's that
sounds like to me, that's it's a job. Blow Give
it to me later, bitch.
Speaker 2: All right. Anyway, I should have said that rock papers.
Speaker 3: I'm tired rock papers.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: Protifect also said something very very interesting here said, uh said, uh,
when Timsy's an old guy with a T shirt greatest Grandpa,
he takes it literally. If that's talking about house, Grandpa
was the best. So okay, that's uh, that's some interesting
things there. That being said, You guys, these people are
are crazy.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: War Thunder said Tim. Is Emperor Leo infallible? Is Emperor
Leo infallible? I am confident of the pauity of your
heart in all things, and perceive that through the Holy
Spirit dwelling in you are sufficiently instructed.
Speaker 2: Nor can the.
Speaker 1: Air delude you. Saint Leo to Emperor Leo, he infallible.
It's a swim question. Is Emperor Leo infallible?
Speaker 3: Is the Emperor infallible?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 3: Are you being serious?
Speaker 2: No? No, what do you mean asking me?
Speaker 3: I don't know. I mean I'm talking to the the
goofball in chat. Yeah, of course not dude.
Speaker 2: The word guruth thrown around tonight was diabolical in itself.
Speaker 1: They also said one sounds like there's a sincere attempt
at Coher and Soather sounds like talking to a theological lawyer.
We also had h one I'm shot a seventeen said
go get them, Jay.
Speaker 3: We should have made people state what their what their
faith background is for for a comment. Yeah, but then
they just lie anyway. So they'd say, all, I'm a Catholic.
But but uh, oh.
Speaker 1: Man, there's there's so many here that we're not gonna
able to get to tonight. Really, I'm sorry. Well, actually
got to. Actually we did get through most. Also, it's
funny we saw there was like AARs five hundred and
I was like, oh my gosh, what is that.
Speaker 2: It turns out that's an Argentinian.
Speaker 4: It's take thirty eight cents night, I'll give.
Speaker 3: I wanted to give Jay credit. So he said it
right the second time. Ordinary Universal Magestarium refers to all
bishops with popes.
Speaker 4: He did say it, and my understanding is that's everybody.
Carosm Well, let me read a couple of these things.
Uh freedom, freedom works right now?
Speaker 1: Just at two hundred dollars in US do tweets like
the soundboard just isn't working.
Speaker 2: I'm so sorry. We usually give like you do.
Speaker 1: You have some confetti at least for them that work.
There you go, that's they thinking about this. You go
two hundred dollars to get some confetti. Well, have you
ever given more than that to the government. It gets
confettian in Brown people's weddings and their families while they're sleeping.
That's what we get with more money than that. It's
not confetti, it's their brain matter of their children. Anyway,
that's what we pay for. Again, I have your roads
fixed because you've got to kill Brown people in other
countries through the US military. I don't like it. It's
not a good thing. But people, we pay for that.
It's not a good thing anyway. Darkness Society said, if
Orthodox beliefs in the papacy papacy, why don't they have one?
Why can they agree on the sinful nature of contraception?
Why would they interpret the Bible themselves without an interpreter?
If their wrong, their souls are on the line. Their
problem is authority. I guess that's coming from a Catholic
to repeat that If Orthodox believes on papacy, why don't
they have one? Why can they agree on the sinful
nature of conscious option? Why why they interpret the Bible
themselves with that interpreter. If they're wrong, their souls are
on the line. I think the problem is authority. So
they're saying, without the Apostolic papacy, then you're wrong. So like,
I mean, I don't know. I guess it's like a
sin of a sin of transgression or something. I guess
you're going hell for it or something. I mean, what
what is what is the question I'm trying to think.
I mean, there's souls on the line, So like, why
do you have a problem authority? I think that's what
he's saying, your problems authority?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean we just have we have different authorities
from what they recognize as authorities.
Speaker 3: To answer simply.
Speaker 4: But if you want a specific answer on divorce and remarriage,
we made a whole documentary on this, or at least
my friends did Lewis and UBI. You can go to
UBI Petris and watch the documentary his channel about divorce
and remarriage where you'll see that Pope Gregory the Second
in the Roman Catholic Church allowed for it. The Basil
the Canons of Saint Basil that the Roman Church accepted
allowed for divorce and remarriage. So a lot of these
things that they have huge issues with, they don't even
know their own history on it. And you can also
look up the interview with doctor David Bradshaw on the
question of sexual ethics and the issue of contraception on
UBI Petris's channel as well. So those are they're really
involved questions. It gets into like risk Tatilian medieval theology
of orsumia, of philosophy of purpose and secondary purposes and
biology and all that. It's just too much to answer
in one response, so we made that documentary.
