Speaker 1: All right, welcome everybody. It's another episode of Jays Analysis.
Speaker 1: And you may recall some years back, maybe four or
Speaker 1: five years ago, Snack and I had a great guy
Speaker 1: on named George, and George was working at that time
Speaker 1: on kind of a loose draft of a book that
Speaker 1: covered infamous papal forgeries and other forgeries related to the
Speaker 1: period of the Early Church, the first six, seven eighth centuries.
Speaker 1: George has continued that work. He's busted butt and he's
Speaker 1: back on the channel with me because there's a new
Speaker 1: book out. It's an uncut Mountain Press and of course
Speaker 1: the links to this book are below, and we're gonna
Speaker 1: get deep into it. We're gonna get the low down
Speaker 1: on it. It's George who rejoins me. Let's get into this. George,
Speaker 1: first of all, tell us a little bit about what
Speaker 1: drew you to studying the forgeries. It seems like there's
Speaker 1: not a lot of good material just on this sort
Speaker 1: of topic, and does your book go beyond that into
Speaker 1: other theological topic.
Speaker 2: Sure. Yeah, thanks Jay for having me on. And yeah,
Speaker 2: what interested me is is really reading about the differences
Speaker 2: between the Roman Catholics and Orthodox and trying to trace
Speaker 2: back what caused all this, and and you know, coming
Speaker 2: across the this was maybe ten twelve years ago when
Speaker 2: I first got interested in the controversy and coming across
Speaker 2: these traditionalist Roman Catholics, you know, making their strong claims
Speaker 2: say no Orthodox are not in the church. And then
Speaker 2: you see, and I looked into a lot of the
Speaker 2: you know, these quotations that they would cite are a
Speaker 2: lot of times not reliable or historically we're not reliable documents.
Speaker 2: So there's some surprising you know things and history like
Speaker 2: Aquinas being so reliant upon forgeries and by the time
Speaker 2: of the Sism in ten fifty four, the forgeries then
Speaker 2: and then in the time of Saint Photius. So these
Speaker 2: stood out to me, so I wanted to compile them.
Speaker 2: And it's not just forgeries, but also other differences and
Speaker 2: historical changes from the first millennium. So that's the scope of.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I know that when we first talked about this,
Speaker 1: one of the subjects that came up was there were
Speaker 1: a couple of the ones that we discussed that were
Speaker 1: kind of iffy. We weren't sure whether they were forgeries
Speaker 1: that were used or you know, maybe something from cannons
Speaker 1: of Nicea. I think was one that came up that
Speaker 1: was a little we were a little iffy on do
Speaker 1: you want to give a little more insight on that,
Speaker 1: because I'm sure you've done a lot more research.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and it is true I have. Yeah, so there's
Speaker 2: been like PDF copies floating around the internet of the book.
Speaker 2: But I did get some criticism from Roman Catholic academics.
Speaker 2: And yeah, some of the items I said were forgeries
Speaker 2: were maybe our only documents of doubtful authenticity, so they're
Speaker 2: may be not reliable, but those tended to be more
Speaker 2: of the rather less important items, so it's good to
Speaker 2: be kind of fair.
Speaker 1: And yeah, they weren't the major major issues.
Speaker 2: Yes, yeah, I think there's one where in Saint Ambrose
Speaker 2: there was there's basically a textual variant in the manuscript
Speaker 2: where some manuscripts say he who has not the the
Speaker 2: faith of Peter is not in the church. Another variant
Speaker 2: said he's not the see of Peter's not in the church.
Speaker 2: I forgot the exact quote, but that the gist of
Speaker 2: it is in Latin. It's only a single letter said
Speaker 2: them versus feed them, and it's with the long ass
Speaker 2: I guess two letters. Then it's they're very similar, and yeah,
Speaker 2: there's just different manuscripts. So sometimes, yeah, it's not accurate
Speaker 2: to say it is a forgery. It's just maybe it's
Speaker 2: good to still point it out that Roman Catholic shouldn't
Speaker 2: use a quote like that in apologetics if it's uncertain.
Speaker 1: Yeah. But yeah, well, let's get back to the big picture,
Speaker 1: because I think a lot of people you know, who
Speaker 1: listen regularly, they probably don't recall that stream. I'll go
Speaker 1: ahead link it below because it was a good conversation
Speaker 1: that we had. Let's rewind and do some of that material,
Speaker 1: because I know that a lot of people may not
Speaker 1: be familiar with this subject and why the papal forgeries
Speaker 1: and the other forgeries during this time period were so
Speaker 1: or so crucial. For one for I would argue, I'm
Speaker 1: sure you would agree partly for the development of the papacy,
Speaker 1: So would you agree with that? Maybe you don't, Maybe
Speaker 1: you think that's not true. Seems to me like some
Speaker 1: of these claims, you know, the Samakian forgeries, things like this,
Speaker 1: obviously domination of Constantin probably the most famous one. It
Speaker 1: seems like they do they did contribute to the grandiosity
Speaker 1: of what the papacy developed into right.
Speaker 2: And I know that's also a point of debate of
Speaker 2: how influential were the forgeries. I tried to focus simply
Speaker 2: on cataloging them, but yeah, I think it it is
Speaker 2: rather remarkable that you could say these three great moments
Speaker 2: in church history. You have three main forgeries. So to
Speaker 2: review the pseudo is adoring the Credles that came up
Speaker 2: right at the time of the dispute between Saint Photius
Speaker 2: and Pope Nicholas the First of Rome, that was in
Speaker 2: the eight hundreds. And I mean these pseudos adoring the Creidels,
Speaker 2: they've been much written about. Roman Catholics say, oh, they
Speaker 2: didn't change anything, They just reflected how the early Church was.
Speaker 2: But they were a really impactful forgery. They've were cited
Speaker 2: for about I think about seven hundred years. They weren't
Speaker 2: really rejected until the fifteen hundreds. And then secondly, yeah,
Speaker 2: the donation of Constantine that was quoted by Pope Leo
Speaker 2: the ninth to Patriarch Michael Cerularius right on the eve
Speaker 2: of the system in ten fifty four, and that's you know,
Speaker 2: it has you know, Emperor Constantine saying the pope is
Speaker 2: speaks very highly of the Pope. And then thirdly we
Speaker 2: have Thomas Aquinas in his against the Errors of the
Speaker 2: Greeks Contra Auroras gray Korum. He it's it's almost sad
Speaker 2: how dependent he is on forgeries. It's it's like eighty
Speaker 2: percent plus just quotations of forgeries. I mean, he was misled.
Speaker 2: It's not he didn't do the forgeries himself, but it's
Speaker 2: his book was like the quote mind for about five
Speaker 2: hundred years from Yeah.
Speaker 1: Exactly, that's why this matters. Was against airs of the Greeks.
Speaker 1: And do we know where those actually originated from? These
Speaker 1: ones that he was so you know that he was
Speaker 1: using so much.
Speaker 2: Yes, yeah, that was traced recently too, from the latest scholarship.
Speaker 2: It was a certain bishop who had been a missionary
Speaker 2: in the East. I think, if I remember right, Nicholas
Speaker 2: of Katron. He wrote the Libellus, which he sent to
Speaker 2: the pope, and then that was Pope Urban the fourth.
Speaker 2: He sent it to a Quinas, and the Quinas used
Speaker 2: that work. So he this guy Nicholas of Cotrone was
Speaker 2: the said, is apparently the origin of the sources?
Speaker 1: Okay, and then you said, so Pseudo isidor Indecruidles is
Speaker 1: a key one. And then we had a donation of Constantine.
Speaker 1: Tell us some about that the breakdown of that, although again,
Speaker 1: you know, I know you're this is old hat for you.
Speaker 1: But probably a lot of the people in the audience
Speaker 1: maybe they're Protestant, maybe they're Catholic, they're looking at the orthodoxy,
Speaker 1: they're not familiar even with this one.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so I pulled it up here, we could quote
Speaker 2: that here. Yeah, the donation of Constantine, so it was forged.
Speaker 2: It seems to be around the year seven fifty to
Speaker 2: seven eighty. And then there's yeah, I couldn't quote some
Speaker 2: parts of it where it says, true, Blessed Peter is
Speaker 2: seen to have been constituted vicar of the Son of
Speaker 2: God on earth. So the pontiffs, who are the representatives
Speaker 2: of that same chief of the Apostles, should obtain from
Speaker 2: us in our empire the power of a supremacy greater
Speaker 2: than the clemency of our earthly imperial serenity is seen
Speaker 2: to have needed to it. So that's Emperor Constantine allegedly
Speaker 2: giving a grant or donation to Peter and his successors
Speaker 2: in Rome. And it says and we Ordain and decreed
Speaker 2: that he shall have the supremacy as well over the
Speaker 2: four principal seats Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople, as also
Speaker 2: over all the churches of God and the whole earth.
Speaker 2: And it keeps going on in these very strong claims
Speaker 2: for the papacy, and it was cited and referred to
Speaker 2: as valid by about ten popes.
Speaker 1: And yeah, I was gonna say, when's the first time
Speaker 1: the papacy begins to cite this one to bolster their claims.
Speaker 2: Yeah, what is surprising is and the Catholic Encyclopedia admits this.
Speaker 2: It's a rather startling fact that and I quote this here. Yeah,
Speaker 2: this is from the Catholic Encyclopedia. It says the first
Speaker 2: pope who used it in an official act and relied
Speaker 2: upon was Leo the ninth in a letter of ten
Speaker 2: fifty four to Michael Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople. He cites
Speaker 2: the nation to show that the Holy See possessed in
Speaker 2: an earthly and heavenly imperium and so on. So it
Speaker 2: is almost amazing that, you know, they admit it was
Speaker 2: used for the first time with great effect at the
Speaker 2: right at that ten point fifty four, you know, crucial
Speaker 2: date and it and it was used by many later canonists.
