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