Speaker 1: So in, so in, it's so inside, all right, Welcome everybody,
and we have a new situation arising, a new guest,
a new potentially a friend. We'll have to see whether
he makes the friend cut or not. I'm just kidding.
It's video from Chris Plants, and I think Chris might
be friends with Tim Gordon. I don't know if you
guys kind of know each other a little bit, but
thank you for coming on tonight. I appreciate your willingness
to hop on and have this discussion. You know this quick.
That was very cool of you. We're gonna have an open,
free form discussion. But maybe before we get started, do
you want to tell us anything about yourself, what kind
of content you do, how long you've been Catholic, you
know what moved you to kind of do the YouTube apologeticsphere?
Speaker 2: Yeah, So, first of all, thanks for having me on,
especially at late in the evening. I know it's tough
sometimes to kind of work this all out, but thank
you so much for having me on. And so a
little bit about myself. I started my YouTube channel I
think like January is when I started it, and my
interest really lies, you know. I started the channel to
explore what it might look like if we linked up
the story of the Bible, the mission of the church,
and the politics of the world. And there's a story
as to how I kind of got interested in all
of those different categories. But I grew up Catholic and
then sort of fell away from my faith. You know,
the joke is, you go to Catholic school, you lose
your Catholic faith. That whole thing. Went to go play
baseball at a private college up north in California. Here,
I grew up in LA and went to Westmont College
in Santa Barbara, and I just fell in love with Jesus.
My friends. I was kind of an atheist at the time,
like pushing back a little bit, but eventually, you know,
gave my life to Christ and then through apologetic means
having discussions with my Protestant friends, I eventually worked my
back to my way into the Catholic Church again. So
so over the years, I have just fallen in love
with Scripture. I mean, that's really my love, which is
the story of the Bible. You know, if I could
spend most of the hours of my day doing one thing,
it would just be studying Scripture. You know, I love it.
So that's sort of where my YouTube channel kind of
comes in. I just kind of want to explore what
it looks like when the story of the Bible sort
of interacts with the politics of the world. And this
is actually why I think YouTube. I had known about
you for a while because you debated or you you know,
early on I was on the rules for retrogrades with
Tim and Dave Gordon and then backed out of there
for a variety of reasons, and Tim kind of went
with the channel. And obviously you've had a debate with
Dave before, who's a good friend. And then Tim is
still a really good friend of mine as well, and
so you know, every now and then I'll peek my
head over the fence and sort of see what's Jay saying.
But because my interests lie in sort of the politics
of the world and also the church and her mission
and what she has said with regard to politics, I
think YouTube just their algorithm is crazy accurate. I mean
it just that video that you did popped up and
I was like, why is it sending me this one
dogmatic contradiction video? So I was like, I'll check it out,
And then of course I know why because you're talking
about what I talk about a lot of times, which
is the fact that, look, the Church has this teaching
about the moral duty of the nations to recognize the
Creator God, specifically the Creator God as revealed in the
person of Jesus Christ. So this is something that I've
been trying to turn up the volume on a speaker that,
as you rightly pointed out, has been turned down, and
oftentimes you're right, it's almost like the whole thing is off.
It's like this thing was the loudest speaker in the
room for a thousand years and then all of a sudden,
it's like, where is it going? And I think that
it's actually a service for Atholics to have you do
what you did, which is to say, wait a second,
you can't you have all of these documents in Mortali
day coss Primus, I mean, everything you were bringing up.
I'm like, oh, man, if if only Catholics knew about this.
But of course, you know, part of part of my disagreement.
You know, early on I was I did a show
or two with Taylor Marshall because Tim and Taylor were
really close, and you know, Taylor has the same concerns
that you have, but about the documents of Atticant two,
and especially the contradiction what seems like a contradiction in
Dignitatis Humane, I think you're being more consistent, perhaps not
to say anything about those guys, but I do think that,
you know, if there is a contradiction, you gotta end
up where Jay ends up. So I don't You're not surprised, obviously,
but I don't see it that way. I I and
I wasn't really into the whole trad stuff, and the
trad debates that was going on wasn't coming from that world.
I actually I actually arrived at this whole Jesus Christ
has all earthly authority because of the way I'd been
reading scripture. You know, there's this whole thing called empire
studies in New Testament scholarship. I know, I'm sure you
know of it, and they're sort of pointing out not
just like the Jesus's Lord stuff, where it's like, you know,
the person in the first entry he used to say,
I am Lord is Caesar. Caesar is Lord, and so
if Jesus is Lord, Caesar is not. I actually think
it's a bit more complicated than that, because it doesn't
mean that Caesar is not in charge, just means he
needs to get baptized, right, So so you know, I
started reading all these different passages, like the whole idea
of you know, give to Caesar, what is Caesar's give
to God? What is God? And the whole point of
the image on the coin is that Caesar is made
in the image of God. And this is why all
the pack passages in the New Testament say Jesus is
the eternal image of God, and then it follows up
with this is why he must rule, this is why
he must reign, all that stuff. So I just kind
of came at it from It's interesting because I studied
under a guy named Tremper Longman. I don't know if
you wrote this really book, this book in the nineteen
ninety two that kicked off the Biblical theology movement, and.
Speaker 1: It was all about I've read one of his books.
Speaker 2: So now you're talking about, Yeah, God is a Warrior
is a book that I was familiar with because I
had studied under him and I looked into some of
his stuff and the God is a Warrior is like
is like a huge thing, and nobody would touch God
as a divine warrior because at the time Muslims were well,
I mean, they've always been blowing stuff up, but at
the time it was like, don't talk about this. And
all of a sudden nine to eleven hit and then
everyone's now interested in this divine warfare motif in the
Old Testament. And Trumper I had been writing about this
for a while. He wasn't too scared of it. You know,
God is the divine warrior. You know, Israel calls God
the divine warrior in the in the New Testament or sorry,
in the Old Testament when they crossed through the Red Sea,
you know, the Song of Moses and all that. But
what that led me to is exploring the divine warrior
motif in the New Testament, picking up where Tremper Longman
left off, and just discovering, Oh my goodness, because you know,
like the Chosen Series. I tell my students this, The
Chosen Series has in like one of their first episodes,
they're like, you know, they have this little kid asking
Jesus like a question. Well, you know, Rabbi so and
so says that the that the Messiah is going to
be a warlike figure. He's gonna be this warrior right,
and they have Jesus saying, you know, tell me, is
there any passage in the Old Testament that says the
Messiah will be like this warrior God will come back?
And I'm thinking to myself, I was like, dude, like
every passage in the Old Testament is about God? Is
this that the Messiah will be this kind of divine light,
this this military political leader. But of course when you
get to the New Testament, it is interesting that Jesus
is doing it quite different, not what we would expect,
not what you see with Simon Barcopa and the other
revolutionaries that are launching this Messianic revolution. Jesus is doing
something different, and I think the church fathers were right
that basically, like what he's doing is a kind of
Christus Victor thing, right, He's destroying the powers behind the powers.
