Speaker 1: S S.
Speaker 2: S S S S.
Speaker 1: S s.
Speaker 2: SS dire wave.
Speaker 3: Our anthropology is not derived by human psychology or you know,
Speaker 3: apirical data from M I T or something like this.
Speaker 3: It's derived from the revealed aspect of what we see
Speaker 3: in pristology. And so there's no real way to diagnose
Speaker 3: man's problem and understand man and man's anthropology, as I said,
Speaker 3: without the right theology, n a.
Speaker 4: Fuck instead of my hey, hey, you're live, so hold on.
Speaker 3: Sorry. By the way, you might want to change.
Speaker 4: It says your name to bust my your must hey,
Speaker 4: it says your name.
Speaker 3: You don't want to change?
Speaker 4: Excuse meet me repeat the can you hear me?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Sure, yeah, yeah, we can do it tonight. It's not
Speaker 1: a problem. Sorry for delaying, but yeah we still have
Speaker 1: to write that way before it's fall.
Speaker 3: Where you go?
Speaker 5: Sure, okay, all right, welcome to get another episode of
Speaker 5: Jay Analysis.
Speaker 3: We've got our friend Snack in the house. How you doing, Snack.
Speaker 1: Doing decently? Yeah, he's good, good.
Speaker 3: Well, Snack did a great video the other day, a
Speaker 3: brief rundown of the shock waves and cyclical that's going
Speaker 3: through the world causing such tremendous mystical unity at the
Speaker 3: highest levels the Roman Catholic world has demonstrated its fantabulous
Speaker 3: mystical unity with the Office of the Papacy and in
Speaker 3: particular the latest in cyclical snack.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, it's pretty good. It's on the defense. It's
Speaker 1: a new channel, that's your discood, is creative, a lot
Speaker 1: of good stuff, very concise, and I'm going to do
Speaker 1: a few more videos. It's is great and yeah, Fertilituti
Speaker 1: has been sending shock waves, but in another way, just
Speaker 1: confirming a lot of stuff. So we could see it
Speaker 1: coming very far. Actually predicted most of what's in there
Speaker 1: j before.
Speaker 3: Yeah you did you We we kind of saw this
Speaker 3: as the logical outworking of where Pacha Mama would go.
Speaker 3: Uh And so you know, we did a couple of
Speaker 3: streams last year around this time, covering as well as
Speaker 3: myself and Father Deacon. I'll have the link by the
Speaker 3: way to the channel where you covered the twenty minute
Speaker 3: analysis of the encyclical. But today maybe we'll get a
Speaker 3: little more in depth, put it into the bigger global
Speaker 3: context and see what we think is going on in
Speaker 3: the big picture here. I got pretty deep into it today.
Speaker 3: There's a little bit towards the end that I'm not
Speaker 3: finished with, and then cyclical, but I mean I got
Speaker 3: the gist of it, so we can definitely get into it.
Speaker 3: You want to start off with, first of all, maybe
Speaker 3: recap if you would, Pacha Mama and the Amazon Synod
Speaker 3: and why you would say this might be a logical
Speaker 3: extension of that, and then we'll get into the details
Speaker 3: of it.
Speaker 1: I mean, we should even understand how the Patcha Mamma
Speaker 1: seen it is an extension of Vatican too. So Vatican
Speaker 1: two took a step and open the door to say,
Speaker 1: you know, maybe maybe the Muslim maybe maybe the Pagans
Speaker 1: are the right in a sense, and Pata Mamma literally
Speaker 1: confirmed that, yes, the Pagans are right because, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: Earth Goddess is definitely the same typology as Mary God,
Speaker 1: which is a little bit of a stretch already.
Speaker 3: Right, and pagan sacrifice the goddess.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, And this is just just went went away
Speaker 1: further and said, well, uh, we're all brothers in a
Speaker 1: sense that we we can pray to the same God.
Speaker 1: And so that's the end and the ending statements actually prayers, uh,
Speaker 1: and we're gon we're going to cover that, but prayers
Speaker 1: that basically open an idea of communion that is just
Speaker 1: general Christian Treatyarian communion and communion with other just generic
Speaker 1: theistic or even Muslim generic monotheistic religion.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it begins with uh, Francis, and Francis obviously attached
Speaker 3: the significance to France France of ASSISI because of his name,
Speaker 3: Pope Francis. And you know, I just did a very
Speaker 3: long three hour stream covering the Malcolm Lambert book, most
Speaker 3: of which actually covered the spiritual Franciscans, the Fraticelli and
Speaker 3: the different heresies that actually spawned from Francis's movement, even
Speaker 3: condemned by the Vatican for a long time in those
Speaker 3: medieval centuries, and they were very much influenced by Gnostic ideas.
Speaker 3: Now I'm not saying necessarily Francis himself was a Gnostic.
Speaker 3: I personally think that Francis was not a saint obviously
Speaker 3: and had some very bizarre views. As an Orthodox person,
Speaker 3: we don't have that same reverence for Stigmata and these
Speaker 3: kind of this notion of that you have to become
Speaker 3: a little person who undergoes the sufferings of Christ to
Speaker 3: become a little Christ, right obviously, Yes, in orthodoxology, you
Speaker 3: have to be united to Christ and we do die
Speaker 3: with him to raise, to be raised with him, to
Speaker 3: participate in theosis. But there's this notion beyond that in
Speaker 3: the Franciscan Stigmata tradition, where you actually have to suffer
Speaker 3: the wounds of Christ to help fulfill the ministry of Christ. Right,
Speaker 3: and this is where Francis's in cyclical kind of takes
Speaker 3: off by saying, Look, you know what's the great thing
Speaker 3: that Francis Cisi taught us. It's brotherhood. So he begins
Speaker 3: with this kind of generic attitude of well, because we
Speaker 3: have kind of this generic father, we're all brothers. And
Speaker 3: this is shown by the fact that when Francis ASSISI
Speaker 3: went to the Sultan, he didn't try to debate, he
Speaker 3: didn't engage in an argument or a dispute. He was
Speaker 3: just friendly. Now, this is not exactly accurate. Even in
Speaker 3: Roman Catholic traditional theology. They don't have the attitude that
Speaker 3: Francis didn't try to convert Saracens. Actually he did. Now
Speaker 3: I'm not supporting Francis, I'm just saying that doesn't even
Speaker 3: match up to the traditional Roman Catholic narrative. Now, it's
Speaker 3: been twisted to where, look, we're past the period of
Speaker 3: doing apologetics. We don't do debates anymore. We don't engage
Speaker 3: in arguments and disputes. Rather, we just have to establish friendship.
Speaker 3: And so we see at the beginning of this cyclical
Speaker 3: valid ideas like friendship or camaraderie or human dignity are
Speaker 3: turned into these humanistic models of what now the social
Speaker 3: gospel is. I mean, the whole thing in the first
Speaker 3: ten pages reads like social gospel, which, as we will see,
Speaker 3: eventually kind of morphs into a not so subtle international
Speaker 3: quasi communism. So that's my initial take as he starts
Speaker 3: out with this story of how Francis did not engage
Speaker 3: in any disputes, apologetics or wars of words and doctrines,
Speaker 3: it's not even true in Roman Catho theology, and it's
Speaker 3: certainly not true in Orthodox theology.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly, he's taking premises that's okay, and just making
Speaker 1: a step further. But what we can see today is
Speaker 1: it was one of my great points is that you know,
Speaker 1: many people who say it's actually tried, there's actually a
Speaker 1: lot of stuff that's that's pretty great. It's pretty traditional. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's throwing a bone on one side, and it's making
Speaker 1: a step on the other side. And what step does
Speaker 1: he make exactly what you know, what people were thinking
Speaker 1: Pachmahma was about, or what people were thinking were defending
Speaker 1: Pachamama saying, oh, it's not about this. So that what's
Speaker 1: very interesting, because this is about building a new model
Speaker 1: step by step and creating a precedent. So I think
Speaker 1: he quotes something from from from previous, previous, and cyclical
Speaker 1: in this cyclical and at the time this was just
Speaker 1: you know, he threw a bone the other side and
Speaker 1: it just took this step. And now this step is
Speaker 1: the basis for the next step. So that's a you
Speaker 1: under a structure and you subvert it step by step,
Speaker 1: and and when when people will really want to defend it,
Speaker 1: just have to throw a bone the other way and
Speaker 1: the next and circle will be predicated on these being normative.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 3: Yeah, this is the papal bureaucratic two step that I've
Speaker 3: noticed for many years, which is the way that you
Speaker 3: keep the people in line is to throw both sides
Speaker 3: of the dialectical bone. Throw the trads a bone here
Speaker 3: and there, throw the liberals a bone here and there,
Speaker 3: and this is a very successful tactic really to keep
Speaker 3: things kind of you know, underneath one agis right. It's
Speaker 3: another version of false dialectic. But the Vatican's very good
Speaker 3: at that, at gradually moving the goalpost over many decades
Speaker 3: while in the midst of the present moment throwing bones
Speaker 3: to both sides, and then they can you know, it's
Speaker 3: almost like a version of the Overton window phenomenon, if
Speaker 3: you've heard of that. But I just like that. It's
Speaker 3: just ironic that out the outset, it's essentially a dismissal
Speaker 3: of apologetics under the guise of something that is true,
Speaker 3: humanitarian aid, this kind of stuff. God is love and
Speaker 3: you have to love people, not use words. Well, this
Speaker 3: is a false dialectic, right. Loving someone also entails telling
Speaker 3: them the truth. It also entails telling them, you know,
Speaker 3: faith comes by hearing, hearing by the word of God.