Speaker 2: There's even an entire book actually just on artwork in
Speaker 2: Italy that shows depicts the donation happening from Emperor.
Speaker 1: It's like I want to say, Yeah, I want to say,
Speaker 1: when we were in Italy, we were somewhere and we
Speaker 1: saw a freeze or a relief or something that showed
Speaker 1: one of the versions of this.
Speaker 2: I recalled up, Yeah, it is. It is startling I
Speaker 2: I'm pulling up Yeah. And this is from a dissertation
Speaker 2: by an art student. I said. The over arching argument
Speaker 2: of this dissertation is that in the early modern period,
Speaker 2: the papacy utilized the vision means both to defend and
Speaker 2: to reaffirm the authenticity of the donation. And Yeah, this
Speaker 2: dissertation you can find it for free online. It's just
Speaker 2: called Political Art of the Papacy and it's it just
Speaker 2: gives lots of pictures of those, yeah, of the donation.
Speaker 1: One area I've been hitting on pretty hard in terms
Speaker 1: of apologetics is the fact of the papacy becoming more
Speaker 1: and more of a geopolitical world power, and that that
Speaker 1: contradicts earlier canons that were expected to be followed by
Speaker 1: all the clergy, including the Bishop of Rome. Did the
Speaker 1: donation of Constantine also contribute to this worldly geopolitical power
Speaker 1: of the papacy.
Speaker 2: I think it did, And and there was, you know,
Speaker 2: some hesitation to receive the donation because it seemed to
Speaker 2: almost say that the power of the papacy was contingent
Speaker 2: upon the emperor's bequeathing of that power. So there had
Speaker 2: been some hesitation to use the donation, and it wasn't
Speaker 2: really rejected until the mid fourteen hundreds. Lorenzo Valla he
Speaker 2: famously wrote an argument against the donation, but it was
Speaker 2: still referenced after that. As for the power of the papacy,
Speaker 2: I think it was. I mean it was cited for getting,
Speaker 2: I believe, for claiming the papal power in the British Isles,
Speaker 2: and yeah, so that it did give, yeah, an impetus
Speaker 2: to that.
Speaker 1: So it was used in a even a geopolitical way. Now,
Speaker 1: so we've got the pseudo Isidaurian, we've got donation of Constantine.
Speaker 1: Which of these two was probably the most used or cited.
Speaker 1: You think that was since the second one was viewed
Speaker 1: with some suspicion due to it being so overly reliant
Speaker 1: on the emperor. What the Isidorian de cretles more useful
Speaker 1: to the papal claims?
Speaker 2: Yes, I would I would say that definitely does. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Istorian decretals they are more influential, especially because they they
Speaker 2: pretend to quote popes from the first three centuries and
Speaker 2: those popes have no there's no writings available from those times,
Speaker 2: and it has things saying that the Yeah, basically with
Speaker 2: the more modern people claims. So it definitely was more influential,
Speaker 2: I would say than the donation the nation. Yeah. I
Speaker 2: found the reference. He a Bishop John of Salisbury in
Speaker 2: the eleven hundreds. He does quote the donation of Constantine
Speaker 2: in support of Pope Hadrian the fourth conferring upon King
Speaker 2: Henry the second dominion over the island of Ireland.
Speaker 1: So the papacy gives even temporal power.
Speaker 2: Yes, and you know the the Catholics didn't like that
Speaker 2: later when the British throne tried to claim control over Oh.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, exactly. Okay, So what's the third of the
Speaker 1: of the of the key forgeries?
Speaker 2: Yeah, the next major one would be that basically that
Speaker 2: quote mine. You could say that Thomas Aquinas used in
Speaker 2: against the errors of the Greeks, and the title of
Speaker 2: my book is a bit of a it is inspired
Speaker 2: by that, so errors of the Latins against that. But yes,
Speaker 2: Aquinas did. His works were cited for hundreds of years,
Speaker 2: and it has among the strongest claims. Like basically his
Speaker 2: quotations were more directly against the Orthodox development of the
Speaker 2: Council of Florence, so that it's main issues he addresses
Speaker 2: were the filioque, the papacy, purgatory, and leavened bread. So
Speaker 2: those four issues were the topics discussed at that time.
Speaker 2: And it quotes like Saint Cyril with very strong claims
Speaker 2: for the papacy and uh. And for a long time
Speaker 2: Roman Catholics kept using them. It wasn't really until the
Speaker 2: well into the seventeen hundreds that they weren't used anymore.
Speaker 2: It was like five hundred years of continued use by
Speaker 2: Roman Catholics, so that I think might be the number
Speaker 2: one most like powerful. It was used even by yeah,
Speaker 2: against Dostheus, the Bishop of Patriarch of Jerusalem. Roman Catholics
Speaker 2: did make a lot of quotations against it in controversy
Speaker 2: to say, hey, we have the Church fathers on our side,
Speaker 2: so that that is Yeah, that was a big.
Speaker 1: And I want to say too, it seems like maybe
Speaker 1: even as late as the Council of Trent, I think
Speaker 1: in the Catechism of Trent, doesn't it still cite some
Speaker 1: of the forged documents, is the Simochian forgeries, that there's
Speaker 1: something that's still cited.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I do have a chapter on that. In
Speaker 2: the Catechism of the Council of Trent. They do cite
Speaker 2: the pseudo is adoring is Adoring?
Speaker 1: Okay, I know it was one of the two good.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and a few other inauthentic documents, but it yeah,
Speaker 2: it is surprising. But they're not all for the papacy
Speaker 2: somewhere for.
Speaker 1: Other reasons, yeah yeah, other.
Speaker 2: Items like confirmation and other sacraments. But there is one
Speaker 2: where they have a pope cided for the papacy. But yeah,
Speaker 2: I think how many did I? I counted eleven different
Speaker 2: times they cited.
Speaker 1: Oh in the category eleven times?
Speaker 2: Yeah, oh nice, along with some other in authentic works,
Speaker 2: like in authentic clitations of Saint Augustine and of Saint Cyril.
Speaker 1: So yeah, now here's a question. I hear this a
Speaker 1: lot from Roman Catholics when this subject comes up, and
Speaker 1: I'm curious what you would say to this. Not that
Speaker 1: I think this is a good argument, but it's something
Speaker 1: that they always bring up. Oh, but you Byzantines, They
Speaker 1: also at times cited forgeries. What would you say to that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and it is something that you hear. I don't
Speaker 2: think it's definitely to knowwhere near the degree as in
Speaker 2: the Latin East. I mean, from my understanding, there's I know,
Speaker 2: you often come across that in controversy saying, oh, the
Speaker 2: Greeks are prone to forge documents, and there's really very
Speaker 2: few examples. I never found something too significant. I mean
Speaker 2: I came across a few in my readings. Sometimes it's
Speaker 2: as a result of being less misled by the Roman Catholics,
Speaker 2: Like sometimes the Orthox did quote the donation of Constantine.
Speaker 2: They thought it was an authentic document, but they said
Speaker 2: as that the pope was a hair ticket no longer
Speaker 2: applied to the pope. But yeah, I really haven't met
Speaker 2: with any serious examples of Orthodox using forgeries against the
Speaker 2: Roman Catholics.
Speaker 1: What do you make of the argument that many of
Speaker 1: us have made for a long time, it's gone around.
Speaker 1: I want to know if you still think this holds
Speaker 1: up as a strong argument, which is, look, if the
Speaker 1: papacy has the goods, why do they need all these
Speaker 1: forged documents? Do you think that's still a good argument
Speaker 1: or do you think that being charitable and nuanced, maybe
Speaker 1: the papacy itself was duped into believing some of these
Speaker 1: documents by some clever forger. But that also kind of
Speaker 1: begs the question of like, well, where was the Holy
Speaker 1: Spirit's discernment in guiding the papacy to not know these were.
Speaker 2: Forty Yeah, now I do prefer taking a more charitable
Speaker 2: view of this. Maybe that's something in which I've more
Speaker 2: moderated my view since I first started the researching the controversy.
Speaker 2: It is tough yet to determine the good faith of
Speaker 2: historical figures. It's it is tough because, yeah, with the
Speaker 2: pseudos during the credles, it's it's tough to say Saint,
Speaker 2: I mean Pope Nicholas of Rome, who is considered a
Speaker 2: saint by Roman Catholics, it's difficult to believe that he
Speaker 2: really thought these documents were authentic because the archives of
Speaker 2: Rome were I mean well known to have lots of
Speaker 2: ancient documents he should have known that these people pretending
Speaker 2: to sit in the throne of Saint Peter were not
Speaker 2: actually real popes, and their records they're not authentic documents.
Speaker 2: But yeah, I would give a more charitable opinion a
Speaker 2: lot of times they were deceived. I know some have
Speaker 2: accused the Quinnas of doing the forgeries, some partisans did,
Speaker 2: but he, yeah, he wasn't. He was deceived.
Speaker 1: And yeah, and one reason I think that you could
Speaker 1: argue that is that I remember when I bought a
Speaker 1: pretty expensive set years by, which was a Quinas commentary
Speaker 1: on the Gospels. I noticed as I was reading through it,
Speaker 1: I didn't read all four volumes or six volumes, that
Speaker 1: I read two or three volumes of it. I remember
Speaker 1: noticing how many times when he would cite Patricia quotations,
Speaker 1: it was like pseudo crystalstom, pseudo athanacious. So whoever was
Speaker 1: editing the you know, Katina Aurea, you know, was basically
Speaker 1: pointing out that there's a significant, very significant usage of
Speaker 1: pseudo crystalstom by Aquinas, which means that I being malicious
Speaker 1: like it wouldn't There's not really a reason for him
Speaker 1: to maliciously use a whole bunch of Ford's quotes for
Speaker 1: just commentaries on the Gospel.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I mean Roman Catholic scholars. Yeah, those editors
Speaker 2: do admit that they'll give the footnotes and they love them.