And so I sort of started to track this, you know,
in the New Testament, and then it kind of hit
me like, wait, I think this is why Jesus says
when he comes back from the dead, all authority on
earth has been given to me, because whatever happened on
the cross, what we do know is immediately when he
comes back from the dead, he says, all authority on
earth is given to me. So it seems that whatever
if Satan is the ruler of this world, right, the
New Testament says that over twenty one times he's the
king of this world, prince of this world, all earthly
kingdoms are sort of in his hand. Then when Jesus
comes back and he says all earthly authority has been
given to me, something must have transpired that really the
Christus Victor motif God as this warrior, the arrival of
the divine warrior, actually culminates in this sort of political revolution,
if I can call it that, where all earthly authority
has been given to him. Now as a Catholic, where
I arrive, you know, slightly seeing that authority being placed
in his chief steward, which is Peter right. And I think,
you know, my expertise is definitely not in the Church Fathers.
You know, I try to get try to read through
as much as I can, and I know that is
you're well versed in all of this stuff, So I
know that, and I know definitely you know the Church
Fathers really really really really really well. But what I
see kind of coming out of that Christus Victor and
then also coming out of you know, as you mentioned,
the Gregorian reforms and the pope sort of having more
this power. It's sort of wrestling with what I see
in the New Testament. Is this what does it mean
for the pope to have this binding and loosing authority
along with the bishops that share and that with him,
you know, you know what implications are there? And then
reading through all of these in cyclicals, these rich and
cyclicals that you pointed out, I'm like, man, this is
this is illuminating, not just like a side issue of
the Gospel, but it seems like actually these things are
touching on the Gospel itself. What does it mean for
Jesus to have all authority? And how does how does
that actually work? I actually do think and I haven't
brought this up a lot on my channel. I will
get to it, but I do think there needs to
be a bit more of a development in terms of
still what that implies and what that means. I don't think.
I don't think. I think the laity need to be
brought in, you know, I like the ecclesiology of Vatican two,
where it's more of an emphasis on the role of
the laity as well as part of the church, you know,
because in the in the in the Middle Age, it
was more like clergy and laity rather than church and state.
But anyway, so that's kind of how I ended up
sort of in these issues. I know, for a lot
of trad Catholics, which I'm not necessary, I wouldn't be
called the trad Catholic, although I don't even know what
that means anymore. But but uh, I sort of arrived
at it like, oh, this is the Biblical story, and
Jesus having all earthly authority is just another expression of
him being the Creator God, him being what the entire
Abrahamic promises were meant to, you know, the the the
scepter that was promised to Judah, the nation, the union
of the nations. In Genesis twelve, there was a reversal
of Genesis eleven. It's all about Jesus having all the dividic.
Speaker 1: Kingse Yeah, if you don't mind, let me maybe say so.
I would say pretty much everything that you've said up
to a point I would totally agree with. And I
think that it's pretty clear when you really get into
biblical theology that the New Testament does not have this
position of you know, sort of you know, separating the
idea of the temporal power from the spiritual power. If
you look into the you know, the early Church, as
the theology quote develops, and I don't mean developing the
sense of undergoing evolutionary change. I just mean as the
Church more and more states with clarity what the church's
position is. Particularly in the first say eight centuries, you
do absolutely see statements consistently made by many, many church
fathers and even in the Ecumenical Councils on the role
of the state in regard to the Church. And what's
interesting is a lot of what you said we would
agree with, and we would say you do find in
the seven Ecumenical Councils, and I'm only picking the first
seven just as a time frame to kind of look
at as an example, you begin to see, for example,
Saint Ambrose says that the emperor has a duty to God.
The emperor should have, you know, Christian principles undergirding the
theology of the empire. We start to see Christian laws
themselves with Theodosius, and then by the time of Saint
Justinian you have an explicitly Christian emperor, which, although not
accepted as a saint in the West or exhuming the
Latin Church or the Roman Church. He has seen as
a saint in the Orthodox Church because his theology is
what's essentially promulgated at the Fifth Ecumenical Council. So we
see a very crucial role for the state to do
what we think is sort of the manifestation of the
Byzantine double headed eagle. We see that double headed eagle
as one body of the people, manifested with church and state.
And of course, because there's two heads and they're kind
of equal, we wouldn't we wouldn't say as Orthodox that
the spiritual power is equal to or under the temporal power. Certainly,
the ideal situation is that they govern their realms with
their domains, and so certainly the spiritual is kind of
the ultimate authority. In the Orthodox tradition of for example, coronation,
the state ruler is anointed. It's almost a semi kind
of sacramental ritual for the king to receive anointing by
the Church. However, this is where I think we would
find the first point of departure, which is that in
your model you would see that as something embodied, particularly
in Peter and his successors as in some way kind
of being a focal point perhaps of the temporal authority
as well. And this is precisely what I'd like to
first discuss with you, maybe put a challenge forward, is
I would argue that in the first seventh centuries, the
model that we see really clarified, especially by the seventh
Ecmmdical Council, is not one where the Bishop of Rome
in any way has any temporal authority or power whatsoever.
But rather there is pretty clearly the Byzantine Symphony, a
model that's outlined, for example in the statements of the
council between the Pope and the Emperor, the way that
the seven that Comminical Council caused the emperor the God
ordained emperor, and so he has his sphere, which is
the temporal sphere. But Chalcedon very clearly in Canon seven.
And I understand that in your view and your system,
you would not think that the papacy is necessarily bound
by the canons. You would say he's above the canons.
But my argument would be that there's nothing in Chalcidon
that in the canonical language in any way limits this
stricture to everybody but the pope. In fact, the way
the canon is worded, and I'll mention Canon seven because
it says very clearly that those who have been enrolled
in the clergy or have been made monks may not
accept military or any secular dignity, and anyone who presumes
to do so shall be anathematized. Now, I understand in
the Roman, in the sphere of Rome, with the collapse
of the west with the Barbarians, and with the moving
of the imperial capital to Byzantium, concept and noble, that
there is this vacuum, and that the papal states arise
out of that vacuum. I'm aware of all that. But
my point is that pretty clearly the mindset of the church,
and there's later canons that really back up what Calconon says.
There's no place for the spiritual power coming in and
saying that we are also the supreme temporal power. And
precisely by the time that you get to Dictatus Pope,
and then a couple of centuries later, unum sanctum unam
sanctum dogmatizes not just the idea that the temporal power
is under God and under Christ, which we affirm but
that the Bishop Rome uniquely is above and has all
temporal power, and to be saved, you must accept that
dogma as when I'm saying them says, that's specifically where
I would pose a challenge and a point of departure.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's just I think the I think when you
look at like the writing, when I see Saint Ambrose
right engaging with the emperor, clearly, yeah, clearly the emperor's
temporal power is I mean, I think I think the
challenge is the overlapping between the spiritual and the temporal
because the temporal power is not entirely competent. They think,
for example with California, California just redefined marriage, right, it
doesn't even know when life begins right now. The temporal
powers are they they're just not competent like at so
many levels. And now I'm not talking about you know,
it's interesting, and this is where I think the church
needs oppressed a bit more. Is that the the it's
not if grace does build on nature, and I don't
know if this is the Eastern language, you'd agree with this.
It builds on you know, like a Quinas says, like
it purifies nature, it heals nature, perfects it and then
elevates it. And it's like, well, if the pope, if
the pope has the authority that say, vadicate one says
that it has, and that's a proper exegesis of Matthew
sixteen and other passages, then the pope has an authority
that's not just for elevating in terms of telling us
about the Trinity, stuff that reason could not discover. But
and this is something the East is really good at.