Speaker 3: They have to hear the message, they have to hear
Speaker 3: what Christ taught. It's not a We're not primarily in
Speaker 3: a gigantic social institution. That's not what the church is.
Speaker 3: The Church is the mystical body. It's a miraculous institution.
Speaker 3: It's not primarily an entity invented by Jesus to solve
Speaker 3: world hunger and world poverty. In fact, Christ said the
Speaker 3: poor you will always have with you. So he didn't
Speaker 3: send the church out to be the communist warriors for
Speaker 3: social justice and ending global poverty. And that's what the
Speaker 3: syncyclical Big begins with, is the social gospel message of
Speaker 3: we don't need to build watch towers, fortifications and defensive
Speaker 3: walls and engaging war and self defense for our peoples
Speaker 3: or whatever. Now, again, that is just outrageous from a
Speaker 3: traditional Catholic perspective, because I mean, we brought this up
Speaker 3: before Sinek, and I'll ask you what is the real Catholicism?
Speaker 3: I mean, is it medieval saints that are warrior kings,
Speaker 3: warrior bishops. Is it Pope's calling Crusades? Is it Stigmata?
Speaker 3: Is it a giant palace in Avignon? Is it Francis
Speaker 3: walking around talking to animals and you know, sleeping in
Speaker 3: tattered rags and supposedly having stigmata. Which of these is it?
Speaker 3: John Paul the Second praying with all the world religions?
Speaker 3: Is it Mother Teresa saying that she's not interested in
Speaker 3: converting Buddhists, but rather to just you know, live a
Speaker 3: life of poverty. I mean, what is Catholicism really is
Speaker 3: it all of those and none of those. And that's
Speaker 3: precisely why it has such a whole on people, is
Speaker 3: that it can be whatever you want it to be.
Speaker 3: That's the problem.
Speaker 1: Ultimately, you can you can just pick and choose, and
Speaker 1: people will say, as long as you're following a certain theology,
Speaker 1: it's fine. But again, who already discussed a unit problem.
Speaker 1: It's absolutely not true. And people say, oh, as long
Speaker 1: as you're as you're in community with the purp, it's fine.
Speaker 1: And again that may be the one thing that all
Speaker 1: of this has in common because Francis of Assisi, if
Speaker 1: he had not submitted to the PERP before, if he
Speaker 1: just you know, was not in community for him, it
Speaker 1: would have been considered one of these bigger orders. It
Speaker 1: just matches all of all of the categories that these
Speaker 1: people are an athematised the concept of Vienna follow So
Speaker 1: ultimately I will tell you it's about being in community
Speaker 1: with the perp. But here this is a real problem,
Speaker 1: real serious problem, because there's a clear evolution with morals
Speaker 1: of morals. Yes, this is a basis of morals. We'll
Speaker 1: see death penalty, the ability for us to engage in warfare.
Speaker 3: Yep, yeah, this is where it really hits home is
Speaker 3: the explicit rejection of any sense of death penalty. Now
Speaker 3: go ahead, exactly.
Speaker 1: So at the end of the day, which papercies this
Speaker 1: is a cruisade papacies the Francis there is no moral continuity.
Speaker 1: So people would just say, just about the office, we
Speaker 1: know theology and morals.
Speaker 3: And we noticed too that the principle of self defense
Speaker 3: is clearly connected with the principle of the self defense
Speaker 3: in terms of warfare, and the principle of having one's
Speaker 3: own nation state. And you know, Francis makes it very
Speaker 3: clear as he moves on in cyclical no Borders, no Wall,
Speaker 3: the only thing he leaves out is no USA at all. Right,
Speaker 3: so it's basically like half of an Antifa dictum. But
Speaker 3: before we get to that, he does, of course give
Speaker 3: a shout out to the Grand Imam Ahmad al Tayeb,
Speaker 3: where he met in Abu Dhabi, where they declared that
Speaker 3: God created all human beings to have equal rights, equal
Speaker 3: duties and dignity. That's not even actually true. Not all
Speaker 3: human beings have the exact same duties from birth. A husband,
Speaker 3: a wife, a child, and not all have the same duty.
Speaker 3: So this doesn't even make any sense. But this is
Speaker 3: the classic kind of vague humanitarianism that you get from
Speaker 3: these ecumenical documents and statements that can be read in
Speaker 3: any sense that you want. And he says that we
Speaker 3: are called to all live together as brothers and sisters.
Speaker 3: Well yeah, but in Christ right, those outside of the
Speaker 3: church are not our brothers per se. Now there is
Speaker 3: a sense in which, yes, all human beings have a
Speaker 3: common ance during Adam, although by the way, that's not
Speaker 3: even necessarily believed in the Vatican anymore, but given that
Speaker 3: they have for a long time adhere to a pretty
Speaker 3: open definition of evolutionary theory, especially amongst the Jesuits. But
Speaker 3: setting that aside the sense in which we are brothers
Speaker 3: and sisters. It's very cleverly done here in where the
Speaker 3: way Francis will cite John's and cyclicals in Saint Paul.
Speaker 3: The context in which Paul says, for example, not to
Speaker 3: argue and dispute with one another is amongst those in
Speaker 3: the church. He's not saying to never have a disagreement
Speaker 3: or dispute with someone outside of the faith, and in
Speaker 3: fact if you look at the Book of Acts, how
Speaker 3: many times does Paul go and debate and do apologetics.
Speaker 3: Of course he does, because Paul says that that is
Speaker 3: for those outside of the brotherhood, outside of the community
Speaker 3: of the church. But Francis tastes comments that Paul says
Speaker 3: to the church and says, oh, these are now the
Speaker 3: universally binding moral obligations upon all.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 3: For example, you have a duty to support other people
Speaker 3: in the church who maybe don't have a sufficient income. Right,
Speaker 3: so there's an offering that's taken up in Paul's epistles.
Speaker 3: But you could say, oh, you see, you have a
Speaker 3: duty to all of the poor in the world. Now,
Speaker 3: in a general sense, people have duties to every human being. Yes,
Speaker 3: But the problem that you get from this sort of
Speaker 3: socialist internationalist mindset is what they will do is take
Speaker 3: the They will erase the notion of levels or degrees
Speaker 3: of duty. I have a duty to my family and
Speaker 3: to those closest to me above other people across the globe.
Speaker 3: But this has always been the liberal and internationalist fallacy,
Speaker 3: which is to equate the duty that you have to
Speaker 3: your your those around you to the entire world. And
Speaker 3: then they actually end up erasing the duty to those
Speaker 3: around you. Oh, you don't actually even have a duty
Speaker 3: to family, because family is a social construct, you see.
Speaker 3: So you see how it moves from one to the
Speaker 3: next to the next. Because Francis's attack and critique on
Speaker 3: the self defense of people groups and nations should logically
Speaker 3: be extended to the family. Shouldn't the family also therefore
Speaker 3: be no borders, no wall, no father at all. I mean,
Speaker 3: why would I stop that logic at nation states and
Speaker 3: people groups and then allow it for families. So Francis
Speaker 3: is quite obviously from the outset a complete subverter, and
Speaker 3: in fact he is night and day even within cyclicals
Speaker 3: on the family on Christian Love and Duty written one
Speaker 3: hundred years ago, So it's night and day from Leo
Speaker 3: the thirteenth, or even in cyclicals written up into the
Speaker 3: twentieth century by A. Pie the eleven. So it's night
Speaker 3: and day. It's just it's mind blowing. Really, I'm sorry
Speaker 3: I went long there.
Speaker 1: Go ahead, I know you said it all. It's it's perfect.
Speaker 1: Maybe we can go ahead and dissect as the main points.
Speaker 3: What do you think about this this move of uh, well,
Speaker 3: Francis of ASSISI went and talked to the Sultan, so
Speaker 3: I did the same thing.
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, it's his story repeating itself as a
Speaker 1: as a farce, and it's subverting things that would be
Speaker 1: correct in traditional Catholicism.
Speaker 3: But Francis, even Francis of Assisi's goal was to make converts.
Speaker 3: That's the irony here. I'm not supporting Francis of Assisi.
Speaker 3: I'm just saying that even Francis of Assisi wanted to
Speaker 3: convert the Muslims, and Francis post Francis doesn't. That's how
Speaker 3: it's ironic.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. You might want to bring up the icons
Speaker 1: even made an icon. I think it's a Franciscan monastery
Speaker 1: that just use the icon of Saint pauland Saint Peter.