Speaker 2: Are very smart academics, and they've that's who I relied
Speaker 2: upon most of the time. Is there looking through and
Speaker 2: they're the ones saying, Okay, this is not found in
Speaker 2: the original writings, this is missing, or it's a corruption
Speaker 2: of the original text. There's been hints that Roman Catholics
Speaker 2: have said that Aquinas realized that those against the heirs
Speaker 2: of the Greeks those quotations were not authentic, because he
Speaker 2: didn't use them too much later. But it's said that
Speaker 2: he was carrying that book on the way to the
Speaker 2: Council of Lyons when he died. He died carrying that
Speaker 2: book against the errors of the Greeks, so it seemed
Speaker 2: like he would be He was prepared to reduce them
Speaker 2: in controversy against the Orthodox. So that's why I don't
Speaker 2: think he ever realized they were inauthentic, and his immediate
Speaker 2: successors used them as well.
Speaker 1: Now one question, not to play devil's advocate, but just
Speaker 1: honest question, because I remember reading Hoffman's book Renaissance Occult
Speaker 1: Renaissance Church of Rome, which is a pretty good book.
Speaker 1: There's areas where I disagree, but he he has some
Speaker 1: not so positive things to say about Lorenzo Vola. Not
Speaker 1: that that really matters, because Lorenzo Balla could be a
Speaker 1: it could be a sust character and still be correct about,
Speaker 1: you know, critiquing some of these documents. Is there any
Speaker 1: degree to which we have to be careful with these
Speaker 1: sort of Renaissance figures in this in this matter because
Speaker 1: I think, for example, Lorenzo Valla, isn't he one of
Speaker 1: the key characters arguing that Dionysius is not authentic? And
Speaker 1: I think as Orthodox we want to probably not say
Speaker 1: that it's all inauthentic with Dionysius.
Speaker 2: Right, And that is the difficulty with forgeries in general.
Speaker 2: Is it's important, Yeah, to understand the whole context, like heyes,
Speaker 2: same with dealing with the question of other inauthentic writings.
Speaker 2: It is a challenge with all history, the authenticity of documents.
Speaker 2: And yeah, maybe it isn't too far to say why
Speaker 2: would they have invented these documents if there wasn't evidence beforehand?
Speaker 2: I think it applies to some degree, but they yeah,
Speaker 2: because there are other challenges with those documents in the Yeah,
Speaker 2: I lost track of your question.
Speaker 1: That I guess I was saying, is what do we
Speaker 1: think about somebody like Lorenzo Balla? Is it just that not?
Speaker 1: It doesn't fit in the good guy bad guy category,
Speaker 1: like you know, it's just a case by case basis
Speaker 1: of you know, it just depends.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I don't know too much about him besides
Speaker 2: the fact that he's credited with being the first to
Speaker 2: prove the forgery with certainty of the donation of Constantine.
Speaker 1: But the only reason I'm bringing up is I think
Speaker 1: he's also one of the first to challenge the dynasty
Speaker 1: and corpus.
Speaker 2: Yes, yeah, that is a yeah, I know that might
Speaker 2: be one of the major like open questions in terms
Speaker 2: of like what, yeah, the authenticity of churchild I think
Speaker 2: he might be like the most like the one of
Speaker 2: which there's the most doubt, even among the more like
Speaker 2: conservative extra so, but there's been defenses of the originality
Speaker 2: of yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, No, I'm not defending Valla. I'm just saying, like,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm anticipating Catholic objections and a Catholic being like, oh, well,
Speaker 1: you know, you guys like Dionysius areopagite and you think
Speaker 1: he's a saint and so, but you're gonna trust Lorenzo
Speaker 1: Valla when he says that. But but I think that
Speaker 1: really doesn't even matter about Lorenzovol anymore, because as far
Speaker 1: as I'm aware, I mean, the typical Vatican attitude and
Speaker 1: scholarship pretty much admits all this stuff nowadays anyway, right.
Speaker 2: Yes, those are admitted for those three major forgeries, and
Speaker 2: you know many others. I mean, it is very obvious
Speaker 2: the donation of Constantine is not by Emperor Constantines from
Speaker 2: the first century. It mentions many things that just the
Speaker 2: Latin words of things that didn't exist at that time.
Speaker 2: They reflect later centuries. There's no evidence of it earlier.
Speaker 2: So it's a very hard like clear proof. It's not
Speaker 2: like the the more you could say, like liberal academics
Speaker 2: putting doubt on let's say, certain books of the Bible.
Speaker 2: There's what they what those academics are doing are just
Speaker 2: really just casting doubt when there's uncertainty. So yeah, it
Speaker 2: is important to see like, yeah, what evidence there is for.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this is different than they're being like, you know,
Speaker 1: not AUTOGRAPHA that Paul wrote, This is more like, no,
Speaker 1: we can definitively show that there's no way that Constantine,
Speaker 1: you know, wrote or used that language or spoke this
Speaker 1: way or what are some of the key indicators, for example,
Speaker 1: in the case of say the donation of Constantine, that
Speaker 1: are kind of like dead giveaways.
Speaker 2: Yeah, one that says the mind though of the I
Speaker 2: know from a Koinas the when he quotes the delegation
Speaker 2: of crit to the Bulgarians from Saint John Chrisostom, it's
Speaker 2: that was rather anachronistic of Chris as talking is the
Speaker 2: Bulgarian delegation, because that that was not a kind of
Speaker 2: a political organization that existed in Chrissom's times. Yeah, that's
Speaker 2: one for the uh, it's for the donation itself.
Speaker 1: So when Saint John Chrystosom wrote his letter to the
Speaker 1: US embassy, right, could we question it's authenticity?
Speaker 2: Right? Yeah, for the donation, I think it's the there's
Speaker 2: the use of certain Latin words that reflected the later
Speaker 2: Roman administration. And off the top of my head, I'm
Speaker 2: trying to remember the other clear indications. It's really it's
Speaker 2: admitted though very clearly by Roman Catholics, it is authentic, inauthentic,
Speaker 2: and if they say it's like in disputed that it's false.
Speaker 2: And Dante famously mentions it where he says, there's a
Speaker 2: famous quote from his Inferno. He says Constantine of how
Speaker 2: much ill was caused not by conversion, but those rich
Speaker 2: domains that the first wealthy pope received of thee. So
Speaker 2: Dante thought it was real and lamented it because he
Speaker 2: felt this was bad for.
Speaker 1: The papers, corrupting the paper.
Speaker 2: So that's right, yes, and many people looked on it
Speaker 2: that way. As for the Yeah, the exact reasons why
Speaker 2: it's anachronistic, I'm not sure off the top of my head.
Speaker 1: That's okay. I mean, so we've got the big three here,
Speaker 1: there's others. How many, roughly do you include in the book?
Speaker 1: Because I know that when we first did this podcast,
Speaker 1: you and I and Snack, we talked about somewhere in
Speaker 1: the ballpark of twenty twenty something twenty three or so. Yes,
Speaker 1: does the book include all of those or around that
Speaker 1: same number? Do you focus at chapter on specific forgeries
Speaker 1: or how is the book structured? And what are some
Speaker 1: of the other key forgeries we need to think about?
Speaker 2: Yeah, there are actually far more, and and some I've
Speaker 2: provided more context, like where it was simply a textual variant,
Speaker 2: not certain if it's a forgery. Some are disputed, like
Speaker 2: you know, the Saint Cyprian's words. There's some that are
Speaker 2: more pro petrine in his unity of the church, some aren't,
Speaker 2: So it's a disputed point whether he wrote that. So
Speaker 2: I try to discuss those items with fairness and balance.
Speaker 2: But overall, yeah, I can look at the chapters, how
Speaker 2: many I group it in several parts forgeries of the
Speaker 2: greatest historic consequence. So that's where I mentioned the you
Speaker 2: know Ceo during the Creed big in there or is
Speaker 2: that the big three Greek contena? What else I add?
Speaker 2: I put the Samaki Simachian forgeries as the fourth I
Speaker 2: felt that was quite important as well, and as an
Speaker 2: early forgery, and that it contains a quote the Sea
Speaker 2: of Rome can be judged by no one.
Speaker 1: Oh, that's that famous quote that pops up in Dictatus Pope.
Speaker 1: And then if I recall that's still in Roman Catholic
Speaker 1: canon law, I think.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that did enter Roman Catholic canon law. I'm not
Speaker 2: sure if it's still there, but that was the most
Speaker 2: significant one let's see, so there's four there I can quickly.
Speaker 2: I think there's on the order of maybe around fifty
Speaker 2: or sixty. There's somewhere. I have a lot of collections
Speaker 2: of small manuscript corruptions, like regarding the Immaculate Conception on
Speaker 2: that I put together about let's say twenty eight.
Speaker 1: Just to be clear, it is still in the Roman,
Speaker 1: the Roman canon law, even the modern nineteen eighty three
Speaker 1: canon law of John Paul. The second it's canon fourteen
Speaker 1: oh four. The first c is judged by No. One,
Speaker 1: which is a variation of this yeah. Yeah, and that
Speaker 1: comes from old originally the Simakian forgeries, correct.
Speaker 2: I believe that's the origin of that. Now they could
Speaker 2: say that that principle follows well.
Speaker 1: As far as we know, the phrase is yeah. I
Speaker 1: know they're going to say no, it goes back to Peter.
Speaker 1: But the phrase, as far as we know, patristically speaking,
Speaker 1: is derived you're arguing from the Samakian forgery.