But it actually gives us stuff that we could know
by reason, but we couldn't figure it out because we're
we're corrupt, our minds are corrupt. So the church has
this this church, the church has this moral authority as well.
So it's like the state, it subject to the dark power,
sort of loses this kind of it's not competent to
make proper moral decisions, but it it kind of needs
to be, and the church is competent in making infallible
moral decisions, and therefore the church the state needs to
sort of and when you look at the church, the
church herself is going to identify the pope as that
center of unity, the person who has this specific kerosm
right along with the bishops in union with Him, has
this specific kerosm to teach infallibly on faith and morals.
And so I see the temple authority that the pope
has as being not just a spiritual authority but also
temporal in the sense of the state is not always competent,
even in matters of morality, and so so I see
and I also see the two like going together. They're
not necessarily equal. Like I like the image that Leo
the thirteenth uses of the soul in the body, which
I know you're super familiar with, and that this the
spiritual is meant to help heal and govern and direct
properly the passions themselves. Right, the the temporal body of
the state is moved should be moved by illuminated by
the spiritual, the soul itself, which is that a spiritual
authority that the pope has. I see the temporal authority also,
I should say this as being an authority that the
pope has over the laity. And I think it gets
tricky when you're in secular governments that don't recognize Christ,
that don't recognize that he has this authority. And so
it's like, what does the church do? Does the pope.
The pope technically has, as the Church says, all authority
on earth, as Jesus has all authority on earth, temporal
and spiritual. But what do you do when you when
you have secular states that don't believe that he has
temporal authority in the sense that he can you know,
that he can define such things as what marriage is,
you know, not just that he can give us, give
us a proper definition of the trinity, or proper infallible
definition of you know, whether females should well. So I
think the nature is I think the Church and state
is sort of convoluted because the nature and grace debate. Sorry,
I'm here in my echoes.
Speaker 1: Oh my bad, I have to write, but none I
mean to go ahead, No.
Speaker 2: Go ahead, go ahead, Sorry.
Speaker 1: Okay, Well, but here's the thing, Like, for the sake,
for the sake of our discussion here, I'm not granting
that the Bishop of Rome has any temporal authority at all. Now,
maybe you can demonstrate that, but that's kind of what
I'm going for here, is that the businessing model is
that there are two spheres, and we do have a
distinction in orthodoxiology between nature and grace. I would not
say that it's the same kind of model that the
Thomas have. It's very different. But this aside from the
issue of Tomism. I mean again, I think we're not
dis agreeing about the principle of whether the state has
a duty to God, and ultimately we would hope in
a predominantly Christian sphere it would be Christian. A Christian
state is the ideal in the Orthodox view, when the
majority of the people are Orthodox. At that point it's
appropriate to have, you know, an Orthodox government and Orthodox laws.
That's always been what's called the Symphonia model in the East.
But I'm asking a different question to you, which is,
first of all, where do you get the idea that
the temporal supremacy of the Roman bishop is even a thing?
Is the first question, And I would ask for any
Patristic era citation that there is such a thing in
the first seven centuries, given the fact that Calcidon specifically
forbade all clerics from having any civil governmental roles at
the pain of excommunication, and there's no exemption for the
Roman bishop under this canon. So I'm curious where do
you think that this. I understand you're going to say, well,
it derives from the nature of the patrin office itself,
in the supremacy of the of Peter and so forth.
But I'm saying, where in the Church Fathers at all
in the first seven centuries is anything akin to what
dignity what Unum Sanctum and Dictatus Pope claim.
Speaker 2: Okay, so what I would want to do is actually
run this back and go through the entire story of scripture,
but I'm not going to obviously do that now.
Speaker 1: Well, but where we're disagreeing is the historic teaching of
the Church's interpretation of the pastors, because I understand you're
going to see a lot of passages that you think
vindicate this idea of temporal supremacy. And I'm directly giving
you patristic evidence at Chalcedon which rejects the notion of
any clerics having any temporal supremacy or right to engage
in those professions. And again, remember that the question is
not does the Church have a say so in the
government or should the government be Christian. The contention is
that Dictatus Pope and Unum Sanctum explicitly say that the
pope is the emperor of emperors and king of kings,
and above all emperors has the only right to use
the imperial insignia, and that all emperors must kiss his feet.
Where is that in any any patristic writing at all
in the first seven of the seventh centuries, except for
the feigned forgeries like the Donation of Constantine, which backed
up this doctrine.
Speaker 2: Okay, So what I would what I would want to
do is as a Catholic, I would and you would
affirm with this that Jesus Christ has all earthly authority.
And you would say also that Jesus has all temporal authority.
Are we equating that?
Speaker 1: Or like I agree that the divine person of Christ
is king of king's, Lord of lords, and he absolutely
has all spiritual and temporal authority.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, So how would you how would you parse out
the idea that Jesus has all earthly authority? Where how
does he exercise that earthly authority here on earth that
temporal authority.
Speaker 1: Well, when he ascended in our nature, he now in
our nature possesses that the keys not just of death
and Hades, but also, as you pointed out, I think
in your opening salvo there you mentioned the all authority
and all all kingdom's powers and dominion have been handed
to him uh in the in the when he ascends,
and I think the passage in Daniel and the passage
in the Apocalypse or not about the end of the world.
They're actually about the ascension. And that means that when
he ascended, because he's now in our nature, what perhaps
in a in a spiritual sense, might have been formerly
the right or the temple, the temporary possession of Satan
is now given to the God Man in our nature,
and so his body, the Church actually possesses all reality.
All of the universe will be our inheritance. But in
the concourse of the of Church history, the way that
I believe Christ has outlined for that governance to occur
is not for the Church to have temporal supremacy, but
for the Church and the state to be under God.
That's the difference in the In the papal model, there
is a single headed eagle that is embodied in the
person of the pope, with temporal and spiritual supremacy. In
the Byzantine double headed model, which is the entire history
of Byzantium, it's church and state in their relative spheres.
And that's why it was such a revolution for Dictatus,
Pope and for Unham's sanctum to now positive that salvation
requires submission to the temporal supremacy of the Roman bishop.
Speaker 2: So what authority what authority then does the Eastern patriarch
have over the emperor or over local government, say, does
does he have any authority and the bishops have anythority over.
Speaker 1: So the ideal situation of simponia is that the bishops
and the church have authority in the spiritual realm, and
so they could conceivably, in an ideal city setting, remove
or reject or excommunicate, say a heterodox emperor. And there
are situations where that happened. We did have, how to
emperors at times that were considered to be expert for example,
they're iconoclass emperors, and much of the Church rejected them,
although much of the church unfortunately fell to those heresies.
But for example, the ecumenical councils, they're all called by emperors.
And so clearly, and now I'm not saying that's necessarily ideal,
because eventually, when we have, you know, heterodox emperors, this
becomes a difficulty because it comes a challenge. Now, the
Church didn't even in the East, didn't totally succumb to
heterodox emperors, or else we would all be iconoclass and
so forth. But the point I'm making is that the
mere fact that all the Ecumenical councils are literally called
by the emperors, and even the Fifth Council is essentially
it's essentially Justinian telling Pope Vigilius what to do. He says,
you will submit to the decision of the council. And
Pope Vigilious doesn't say I'm above you, I have the
spiritual authority. You're out of here. He submits. Now, whether
you think that's wrong or right, it at least shows
that at that time operant in the Fifth Ecumenical Council,
where by the way they teach pentharchy, the Fifth Ecumenical
Council says there is a pentarchy. The Pope didn't have
a problem at that time with pentarchy. The Pope submits
to the decision of the council and of Saint Justinian. Now, again,
whether that's wrong or right, it shows that the mindset
of the church at that time at least is not
the mindset of dictatis pope and unam sanctum. That the
temporal supremacy the Roman bishop is just obviously self evident,
de facto and necessary for salvation.