Speaker 1: You're giving the threaten lu kiss and they just rehashed it,
Speaker 1: and one of one of them is a Francis of
Speaker 1: Assisi and the second one as a sultant. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: think you can find it to.
Speaker 3: Just isn't it funny because Francis Pope Francis early on
Speaker 3: cites Saint John in his Catholic and Cyclical or Catholic Epistles,
Speaker 3: First John about not loving your fellow men, but he,
Speaker 3: I guess forgot to read the fact that Saint John
Speaker 3: in First John and in Second John says that if
Speaker 3: any man does not confess Christ in the flesh, God
Speaker 3: in flesh, he is Antichrist and spirit of Antichrist. So
Speaker 3: John says both things. He says, you have to love men,
Speaker 3: and you have to recognize that these world religions ours
Speaker 3: spirit of Antichrist precisely because they do not confess God
Speaker 3: in the flesh. So he again, it's just sort of
Speaker 3: this cherry picking of the the nice verses that sort
Speaker 3: of leftists and social gospel proponents prefer, and then sort
Speaker 3: of sprinkling them throughout the encyclical as if the context
Speaker 3: isn't about unbelievers and isn't also balanced with the texts
Speaker 3: that tell people that they have to convert, have to repent.
Speaker 3: I mean, is there even anything in this is cyclical
Speaker 3: at all about repentance. I'm over halfway and i haven't
Speaker 3: seen anything yet.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's mostly about taking the Christian principle of broselhood
Speaker 1: and slowly extending it and using this gray area.
Speaker 3: And again, you know.
Speaker 1: This is encyclicals that just paved away for the Mexican cyclicals,
Speaker 1: which just will take a step through it, and that
Speaker 1: people would be mad, and people would just have to say,
Speaker 1: but look, just previous and cyclical, say, you know, lads
Speaker 1: of groundwick Foot, you can't refuse it. This is magisterium.
Speaker 3: Let's mention that point. Let make sure that we aren't
Speaker 3: cut off. It doesn't show shows two different stats for
Speaker 3: concurrent viewers. Let's make sure our sound is good. Okay,
Speaker 3: So I guess that's okay. YouTube just glitched for a second.
Speaker 3: It said no viewers. Yes. So the next thing I
Speaker 3: noticed was he says, well, we are a human family.
Speaker 3: This is right before he begins chapter one. He says,
Speaker 3: and since we are all fellow travelers that share the
Speaker 3: same flesh, we are all children of the same earth,
Speaker 3: which is our common home, regardless of anybody's beliefs and convictions.
Speaker 3: Now that's also not true, right, So he's setting the
Speaker 3: stage for his next section after chapter one, which will
Speaker 3: be no borders, no walls. And he sets the stage
Speaker 3: by the phrase fellow travelers. If you know the history
Speaker 3: of Marxism, that's a Marxist phrase. I'm not saying that
Speaker 3: everyone used that phrase of Marxists. Obviously, it's entered into
Speaker 3: the common parlance, but fellow traveler is a phrase that
Speaker 3: Marxist would use to identify one another at times. And
Speaker 3: you also say, oh, you have all to have the
Speaker 3: same earth and the same common herod. No we don't.
Speaker 3: In fact, you know what does Christ say that the
Speaker 3: wicked will be removed from the earth and the meek
Speaker 3: will inherit the earth? So we do not all have
Speaker 3: the same telos, the same end goal. But if you
Speaker 3: believe that Jesus was a social reformer and a social
Speaker 3: liberal of sorts, then you would think that we, you know,
Speaker 3: are all social socialists. Basically it's a form of kind
Speaker 3: of watered down Christian socialism, which is what I see here.
Speaker 3: And by the way, my goal here is not to
Speaker 3: promote monopoly capitalism, as you know, I don't buy into
Speaker 3: any of these modern systems. But the phraseology and the
Speaker 3: argumentation of this encyclical is pretty striking. I mean, it
Speaker 3: went it went further than I expected.
Speaker 1: What do you think, Yeah, yeah, it went further, but
Speaker 1: it still was a classical way. And you brought up
Speaker 1: something the idea of you know, equating us being brosens
Speaker 1: of flesh and being made all of humanity is made
Speaker 1: consubstantial by the incarnation, and that's why there will be
Speaker 1: a finite recapitulation. And equating this final recapitulation with us
Speaker 1: ending up in the same place, which is true to
Speaker 1: an extent, but is not in terms of salvation.
Speaker 3: Correct. This is the mistake, right, The mistake of David
Speaker 3: Bentley Heart is to think that because we have a
Speaker 3: recapitulation in Christ, that every hypostasis will therefore be saved.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 3: No, the restoration of nature is universal. But how that
Speaker 3: nature will be experienced, The mode in which we'll experience
Speaker 3: the Esketon will depend upon our individual hypostatic mode of
Speaker 3: living in reality. So how we've lived in this life,
Speaker 3: whether we have recapitulated the virtues in ourselves, will determine
Speaker 3: our experience of the Esketon. Even though we all have
Speaker 3: the same in goal, of the same ascoton, it will
Speaker 3: definitely not be the same experience for all people.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: That's why there's the wicked, and there's the righteous, there's
Speaker 3: the sheep, there's the goats. Obviously, so this you could
Speaker 3: see begin to see here why someone like Origin is
Speaker 3: very useful to these kind of generic theists perennialists, because
Speaker 3: it allows them to kind of muddy the water on
Speaker 3: these theological distinctions and kind of confused people who don't
Speaker 3: know a lot of the theological jargon with kind of
Speaker 3: this bland, generic phraseology of how we're all together in
Speaker 3: one flesh, we're all together in Christ. Well, we are,
Speaker 3: but that doesn't mean that we're all participating in theosis,
Speaker 3: doesn't mean that we all are saved. Right, But I
Speaker 3: mean the Vatican has in fact flirted with different kind
Speaker 3: of forms of universal salvation and several of their theologians
Speaker 3: in the last fifty years, So it shouldn't be surprising that,
Speaker 3: you know, he would find this kind of phraseology useful.
Speaker 3: The next point does lend to the socialist angle, which
Speaker 3: is where he says, in this way, in the modern world,
Speaker 3: political life becomes increasingly fragile in the face of international
Speaker 3: economic powers that operate under the principle of dividing conquer. Now,
Speaker 3: that's true, and in fact, this is probably the section
Speaker 3: Sneck where you were talking about people saying, oh, it's based,
Speaker 3: it's based. I mean, it's only based if you think
Speaker 3: Marxism is based, right. I mean, Marxism is not wrong
Speaker 3: in everything that it says, right, So Marxist will critique
Speaker 3: international banking powers. They'll even critique usury at times. But
Speaker 3: so what that doesn't mean that, you know, because part
Speaker 3: of your critique is true, that your answer, your solution,
Speaker 3: your paradigm as a whole is true. And so this
Speaker 3: is not really that based of a statement unless you
Speaker 3: think all Marxists, Socialists and communists are in fact based.
Speaker 3: But I don't think that they are.
Speaker 1: Again, he's as statement that you know, perfectly fine if
Speaker 1: you study people and simply call like like you know,
Speaker 1: most primi Catholic apology school studies, the church president is
Speaker 1: picking and choosing what they like. So of course when
Speaker 1: he says the global company should not dominate the world publicly, fine,
Speaker 1: look at the greater context, it really does sound so holistic.
Speaker 1: And actually you had people in the Roman Catholic with
Speaker 1: picking up on that, and it should also be put
Speaker 1: into the greater context of what's happening currently in Catholicisms.
Speaker 1: It is China mm hm. Purpose accepted many you know,
Speaker 1: many bishops that were named by the Communist Party of China.
Speaker 1: That's very funny because we're the ones that are usually
Speaker 1: accused of having KGB bishops.
Speaker 3: But KGB, so yes, which is Francis Francis recognizing the
Speaker 3: Chinese Catholic bishops, which are the ones appointed by the state.
Speaker 5: Uh.
Speaker 3: And then he didn't meet with but he did affirm
Speaker 3: the Chinese Communist Catholic bishops. So I mean, this is
Speaker 3: this is bizarre because of course the CIA worked for many,
Speaker 3: many years through this program with John Courtney Murray, as
Speaker 3: I've covered in David Wimoff's book. And now I guess
Speaker 3: Francis is, you know, not going to meet with Pompeo.
Speaker 3: I don't know. I don't really care that much about
Speaker 3: the geopolitical stuff, although it is kind of I mean
Speaker 3: in regard to this in cyclical, although it is kind
Speaker 3: of relevant because this in cyclical does maybe signify that.
Speaker 3: I mean, you could even find sections of this in
Speaker 3: cyclical that are that are directed against Trump. It's like
Speaker 3: he's literally almost he won't use the name Trump, but
Speaker 3: he's obviously means Trump. He's like certain political figures will
Speaker 3: call out their opponents and make fun of them, and
Speaker 3: he says this is hateful. He says, this is anger
Speaker 3: and hate, and we're all obsessed with this notion of
Speaker 3: fake news, and oh, that's all from obviously from from
Speaker 3: the Donald so and I'm not saying that Donald is
Speaker 3: right and everything that he says. I'm just pointing out
Speaker 3: the facts of this encyclical are about contrasting this quasi internationalist,
Speaker 3: socialist whatever it is, quote humanitarianism to international finance money.