Speaker 2: Right, yes, And I think that follows with that question
Speaker 2: of how impactful were the forgeries. Well before they could
Speaker 2: quote these very direct statements Saint cypri Or, I mean St.
Speaker 2: Cyril really forcefully in favor of papal supremacy, but with
Speaker 2: those being proven to be false, they they rely upon
Speaker 2: some like they make arguments that require a bit more
Speaker 2: sort of logical deduction then and our more open to interpretation.
Speaker 2: So they used to have a lot more stronger, clearer claims,
Speaker 2: and that's what the forgeries helped support. So they kind
Speaker 2: of provided that context for interpretation.
Speaker 1: Oh interesting, okay, So like in the case let me
Speaker 1: ask you this question. In the case of like some
Speaker 1: of the patristic quotation forgeries, like this quote out of
Speaker 1: Jerome or this quote out of you know, Cyril or whoever,
Speaker 1: were these typically just sort of out of context quote
Speaker 1: mind fake quotes or their actual like fake works of
Speaker 1: Saint Cyril. That's that's like there's a whole treatise of
Speaker 1: Saint Cyril that's fake.
Speaker 2: Oh well, yeah, it was fake quotes. Yeah. In the
Speaker 2: case of Aquinas citing Cyril, they thought for a while
Speaker 2: Roman Catholics had hoped some document would come up showing
Speaker 2: this to be an authentic work, but nothing came to
Speaker 2: light from the latest research, and it's it's simply those
Speaker 2: are just that fake collections.
Speaker 1: So now when you mentioned Cyril, Saint Cyril's on the unity.
Speaker 1: I've seeing Saint Cyprian's on the Unity of Christ in
Speaker 1: the Church. Was that an added quote to that classic work?
Speaker 1: Is that what we're saying.
Speaker 2: For Cyprian? That's the one where there I hesitate for
Speaker 2: making a conclusion on that. I would just say there's
Speaker 2: textual variations, because there's some texts that have more Petraine,
Speaker 2: more like pro I've heard those content, and most scholars
Speaker 2: generally hold the view that Syprian was the author of
Speaker 2: both versions. That's what has thought. Now they don't know
Speaker 2: which version was first. Interesting some say he changed what
Speaker 2: he wrote in response to his interactions with Rome.
Speaker 1: The Saint Stephen controversy.
Speaker 2: Yes, yeah, that rebaptism controversy. So it's a difficult question.
Speaker 2: I think I believe they're not authentic works, but many
Speaker 2: people interpret them in a non like pro papacy way.
Speaker 1: They're just yeah, they could just be yea Peter is
Speaker 1: all the bishops, et cetera. Okay, so we got the
Speaker 1: Samakian forgeries. Is there anything else in those that's really
Speaker 1: important other than the sort of the first he's judged
Speaker 1: by no one. Is there more in there that we
Speaker 1: need to talk about.
Speaker 2: It that one does contain that does misrepresent the Council
Speaker 2: of Nicea and makes it appear as if the Pope
Speaker 2: Sylvester and some Roman bishops had approved the acts. And
Speaker 2: it does, yeah, lead to more misrepresentation.
Speaker 1: So basically like a retroactive revision of history that Nicea
Speaker 1: wasn't Nicea until the Pope made it Nicia.
Speaker 2: Yes, and okay, and I have a quote here, yeah,
Speaker 2: from James moynihan. He was a Roman Catholic bishop and scholar.
Speaker 2: He says, quote, Thus, it was that the doctrine of
Speaker 2: the pope's personal immunity from judgment spread rapidly throughout Western Europe.
Speaker 2: That's that's what he says in yeah book he published
Speaker 2: in nineteen sixty one. He that's that's in relation to
Speaker 2: the pope cannot be judged by any right. So he
Speaker 2: said that that caused it to be rapidly spread from
Speaker 2: those from those documents.
Speaker 1: Right, So what is there more in some Ackian forgeres
Speaker 1: or what's the what's the number five on the top
Speaker 1: ten forgeries?
Speaker 2: Let's see, I had I had included four as the
Speaker 2: top as the most soportant, but I could there are
Speaker 2: a lot more that are more incidental and.
Speaker 1: What about the Galatian de credles is that's that's a
Speaker 1: well known one.
Speaker 2: Galician decreas is that from Pope Gelasius Galatious.
Speaker 1: However, how.
Speaker 2: Oh, that's right, Okay, So I did review. There are
Speaker 2: and there's a challenge with all of the But that's
Speaker 2: what Roman Catholic told me in response when I mentioned
Speaker 2: these false documents of Pope Leo and Gelasius. They he said, oh,
Speaker 2: there's you know, the difficulty with a lot of the
Speaker 2: church fathers finding what's authentic what's not. And but it's
Speaker 2: pretty I consider it more significant when it affects documents
Speaker 2: from the bishops or popes, especially when they tend to
Speaker 2: have more of the pro papacy content. So there are
Speaker 2: let's see my notes. Yeah, so I have the chapter
Speaker 2: on sparious works of Pope Leo the First and Jelasius.
Speaker 2: So Roman Catholic editors do mention that that there are
Speaker 2: several works from them that are not authentic, including yeah,
Speaker 2: a tractatus to a presentation of the primacy of the
Speaker 2: Holy See. It's not the work of Jelasius. That's a
Speaker 2: Roman Catholic Monseigneur Elysius Zeigler wrote that, So, yeah, I
Speaker 2: love of them, tend to have more of these mistakes,
Speaker 2: and sometimes there's different versions of these letters. Let me see, Okay,
Speaker 2: So out of forty nine letters the cridles and tracts
Speaker 2: attribute to Glesius, nine are thought inauthentic. So that's what
Speaker 2: I have for my notes.
Speaker 1: So basically there's a few dozen and nine are considered
Speaker 1: fake at this stage.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and then for letters of Leo's collection, there's one
Speaker 2: hundred and seventy three letters in Popolio, the first collection.
Speaker 2: Out of these, thirteen are thought spurious and nine are
Speaker 2: considered suspect.
Speaker 1: And I didn't even think about like papal letters. That's
Speaker 1: another whole layer of this.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a challenge because these letter collections, I mean
Speaker 2: sometimes I wonder just how far, you know, the corruption went,
Speaker 2: because many times were reliant upon many scripts of later
Speaker 2: centuries and these collections, and sometimes the authors of those
Speaker 2: were not reliable and even have some Roman Catholic I mean,
Speaker 2: there's the whole idea of is it okay to make
Speaker 2: forgeries if it's in defense of the faith, that there's
Speaker 2: some kind of discussion if that was I mean, it's
Speaker 2: almost an unsaid thing in the Middle Ages that seems
Speaker 2: to come up that certain people thought it was okay,
Speaker 2: And there's many there are many small forgeries like that
Speaker 2: a lot of times though, there's miscellaneous forgeries concerning different
Speaker 2: privileges of abbys and monasteries and different small things like
Speaker 2: that that were used to gain influence. There's forged indulgences
Speaker 2: and things like that. So there's yeah, it wasn't and say,
Speaker 2: oh yeah, same in England with the question over which
Speaker 2: sea was supreme, was it Canterbury or York. So there
Speaker 2: were there's something called the Canterbury forgeries. Now it doesn't
Speaker 2: affect orthodoxy, but but there's a lot of rumors that
Speaker 2: spread around with different mistakes, and yeah, there's a lot
Speaker 2: of these. Yeah. Last time I mentioned the Nag's head fable.
Speaker 2: It Roman Catholics made this up saying that these Anglican
Speaker 2: bishops were ordained in the tavern with some rather maybe
Speaker 2: indecent practices, but there's no evidence of that. But that
Speaker 2: still was used from the early sixteen hundreds to the
Speaker 2: early eighteen hundreds, so they used that against room. Catholics
Speaker 2: mentioned that against Anglicans, and it wasn't really abandoned till
Speaker 2: the maybe first quarter of the eighteen hundreds. A lot
Speaker 2: of things like that, so they yeah.
Speaker 1: Is are there? Are there? I remember one thing that
Speaker 1: came up that Roman Catholics often mentioned is the Arabic
Speaker 1: canons I think of Is it not of Nicea? Is
Speaker 1: that the deck? Did you go into that?
Speaker 2: Yes, I do have a chapter on that. I am
Speaker 2: rather surprised that that there's a recent book that almost
Speaker 2: seems to defend them, by John Kolorafi and someone else.
Speaker 2: But they are obviously anachronistic, and I mean the Roman
Speaker 2: Catholic scholar and Bishop Heffala. He says that it is
Speaker 2: certain that these Arabic cannons are not the work of
Speaker 2: the Council of Nicea. Their contents evidently prove a much
Speaker 2: more recent origin. That's that's Bishop Heffalo and he he
Speaker 2: went in depth into these canons. There's no evidence that
Speaker 2: they existed. The only support is that sometimes there's different counts.
Speaker 2: Some people say there's a different number of canyons from Nicea,
Speaker 2: and different questions on Okay, there's some appendixes, appendices of
Speaker 2: these canons, and but they're obviously not original and there
Speaker 2: there they're centuries they come from centuries later. So it's yeah,
Speaker 2: they're highly of but they make very strong claims for the.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well that's why they wanted to be authentic exactly,
Speaker 1: and that's why they're Yeah, they're they're a big, you know,
Speaker 1: hot button issue. So okay, what else? So we've got
Speaker 1: the big ones, You've got more chapters in the book.