Speaker 2: So if the so, if the Patriarch of Constantinople is
is is living within a Christian state, and say the
patriarch of Constantinople or an Eastern bishop says to that state,
who's the is? Are you in communion with Eastern Orthodoxy?
Are you You're not in communion with the Russian patriarch? Right?
Speaker 1: Or no? I attend the ro Court Church. I am
in communion with the MP.
Speaker 2: Okay, all right, So let's say I forgot his name patriarch,
I forgot I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Kirol is the Russian MP, and Bartholomew is the EP.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I knew Bartholomew. So let's say, does does does patriarch?
Does the Patriarch of Russia have any authority over right?
Now the president putin at all? Like if he excommunicates,
he has the authority to excommunicate Putin right? Or would
you say no?
Speaker 1: I mean again, ideally the church does have that spiritual authority. Absolutely.
Now are there situations in church history where you could
have bishops installed by and manipulated by the state. Absolutely.
This is a thing that's happened many, many times in
church history in the East and in the West. For example,
German kings for an entire century installed who was pope.
So if this is not something unique to the East,
is very common in the East and the West.
Speaker 2: Sorry I might have asked that wrong, but I'm asking
that if the patriarch of Russia has an authority to
determine matters of faith and morals for Russia and the
president of Russia, and let's say they're living in a
Christenum kind of thing right where it's a Christian community. See,
I would see if the patriarch says, hey, marriage is
between a man and a woman, so you need to
reverse this decision that's on the books. I want you
President Putin to do that, and does he have does
he have that authority which I would see as as
kind of a as a temporal authority. This is why
I think we might be talking past each other with
what do we mean by temporal authority? Right?
Speaker 1: So again I would say that yes, the Again, the church,
and by the way, the church is not just sort
of like patriarchs are not little popes. They have canonical
privileges within their jurisdictions, and they may have large jurisdictions
and a lot of influence, but they're still part of
a synod. And so one big difference between the Orthodox
Church and the Rome Mecalloic Church is that the Orthodox
Church is far more decentralized than it is centralized. So
even patriarchs are very limited by decisions of and the
participation and the college. You could say, of the rest
of the bishops in their synod, we would say that's
really just the ancient model of the church. But so ideally,
again setting aside the possibility of the state, you know,
influencing bishops or KGB bishops during the Cold War and
this kind of stuff, ideally the position is that, yes,
the Church has the authority to say any state ruler
or king or president or whatever is excommunicated and is
in error if he does something like that. Right, they
have that authority.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: And so for if kirole writes a letter or sends
out an encyclical and says, you know, we reaffirm the
traditional teaching that marriage is between men and a woman,
and we reject you know, president whoever, let's say Putin
decides he's pro gay or something, we reject this decision
and he must return to the Orthodox faith. In the
position of marriage between men and a woman. That isn't
anything to do with the church having suddenly temporal authority.
They're still in their sphere. And because the Church, the
spiritual authority, is superior to the temporal authority, it doesn't
mean that the Church now becomes a civil authority, you see,
because there's still those spheares. And that's precisely the canonical
limitations that Calcidon is laying out. Chalcodon is saying that
it makes no sense for clergy to be state rulers
or to have jobs in the state, meaning, uh, cleric
shouldn't be going to war. They don't have standing armies,
which the papacy eventually has, by the way, in the
Alexander Pope Alexander. So all these violations revolve around the
violations of the spheres. But having spheres doesn't mean that
you can't speak to the state or tell the state
it ought to be doing those things. In fact, that's
what your duty is.
Speaker 2: Okay. So I don't know where necessarily I disagree. I mean,
I like what you're saying.
Speaker 1: Let me restate the question, and I'm not trying to
be rude, but like I want an answer to where
in the first seven centuries of the Church fathers, is
there anything like what you're saying of a Bishop of
Rome or any bishop taking on temporal authority and power.
Speaker 2: I don't think you see the Bishop of Rome. Now
I'm not a church historian, I'm not well as well
versed as you are in this, but I don't think
I see the pope taking on a temporal authority in
the way that you're describing. I think I'm having trouble
understanding what.
Speaker 1: But the way that I'm describing was the descriptions of
Dictatus pape and Unum sanctum. That's the medieval Roman Catholic
papal definitions of what temporal supremacy means on the part
of the Roman bishop.
Speaker 2: I think that I think that it depends if the
pope is going to claim temporal authority, just make a
broad claim. Jesus Christ has all authority in heaven and
on earth. The Pope's going to say he's the chief steward.
But it's going to look different when you have those
in society that are either a society made up of
the Catholic laity Christian laity, or a society that's not
made up of the Christian laity, So why so the
church winn't Okay, so hope isn't going in the first
several centuries, the pope.
Speaker 1: Is not going to make no claim again Chalcidon is
four fifty one, fifty four to fifty one. We're at
the period where there is even post Theodosias and explicit
least somewhat Catholic we would say orthodox Catholic. And let
me read Canon seven of Calcadon again. We have decreed
that those have been enrolled in the clergy or become
monastics shall neither accept military charge nor any secular dignity.
If they presume to do so and they do not repent,
they are anathematized as Canon seven of Chalcedon. That's explicitly
in a period where there is profuse Christianization of the
Roman Empire, maybe not total, but very widespread, clearly canonical
limitations on clergy being involved in state positions.
Speaker 2: Okay, but I don't think that when the Pope Jesus
Christ is exercising his earthly authority through the Bishop of Rome,
through the bishops, through the Catholic Lady, so the Church
is exercising a temporal authority a temple puttestos or octoorisos
through the Catholic laity. And this is what I said
in my video, that the pope is not taking on
a temporal secular office, secular dignity, or a military but
he is. No, he is.
Speaker 1: But I'm not trying to be rude, but like Dictatus
Pope explicitly says that he is. And when I'm saying
yeah so, and when I'm psyched, him explicitly says that
if you do not accept that temporal power and authority,
you're not saved. So Dictatus Pope, which is under Gregory
the seventh, ten ninety, this is registered in the papal registry.
At that time. There wasn't such a thing at that
time as far as we know, as anything like an
official Execantheti's statement. There was just what was called a
papal registry. And I'll read the dictates of Diktata's poppy
in ten ninety. The Roman Church is founded by God alone.
The Roman pontiff alone is called universal. The Roman pontiff
alone can reinstate bishops in a council his league eate,
even if a lower grade is above all bishops, and
can pass a sentence and deposition of any bishop. The
Pope may depose those that are out that, among other things,
we ought to remain in the same not ought not
to remain in the same house with anyone excommunicated by
the Pope. That it is alone alone lawful for according
to the needs of the time, the Pope to make new
laws and assemble congregations, to make new abbey's canonry and
other operations, including the enriched new bishoprics, or unite the
poor bishoprics. He alone may use and wear the imperial
insignia the Pope alone, of the Pope alone, shall all
princes kiss his feet, that his name alone shall be
spoken in all the churches. This is the only name
in the world. It is permitted to the pope alone
to depose emperors. It is permitted to the bope pope
alone to transfer bishops if needed. The Pope alone has
the power to ordain a cleric of any church as
he may wish. Now you understand that prior to this,
it wasn't the papist, the papacy that ordained all bishops
in the world. Right, Yeah, So now keep it. There's more,
because it goes on to say, no one may judge
the first sea, no one can be condemned to appeals
to the apostolic chair. The Roman pontiff alone can make
all of these decisions without any consent of a subordinate.