Speaker 3: And I'm sorry, but I just I can't take this
Speaker 3: seriously from any entity like the Vatican that has a
Speaker 3: gigantic usery based international money institution known as the Vatican Bank. Francis,
Speaker 3: if you're going to tell me about getting rid of
Speaker 3: international money lending operations while you have a gigantic money
Speaker 3: lending institution known as the Vatican Bank, and in fact
Speaker 3: the papers he has reversed his position on usery in
Speaker 3: the Middle Ages, as is well known, as Hoffman showed
Speaker 3: in his book. I mean, let's just go to these
Speaker 3: classic cases, right Robert Okalvi David Yalov's book. I'll be
Speaker 3: covering these soon. By the way, this is just just
Speaker 3: rings hollow for someone like Francis, you know, to say
Speaker 3: this kind of stuff, you know, get on this sort
Speaker 3: of moral high horse about globalism and all this stuff,
Speaker 3: and then tell us that we don't and shouldn't have
Speaker 3: self defense when Francis rides around in a plexiglass bulletproof
Speaker 3: golf cart with about thirty Secret Service agents around him. Really,
Speaker 3: so no walls, no borders, no self defense. You think
Speaker 3: these security guards don't have freaking guns strapped? Do you
Speaker 3: think they're not strapped? Give me a freaking break, dude,
Speaker 3: get out of here with that will that b s.
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 3: Again, you know.
Speaker 1: The Swiss Guard historically wearing you know, peacemakers.
Speaker 3: So well, by the way, this is not just a
Speaker 3: Swiss Guard, Like I know that the Swiss Guard had
Speaker 3: been there for a long time. But Francis he goes out,
Speaker 3: he literally has already Secret Service agent, security detail guys,
Speaker 3: not just the Swiss Guard, like I mean more than Trump.
Speaker 1: Okay, And again that's perfectly fine, that's that's what pragmatically
Speaker 1: needs to be done. But at the same time, this
Speaker 1: person is I think he's been saying saying some tweets
Speaker 1: against private gun ownership. Really sure, people, people need to
Speaker 1: be able to defend themselves about was the whole Armenia
Speaker 1: is being attacked for being Christians. America is facing a
Speaker 1: lot of civil unrest and people need to protect themselves. Actually,
Speaker 1: guns have shown that, you know, a private ownership of
Speaker 1: guns works in these extreme situations. I'm not going to
Speaker 1: comment on the politic side, but even pragmatically, this is
Speaker 1: perfectly fine where the purdues, but he's preaching something else
Speaker 1: and historically chose a change in malls. Yeah, banking is bad,
Speaker 1: yet the Vatican of the first national bank in the world. Yeah,
Speaker 1: war is bad, yet you know used excommunication stuff like
Speaker 1: this to make Cassis belly to invade places in Italy
Speaker 1: and yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3: We uh you know, go watch that show that Borgias
Speaker 3: with Jeremy Irons and he's playing with Pope Alexander the
Speaker 3: fourth or whatever, and he's just like, I mean, it's
Speaker 3: a pretty it's a it's a good show. It's actually
Speaker 3: pretty historically relevant, at least they try to be. It's
Speaker 3: a little Hollywood, but he's just he's like, yeah, you know,
Speaker 3: fight for me or you're actmmunicated. I mean to get
Speaker 3: from that to Francis, it's just kind of like, I mean,
Speaker 3: go look up Simon of Trent, okay, used to be
Speaker 3: Saint Simon of Trent no longer a saint somehow supposedly uh,
Speaker 3: And then that should be enough to tell you that
Speaker 3: that something is fishy here.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly change change of morals. And that's a problem
Speaker 1: because the papers he had to adopt some specific morals
Speaker 1: that you know, were relative to and pertain to leading
Speaker 1: a state. And he led a state. But that's the
Speaker 1: first problems bishops and so should not should not lead state?
Speaker 1: I think it's in Matthew twenty. And historically the church
Speaker 1: has always operated alongside.
Speaker 3: Or in the state.
Speaker 1: And then you have donation of peppin the paper state.
Speaker 1: So the pope starts to include morals that a link
Speaker 1: to managing a state. And and then he got caught
Speaker 1: up in this and after after the Italians invaded and
Speaker 1: push a pope to a little hill in the middle
Speaker 1: of Rome, he had to to go with the political flow.
Speaker 1: So in that sense, the Roman entered the world and
Speaker 1: and tries to to make adom of God.
Speaker 3: It is not an earthly kingdom exactly.
Speaker 1: That is that is very earthly, and that's why it's
Speaker 1: it is susceptible to politics and the flow of politics.
Speaker 1: That's why it went from this very aggressive medieval institution
Speaker 1: to today's warkness.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 3: Uh, there was a great article in Politico. I think
Speaker 3: it was political. Let me see if I had it
Speaker 3: pulled up on my phone here, which is relevant. I
Speaker 3: think I shared it on Twitter. But it's relevant to
Speaker 3: this angle here because and a lot of people are
Speaker 3: ignorant of this and they don't know the nuances. By
Speaker 3: the way, Uh, I'm not the only person who's been
Speaker 3: talking about this angle and coming to these conclusions. Again,
Speaker 3: we've got the you know, we've got longtime trads like
Speaker 3: wim Hoff that talks about this, uh PayPal low crism,
Speaker 3: you could say, and Vigana right, all the trads are
Speaker 3: all He's the rage amongst the trade ads right now.
Speaker 3: Vigano just said the other day the deep State has
Speaker 3: now teamed up with the Deep Church to overthrow Trump
Speaker 3: and usher in a novus ordo seclorum. So there's Vigano
Speaker 3: telling you the types of things that you've heard me
Speaker 3: say for a long time. By the way, this doesn't
Speaker 3: vindicate trautism just because he says that, because trautism, as
Speaker 3: you know, as we've argued for many, many years here,
Speaker 3: is pretty much a dead end. But this is excuse me,
Speaker 3: it's not Politico's mother Jones. I'll put this article in
Speaker 3: the chat. But there's a great article on John Paul
Speaker 3: the second and his relations with the CIA there will
Speaker 3: be done, and all of the sort of Cold War
Speaker 3: work that John Paul was doing, the connections with Bill Donovan, right,
Speaker 3: all this kind of stuff. This is very it's worth,
Speaker 3: it's worth knowing this stuff because this stuff is relevant
Speaker 3: to again, where we see the Vatican going now. And
Speaker 3: that's yes, I am aware that Francis did and go
Speaker 3: meet with Pompeo. And that's relevant because, as Snack pointed out,
Speaker 3: the acceptance of the Chinese Communist bishops is part of
Speaker 3: the under lying the setting for this encyclical, and that's
Speaker 3: very very important to know and understand. And by the way,
Speaker 3: I'm not saying this makes oh the ci are and
Speaker 3: know the good guys. No, no, it's not a good
Speaker 3: guy bad guy thing. It's just the realities of the
Speaker 3: geopolitical sphere undergirding this, which is why, as I mentioned,
Speaker 3: and all the tribes just didn't know this, They ignored this,
Speaker 3: they didn't know. I mean, he even says in the
Speaker 3: encyclical that he owes much to his meeting with the
Speaker 3: grandy mom right. And then I mentioned that this undergirds
Speaker 3: this whole encyclical. In the trade. No it doesn't. It
Speaker 3: has nothing to do with unitarian prayers that are Muslim friendly.
Speaker 2: No, it does, has.
Speaker 3: Nothing to do that. Really, he says it in the
Speaker 3: first ten pages. Is meeting with the Grande mom underlies
Speaker 3: this incyclical. He's making a symbolic connection between Francis going
Speaker 3: and talking to the Sultan and him, as francisn't going
Speaker 3: and talking to the email obviously.
Speaker 4: Exactly.
Speaker 1: So you will have many, many different interpretations and people saying, oh,
Speaker 1: it's based, people minimizing it, right. And what's really great
Speaker 1: is that that's something I touched on the small video
Speaker 1: is that here this is so blatant that the defenses
Speaker 1: are contradictory. So you have several types of defenses against
Speaker 1: this incyclical, from the twad world, from the regular Catholic world.
Speaker 1: So the first one is just to say it's perfectly fine.
Speaker 1: So yeah, you're ready lost.
Speaker 3: Much ado about it, I think, yeah, exactly. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Then you have the people who will start to say, oh,
Speaker 1: actually it's not magisterial, it's not magisterial, don't worry, it's
Speaker 1: just a pope giving is private opinion to the whole
Speaker 1: church in an encyclical. So as the would say, actually,
Speaker 1: in encyclical doesn't mean that magisterium, it's just private thoughts.