Speaker 2: Yeah, okay, that's interesting.
Speaker 1: And by the way, ASKCAF said, Jay is the Pope
of the future, Christ is king and I think believe
at that. Shout out to everyone who who gave that
that I was able to get you tonight.
Speaker 2: I really appreciate it.
Speaker 1: If people want to find you and follow you, guys, Jay,
what is the best way people can support your work?
The links are in the description, but obviously you got
social media channels. People probably know you and here and
they may want to support you.
Speaker 4: Yeah, you can go to my website and all my
archives stuff is there. I'm also on rock Finn, a
free speech based platform. You can find me on Twitter, YouTube,
all that stuff, and then usually on Fridays with Alex Jones,
although we're waiting to see you know where that's going
to go with his court stuff.
Speaker 3: And then the Sam Hide Show.
Speaker 1: Yeah check it out. Yeah, and of course Timothy Gordon.
How can people find you and follow you the same thing?
Speaker 3: Uh? Yeah, Twitter, YouTube, the usual stuff. I'm at tim
o'theeology on Twitter and Timothy Gordon on YouTube and my
show is called Rules for Retrogrades.
Speaker 2: Well, I've never seen so many defeated people. At the
end of the show. We all, I think we all
lost at the end of the yeah, half.
Speaker 4: Hours, I'd like to say that this was the best
Catholic debt I ever had. So you actually did, I
mean better than Trent or any ones I can think of.
So this was actually a This was like an intense session.
So this is the best colleague that I've had.
Speaker 3: Thanks in good job. We remain friends and I appreciate
you coming out and doing it again the second time.
Speaker 2: You know what, This was very good.
Speaker 1: I think in the chat you know, I'm gonna say this,
you guys both did a fantastic job. I think that
that the work that you did there was the work
that you guys did here, and the way that you
were able to talk this out was probably above a
lot of people's IQs, including my own, and I appreciate that.
And it's always good here to be able to hear
it out and to learn something. And I like to
say that with debates or with conversations, the key thing
is is that hopefully you learned something constructive tonight, like
that's opened to everyone.
Speaker 2: You learn some constructive and that your.
Speaker 1: Views were at least challenged, right, because pride and haughtiness,
you know, can become a very very very big stumbling
block in the hearts of men, and especially since as
you know, you get over like some of your sins
and vices and then you can become like deal with
ego and pride and issues that end up you know,
blinding you from from you know, being humble and seeing
the face of God.
Speaker 2: Without holiness, you not see the Lord.
Speaker 1: And we have to really check our hearts at the
at the gate there of heaven and see, you know,
really what's going on in our in our lives and
our hearts and our minds. Being honest because the mind
is ruthless, is to see flea wicked. Who can know it?
But God himself right, he knows, he knows us.
Speaker 3: So I would I would say this to Jay. You know,
it's it's a couple of things. J knows more about
the Philioquay than any Christian layman that I know that
I know of in the public space. So I was
stepping out there. He did well in that second one.
I was stepping out there to try to do with
this on my area. He did very very well. And
uh and I'm not taking anything away from in the
second section. Uh I. I you know, I think I'm
I'm strong on on actus puris, and I would just
give it to him legitimately. I'm not I'm not dodging
giving credit, Bud. It's a bit like anyone that has
to go debate Nick Fuentes or something like, He's going
to have his people in the comments, So there there's
always that you know, he's he's got his people who
show up, and that's good. You need your people. And
I like a lot of I like a lot of
the throw bros, like where they are and a lot
of stuff. But yeah, you know, Catholics, we have our
own problems. They don't They don't stay up later than ten.
And well, good job. In the second section, I'll give
you that there's a lot that can be learned about
the Philly oak Way from from the Tomes of Knowledge
of Jay Dyer on the Philly oak Way.
Speaker 2: But well, I think in the end we can conclude
this this last statement, should all become Mormon.
Speaker 1: So that's what I got from this. There you go,
we should all become Mormon. It's a good idea right now.
I'm kidding anyway, Thank you guys for watching. Shout out
to my guests today, Jay Dye or Timothy Gordon, follow
them wherever you can. Shout out Win super Chatters, Shout
out Win Joey, and.
Speaker 2: To the rest of you guys watching.
Speaker 1: Have a great rest of the week as always, and
the God bless the United States of America.
Speaker 2: I'm signing now.