Speaker 1: I'm sure beyond these big ones, what else is in there?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Yeah, I can review. Yeah, one issue we had
Speaker 2: also mentioned last time, but I think it's good to
Speaker 2: go over it again because it's it's still startles me,
Speaker 2: like why Peter Damien didn't know the Council and the
Speaker 2: Creed of Nicea that he let me see what I'm
Speaker 2: pulling up his exact Oh okay, so he had mentioned that, Okay, yes,
Speaker 2: in the letter he wrote in the Creed of the
Speaker 2: Council of Nicea. Moreover, it says, we also believe in
Speaker 2: the Holy Spirit, who proceeds properly from the Father and
Speaker 2: goes on. So then he makes an argument from that
Speaker 2: word proceeds properly from the Father to say that the
Speaker 2: Holy Spirit can proceeds from the son as well. And
Speaker 2: this I was startling. I saw that he did not
Speaker 2: know that proper Creed of Nicea. And yes, and he
Speaker 2: makes some other inauthentic quotations as well.
Speaker 1: So wait a minute, you're saying Peter Damien is even
Speaker 1: in his day, which is his years are for those
Speaker 1: who don't know, to one thousand seven to ten seventy two,
Speaker 1: that even in his day he was already utilizing an
Speaker 1: altered later creed that has the philioquy.
Speaker 2: Well, he had aside the creed as saying the holy
Speaker 2: spirit proceeds properly from the Father. I don't I mean,
Speaker 2: the editors say this is from a pseudo Jerome, but
Speaker 2: although it's not that that's where the editors found.
Speaker 1: So you're saying, we don't know exactly what was in
Speaker 1: Peter Damien's mind.
Speaker 2: Yes, well, I mean he he thought the Creed of
Speaker 2: Nicea says the holy Spirit proceeds properly from the Father.
Speaker 2: But that added word properly, whereas the actual creed, uh,
Speaker 2: you know, the Nicene contentual Politan creed only says those
Speaker 2: spirit proceeds from the Father. So he uses that word
Speaker 2: proceeds properly.
Speaker 1: For you, if you're saying that he thought it said properly, yes,
Speaker 1: Oh wow, Okay.
Speaker 2: Yes, and he used that as an argument this word
Speaker 2: add the word properly to make a case that there's
Speaker 2: the filioque is true and from a mistake.
Speaker 1: And this would have been you're saying, because he was
Speaker 1: quoting from something that pseudo jerome is that one.
Speaker 2: We're not too sure what his sources are, which just
Speaker 2: seems to have been negligent in how he quoted. But yeah,
Speaker 2: he he does use a pseudo jerome, although there it's
Speaker 2: not said to be the Creed, it's I don't remember
Speaker 2: what it says there, but yeah, somehow that's the only
Speaker 2: reference that we know where he could have gotten that.
Speaker 2: So I yeah, that and there's some other ones as well,
Speaker 2: other in authentic documents such as or A lot of
Speaker 2: times I discussed different items. Sometimes it's outright forgeries. Sometimes
Speaker 2: there's false claims by Roman Catholics. Sometimes they accused Orthodox
Speaker 2: of forgeries that were not true or of slander.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they just made up so that we're lying and
Speaker 1: making up forgeries that don't exist.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Some some even blame the donation of Constantine on
Speaker 2: the Orthodox, which.
Speaker 1: Oh, interesting, so like a psyop going on in false
Speaker 1: flag forgeries.
Speaker 2: I don't I don't know what their intention was with that.
Speaker 2: And yeah, but there's some blamed Saint Focus for the
Speaker 2: that fraudulent claim of a pope paypests. Uh Joan, you
Speaker 2: know that story.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Pope Jones, Yeah, woman pope.
Speaker 2: It is strange. It was one of those fables that
Speaker 2: circulated in the Middle Ages, but there was no female pope, right, yeah,
Speaker 2: always fascinating, it's the fascinatings. And then Roman Catholics claim
Speaker 2: that Saint Potius invented that.
Speaker 1: So we've got fake patristic quotes, false flag forgeries. It's
Speaker 1: a big book. And what else is in there that
Speaker 1: you got to have to there's more in there.
Speaker 2: Right yeah, and yeah, it's not just about forgeries. So
Speaker 2: there's it's printed in two volumes, so the second volume
Speaker 2: mainly goes over the forgeries and the first volume goes
Speaker 2: over all these different changes and traditional differences between the
Speaker 2: East and West. Now, some are not critical items, and
Speaker 2: I've tried to take a balanced approach because there are
Speaker 2: some issues that were debated in the past that are
Speaker 2: maybe you know, they're not critical now. But the main
Speaker 2: audience is to defend Orthodox against the traditionalist Roman Catholics
Speaker 2: who are out there who make these strong claims that
Speaker 2: the Orthodox are not in the church. So yeah, I
Speaker 2: go over each of the sacraments and show innovations as
Speaker 2: well as different theological innovations. I could give a very
Speaker 2: high level view of that if you if you want.
Speaker 1: Yeah, sure, go ahead, go ahead and argue whatever you'd
Speaker 1: like to target.
Speaker 2: Yes, So for the sacraments. On baptism, the main issue
Speaker 2: I talked about is triple immersion. That that is the
Speaker 2: that is the traditional and the proper standard mode of baptism. Sure,
Speaker 2: and of course there are always exceptions. And from the beginning,
Speaker 2: everyone like I saw room Tafolks mentioning the dida K recently, Well, yes,
Speaker 2: that's said to be the option if as not the
Speaker 2: standard mode.
Speaker 1: Yeah, if you have a hard time finding a big
Speaker 1: body of water, then this is yeah. And then but
Speaker 1: what people always want to make the exception the norm,
Speaker 1: which is just weird.
Speaker 2: Exactly. You're right, there are standards and those should be upheld. Really,
Speaker 2: and I even quote Thomas Aquinas making quite a strong
Speaker 2: statement where he says trying immersion is universally used in baptism,
Speaker 2: and consequently anyone baptizing otherwise would sin gravely so he
Speaker 2: says that in the mid twelve hundreds, and it Yeah,
Speaker 2: it's rather one of the more stronger claims. But of
Speaker 2: course there's always understood that, Yeah, there's exceptions if you're martyr,
Speaker 2: baptized in prison or under confinement, extreme cold weather, or
Speaker 2: in the desert, or in danger of death or weakness
Speaker 2: or other urgent causes. That's the exceptions and everything. So
Speaker 2: I basically the idea with this chapter. I just found
Speaker 2: every one in the first six centuries who mentions triple
Speaker 2: immersion in baptism, and just it's it is a big
Speaker 2: quote mine the book. I try to, but I try
Speaker 2: to provide useful and valuable quotes well.
Speaker 1: So it says the work is divided into five books, Innovations, Papacy, Forgeries, Independencies,
Speaker 1: and reading. I recommend reading this section here on innovations.
Speaker 1: Is this mainly like sacramental or is it all the
Speaker 1: papal theological innovations.
Speaker 2: I went over as many of the historical innovations as
Speaker 2: I could, Yeah, starting with sacraments, and then yeah, theological
Speaker 2: changes and then some of Sometimes I just talk more
Speaker 2: neutral about other questions such as you know, Bishop.
Speaker 1: Well you talk about infants and communion. That's important.
Speaker 2: Yes, those, that's maybe one of the most critical differences.
Speaker 2: I think that that alone is maybe the most important.
Speaker 1: Right. Yeah, it's a really easy indicator of difference.
Speaker 2: Right, It's sometimes forgotten in the debates between No.
Speaker 1: It shouldn't be forgotten because it's really important.
Speaker 2: I am so, yeah, very high level. Yeah, infants forgiven
Speaker 2: communion in the ancient Church, and I quote quote Pious
Speaker 2: Attenth admitting this, but later the Roman Catholics change that
Speaker 2: to only those who have reached you know, quote the
Speaker 2: of reason R. Shafe interpreted with big discrepancies on the
Speaker 2: what age that is, only those should receive communion, but
Speaker 2: the early Church gave them to nursing infants, and it's
Speaker 2: it should yeah, it should continue. And yeah, the Council
Speaker 2: of Trent actually makes a misleading claim. I think it's
Speaker 2: one of the evidences that the Council of Trent's not
Speaker 2: inspired by the Holy Spirit because it does let me
Speaker 2: see you. And same with the Trents Catechism. It says
Speaker 2: it basically tries to misrepresent the historical prevalence of this practice.
Speaker 2: I could go more in depth in that, but yeah.
Speaker 2: Other items are the question of the eleventh bread in
Speaker 2: the eucharse that that was a big issue in Yeah,
Speaker 2: definitely ten fifty four.
Speaker 1: Let me ask you. Let me ask you a question
Speaker 1: about wafers, because I've never known this, because it says
Speaker 1: here on section three, page one O four use of wafers.
Speaker 1: He says, connection of wafers with coins. Why in the
Speaker 1: world did they use wafers. I've always wondered that, Yeah.
Speaker 2: And that was the excuse was given. I mean, related
Speaker 2: to the leavened bread, was that it just wouldn't crumble
Speaker 2: as easily. I think that was one of them in
Speaker 2: the leven bread debates. For wafers, that was something a
Speaker 2: little more strange, And that was something I came up
Speaker 2: across later, of this connection with coins, and I think
Speaker 2: maybe there's some thread. I don't really connect them, but
Speaker 2: you can find this issue of like coins and currency
Speaker 2: and the kind of banking idea behind a lot of
Speaker 2: these medieval theological innovations like the indulgences, like the treasury
Speaker 2: of merit. Oh.
Speaker 1: Interesting, so like you're getting paid the coin wage of
Speaker 1: your salvation or something.
Speaker 2: I mean, maybe I don't know quite the interpretation, but
Speaker 2: there's a strange connection with with coins I mean.
Speaker 1: What do you are argue in this section of connection
Speaker 1: of coins with wafers?