The Roman pope alone can oppose and reinstate bishops without
any synod. It goes on and on on. It's essentially
more and more of the same. But the point is
that you have very clearly the first time. And by
the way, this is not just my opinion. If you
read de Vornik, if you read Kongar and nine hundred
years together, or after nine hundred years, if you read Sashensky,
who eventually was a Catholic solular that became Orthodox, they
will all. If you read Papacy in the Orthodox, all
of these texts, including the Papadocus mind Orf History of
the Church in Middle Ages, all of these texts from
Uniate and Orthodox scholars of this period will admit that
dictatus pope was the normative mindset of the Roman Catholic
Church in the eleventh century in the Gregorian reforms. So
this is particularly the shift period where the church is
moving out of a collegial sonodal model that you see
even up into the seventhda Medical Council, where they still
talk about pentarchy. Now it's becoming a sole a talk
autocratic model. And it's not accidental that at this time
period is when you have these outrageous claims of temporal
power and supremacy, which I would argue really come to
a full fruition A couple centuries later in Unum signed
them the thirteen oh two Bowl of Pope Bonifice the eight,
which argues that all of those temporal claims that the
pope has authority over all, emperors can depose it will.
And this is precisely what leads Alexander and other Renaissance
popes to have standing armies. It's because of Unum signed them,
and they based these things on Samachian forgeries donation of
constant to things that were forgeries. So how at all
can any of that be justified in the first eight
centuries of Christian theology and churches.
Speaker 2: So I think you and I are disagreeing. What I see.
What I think I'm disagreeing with you on is that
to claim temporal authority does not equal or automatically mean
that one is holding to a secular office or secular
dignity So what I see happening in these documents is
exactly what you had read, which is that the pope
has authority over a legitimate society, which is the Church,
and when secular rulers the laity. When when those secular
rulers are the laity, they have authority over them, and
so they can depose emperors and in that sense they
have temporal authority, But the pope is not by deposing
an emperor then becoming an emperor. So I see this
is why I think that it can choose. Ecclesiology is
helpful here because it puts it when we say that
the Church has secular has has spiritual and temporal authority. Yes,
the pope has it, but in terms of temporal, earthly
authority that is exercised through the Catholic lady and union
with the pope.
Speaker 1: Okay, so when we get to Alexander and the Renaissance, Borgia,
et cetera, medici era of the papacy and the pope
has standing armies, you don't think that has anything to
do with these documents.
Speaker 2: Well, I wouldn't necessarily. I mean, I think it's a
good challenge that you're bringing up, Jay, But I don't,
I mean, because then I would have to say, I mean,
what are the I mean, the pope has a secret service,
The Pope still owns private property, the Pope is still
the sovereign over the two and a half square miles
that he's in. I mean, well, but that he.
Speaker 1: Does these things, how does that prove that it's that
it should be done. I agree he does and has
all these things, but what does that have to do
with whether it's it's right.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry, could you reac could you ask the question.
Speaker 1: That the pope has these things we don't disagree on,
but my challenge is should the pope do and have
these things? Is the challenge?
Speaker 2: Yeah? So you're saying that when the Council in its
case and says that that that no religious cleric should
should hold a secular office, right military Otherwise that when
the pope is owning a piece of property and then
making himself basically a secular sovereign over the two and
a half square miles.
Speaker 1: No over all emperors in the world.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I know, but I'm just in reality the emperors
in the world.
Speaker 1: The problem is not the church owning property, obviously the
Moscow patriarch. It owns many, many properties, properties and monasteries
and cathedrals, has a lot of money. The problem is
not the owning of property. The problem is affairs of
the state, and that sphere now being the job of
the papacy, such that by the time of the Middle Ages,
the Renaissance era, you actually have like geopolitical world power operatives. Right,
We've got spies, we've got assassins, We've got all this
stuff going on in the Borgia period even up to today.
Now I know you've had You've had talks with your
buddy Tim Flanders, and Tim has done interviews with David Wimhoff,
who's five hundred page book I've lectured through and talked
about for many years, John Courtney Murray, the CIA Time
Life magazine, the relationship between the CIA and the Vatican,
particularly a Vatican two, and part of the thesis of
that book. I'm not saying it's true because Tim Flanders interviewed.
I'm just saying that there is this is not outlandish.
Part of the thesis of that book is that at
the time of Vatican Two, for example, there was such
a tight relationship between the Council fathers, at least many
of them and the CIA that is very difficult to
divorce the decisions of the Second Acumenical Council, of the
Psychomatican Council, and what the designs of the ci I
were at that time. That to me, that's another example
of Cicero Papism, or perhaps Papalo Csrism, because the CIA
is really telling, you know, many of the popes at
that time and what to do. Now. I don't want
to deflect off into Batican two, but let me give
you another type of example to demonstrate this. And there's
a great chapter on this. I know you might not
agree with it, but Papadacus and Mayandorf of a great
book called the Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy.
And the reason this book is so good is that
it's treating precise to this period of ten seventy one
to fourteen fifty three, which is where we really see
the pivoting between East and West going in different directions.
We would argue the East goes in the continuation of
what the mindset of the Church of the first millennium was,
with so noidality, and we would argue that the Western
Latin Church, the Latin Franco papal church goes in the
direction of this sort of papal geopolitical power and monarchy.
The end of this chapter discussing the gregoring reforms of
the eleventh and twelfth century and on into even later
popes who went even further than gravy the seventh did.
There was a rise of something very new called the
fighting orders, the monastic fighting orders. And this is something
very new, and what Papa Doocus and Mandorf argue is
that post Dick Taught is pope. This allowed the papacies
to essentially create, although not yet a full on standing army,
monastic warrior monks who would be really the monk knight
armies of the papacy. And so originally I'm not saying
that they are. Now, I know, we all know the
history of the Templars, I think, but originally the Templars
and their history and the knights hospital and so forth
were actually to be agents knights and warrior monks of
the papacy. Now, maybe you think that's cool or whatever.
There's I mean, it's from a literary perspective, I guess
it's kind of cool. But did you notice that at
Chalcadon all monastics are forbidden from any kind of warfare
or anything like this. Now, whether you think it's right
or wrong, does it not at least show a vast
shift in the eleventh century to have warrior fighting monks
that are the agents of the pope. Does that not
show a big difference between the way the Church in
the first thousand years viewed monasticism. Are you there? You're muted,
so I don't know if you if something got muted,
I can't hear you.
Speaker 2: All right, I apologize, I can hear you. Yeah, I
don't know the history as well as you, so I
don't really feel like I should comment on it. But
it does seem, you know, interesting that the pope says, hey,
you know you religious? Can you read the canon one
more time and say what it is so I can
have it in front of me specifically what it is?
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's it's history, right.