Speaker 3: That's actually not true. But I wish we should mention
Speaker 3: that that's actually not true. Uh, And encyclical actually does
Speaker 3: fall under the ordinary teaching office of the Pope. Now,
Speaker 3: it's true that there could be within the encyclical different
Speaker 3: areas that it touches on that are different levels of
Speaker 3: Catholic authorities so called. But it doesn't matter that there's
Speaker 3: those levels of authority even within the encyclical, because as
Speaker 3: a Catholic, you are still bound to submit to the
Speaker 3: ordinary teaching authority. Even if it's not universal ordinary magisterium,
Speaker 3: it's still ordinary magisterium, and you're bound to submit with docility.
Speaker 3: Even if you have reservations about areas or parts of
Speaker 3: the doctrine, doesn't matter. You can you can have personal
Speaker 3: private disagreements all you want. You must submit with dorcil t.
Speaker 3: And this is what the trads have forgotten. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you have people will completely say that it's not
Speaker 1: other register. You will have people who say, oh, actually
Speaker 1: it's fine as long as nothing is a ex cathedra
Speaker 1: in there. But again, as we've demonstrated before, a lot
Speaker 1: of times. Ex Cathedra is in the eye of the beholder.
Speaker 1: There's no list. People will interpret it. People actually came
Speaker 1: out and say that the it's I think it's James
Speaker 1: Martin would say, oh, no, it's settled. It's the public lared.
Speaker 1: Ex Cathedra is that that the death penalty is no
Speaker 1: more and say it's a moral teaching and addressed to
Speaker 1: the whole church, and it's something new, and in that
Speaker 1: sense it will be right. But then you have people
Speaker 1: say it cannot be Exca fiber because it will contradict
Speaker 1: a previous Exca theater statement. There's a ball which mentions
Speaker 1: the death penalty, and it also has a very strong
Speaker 1: claim for being es cathedral. And then your face with
Speaker 1: this problem, Yeah it is it infallibly contradicting.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the irony about death penalty is that, I mean,
Speaker 3: when I was traditional Catholic, it was always my understanding
Speaker 3: from you know, traditional Catholic moral theologies that the retributive
Speaker 3: justice of the death penalty was classed under natural justice.
Speaker 3: So this is a derivative of natural law. Right, the
Speaker 3: eternal natural law derives from the eternal law, the natural
Speaker 3: law being based on the eternal law. Eternal law, being
Speaker 3: based on God's character cannot change. You can't alter natural law.
Speaker 3: It's impossible. So there's no way that you could have
Speaker 3: an alteration, even by the Pope, of something that's natural law,
Speaker 3: moral law. I'd be like the pope saying he could
Speaker 3: he could alter and affirm something relating to I don't know, abortion,
Speaker 3: birth control.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 3: No, no Catholic really believes that, at least any kind
Speaker 3: of traditional Catholic. I mean, I'm sure plenty of modern Catholics.
Speaker 3: Hans Kung probably believes that. But anybody who believes anything
Speaker 3: prior to the nineteen sixties doesn't think that there's any
Speaker 3: way that the pope could change moral law. And yet
Speaker 3: here we have a very clear example. And this is
Speaker 3: not new to Francis by the way. It was John
Speaker 3: Paul who championed anti death penalty teachings twenty years ago exactly.
Speaker 1: So that's a good point that you should bring, you know,
Speaker 1: if you can change a moral teaching. And again you
Speaker 1: have contradicting bowles and encyclicals, and this is very affirmative.
Speaker 1: So again, people who always deny the Excasuto stuff.
Speaker 3: The factory love the way you said it. You said
Speaker 3: it perfectly ex cathedral is in the eye of the beholder.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's pretty much a red herring. It's it's for
Speaker 1: people to say, oh, don't worry. You know, the book
Speaker 1: can say whatever it wants, but it's not excateruo. So
Speaker 1: it's fine. That is a change of fact that there's
Speaker 1: been a shift in mods about the definelty here it's clear.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he's he makes notes about it. He says there's
Speaker 3: absolutely no usage or need for this principle anymore in
Speaker 3: the modern world.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And the next thing is war. So here's has
Speaker 1: been a vague statement, you know, quoting the as a
Speaker 1: catechism saying or the Catechism says there can be some
Speaker 1: level of just war, and then doing a whole gymnastics
Speaker 1: and ending up saying no longer can we can we
Speaker 1: condone just war? So again, is this just war? It's
Speaker 1: bands of the Catechism says that self defense is a
Speaker 1: just war. So yeah, you have an invigorous statement. And
Speaker 1: the tribal takes the first part of the paragraph, the
Speaker 1: moderns take the second part of the paragraph. Everybody will
Speaker 1: say it says this, and the text and cycle is
Speaker 1: gonna upload it is that exactly And.
Speaker 3: Isn't as a beautiful example, Yeah, of the argument that
Speaker 3: you and I have been making for a long time,
Speaker 3: which is that I thought that the office of the
Speaker 3: papacy was supposed to solve all of these basic moral quandaries,
Speaker 3: and here we have, here, we have this cyclical that
Speaker 3: has completely divided the Roman Catholic world, probably right down
Speaker 3: the middle.
Speaker 1: Exactly. So you've got you've got another position to fight this,
Speaker 1: It would be minimizing it in its context, just picking
Speaker 1: it apart that none of the positions that we've seen
Speaker 1: is coherent and consistent.
Speaker 3: And this is this lends to that point about it's
Speaker 3: it's fine to say, oh, there are these you know,
Speaker 3: levels of dogma, right, if I pull out lud we got,
Speaker 3: I've got sententious surde defide, right, these different levels of
Speaker 3: different propositions. Oh, that that one fits into that. But
Speaker 3: the problem is that in the individual mind of the
Speaker 3: Catholic it's not clear when the encyclical is at what
Speaker 3: level you see within the encyclical. Right, So for example,
Speaker 3: if the pote within encyclical is say, talking about the Trinity,
Speaker 3: well that's defide, even though it's in an encyclical which
Speaker 3: is ordinary teaching, it's still defide because he's talking about
Speaker 3: a doctrine that's da fide. But then he starts getting
Speaker 3: into other topics. Now, the individual Catholic at a subjective
Speaker 3: level is in an existential problem, a quandary, because he's
Speaker 3: not in any better privileged position to know a priori
Speaker 3: as he's reading through this encyclical where the various paragraphs
Speaker 3: and by the way, this has over a hundred plus paragraphs, right,
Speaker 3: is this paragraph under DeFi day right? Or the lower levels?
Speaker 3: Is it universal order? So it doesn't matter, it's it's
Speaker 3: in other words, just saying that we have the pope
Speaker 3: and these levels of dogma is not going to ensure
Speaker 3: that in any the actual instance of reading and interpreting
Speaker 3: the papal encyclical, that you're going to accurately classify the
Speaker 3: different sections and sentences and paragraphs and dogmas of the encyclical.
Speaker 3: So it moves the problem back a step. That's what
Speaker 3: we've been saying for so long that obviously this whole thing,
Speaker 3: this office, this power, all this stuff doesn't do what
Speaker 3: it's supposed to do. Look at the whole Catholic world
Speaker 3: right now, and what do they always say to us
Speaker 3: you guys are divided. You guys are divided. No, no, no,
Speaker 3: we're way more united than you are. Do we have problems?
Speaker 1: Yes?
Speaker 3: Are there patriarchs that excommunicate one another, Yes, that's happened
Speaker 3: in every century of the Church almost, But that's not
Speaker 3: the same thing as throwing all of your eggs in
Speaker 3: the one basket, putting it all on a house of cards.
Speaker 3: Of what that guy does?
Speaker 1: We follow that guy, Yeah, exactly. So we've seen patriar
Speaker 1: engaging in squabbling. Actually, that's a light motive for the
Speaker 1: truth for the centuries. We've never seen patriarch literally changing morals, right, because.
Speaker 4: That's a great point.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we haven't seen something of that level. I mean,
Speaker 3: there's really no precedent for this kind of stuff in
Speaker 3: the history of the Church. I think you will get
Speaker 3: a kick out of this. I just pulled up a
Speaker 3: headline that says, Steck, you're gonna love this. It says,
Speaker 3: Vatican Bay bank chief says latest scandals are true proof
Speaker 3: of reform. So the scandals of the Vatican Bank are
Speaker 3: proof that it's being reformed. Right, So this kind of Orwellian, funny,
Speaker 3: sort of duplicitous headline reminds me of latest scandals in
Speaker 3: the church are proof that we're the true church, right,
Speaker 3: because we wouldn't have the pedo crisis if we weren't
Speaker 3: being persecuted by the devil. It's so clear.
Speaker 1: Yeah, correct, So this is just displaying changes. And again
Speaker 1: the defenses are showing that there's no unity, and you
Speaker 1: have clergy arguing over written giving good arguments, but none
Speaker 1: of them came to can come to the syntheses, which
Speaker 1: is the changes moral pope doesn't need as properly.