Speaker 2: I simply quote a So there's a medieval room. Catholic
Speaker 2: theologian William durandis from the twelve hundreds. He gives a
Speaker 2: symbolic interpretation with the Eucharist as quote formed in the
Speaker 2: matter of a denarius. But that's not that's foreign to
Speaker 2: the first millennium church. Sure, so recent scholars have said
Speaker 2: from the eleventh century, I think it could be connected
Speaker 2: to Yeah, so a Norwegian numismatist some studies coins, and
Speaker 2: he was saying from the eleventh century wafers were made
Speaker 2: in the image of coins. They were round, flat, white,
Speaker 2: and two sided. Like coins. They were mass produced by
Speaker 2: means of an iron host press, sometimes carved or engraved
Speaker 2: with religious imagery or liturgical phrases. The timing is significant.
Speaker 2: The emergence of coin like wafers corresponds with the rise
Speaker 2: of monetary offerings and coin, suggesting a notion of the
Speaker 2: quote minting of the Eucharist.
Speaker 1: So oh that's fast.
Speaker 2: Yeah, wow, you maybe some connection with minting.
Speaker 1: Now you've also got elevation of the host epiclesis terminology
Speaker 1: transit association in scolasticism community. Both kinds give us a
Speaker 1: summation of of kind of what's going on.
Speaker 2: Here, Yeah, very high level, you know, the aim of
Speaker 2: these chapters sometimes are really short, just to show that
Speaker 2: Roman Catholic scholars admit that there was a liturgical practice
Speaker 2: done a certain way in the first millennium, but they
Speaker 2: no longer follow that or they change it later. So
Speaker 2: the elevation of the host, that's a liturgical right. That's
Speaker 2: the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia. It says it's a right of
Speaker 2: comparatively recent introduction, so it's it's not known to be exist,
Speaker 2: to have existed earlier than the close of the twelfth century,
Speaker 2: and they date that to yeah, maybe the very end
Speaker 2: of eleven hundred or early twelve hundreds. And yeah, Epiclesis
Speaker 2: that was mentioned as well, love times. I cite the
Speaker 2: Orthodox encyclicals of eighteen forty eight and eighteen ninety five
Speaker 2: because they list several issues of.
Speaker 1: Yeah, innovations that are still there. I mean, I remember,
Speaker 1: as a trad cat when I first heard of this issue,
Speaker 1: I didn't even know that the ancient liturgies had the
Speaker 1: epiclesis and that this was But now I understand being
Speaker 1: Orthodox for a while now, Like I understand why this
Speaker 1: is an issue.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and for that, I mean, I simply just a
Speaker 2: lot of that chapter is just me quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia.
Speaker 2: I mean quote it says the epiclesis it occurs in
Speaker 2: all Eastern liturgies and originally in Western liturgies. Also, oh wow,
Speaker 2: because it's certain that all the old liturgies contained such
Speaker 2: a prayer. But it's no longer the case now, you know,
Speaker 2: they've omitted this ancient tradition.
Speaker 1: Do we know why? Is it just because in the
Speaker 1: Middle Ages they came up this idea of defining what
Speaker 1: the essence of the sacrament was to be matter form
Speaker 1: and intention, and so somehow that led to the trimming
Speaker 1: down of the liturgy to not have the epiceasis.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that could be it. To be honest, I don't
Speaker 2: know what's the reason of that. I mean, I simply
Speaker 2: just document the fact that they're no longer doing that.
Speaker 2: But it seems to be Yeah, as a result of
Speaker 2: scholastic disputations that where they discuss what's.
Speaker 1: What's essential to have the sacrament?
Speaker 2: Right right? I love that is maybe just just less
Speaker 2: careful following the traditions.
Speaker 1: By the way, what you're arguing here too, is also
Speaker 1: a good refutation of some of the people that are
Speaker 1: trying to push a lot of these latin trad cat
Speaker 1: ideas in the Orthodox world as well, not just amongst
Speaker 1: Western Rites, but also even outside of that, people trying
Speaker 1: to convince catechumens and converts that oh, we actually need
Speaker 1: all of these you know, Carolinian and and uh, you know,
Speaker 1: medieval scholastic traditions and ideas. And I think, and I
Speaker 1: haven't read your book yet because it's new, but looking
Speaker 1: at the subject matter here, it looks to me like
Speaker 1: this would also be kind of a good refutation of
Speaker 1: the Latinizing ideas of some new Orthodox people.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I I try to avoid making any
Speaker 2: criticism of Orthodox people. I know, there's yet the Western
Speaker 2: right question. I mean, maybe some of the notes here
Speaker 2: and some of the chapters could help provide more context, but.
Speaker 1: Well, not even Western Right itself. I'm some about the
Speaker 1: people who want to bring in, like some of these
Speaker 1: medieval ideas, like oh, we actually need to have the
Speaker 1: sacred heart. Not that you not that your book's dealing
Speaker 1: with medieval Romanolic devotions, but this idea that we need
Speaker 1: all this stuff.
Speaker 2: Yes, I do even have a short chapter on the
Speaker 2: Sacred Heart Sacred Hearts of Jesus and of Mary. And
Speaker 2: again I mean that chapter is simply a quote from
Speaker 2: the Catholic Encyclopedia where they admit that there's no evidence
Speaker 2: for this. I mean, the first time it existed is
Speaker 2: in the eleven hundreds for both the Sacred Hearts of
Speaker 2: Jesus and Mary. If I remember that, I think that
Speaker 2: century of the eleven hundreds, And yes, so I don't
Speaker 2: think those should be introduced into Orthodoxy because it's not
Speaker 2: a tradition of the first millennium Church.
Speaker 1: Well, you also have the legalistic view of original sin
Speaker 1: listed here, which I think is another element of why
Speaker 1: the position is wrong, you know what I mean, the
Speaker 1: latinizing position, right.
Speaker 2: I think my book is stronger on the more historical questions,
Speaker 2: and because I tried to focus on those, because those
Speaker 2: are a lot more clear and are harder to really ignore.
Speaker 2: Like it's just okay, this tradition, this as a tradition
Speaker 2: of the first millennium. It is no longer or here's
Speaker 2: a clear proof of a new invention or innovation. I
Speaker 2: prefer to document those, but yeah, there are some discussions
Speaker 2: of theology, which is maybe not my strong suit. I'm
Speaker 2: just a I got you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And so you move on to talk about some
Speaker 1: of these other key areas that really should be brought forward. Purgatory,
Speaker 1: the treasury of merits, indulgences. I mean I try to
Speaker 1: when I have extended remanclic discussion, especially with trad cats,
Speaker 1: I do often bring up issues with indulgences, the treasure
Speaker 1: of merits, because I think these are also really strong
Speaker 1: things to critique that get forgotten when, for one, I
Speaker 1: think Roman Catholics typically always want to focus the debate
Speaker 1: on the papacy. That's really the only thing they want
Speaker 1: a debate, and then we're not getting into some of
Speaker 1: the other nitty gritty issues like well, now wait a minute,
Speaker 1: this issue of the treasure of merits, this is another
Speaker 1: pretty big defeater. I think it's as strong as like,
Speaker 1: if you really get into it, it's a strong critique
Speaker 1: as you know, papal geopolitical power being in contradiction to
Speaker 1: the first you know, thousand years of Christianity. So you
Speaker 1: mentioned Essen Senter distinction in here, You've got even all
Speaker 1: the way up to modernism and the Second Vatican Council.
Speaker 1: So the reason I'm asking is, do let's say, papal
Speaker 1: Treasury of Merit and indulgences, do these also rely on
Speaker 1: perhaps forgeries or not really?
Speaker 2: For the Treasure Merit, I did not come across any
Speaker 2: forgeries on that, although maybe you could say there were
Speaker 2: a lot of an authentic documents that maybe misled the
Speaker 2: medieval authors, such as those of Saint Augustine. But for
Speaker 2: the Treasure Merit, you can almost date the decade when
Speaker 2: it originated. And I quote a Roman Catholic professor, Robert Schaffern.
Speaker 2: He specializes in medieval indulgences and wrote a book. I
Speaker 2: mean he basically indicates that this tradition dates to the
Speaker 2: twelve thirties, and then just a century later, in thirteen
Speaker 2: forty three, it was formally defined by the pope. So
Speaker 2: it barely had a century of antiquity to its name.
Speaker 2: The Treasury of Merit, so from the twelve thirties it
Speaker 2: was brought up by the theater.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I just like, I don't see how you can't
Speaker 1: see this as an innovation. I mean, I know all
Speaker 1: the arguments about it. You know, it used to be
Speaker 1: a trad cat used to try to defend it. But
Speaker 1: I mean, now you mentioned here mercantile doctrine, what would
Speaker 1: you what are you arguing there?
Speaker 2: It So it does seem like it's a very transactional
Speaker 2: mercantild like a bank account. So it does.
Speaker 1: The Pope has access to the Saints infinite bitcoin account
Speaker 1: and he can just sort of send you this spiritual
Speaker 1: cryptocurrency to your wallet, your soul wallet.
Speaker 2: It is a little strange and some I mean the
Speaker 2: language of the Pope and defining it rather, it's it's
Speaker 2: quite strange where he says, you know that, okay, only
Speaker 2: one drop of Christ's blood was necessary for the salvation
Speaker 2: of all humanity. So all this otherwise excess or maybe superfluous.
Speaker 2: Maybe you can think about what the intention of that
Speaker 2: word means. All the extra superfluous blood was it can
Speaker 2: be used by the Pope to dispense.
Speaker 1: Oh wow, I didn't even know. He argued that that's
Speaker 1: a crazy line of argument.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's yes, all these can be dispens same with
Speaker 2: the merits of the blessed Virgin Mary and the other saints.
Speaker 2: I mean that's the Yeah, these superabundance of the virtues
Speaker 2: of the Saints and it. Yeah, it is a little strange.
Speaker 2: I mean maybe realman Catholics might interpret it a little differently,
Speaker 2: but basically, gist of it as I see it, it's
Speaker 2: just one drop of Christ's blood would have been enough
Speaker 2: for our starvations. So all the extra the pope can use.