Speaker 2: This is a doctrinel.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean all the canons of the councils are
potentially doctrinal and or disciplinary. Really depends on which canon
it is and what it's about. Uh, But this is
specifically Canon seven of the Council of Calcidon, And I
would add that it's not the only canon like this,
it's just one of their earliest and clearest, which says,
we have decreed that those who have been enrolled amongst
the clergy or have become monastics, that they shall neither
accept military charge nor any secular dignity. If they presume
to do so, and do not repent in such a
wise to turn again to what they had first chosen
for the love of God, they shall be anathematized. And
so this is we would say. And this, by the way,
this canon and others are part of what forms the
Byzantine model of the relationship of church and state. So
maybe we're getting we were getting confused earlier about when
you say the temporal power. Maybe you thought that meant
like anything relating to the temporal. What I meant was
the state, the imperium. And so in the Byzantine model,
the state ruler is seen to be a diaconos, a
deacon of a sort, because Paul and roman Is thirteen
says the Roman emperor is a diaconos, which is why
in the Eastern tradition he can actually go behind the altar.
He has a seat back there with the clergy. The
emperor does I like that. Yeah, yeah, and that's intended
to show the businessing model is that the state ruler
is an icon of God and should be an icon
of the Church and of Christ as much as the
people in the church and the members of the church
and the clergy should be icons of God. That's the goal.
The ideal doesn't mean it's gonna always happen, but that's
what we're shooting for. However, that doesn't mean that the
church becomes the state or the state becomes the church.
So there is we would argue again, two heads. The
heads are not supposed to be melded into a big
papal head. They're different spheres. And this is really the
model that you see in the first thousand years. And
that's why I keep pointing to that eleventh century period
where even the Orthodox and Uniate scholars admit there's a
huge shift. I mean, I.
Speaker 2: Like a lot of what you're saying, even the point
about the deacons, I mean, clergy still can't run for
office today, right, they're not allowed to. Actually deacons are
allowed to. Right, the mayor of Downey, the mayor of
Downey was a deacon of the Catholic Well, this.
Speaker 1: Is this is the actually difference between Orthodox and Catholics.
For the Orthodox, deacons are actually part of the priesthood.
And uh, I don't think in the Roman Catholic view
deacons have any role of priesthood. But for Orthodox deacons
are part of the priesthood.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't think deacons would be part of the
clergy in the Catholic a Catholic understanding. But which is
why you know the Canon seven would would exclude the clergy,
and it does. It does say monks there too, so
very fact that they they they call fourth as you
said that you have these monk like armies. Now I
do know that. You know, there's this what's this book called?
It's really good? Uh it's called since you're bringing up
books here, Uh, monasticism. It's about monasticism and the the
martial elements of monasticism. Uh. Sorry one second, if I
could get it where it's at. Uh whatever, But it's
it talks about how Actually, let me see, I'll look
up the book. Uh who is it by? What's her name?
Bear with me here for a second.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's fine. While you're doing that, somebody said, what
about the lower orders and clergy? No, so readers in
the Orthodox Church are not members of the priesthood. The
first order of priesthood Orthodox Church is the d'ac in it.
Hence why for example, it's not in the Orthodox Church,
is not wrong to call a deacon father deacon, right,
that's that's fairly common in certain jurisdictions. But a reader, No,
a reader is not part of the priesthood. And in
the Orthodox view, this has to do with who and
what can do things, that can do things at the
altar or behind the econostasis. Right, So readers they don't
go and touch the Eucharist and this kind of stuff
because they're not part of the priest in the Orthodox Church.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So Catherine alan Binem and I don't say this
to make any any point towards my argument, but she
has a really good book called War and the Making
of Medieval Monastic Culture, and it's a it's actually a
book that's influenced me a lot, even in terms of
my ecclesiology, because I think that when you look at
the rise of early monasticism and war, because many of
these monks, like Saint Anthony, many of them were soldiers,
that after they retired from being soldiers, they became monks,
and so you have basically what she does. It's the
subtitle is uh, I can't see the subtitle. It's just
it's more in the making a monastic culture. There is
no subtitle. And but she tracks it from the early centuries,
early on, like right out of the Gates, first second century,
and then she goes all the way through medieval monasticism.
And she points out that a lot of these soldiers
that are retiring from military active duty, they would go
and join the monastery. And so what it ended up
because there were so many what it ended up doing
is creating within monastic culture, like even Saint Benedict, right,
a former soldier who is one of the founders of
early monasticism, and his shield, you know, his his his
emblem of you know what, get behind me, Satan. What
you offer me is the evil drink, the poison yourself.
You know, that's his in Latin, that's his, that's on
his his what do you call it symbol, his crest.
And the whole idea is that you have within monasticism,
just this idea of it's a battle against the dark powers.
And what she draws out is all of the analogies
between that they used in taking all of their military
experience and then transferring it into the monastic spiritual fight.
So I'm not surprised that it could have been the case. Again,
you know the history better than me that if the
pope is going to call forth a military, if many
of those guys are that know how to fight are
in the in the monastery, he might have to pull
them out of.
Speaker 1: And again, but that's the whole point of what I'm
trying to say, is that the pope is not supposed
to call for standing armies, crusades, all this stuff. And
note that my objection has not what but.
Speaker 2: I think he can? He can, he can't. He does
have a certain authority where he could he could deem
something as as a holy war, call for Catholics to
take up arms, and because they are the laity, he
has a kind of authority or.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean yeah, but that's the whole thing that's
in question. So you keep saying that, well, he has
this authority. I think he has this authority. I haven't
granted that he ever has that authority. And again, the
attitude of the Church of the first seven eighth centuries
is that no cleric has that authority. You don't see
anything like that. There's absolutely nothing like that at all
until the period that we've been discussing about eleven twelve
thirteenth century. That's the first time we see that. And
it's not accidental that we see that in absolute concord
with the time where the papacy begins to make these
outrageous dictatus pap claims, because it is now becoming a worldly,
geopolitical institution that has nothing to do with other Jesus
has authority in the temporal sphere, which we all agree,
but we would argue that Jesus established limitations for what's
appropriate for the state to do and what's appropriate for
the Church to do. So for example, the church can't
come in and tell the state, I want you to
go attack all of my enemies. I'm the pope, and
if you don't, I'll ex communicate you, which is what
the Borgia posts did. Likewise, the state can't come in
and say I mandate that you teach arianism because I'm
the emperor and you must do what I say. There's
limitations to both of these spears, and anytime one overlaps
or takes over the other one, you get this aberration,
which is precisely what we would say that last thousand
years of Rome is. And I don't know if you've
read the Alexandria Document from the Vatican in regards to
the Eastern churches, but the Alexandria Document admits many of
these critiques that the East has had for so many years.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, I know the document points out many of
the many of the erroneous documents that were forgeries, you know.