Speaker 3: Right, So the very thing that the papacy was supposed
Speaker 3: to do, the whole entire and by the way, remember
Speaker 3: they always make the argument about the practical side. You know,
Speaker 3: the Orthodox Church is not practical because you don't have
Speaker 3: the easy one to punch solution of just the appeal.
Speaker 3: And look and see what the Bishop Rome says. And
Speaker 3: here we have sixty plus years of total confusion and chaos, madness,
Speaker 3: dying numbers of the church in the West, plummeting numbers
Speaker 3: of seminarians, monasteries closing, convents, closing, Catholic schools, closing, being sued,
Speaker 3: going out of business, going bankrupt, and yet they're going
Speaker 3: to tell us that no, no, it's all just liberal media.
Speaker 3: There's the liberal media attacking the church. Really, really, is
Speaker 3: it not the heads of the church Perhaps that pioneer
Speaker 3: and champion this liberalism. I mean, maybe that's part of
Speaker 3: the issue here, So let's move on. In the encyclical,
Speaker 3: he goes on to say, after he talks about the
Speaker 3: transnational banking power, he says, we have grown indifferent to
Speaker 3: human wastefulness, wasting of food, and this is deplorable. Now, yeah, okay,
Speaker 3: it's deplorable to waste food, but is what is why
Speaker 3: is he bringing this? I mean, the problems in the
Speaker 3: world that we have, and he's he's worried about wasting food. Now,
Speaker 3: he's not talking about the problems of man's spirit. You
Speaker 3: remember when Jesus is walking around in John six and
Speaker 3: he talks about the Lord's Supper and he talks about
Speaker 3: body and blood and this kind of stuff, and the
Speaker 3: crowd is just interested in a free meal. And it
Speaker 3: says that many of them walked away because the stuff
Speaker 3: he was saying was weird and hard to accept, and
Speaker 3: it says they were just kind of looking for a
Speaker 3: free meal ticket. Now, what does Francis to his incyclcal
Speaker 3: is the very opposite, which begins with all this humanitarian
Speaker 3: stuff and how we need to you know, basically erect
Speaker 3: this into poverty, erect this feeding of the global population.
Speaker 3: And again I'm not saying that there's not a problem
Speaker 3: with those things, but that is not what Jesus told
Speaker 3: us to do. He did tell us to feed the poor,
Speaker 3: to give alms, absolutely, but that's in the context of
Speaker 3: the teaching of an expansion of the church. This is
Speaker 3: in the context of social gospel. Right, and then maybe
Speaker 3: down the road talk about you know, or maybe not,
Speaker 3: maybe not even talk about theology. I mean, the encyclical
Speaker 3: begins by saying, don't argue theology. You know, Francis of
Speaker 3: ASISI didn't argue theology, he just did works. But you're
Speaker 3: gonna have both, right, There's no dialectic between teaching the
Speaker 3: truth or doing good works. It's both together, right, You're
Speaker 3: gonna have both.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. And that's the classic stuff about humanism or
Speaker 1: thing into into this Lukeum politics is just using principles
Speaker 1: that were supposed to be used for the Christian communities
Speaker 1: in the world as a whole, if God as a
Speaker 1: starting point, in God as an end, and just transpose
Speaker 1: it to the political. Oh, we need to stop global warming,
Speaker 1: we need to stop all wars, but for political reasons,
Speaker 1: and then that's just usurping the work of God. We
Speaker 1: believe in in the regeneration of the world. We believe in,
Speaker 1: you know, the end of pollution and death and stuff
Speaker 1: like this, but not through medicine and you know, but
Speaker 1: through mystical means, through believing in God.
Speaker 3: Then he moves on to talk about if you practice
Speaker 3: self defense, if you want borders, this is racist and
Speaker 3: we need an open borders policy which will allow inclusion.
Speaker 3: We need anthropological visions that do not work on profit
Speaker 3: profit based income models. Now I'm sorry, Francis, but you've
Speaker 3: got a Vatican Bank that deals in gigantic profits and
Speaker 3: you're gonna tell me that it's time to stop dealing
Speaker 3: in profit based economic models. I'm sorry, I just I
Speaker 3: can't stomach that. It's just ludicrous on the face of it.
Speaker 3: Then he moves on to say that the organization of
Speaker 3: societies is far from reflecting clearly the denigration or a
Speaker 3: shoot me, the equality and dignity of women. Feminism comes
Speaker 3: in here. We get the world and its economic structures
Speaker 3: excludes women. Now I'm sorry, but feminism is not the
Speaker 3: main problem in the world. In fact, feminism, he should know,
Speaker 3: is a weapon. Feminists hate him. They see him as
Speaker 3: the image of patriarchy, even though that's ironic because he's
Speaker 3: an ally of their but just in terms of him
Speaker 3: being a man in a position of authority, and here
Speaker 3: he is clearly throwing a bone to the feminists. And
Speaker 3: paragraph twenty three that so basically, this entire and cyclical
Speaker 3: is nothing but social justice. It's all about all the
Speaker 3: different ways that you should feel guilty. You should feel
Speaker 3: guilty for having a nation, you should feel guilty for
Speaker 3: if you're a man, for you've mistreated women. You should
Speaker 3: feel guilty if you have possessions. Again coming from a
Speaker 3: guy in a giant damn palace, all right, literally a
Speaker 3: palace with you know, thirty security guard details and treasurer
Speaker 3: beyond anyone's imagination. I mean, who could put a value
Speaker 3: on the assisting chapel or any of these you know,
Speaker 3: there's priceless, right, just that stuff. Probably the wealthiest institution
Speaker 3: in the world would be my guess if you were
Speaker 3: to you know, how could you tabulate the value of
Speaker 3: these cathedrals?
Speaker 1: I mean?
Speaker 3: Right, So here he is telling you that you should
Speaker 3: feel bad for having a nation state and wanting to
Speaker 3: have borders. It's just ludicrous. The Vatican has the Leonine Wall, right,
Speaker 3: Pope Leo erected this gigantic wall around the Vatican. It's
Speaker 3: still there, right, not the entire wall, but the Leonine
Speaker 3: Wall is there's you know, you can see big gigantic
Speaker 3: it looks like it's fifty feet tall, right, Like, I mean,
Speaker 3: he's got Swiss guard, he's got thirty security Secret Service
Speaker 3: guys around him, and he's gonna tell us that we
Speaker 3: should feel bad for a quit. He calls a culture
Speaker 3: of walls, building a culture of walls. And what he's
Speaker 3: done in this this whole thing here is take Francis
Speaker 3: of ASSISI and turn him into this model of like
Speaker 3: social justice. And that's not what France of a Cisi did.
Speaker 3: I don't even care about frances of a cc but
Speaker 3: it's not even true to Francis of ASISI. Like he
Speaker 3: he didn't go over there to tear down and cultural walls.
Speaker 3: He went to convert Muslims. It's just ludicrous. I mean,
Speaker 3: here's the Leonine Wall around the Vatican, and this is
Speaker 3: the guy telling that you think you could scale that
Speaker 3: right as France is going to be letting migrants up
Speaker 3: in there to sleep on the floor.
Speaker 1: I mean, come on, this is actually he's opened the
Speaker 1: migrant charity. But in Rome, that's gonna be our problem
Speaker 1: for the Italians.
Speaker 3: In the Vatican City of course.
Speaker 1: And again, you know, just before weak counterarguments come in,
Speaker 1: we believe it's fine for the church money. We believe
Speaker 1: it's fine for you know, church to be adorned, and
Speaker 1: that's part of the liturgy, even though we've been relaying
Speaker 1: less on gold and the patriarchal crown, you know, not
Speaker 1: filled with jewels anymore. But historically, when we've been faced
Speaker 1: with this, for example during the communist times or even
Speaker 1: more recently with what happening in Grease, you know, the
Speaker 1: economic crisis, the church was forgiving debts. The Church was
Speaker 1: selling you know, the non essential saying or you know,
Speaker 1: selling all the the gold and the silver on the
Speaker 1: on the icons, just just keeping the essential. So and
Speaker 1: again you know, not not doing it for migrants, help
Speaker 1: the world overs that are been weaponized, but helping locally,
Speaker 1: and we have saying helped. We even have examples of
Speaker 1: Saint had been migrants and stuff. But always in this
Speaker 1: idea of local spirit and not you know, international vertice
Speaker 1: signal exactly.
Speaker 3: And this is where he gets really hypocritical when he
Speaker 3: comes into the section about migrants and xenophobia. The problem
Speaker 3: is not that we can't recognize human dignity in other people.
