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