But but what what I think. I think that it's
not just the whole idea of temporal power that I
think is where we're disagreeing. I think it's like when
you say stuff that like this is not the job
of the papacy. You said that earlier, and I agree,
that's the job of the laity. But I think that
the the the laity, just from a Catholic perspective. I
know you disagree with this, but this is just how
it's working out in my mind. Right. The laity are
under the pope, and the pope and the bishops have
this teaching authority that extends not just to supernatural revelation
that we couldn't know on our own right, but natural revelation,
not even the natural moral law, and so as the laity,
the pope does have authority to define matters of morals
that will impact how I govern and what kind of
how I govern my particular state and the laws that
I'm going to implement. When the bishop, the USCCB, or
the pope says something specific about some moral issue, it's it,
and it's somewhat definitive. It's not just you know, a
recommendation or something or some off the cuff mark. Then
he does have some authority when they say that abortion
is abortion is wrong, that that has some sort of authority,
some sort of play in a when you have a
laity that is in charge. And so, like you said,
what the church can do and what the state can do,
And what I'm struggling with, Jay, is that what happens
when the state is made up of the church. So
I want to see the church as not just the pope,
not just the pope. The church is not just the pope,
and it's not just the bishops. It's the laity as well.
And so when you say what the church can do
and with the state can do, it's like, well, there
are Catholics in the state, and so the Catholics are
making in a units society. Where you have a Christian society,
the Catholics are the state. And so therefore because the
Catholic laity are part of the Church and they make
up the state, it gets very difficult to to kind
of make the distinction or division that I feel like
you kind of now.
Speaker 1: But you say, again, this is already the situation in
say the centuries of four fifty to say nine hundred.
The majority of the empire is already Christian. We already
have a succession now of Byzantine emperors who are at
least somewhat Christian, and perhaps even possibly saints if we
talk about Saint Justinian, and so we already have this
model the situation there. It's not something that we have
to figure out retroactively century later. It's already there in
these centuries. And we have this double headed Egle model
for a reason because it's exactly the model that it's
exactly the model that you see in the councils, particularly four, five, six, seven,
and the way they speak of the relationship between the
Church and the states. So it's not a mystery you
have that as the normative guiding principle. The double headed
Egle model, and then we get a radical alteration in
the eleventh twelve thirteenth century in the West where they
go a different pathway. So the difference between what you
just laid out, which a lot of it sounds good
and you're saying, yeah, but the pope is just kind
of speaking to Catholic laity, so by necessity there's going
to kind of be you know, Catholic wars and Catholic rulers. No, no,
that's not what's in question with dictatus pope and when
I'm sanctum, this is the pope now going beyond that
and saying, because of the donation of cons in the
Samakian forgeries, I now am the emperor of emperors. That's
different than saying that the Church can speak to the
state and tell them that they're wrong about you know,
gay marriage or whatever. This is the pope saying I
am the emperor of emperors. I'm not just the head
of the Church. I am the emperor of emperors. You
don't see that. That's like vastly different than the model
of bishops or even the papacy earlier in the sixth
seventh century speaking to and telling emperors that they're heretics,
and that they're excommunicated. It's a step further to say
that I am also the king of kings and emperor
of emperors, and I can call armies and do what
I list.
Speaker 2: Well, I think because Jesus has that authority, and he
exercises it through the papers. He exercises that teaching authority. Again,
how does Jesus? I think the question comes down to
the relationship between the clergy and the lady. And this
is why I asked you earlier. What kind of authority
does patriarch Bartholom, you or any other patriarch have over
And I know they're not little popes, but they do
have authority over the laity, the Orthodox laity that are
in their region that are rulers.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they can excommunicate. They have a spiritual power. But
that does not mean that here's the false enough, here's
the analogy. Yeah, here's the analogy. Here's where the analogy
would break down. It would be like Kirol saying I
am also the Emperor of Russia. That's the breakdown of
the analogy. So we agree that the church can tell
the state things and they have a power to excommunicate
a king or a president or a rule or whatever.
But the difference is that Kiro can't come in and
say I am the emperor of all Russia. Is that some.
Speaker 2: Point, Yeah, I don't think the pope is is. I
think it just depends on it.
Speaker 1: It depends on Have you read sanctum the wording of um.
Speaker 2: Yes, I have, I haven't read it in a while.
I mean, we could go through it if you want.
Speaker 1: Right, Well, it says, particularly at the end, if you
do not accept and remember the context was the Pope
being imprisoned and this kind of stuff at the time.
And the statement at the end is that if you
do not accept that the terrestrial power is underneath the
petrine and spiritual power to the extent that the Pope
is also a temporal ruler, you are excommunicated. And my
challenge is that this is never taking Well, it's kind
of long. I don't mind reading it, but perhaps not
the whole thing.
Speaker 2: Not the whole thing, but if you have the specific line.
Speaker 1: It's the last leste. According to Blessed Dionysius, the law
of the divinity is that the lowest things reach the
highest places by intermediaries. Then, according to the order of
the universe. All things are not led back to the
order equally and immediately, but the lowest by the intermediary,
and the inferior by the superior. Hence, we must recognize
more clearly that the spiritual power possesses indignity and nobility,
any temporal power whatever. So notice the argument is that
because the spiritual is above the temporal, therefore the spiritual
has any temporal power whatsoever, since spiritual things surpassed the temporal.
This we see very clearly also by the payment benediction
and consecration of the tithes, but the acceptance of power
itself by the government even of things. For with truth
as our witness, it belongs to the spiritual power to
establish the earthly power and to pass judgment on it
if it has not been good. Thus is accomplished by
the prophecy of Jeremiah concerning the Church and the Church power.
Behold today, I have placed you over kingdoms, nations and
kingdoms and the rest. So notice the prophecy of the
Church and the prediction of Christ there is applied now
to the pope the Jeremiah passage, as if that's telling
the pope that he has the ability to be a
geopolitical world power and emperor. Right, that would argue that's
totally out of context, not at all. What what No,
it is not arguing that. It is arguing that Jeremiah
is telling the church and predicting the church to have
temporal power. Thus the next but that's not what that
Jeremiah passage is about. And it's not saying that the
pope can be a global world emperor. None of these
passages say that. That's the false conclusion. Now let me
I'll finish this this a little bit more. Therefore, if
the terrection, no, it's talking about the papacy having these power,
that's where it goes next.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Jeremiah, Jeremiah's talking to you hold today, I've placed
you over nations in other kingdoms. That's that's in referrats
in Jesus.
Speaker 1: I know that. But the argument of this passage is
that therefore it is also in the papacy. That's the
whole argument of this and cyclical or dogmatic statement. Yeah,
because well yeah, okay, so that's that was my point.
Now let me finish. There's a little bit more. Therefore,
if the terrestrial power errs, it will be judged by
the spiritual power. If a minor spiritual power error, it
will be judged by the superior spiritual power spiritual power.
If the highest power of all errors the pope, it
can only be judged by God and not by man.
According to the testimony of the Apostle, the spiritual man
judges all things, although he himself is judged by no
man First Corinthians two fifteen. This authority, however, though it
has been given to man and is exercised by man,
is not human, but it is divine, and it is
granted to Peter by a divine word reaffirmed to him
Peter and his successors, by whom Jesus said, whatever you
bind on earth, that would beyond in heaven Matthew sixteen nineteen. Therefore,
whoever resists this power, which is ordained by God, resists
the power and ordinance of God. Romans thirteen two. Even
though Romans thirteen is about the temporal state power, the
papacy is here saying that the state the papacy has
that state power unless he invent, like Manichius two eternal beginnings,
which is a false and heretical thing judged by us.
According to the testimony of Moses, it is not the beginnings,
but in the beginning that God created the heaven and
the earth Genesis one. Therefore we declare it, and we
proclaim and we define that it is absolutely necessary for
salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman pontiff.