Speaker 3: The problem is that the argument is fallacious. You are
Speaker 3: argument is that because other human beings share human nature
Speaker 3: that therefore there cannot and should not be walls. Well,
Speaker 3: as we said, that would lead to the conclusion that
Speaker 3: my family is not really my family. The family is
Speaker 3: therefore a capitalist perhaps or some sort of social construct
Speaker 3: that lends to fascism. If you read the What's the
Speaker 3: Wilhelm Reich and the other critical theorist Marxist Frankfurt School
Speaker 3: critical theorists, they have whole books about how the family
Speaker 3: is really the origin of this idea of private property
Speaker 3: and passing on a heritage and lineage of tradition, and
Speaker 3: so therefore we really have to destroy the family, and
Speaker 3: the way to do that is destroy the father. So,
Speaker 3: I mean, Francis is just completely on board with the
Speaker 3: presubpositions of the Frankfurt School Marxist here, which is just
Speaker 3: kind of I mean, to me, it's not mind blowing
Speaker 3: because of about a and has been doing this for
Speaker 3: a long time. The Vatican has a millennia of innovating,
Speaker 3: so it's not surprising that they've just innovated to the
Speaker 3: point of basically being Frankfurt School Marxist critical theorists, pointing
Speaker 3: out that that to have a notion of illegal immigration,
Speaker 3: he says, he says, is dehumanizing. So does Francis realize
Speaker 3: that all of these other countries that he's allied with
Speaker 3: have really strict immigration. I mean, is he going to
Speaker 3: apply that to China? I mean, China has I've been
Speaker 3: pretty sure pretty strict immigration policies. I mean, is Saudi
Speaker 3: Arabia also under this condemnation of France's for retaining and
Speaker 3: having Bard. I mean, it's just ludicrous, right, it's obviously
Speaker 3: only directed at like the West, perhaps America and I
Speaker 3: would do share a lot of these critiques of America,
Speaker 3: by the way, when it comes to international capitalism, but
Speaker 3: not on the acs that Francis has.
Speaker 1: What do you think, I think it's a bittypocritical. We've
Speaker 1: seen historically, you know, papal decisions pertaining to expelling some
Speaker 1: some people, even not not migrants, you know, but for example,
Speaker 1: expelling Jews and so on from from the paper state.
Speaker 3: Good point. And again.
Speaker 1: The Church never denied the rights of the of the
Speaker 1: states to apply some policies. For example, you can look,
Speaker 1: for example, that's the death penalty.
Speaker 3: Where was this in the last In fact, there are
Speaker 3: papal bulls about death penalty exactly for a certain sense.
Speaker 1: Even there's a Roman empire, you know, we're saying that said, well,
Speaker 1: I think it's polycops saying, well, it got the right
Speaker 1: to kill me. Uh, and you've got the right to
Speaker 1: ex the death penalty on people. But you're just you're
Speaker 1: just wrong in killing me.
Speaker 3: But well, I mean the post Treadentine period, there are
Speaker 3: post Treadentine about the death penalty for certain even for clerics,
Speaker 3: for certain serious sins. So this is just ludicrous on
Speaker 3: the face of it. But he goes on then to
Speaker 3: say that if you talk about fake news, quote unquote,
Speaker 3: you're spreading hate. Well we know who that's directed against. Right,
Speaker 3: That one's not hard to figure out. But so we're
Speaker 3: going to have to make this a somewhat short stream
Speaker 3: today because we've got about halfway into this in cyclical
Speaker 3: let's come back and do the second half, because there's
Speaker 3: some really there's some zingers in the second half. But
Speaker 3: the most important one that I want to point out
Speaker 3: in the second half of the encyclical is towards the end,
Speaker 3: which is what all the trads were denying, which is
Speaker 3: clear as day. It's right there that it's a Unitarian,
Speaker 3: anti Trinitarian friendly prayer. Now, we've never seen, to my knowledge,
Speaker 3: anything like this yet. I've never seen. I mean, I've
Speaker 3: looked at Vatican documents for a long time. We're not
Speaker 3: halfway're almost halfway, so I should say we've got a
Speaker 3: little ways to go to get halfway.
Speaker 1: But the.
Speaker 3: I've got a tutoring session that I got to do
Speaker 3: at five, But I would like to come back and
Speaker 3: cover the rest of this and sick if you can
Speaker 3: do it in the next few.
Speaker 1: Days any time.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Yeah, he's got right. So he's got here. Let's
Speaker 3: look at this. The first prayer quote unquote is a Unitarian,
Speaker 3: non Trinitarian, and I think it's Muslim friendly prayer if
Speaker 3: we think of the context of the meeting with the
Speaker 3: Grande mom to me, yeah, and well, but Muslims don't
Speaker 3: conceive of God as father. Well, there are Muslim articles
Speaker 3: I've found where they say that in a limited sense,
Speaker 3: you can use that phraseology just as long as you
Speaker 3: don't mean it in say, the Christian sense. So I'm
Speaker 3: not even sure that that's never used. I mean, they
Speaker 3: don't have our reception obviously.
Speaker 1: Actually e comenical dialogue. In comical the Muslim will have
Speaker 1: no because you know, the phase is the Bible and
Speaker 1: God being being used as a father. So there is
Speaker 1: part of the tradition that say, yeah, God is his father,
Speaker 1: to know one is not forgotten, he's a beget. But again,
Speaker 1: in dialogue and especially when engaging in in the Bible,
Speaker 1: they will often accept the idea of God as father.
Speaker 1: And that's more recent. And I'm pretty sure that a
Speaker 1: you know, great Movit of Egypt would be would be
Speaker 1: fine if the formulation.
Speaker 3: Is probably, I mean, he's he's probably who Francis had
Speaker 3: in mind when he can when he concocted this prayer, Lord,
Speaker 3: Father of human family of our you created human beings
Speaker 3: equal in dignity blah blah blahlah blah ah. And and
Speaker 3: and even if it's not a Muslim friendly prayer, it's
Speaker 3: an anti Trinitarian Unitarian friendly prayer, you see. So it
Speaker 3: doesn't really matter, right, because the principle still holds that.
Speaker 3: This is the first time we've seen encyclicals allowing for,
Speaker 3: as you pointed out, the concentric notions of communion. Right. So, well,
Speaker 3: we've got the Roman Catholic Church maybe that's the higher
Speaker 3: level of communion, and then we've got the Orthodox that
Speaker 3: are close to us but maybe outside a little bit
Speaker 3: of the Roman sphere through not accepting the Pope. And
Speaker 3: then we got the Protestants kind of out in this
Speaker 3: outer sphere. And then we've got you know, the Muslims
Speaker 3: and the other religions out here. So there's this scale
Speaker 3: of being of communion which is completely ludicrous, completely foreign
Speaker 3: to everything in the whole history of the Church, all
Speaker 3: the ecumenical councils, no notion of this concentric circles of communion.
Speaker 3: It's a totally ecumenical Vatican to invention. And that's why
Speaker 3: this encyclical moves from the Unitarian prayer to the next level,
Speaker 3: which which is the ecumenical prayer. You see that, you
Speaker 3: see the move he did there. Now, I don't know
Speaker 3: why the Roman Catholics can't see that this is obviously
Speaker 3: what he's doing. It's obvious that this isn't ensyclical directed
Speaker 3: towards the people who are Unitarian first to pray with us,
Speaker 3: and the people who are perhaps Trinitarian but not Roman
Speaker 3: Catholic to pray with us. This is concentric circles and
Speaker 3: spheres of communion. It's obvious. And this is not orthodox,
Speaker 3: it's heterodox. Obviously, we don't engage in public liturgical prayers
Speaker 3: and actions with those who are heterodox, are outside the church.
Speaker 1: Excles this idea of yeah concentric. So yeah, room itself
Speaker 1: and you know a little bit separated the Apostolics, the
Speaker 1: prost and and everybody. And people will ponder out and say, oh,
Speaker 1: this is Prey's party. Fine, yes, yes, it is fine.
Speaker 1: You know, we believe that God is a creator and
Speaker 1: you're just bringing just approach to the Father is a
Speaker 1: praise that Christ gives. Again, we do not believe in
Speaker 1: generic truth. Yeah, you know, it's been composed. Ever since
Speaker 1: we've clarified the dog Mans of Trinity has been tritarion,
Speaker 1: and even every every single present without you know, after
Speaker 1: the Gospel.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean there's a section in there's a.
Speaker 1: Section is specifically.
Speaker 3: There's a section in Assuma where Thomas is discussing apostasy,
Speaker 3: and one of the examples that he gives is that
Speaker 3: if if any man were to go and pray at
Speaker 3: the tomb of Mohammed, he would buy that action be
Speaker 3: committing an action of apostasy and thereby forfeiting his Roman
Speaker 3: Catholic faith. So even the traditional Catholic notion of what
Speaker 3: constitutes apostasy has already been far surpassed by the Vatican
Speaker 3: Two papacy. The Vatican two popes have gone into the
Speaker 3: moss and prayed towards Mecca. And I've shown this to
Speaker 3: trads and like, what's wrong with this? What's wrong with that?