Speaker 1: You know, I didn't even I didn't even realize it
Speaker 1: was that wacky. Even I was trying to defend that,
Speaker 1: I didn't even know that's a line of argument I
Speaker 1: didn't know about using. But okay, so we've got changes
Speaker 1: to calendar fasting changes, so you actually go into pretty
Speaker 1: significant like this isn't this isn't just a book about
Speaker 1: the forgeries. This is kind of going into a much broader,
Speaker 1: much more in depth discussion of really the whole ethos
Speaker 1: of the difference between the Papal Church and the orthodox Y.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I think originally the scope was, hey, look at
Speaker 2: these forgery Look how come you know cited in ten
Speaker 2: fifty four that's originally had a blog article back in
Speaker 2: the mid twenty tens. I don't know, it's been over
Speaker 2: twelve years. I've been I kind of started researching this
Speaker 2: and putting together notes. It's been a long I think
Speaker 2: it's for the best, because yeah, I had some made
Speaker 2: some mistakes and made law corrections along the way, and
Speaker 2: of course it's still maybe won't be perfect. But sorry,
Speaker 2: wow you get all.
Speaker 1: You even get into papal dispensations and cyclicals, the cardinals,
Speaker 1: jubilees interdicts. Yeah, so this is getting This is super indubt.
Speaker 2: Some are yes, really high level, like I could go
Speaker 2: over in just a few sentences, like trend substantiation. I mean,
Speaker 2: the main maybe Orthodox believe the doctrine, but the terminology
Speaker 2: and the real intricate mythology is just it's invented in
Speaker 2: the late ten hundreds. It's not before this ism. Although
Speaker 2: we're okay with the word. And then for some other items,
Speaker 2: some are simply terminologies, oh okay, and then oh yeah,
Speaker 2: to go back to the Eucharist or liturgy, communion under
Speaker 2: both kinds where and again some of these have changed
Speaker 2: since Vatican Two, But traditionally the Church gave both the
Speaker 2: Christ's body and blood under the forms of bread and
Speaker 2: wine and the euchars, but the Roman Catholics changed it
Speaker 2: to just give communion under the form of bread only
Speaker 2: and would reserve the wine or Christ's blood for the priests,
Speaker 2: but of course, you know, they'd say, well, Christ's whole
Speaker 2: body and blood is contained in his body of the bread,
Speaker 2: so they'll make these distinctions. But traditionally that was not
Speaker 2: the case. They just argue from certain exceptions in the past.
Speaker 2: But sometimes infants were just given only the Christ's blood
Speaker 2: as wine, so they argue from those exceptional cases. Yeah,
Speaker 2: the same with confirmation, where the early Church confirmed children
Speaker 2: right after baptism. But then that's another item like infant communion,
Speaker 2: where the Latins say this is not expedient before the
Speaker 2: use of reason, even though they admit the early Church
Speaker 2: did that with baptism and communion. Yeah. I spent a
Speaker 2: lot of time going into some rather intricate items.
Speaker 1: Sometimes this is great, this is a this is well,
Speaker 1: actually a way more thorough Not that I didn't think
Speaker 1: you were capable. I just thought this will be a
Speaker 1: book about the forgeries that he's finally publishing. But it's
Speaker 1: a lot more thorough than that. You even get into
Speaker 1: these pretty lengthy discussions later on about well it's not
Speaker 1: that lengthy, but there's a lot of discussion about you know,
Speaker 1: Canon twenty a of Chalcedon. I mean, it gets really
Speaker 1: we don't have time to go through all of these.
Speaker 2: No, Yeah, yeah, I would say the parts I researched
Speaker 2: the most would be the question of Pope Penoris's condemnation.
Speaker 2: I just put together everything I could find, very thorough. Yeah,
Speaker 2: that I tried to be. I think it might be
Speaker 2: the most thorough collection of just all the evidence on him,
Speaker 2: both in favor of him and in defense. I think
Speaker 2: it's maybe the most comprehensive ever collected. I mean, by
Speaker 2: the way, I didn't use any AI at all. I
Speaker 2: somewhat regret a bit of terminology I used in the
Speaker 2: beginning of the intro where I said, like, I think
Speaker 2: like technological innovation. That's just simply referring to digitized books
Speaker 2: because that helped yea CIEs Co email because this wasn't
Speaker 2: would have been really hard.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you can't go find all these yeah, I like
Speaker 1: Indiana Jones or something trying to find all this stuff.
Speaker 2: So yeah, maybe the most thoroughly research is Yeah, Honorius,
Speaker 2: I mean spoiler he is a heretic, and the technologists
Speaker 2: such and then Kennon twenty eight of Calcdon followed by
Speaker 2: the Council of Truela. Those are really important. I think
Speaker 2: it takes too much time to get into. But and
Speaker 2: then baptism by triple immersion. Those are the three UH
Speaker 2: topics I studied the most in terms of like those
Speaker 2: early differences, I mean other things I looked into, I
Speaker 2: mean the idea of of marriage and a Roman Catholics
Speaker 2: talk about divorce a lot, but there's there's some other
Speaker 2: issues they they have, such as allowing marriage within prohibited degrees,
Speaker 2: such as a marriage between UH an uncle and niece
Speaker 2: or nephew and aunt. I mean the pope has allowed
Speaker 2: that even though that's prohibited in Leviticus, and the early
Speaker 2: Church held those prohibitions to still be in force. So
Speaker 2: it's some of that is rather disturbing, you know, led
Speaker 2: to the Habsburg Charles the second he had an inbreeding
Speaker 2: issue could have been responsible for some disabilities. And there's
Speaker 2: even a pope who said a brother sister marriage could
Speaker 2: be allowed by papal dispensation. So some of this is
Speaker 2: a little yeah, it was not the early Church did
Speaker 2: not think that was appropriate, right, And so I go
Speaker 2: in depth into all of those items and related Yeah,
Speaker 2: clerical celibacy. I think that's that's another important one to
Speaker 2: just talk about because many Roman Catholics criticized the Orthodox
Speaker 2: for having married priests. But you know the Gospel show
Speaker 2: say Peter was married, and I mentioned that. Saint Patrick
Speaker 2: of Ireland, if if you Reaca has confession in the
Speaker 2: very beginning, he says, I Patrick, the sinner, am the
Speaker 2: most illiterate and least of all the faithful, and contemptible
Speaker 2: in the eyes of very many. My father was Calpurnius,
Speaker 2: a deacon, one of the sons of po Titus, a
Speaker 2: presidter who belonged to a village. And then I was
Speaker 2: taken captive, so he mentions, Yeah, his father was a deacon,
Speaker 2: his grandfather was a priest, and then the later source
Speaker 2: adds that his great grandfather was a deacon as well.
Speaker 2: So we can trace like married clergy. And you know,
Speaker 2: if any of these priests had been celibate, we wouldn't
Speaker 2: have had, uh, Saint Patrick if the.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know, and what about the the that's a
Speaker 1: great point. What about the trollo? Did do you argue
Speaker 1: and show that trollo was accepted?
Speaker 2: Yes? Uh, yeah, trello is something I really go in
Speaker 2: depth into. I would say, in the very high level view,
Speaker 2: you can prove it accepted by the Seventh Documental Council
Speaker 2: clearly accepting Trelo's canons. I go into that council at
Speaker 2: in extreme length. I tried to collect basically everything that
Speaker 2: could be said but for and against it. But I'll
Speaker 2: say it's just simply settled by the fact the Seventh
Speaker 2: Documental Council endorset.
Speaker 1: Is there any evidence that the papacy did not or
Speaker 1: had a problem with Trello at the Seventh Council?
Speaker 2: Oh, at the Seventh Council, I know, it doesn't seem
Speaker 2: that they didn't make any objections then, even though the yeah,
Speaker 2: the room Catholic legates were there. But sometimes Roman Catholics
Speaker 2: make rather strange claims about that the ecumenical councils are
Speaker 2: I guess they might not fully love them, are reluctant
Speaker 2: to accept the full.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's like they don't. The only thing that matters
Speaker 1: from them is what the Pope says matters.
Speaker 2: Basically, Yeah, it's really on traditional view. Yeah, for Trilo.
Speaker 2: There are some cases of apparently some popes not liking
Speaker 2: what it said, but that just simply shows that the
Speaker 2: church did not it was not swayed by that, and
Speaker 2: it did not affect what.
Speaker 1: What What's the do you recall the first sort of
Speaker 1: evidence or mention from the popes not liking Trollo or
Speaker 1: something at Nicia too?
Speaker 2: Yeah, let me, I'll have to check my notes. I'm
Speaker 2: trying to think.
Speaker 1: If it's not a big deal. Just this was curious.
Speaker 2: I know, the Liber pontific caulis that book of popes.
Speaker 2: It does mention, uh some, it does not like it
Speaker 2: doesn't like the council at all. And there's there's also.
Speaker 1: A trollo or which one trollo?
Speaker 2: Uh yeah, that that council. I mean I see too.
Speaker 2: It's yeah, it's fully accepted.
Speaker 1: Although yeah, well people's but even that I'm curious about
Speaker 1: because when Roman Callolics say they fully accept it, I
Speaker 1: mean I'm not. I'm not even sure they really do,
Speaker 1: like because there's things that you know are canonical some
Speaker 1: somewhat in the Canons of Nicia two that I don't
Speaker 1: think Roman Cloics would agree with, like images of the
Speaker 1: Father and this kind of stuff. And you know the
Speaker 1: Sonoticon which comes out of the eight forty three reaffirmation
Speaker 1: of Nicia two. Romancalox suresack don't follow that, so I
Speaker 1: don't even I mean, now I think you can even
Speaker 1: I think the way it seems like they give like
Speaker 1: name verbal credence to Nicia too, but they don't really
Speaker 1: follow it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that is the case. I mean some
Speaker 2: of them are very disparaging to the Fathers, like right on,
Speaker 2: like Beller mean when he criticizes the Seventh Ecumental Council
Speaker 2: Fathers for endorsing the condemnation of Honorius Robert Beller mean
Speaker 2: in Roman Catholic saying he says the father simply followed
Speaker 2: what they saw in the any scripts they were basically
Speaker 2: just implies they were misled. They don't. Many rom Katacs
Speaker 2: have not been respectful to the Church Fathers in that degree.