That means you have to accept this document's teaching of
temporal supremacy to be saved.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but here's what I here's what I here's if
you if you read it slowly again, you can tell
you can see that what he's what he's drawing on
is the analogy between the soul and the body, the
body and the soul, which is exactly what Uh well,
I don't.
Speaker 1: Be able, but I don't grant any of that that
that has anything to do with the papacy being a
world emperor, because the body soul analogy is used by
other church fathers to talk about the relationship of church
to state, not that the church is the state. And
that's precisely where but.
Speaker 2: No, I'm sorry, go ahead, I interrupted you, sir.
Speaker 1: That's precisely where this document and others in the medieval
frame go Latin papal tradition are taking this line of argumentation.
They're saying that because the church is above the state,
it therefore is all saying, can be the state. That's
the problem.
Speaker 2: Okay, So it would be like saying, Look, what you're
saying is that the intellect and the will govern the
lower passions. And what the Pope is saying is that
the intellect and the will are the passions. But the
intellect and the will can't be the passions because for
the first several hundred years of Church history, we've always
understood that the intellect and the will are distinct from
the passions, or are separate from the passions. And I
think what the Pope is saying here is that the
spiritual power, the soul, the intellect, and the will rule
and govern the passions the lower the body is No.
Speaker 1: That is not all that's being said. He is saying that.
Now listen, he is saying that because the church above
the state, it is also a state. That is what
he's saying. And that's why the papacy becomes a state
and eventually has a giant Vatican Bank and an intelligence
network and spies and assassins and warrior monks and all
the standing armies, all the things that states have.
Speaker 2: Well, I think I think the church is the state,
it's the laity, and I think this is no.
Speaker 1: The church is not the state in Chalcedon, and that's
why there's a distinction between clergy and you can't be
in the state. So you're doing the very thing that
is the thing that is the problem, saying that the
church is a state. It is not a state.
Speaker 2: So you're saying that the Calciton Canon seven is saying
that the church has no business in the state because
of clergy, which are one.
Speaker 1: The church members cannot take on roles of the state,
and to call standing armies and to be the emperor
of emperors is to be a state. The papacy becomes
the papal states.
Speaker 2: You said church members cannot be part of the state,
and what I want to say is that no clergy.
Speaker 1: Clergy cannot be the state. Church members absolutely should be
in the state. The state has a duty to God
and to the Church. That does not make the church
the state.
Speaker 2: Well, it doesn't make the church equated with the state,
but it means that there are people that are part
of the church, the lady.
Speaker 1: But these documents make the church the state. It makes
the Vatican a geopolitical world state, which it is still.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I just I don't think. Yeah, I'm just going
to keep repeating what I'm saying, So I don't know
how we gain ground here. I think that the body
soul analogy that the popes are drawing on in Unam
Sanctum and Immortal Day and other places is kind of
what I would just rest.
Speaker 1: But the body right, So the body being subject to
the soul right, having those lower passions right, does not
make the soul a body. That's the point I'm trying
to make. They're they're they're distinct. Yeah, they have a relationship,
they have a synergized interconnected they should be working and
speaking together. And certainly the spiritual is above the temporal.
But none of that makes the spiritual the temporal. That's
the point, and the papal model does that is what
I'm trying to say.
Speaker 2: Well, I think that, Yeah, when you use words that
I am the Emperor of emperors, you know it if
he it depends on what he means by that. He
means that he is the he is the spiritual power,
and in that sense he governs, he is the head
over all of the lower passions the body itself. Then
you know that makes sense, and that's consistent if he
means that literalistically, that he himself health is now taking on,
as you said, a secular office.
Speaker 1: I think that that's not even in question. I think
pretty much any scholar Uni eight Roman Catholic of this
period will admit that that that's what happens, particularly post
Tic Tatus Pope into the you know, Renaissance, Porsia Morgia papacy,
That's exactly what happens.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, this is this is challenging for me.
So what I'll do is I'll have to go back
and and I'll message you for some more resources. I'll
look at these specific cases that you're talking about. Again,
like I said in my beginning of the beginning of
my video, what you're bringing up is not something Catholics
should shy away from and say this is Jay trolling Catholics.
This is something Catholics absolutely need to press into and
not run from. So what I'll do is what I
would what I would say is send me what you
have specifically about the kind of claims the papacy is making. Right,
I'll look more into it, and then either I'll come
back on first stream or I might even do a
video you know response.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no, that'd be great. And by the way, I've
got your video links. So if people want to see
the initial response that Chris gave, it is in the
show description. If you guys are interested, to be sure
and follow him. His channel is linked as Christopher Plants
in the show description there. Specifically, I would say that
a couple of books that I think really treat this
issue very well would be not the whole book, but
maybe the first one hundred pages of Christian East in
the Rise of the Papacy by Mayandorphan Papadoccus, and then
Papacy and Orthodox by Sushensky. Really just the first half
of this book, so you wouldn't have to read this
entire thing, just the first I don't know, hundred and
ninety pages would be good. So those are probably two
of the best that I could think of right away.
Like I said, there's others that would be good to
de Vornick's Foshen Schism book is good.
Speaker 2: I don't Okay, I'm going to get I'm going to
get these books per your recommendation.
Speaker 1: Sure, Okay, well, hey, I appreciate you coming on.
Speaker 2: Yeah, did you want evidence that from uh, like uh,
doctrinal dogmatic evidence or are you looking for evidence uh
from the church fathers in general? Like sort of are
you saying, Chris, give me one church father or are
you saying give me something from a council or what not?
Speaker 1: Anything I mean, I'm I mean any if there's if
there's any evidence that isn't and I'm not trying to
be crude or rude that's not a forgery. Maybe there
is something out there. I don't know, I'm not aware
of it, but I've not seen anything on this specific
issue that that addresses this in the first eight centuries
about temporal supremacy. Now, maybe because the Papal States arises
within this timeframe, there may be popes who have said
something like, you know, we do have this authority. But again,
as far as I'm aware, when that does come up,
it's usually referencing, you know, things that are forgeries. So
if there's something that's a non forgery evidence, I would
be very interested in that.
Speaker 2: Okay, cool, Yeah, I'll keep doing research and I'll see
what I can find and and you know, reach out
to you. But I thinks thanks for challenging challenging me
on this and especially bringing up these important documents that
I think that Catholics need to take seriously.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. Yeah, and we didn't get into a lot of
the you know, the specifics of like Dignitatis humani. But
to be a little more precise on that topic, which
you did allude to many of those documents, I would
argue that, you know, Syllabus of Errors mortall Day, a
lot of those Vatican one era documents that are condemning liberalism.
I think even Paceendi touches on this a little bit.
I think those also spill over into this question of uh,
you know, Vatican two Dignititadas Humane and even the Decree
on Religious on a Humanism and other things. I think
they go really far in the other direction of religious
liberty that in my view, does contradict the things that
are said in those papal documents around the time of
Vatican One. Now maybe you would disagree, but maybe next
time we can get into more of the Vatican two
type stuff. If you want to come back.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, totally. I've really enjoyed this and thanks so
much for having me on, and I would love to
come back. I mean, you've been such a great host
and like I said, I love that you challenge us
on this, and I need to look more into the
stuff that you were saying, and I'll try to get
back to you. I think it's important enough to spend
time looking into it, so I'll get those two books
and then i'll message you some more stuff and you
can yeah, you know,