Speaker 3: Right now, consistent trads, more consistent trads obviously realize that
Speaker 3: that's apostasy, it's any it's obviously, on the face of
Speaker 3: it apostasy. But the ones who try to cope it
Speaker 3: will say, well, he's just praying, doesn't matter. You can't
Speaker 3: engage in public acts right like that and not express
Speaker 3: publicly the inner disposition of faith that you have. That's
Speaker 3: classic Catholic theology is that the public actions express the
Speaker 3: inner disposition. And if you're a cleric or a person
Speaker 3: of public authority. It's all the more meaningful and all
Speaker 3: the more symbolic and significant and dangerous when you do
Speaker 3: those actions. That's classic Catholic moral theology.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. And the big problem is that you know,
Speaker 1: people who take these scuratures and creators that you know,
Speaker 1: more befitting of a muscle are freemason and say, oh,
Speaker 1: it's technically fine, therefore thing's all right. No, there is
Speaker 1: this mindset is familiar that you need to take into
Speaker 1: into consideration. In context, this means a lot. And that's
Speaker 1: the classical stuff that a lot of Catholic will say,
Speaker 1: like literally divorce the words from the people who watch
Speaker 1: them and the context in which you were written. And again,
Speaker 1: you know, coming from the people that always declare having
Speaker 1: true tradition, having living tradition, this is a really weird
Speaker 1: way to literally divorce the life of your church from
Speaker 1: what exactly says.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm going to add, by the way, SNAXT twenty
Speaker 3: minute analysis to the show description here in a little bit,
Speaker 3: but we'll read the super chat and then we'll conclude
Speaker 3: with the first I guess it's the first third of
Speaker 3: the encirclcle and then come back maybe to finish the
Speaker 3: rest of it, because there's a lot more gems in here.
Speaker 3: It's it's pretty wild. It's it's again I think I
Speaker 3: think it's next level beyond Vatican too. It's the logic
Speaker 3: of Pacha Mama even further. So, you know, I don't
Speaker 3: know what if that kind of stuff doesn't convince a
Speaker 3: Roman Catholic, then nothing will.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and again, remember what we're saying right now, the
Speaker 1: next one is going to use what you didn't like
Speaker 1: from this one, because that's what this one did the
Speaker 1: last one. So again, you know, this is predictions time.
Speaker 1: And I was I was writing some money. You know,
Speaker 1: I think on the discord I put, I put on
Speaker 1: the icon and says this is going to be, this
Speaker 1: is gonna be this, uh, this is cyclical, and it's
Speaker 1: gonna say this exists and it's gonna.
Speaker 3: Oyeah, you called.
Speaker 1: I was writing the money. That's why it works. That's
Speaker 1: so it works. And and and people are going to
Speaker 1: use a great area. People are going to use the
Speaker 1: bones that have been thrown. But that's not the ways
Speaker 1: the train's going, you know. So burns are just get
Speaker 1: to come down to chats and they're just jumping on it.
Speaker 1: And we're going to see that it's a second part.
Speaker 1: You know, there's one section that's great because they will
Speaker 1: quote one sentence to say it's based and the rest
Speaker 1: is absolutely horrendous. But yeah, let's go into the super
Speaker 1: chats and we've definitely gone out a second talk with this.
Speaker 3: Yeah, let's say that for part two. I gotta do
Speaker 3: tutoring here in a minute. But first super chat is
Speaker 3: Duke of Earl for ten dollars. She says, bless you
Speaker 3: both for having actually read this document. I've still got
Speaker 3: more to go, so I'm only about halfway reading wise,
Speaker 3: and we only got about a third of the way in.
Speaker 3: But thank you for that, Duke, much appreciate. Jordan, five dollars.
Speaker 3: What's the role of the Jesuit infiltration in the church
Speaker 3: and how do we refer to how is it relevant
Speaker 3: to the Black Pope? I can't. I would over Malachai
Speaker 3: Martin's Jesuit book. Now, Malachai Martin's book on the Jesuits
Speaker 3: is relevant because it discusses the topics that you're bringing up.
Speaker 3: But Malachi Martin is not a reliable witness or character.
Speaker 3: He's fairly dubious. But it is relevant to if you
Speaker 3: take if you keep that in mind when you read
Speaker 3: his book Jesuits. But this book that I just covered
Speaker 3: is much better for this issue from a not from
Speaker 3: a crazy conspiracy perspective, but written by a lawyer who's
Speaker 3: documenting this in like a thousand pages. So that's a
Speaker 3: much better approach than this sort of fantastical sensationalist, you know,
Speaker 3: goofy evangelical approach to Jesuits. Wimhoff's books far better, And
Speaker 3: I just did a whole two hours on that first.
Speaker 3: I don't know a third of that book the other day,
Speaker 3: so you can go watch that, but thank you for that, Jordan,
Speaker 3: and that. Keufer's focus five dollars. He says China and
Speaker 3: its relation here is interesting given the their global history,
Speaker 3: they're also the king of syncretism one world religion. I
Speaker 3: don't know much about China's religious history. I mean, I
Speaker 3: know a little bit about Confucianism and that kind of stuff, obviously,
Speaker 3: but I don't know a whole lot about the different
Speaker 3: degrees of syncretism there. Obviously, there's emperor worship and that
Speaker 3: kind of stuff, and I'm sure that had syncretistic elements
Speaker 3: ancestor worship, but I don't think it would that wouldn't
Speaker 3: necessarily be the model for global religion. It's a little
Speaker 3: too regionalized. I think they're probably just going to shoot
Speaker 3: for some kind of generic perennialism, right, I mean, that's
Speaker 3: usually where the attempts that one world religion goes is
Speaker 3: just whatever's the most generic, you know, kind of new
Speaker 3: ag blend them altogether type of thing. But who knows,
Speaker 3: we'll have to see. Sneck. What do you think about
Speaker 3: what are the what are the great contenders? Maybe Chris Lom,
Speaker 3: Maybe the the mixing of Christianity with Islam into some
Speaker 3: kind of Chris Lom could be a great contender. I
Speaker 3: don't know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, First, a small word for suggest with question actually
Speaker 1: GeTe as a great stufference is it's only in friendship
Speaker 1: skin through it a little bit. It explains that Jesuits
Speaker 1: come and their goal is to install themselves in positions
Speaker 1: of power and centralize it. And actually they've been instrumental
Speaker 1: and centralizing the forests of papacy and today people who
Speaker 1: are being papal extremists just with you know, James Martin
Speaker 1: for example, and it's probably one of the better representative
Speaker 1: of Jesuits today. So they're instrumental in all this and
Speaker 1: obviously it goes their way and they've they've been working
Speaker 1: on this since the beginning, you know, there would not
Speaker 1: be a papacy. Has been understanding that the just with
Speaker 1: you know, people were acting as a direct militia for
Speaker 1: the perfect.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they're kind of like a special ops for the
Speaker 3: papers that you can look at them as like papals
Speaker 3: back ops even being assassins.
Speaker 1: At one point recovers the history in actually the first
Speaker 1: stream I deep if you just like Jesuits, go.
Speaker 3: Back and watch that Jesuits dream that Snack and I did.
Speaker 3: I'm going to put his video at Orthodox defense just
Speaker 3: now into the show description on kind of the overview
Speaker 3: of for Telly two D if you want to go
Speaker 3: watch that, because he does touch on quite a few
Speaker 3: things that that we didn't touch on tonight that I
Speaker 3: rambled on. So anyway, that's all the super chests for
Speaker 3: right now. Thank you guys for that, and we'll be
Speaker 3: back in a couple of days to cover the rest
Speaker 3: of this in cyclical and thank you Snack, and thank
Speaker 3: you everybody in the audience.
Speaker 1: There was a super chat that was still maybe we
Speaker 1: can cover this, so it was still a super your
Speaker 1: close to the stream.
Speaker 3: No, I haven't closed it, but I only see one, two,
Speaker 3: three super chests.
Speaker 1: Okay, okay, but yeah, you talked about Chris Lam and
Speaker 1: I wanted to comment, and okay, ah, there is a
Speaker 1: plan for it, and I I think I've seen some
Speaker 1: some credits talk about this, and today as we speak
Speaker 1: that people who try to reproach you know, Christianity and Islam,
Speaker 1: namely around the MC conception. So there is our claims
Speaker 1: that the MC conception isn't the current, which first of all,
Speaker 1: Muslims don't have a Christianity standing of original sin, and
Speaker 1: second of all, the current doesn't say this. The current
Speaker 1: says that she was purified, not conceived pure. But this exists,
Speaker 1: and people used to do it for ecologics. In today's
Speaker 1: they're doing it for approachment. You know, both of them
Speaker 1: talk about Mary a lot. So Chrislam is a possibility.
Speaker 1: I doubt that Confucianism is still relevant. You know, China
Speaker 1: doesn't work like this anymore, even though it's syncretistic and
Speaker 1: try to harmonize things. But I think it's basically going
Speaker 1: to be perennalism.
Speaker 3: But left wing, Yeah, liberal, that's a good one. By
Speaker 3: the way, if you're wondering why we only did half
Speaker 3: of this in cyclical or the first third, it's really long.
Speaker 3: This is actually a small book, so it's not a
Speaker 3: you know, ten page in cyclical or something like that.
Speaker 3: It's a small book. It's really long, so that's why
Speaker 3: we're splitting it up anyway. But thank you everybody, and
Speaker 3: we'll come back in the next few days. Have a
Speaker 3: good night.