Speaker 2: So I yeah, because the Seventh Council does also reiterate.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it reiterates Honri's's condination exactly.
Speaker 2: As for the images of God the Father, I used
Speaker 2: to have a chapter on that, but I got rid
Speaker 2: of that basically, not just some notes. If someone really
Speaker 2: wants they could always reach out to me, because I
Speaker 2: I think it's just one of those points on which
Speaker 2: there's differences within.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I know, it's a nuanced issue and we have
Speaker 1: the you know, the ancient days, and my point was
Speaker 1: not to be hyper precise about the canon. I'm just
Speaker 1: saying that the theology of icons, which clearly is the
Speaker 1: ethos of the Seventh Council, is not followed by Rome.
Speaker 1: So I mean, in their minds, it's just yeah, you
Speaker 1: can have artistic religious images, It's like, but that's not
Speaker 1: what I anography and iconographic theology really is.
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, same with the statues as well. I know
Speaker 2: that's disputed. I mean I would say Roman Catholics exceeded
Speaker 2: the bounds of propriety. Oh and even on images, there's
Speaker 2: some rather strange things with the Renaissance art work.
Speaker 1: Oh absolutely, So that's that's that's essentially what the Well,
Speaker 1: the Los Gawspensky book is really good kind of critiquing
Speaker 1: some of that.
Speaker 2: Later on, there's some rather disturbing things. I mean, in
Speaker 2: the Sistine Chapel that Michaelangelo depicts the Blessed Virgin Mary
Speaker 2: in a rather sensual pose.
Speaker 1: Well, it's a lot more than that. I mean, there's
Speaker 1: a lot of weird hermetic stuff going on. And that's
Speaker 1: that's I mentioned earlier that book a cult Renaissance Church
Speaker 1: of Rome, and even as a trad cat Hoffman wrote
Speaker 1: that critiquing a lot of the Renaissance art of the Roman,
Speaker 1: of the Vatican, the Roman Church.
Speaker 2: So yeah, yeah, it's disturbing sometimes how they depict Blessed
Speaker 2: Virgin Mary similar to the so called Goddess of Desire
Speaker 2: of Venus. They imitate those ancient exact statues. It's like,
Speaker 2: that's not appropriate. Same with some strange ideas of people
Speaker 2: receiving milk from the breast of the Virgin Mary.
Speaker 1: Yes, this is a Taylor Marshall the favorite.
Speaker 2: Oh yes, I have seen that.
Speaker 1: But that's I mean, that's kind of a joke. But
Speaker 1: it's also not a joke because this is actually really
Speaker 1: important to a lot of Roman Catholic devotional life. In fact,
Speaker 1: the church down the road from us is Our Lady
Speaker 1: of La Leche, which is a giant Roman Catholic shrine,
Speaker 1: because the Franciscans did one of the first masses in America.
Speaker 1: There might be the first mass even in North America,
Speaker 1: and it's Our Lady of the Milk. This is actually
Speaker 1: a really important thing in Roman calog mysticism.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's strange, and you can document it. There's no
Speaker 2: evidence of anyone you same with the stigma, no evidence
Speaker 2: of this in the first millennium, no evidence of someone
Speaker 2: receiving milk from Mary's breast. It's a rather strange thing,
Speaker 2: but there's no evidence of that in the first millennium.
Speaker 2: It's starting now.
Speaker 1: I'm assuming I know that it comes up. It's in
Speaker 1: paintings of Bernard and that when I was a tried cap,
Speaker 1: I used to love Bernard of Clervau and I'd read
Speaker 1: his stuff all the time. And you have a little
Speaker 1: section on that. What was your conclusion on that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I've seen it in the Proudu Museum in Spain,
Speaker 2: in Madrid, they have the artwork. It's rather strange. I
Speaker 2: mean they say it's supposed to be. Sometimes they say
Speaker 2: it was in a miracle or a vision, not in
Speaker 2: real life.
Speaker 1: Of who of was it?
Speaker 2: I think it, Yeah, it was Bernard of Clervaux. I
Speaker 2: think there's been different interpretations of how this event happened.
Speaker 2: But again I would say, you know, we had many
Speaker 2: you know, all the thousands of tens of thousands, millions
Speaker 2: of Christians in the first millennium, no one had the
Speaker 2: stigma that no one had this. It's it's just it.
Speaker 2: I focus just on the historical discontinuity. You know, maybe
Speaker 2: the same with the stigmata. They defend it from Saint
Speaker 2: Paul's words where he says I bear in my body
Speaker 2: the marks of the Lord Jesus, and the word marks
Speaker 2: in Latin is stigmata. But the church fathers don't see
Speaker 2: that as.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's not literally the marks.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, it's not. Yeah, and yeah. I quote John
Speaker 2: Crazostom giving it a different interpretation, saying it's his trials,
Speaker 2: his dangers, his stripes, the perils which attended his conversion.
Speaker 2: But they say there's been three hundred, at least three
Speaker 2: hundred and twenty one stigmatics since twelve twenty four. I mean, right,
Speaker 2: it's how is that it's not statistically possible? If uh,
Speaker 2: it's just strange that you know, Saint Francis, the Roman Catholic,
Speaker 2: Saint Francis of ASSISI was the first to have received
Speaker 2: the stigmata.
Speaker 1: So yeah, did you know I've found in Uh. I
Speaker 1: was reading a book, The Oxford Companion to Western Mysticism,
Speaker 1: and this whole chapter on medieval Roman Catholic male and
Speaker 1: female mystic and I didn't know that Francis claimed to
Speaker 1: have a vision of seeing a crucified seraphim. Did you
Speaker 1: know that I know I did really really weird stuff,
Speaker 1: which you know is orthodox would be like that's out there.
Speaker 1: Rum Mcallich's love it. They think this is like a
Speaker 1: there's a sign. You know, he's clearly saying he saw
Speaker 1: a crucified seraphim. I mean the angels weren't crucified. It
Speaker 1: doesn't make any sense. But okay, so we've gone for
Speaker 1: a little you know, hour and fifteen. That's a pretty good,
Speaker 1: I think overview of this text. Again, I highly recommend
Speaker 1: everybody get this. As I look at the chapter section
Speaker 1: titles here, this is way more extensive than I expected.
Speaker 1: In fact, I'm not that I wasn't interested in the
Speaker 1: forgeries book. This is this is way more than that.
Speaker 1: So I think, guys, you really need to get airs
Speaker 1: of the Latins Volume one and two. I've got it
Speaker 1: linked below from Uncut Mountain Press, and it is now available,
Speaker 1: so it is ready to ship. It just went to
Speaker 1: the printer couple days ago. So what else, George, anything
Speaker 1: else that we need to know about the book before
Speaker 1: we get it.
Speaker 2: I think that's basically it. Yeah, there's these different topics.
Speaker 2: I tried my best to be as fair as I could,
Speaker 2: and I put a love effort into the research.
Speaker 1: It's well many years. This isn't This isn't like a
Speaker 1: you know, throw it together thing. You've been working on
Speaker 1: us for a long time.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a lot of time. I mean it's meant
Speaker 2: to be more of a reference work. You don't have
Speaker 2: to read from beginning to end. It's meant to I
Speaker 2: have a lot of recommendations for additional reading so that
Speaker 2: someone could turn to those if they want to get
Speaker 2: more details. And yeah, it's meant to be more Yeah,
Speaker 2: reference work. You don't have to read all the pages.
Speaker 2: I know it's a lot of text, but I think
Speaker 2: it helps to just document. That's my main name, to
Speaker 2: just have these quotations and cite things fairly and try
Speaker 2: and consider aspect of the question.
Speaker 1: It looks like a really well done scholarly work. I'm
Speaker 1: really proud of you. I think it's awesome. It's amazing.
Speaker 1: May God bless this venture. Guys. Remember to head on
Speaker 1: over to chalk dot com. That is a show sponsor,
Speaker 1: and they do have the best and supplements. If you're
Speaker 1: ready to get in the gym, you're ready to change
Speaker 1: your physical appearance. Of course, spiritual stuff is what matters.
Speaker 1: The most, but also our body does matter, so let's
Speaker 1: not abuse our bodies. Let's not be unhealthy. Get in
Speaker 1: the gym, get your diet right. Head on over to
Speaker 1: chalk dot com. Use promo code J forty JYF or
Speaker 1: zero get forty percent off of all those great products
Speaker 1: as well as the recurring subscription J forty four Life.
Speaker 1: This is Jay four four l I f E, as
Speaker 1: well as supporting George and other Orthodox content creators and writers. George,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for coming on. Great discussion.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much, Jay, absolutely.
Speaker 1: And we're going to have this up very soon, probably tonight,
Speaker 1: and yeah, we'll see what the reactions are and we'll
Speaker 1: probably get you back on. We'll get into some more
Speaker 1: of these subjects. It's so extensive, like there's stuff going
Speaker 1: on here with the papacy and medieval stuff. Nobody talks
Speaker 1: about weird medieval mysticism, I think, but this needs to
Speaker 1: be talked about more. So maybe we'll come back and
Speaker 1: talk about some of that. But thank you so much, George.
Speaker 2: Sure, any time,