Speaker 1: This is the first big problem exactly, Snack. I mean,
the accusation is that there are multiple schismatic Orthodox claiming churches. Uh.
And yet the problem is that these schisms occurred in
his mind when it was a Roman Catholic Church. Right
in his mind, the first millennium of the church is
the Roman catholc Church. And so to cite these as
quote schisms of the Orthodox Church is utterly stupid. I
mean that that's like right away a totally bogus argument
on his own grounds.
Speaker 2: Yeah. And the worst but he complains and even goes
into soli you know, which as yet is that every
schism is is based on pride, and every schism by
definition is bad. But here by blaming it on us
is causing a schism hundreds of years before before the
actual schism happens. Because you see, you see that everything
that that is good and in anti church, he would
claim for Rome or that it would it would claim,
you know a lot of things, a lot of good
things that happen in the West, you know, which was
the also at the time, you know, the United Church
to be specifically a Roman and everything that's bad that
happens in the East will be you know, specifically Orthodox,
which is already contradicting its church view because according to them,
we started popping into existence after a schism. But here
not only is the saying that we existed before, but
this is already splitting the church. So this is a
geographic understanding. It's very wrong because it's saying that Rome
was never a universal church. Is conflating the Catholic Church
and the undivided Church with the Roman patricket alone, which
is a huge problem. So here we already we already
see that this is a lack of knowledge of early
church history, especially the two thousand years. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I want to point out too from a
logical perspective, which by the way, the Roman Catholic Church
is grounded in a classical foundational epistemology, not just in
their acceptance by Leo the thirteenth of the Tomistic system
of philosophy, but also at Vaticant one. You have the
acceptance of the normative way that you know religious claims
are true is through just going and investigating the evidence.
In fact, he's wrong when he says that the way
that you know the Romancolic Church is true is to
just not worry He literally says to not worry about
the objective evidence, because that's just going to turn into
people fighting with one another and throwing disputed documents back
and forth. You just pray about it, literally like a
Mormon level to your argument, like there's a burning in
my bosom when I prayed about it, and so I
knew that the issue was my own pride. Well, that
is not an argument. That is a subjective emotional appeal.
It's a form of emotional appeal, not a valid argument
for how we would know the papacy is true, and
in fact, the papacy itself. When it defines how we
know the papacy is true at the beginning of Vatican One,
it talks about the fact that you just go and
you investigate the history of religions and the history of
the institution of the papacy, and it will be manifest
to everybody who looks at the evidence that it's the true, historical,
continuous teacher of the faithful, and it's never erred in
all this stuff, all the claims of Vatican One. Right,
So he doesn't even use the Vatican One definition of
how we're supposed to know that the Roman Catholic Church
is the true church. He uses a subjective appeal, and
that's what really stuck out to me throughout this discussion
was that there was almost no theology in this. It
was all about problems in history, subjective emotional appeals, and
the ultimate claim, which we'll eventually get to, which is
just that it's a pragmatic thing. Bro. Look, we just
need a pope, come on, right, we just need the
pope and it'll solve the problems. But we're going to
see that their own stream everything Taylor Marshall is about
disproves that claim because he spends his whole ministry now
fighting against Frank as a trad Right, So Taylor Marshall's
on the trad trek which we've all many of us
have been on at some point. Right, Taylor Marshall's about
where I was at in about two thousand and three
or four, Right, I was just at the two thousand
and three is when I first started going to the
SSPX Latin mass and Marshall is edging towards this kind
of SSPI exposition, right, I mean he's not there yet,
you know. Whatever, He's he's putting himself as the face
of kind of the recognize and resist view on the papacy.
But we'll get to all that Vatican two stuff later.
I just want to point out that, uh, you know
this the way it started out, it just really started
sinking quick, and I really expected better from these guys
are supposed to be representatives. But the metre fact that
they think Ericabara is the best Roman cathocha apologist. I
think it says a lot Ergabar has a play darift
and he's terrible.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, so yes, Actually it's extreme, starts to deconstruct
and dissolved itself quite quite quite fast, and it's starts
the beginning to start to contradict each other. So in
the same burd at thirteen minutes, when he experiences his background,
Sanders says that emotionalism is bad, and then he will
go on, you will go on saying, is that actually
the reason for his conversion is emotional which which is
even even contradictions set when he introduces it, like is
is you know.
Speaker 1: A Yeah, so he begins by he begins by saying
that you've got to be consistent. Uh, well, the Orthodox
Church is full of contradictions. And then he turns around
and uses an emotional appeal and contradicts himself. So it's
it's back and forth.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: There's not a lot of consistency in this argumentation. But
let's move on to the next uh problem, which is
his next claim is the Orthodox Church is a whole
bunch of different churches. Again, that's not true. And by
the way, the the idiocy on their part in terms
of their own church I think was pretty amazing because
it's almost like they had no knowledge of uniotism right now.
I mean, Flanders knows about the Uniates and whatnot, but
Taylor Marshall seemed to be completely lost in this realm.
And the idea that there aren't national churches or national pride,
or that there's not national uh uh ism you could
say within the world room is laughable. And by the way,
they don't even know about all the problems within the
world of unionitism. How unionism has multiple contradictory claims. Unionism
many of the union its they don't accept Trent Uh.
They will revere people that for centuries were considered heretical
in the Roman Catholic Church. They revere people in their
liturgies that are officially heretical. And then as you pointed out,
I did want to mention too, the point about Isaac,
this Syrian. Now, this is really one of the key
ways too, I think totally deconstruct their their stream was
the Taylor Marshall's ignorance on his own church comes to
the four when we look at Saint Isaac, the Syrian right,
people were he thought he got this gotcha on people right,
the Orthodox, except Saint Isaac as an historian, saint just
saying like he thought this was a big gotcha moment.
Why is that not a gotcha moment?
Speaker 2: Yeah, it is a sopful. And what's great is the
Units is that you know, every single like you will
you will criticize the Actually that's probably why he doesn't
want to criticize it. To mention this stream, but you know,
doctor Tayler Marshall will criticize or theology, he will criticize
you know, saints, you can even criticize all right, But
the problem is even though discipline, But the problem is
ultimately the units have the same saint as us, They
have the same rights as us, discipline as this. The
only difference is that they submit to the Pope. Yeah.
Actually in attacking in attacking us, on something else in
the papacy, he will actually attack his own church.
Speaker 1: Attacking his church exactly. He doesn't realize his own church
has multiple confessions of faith and multiple contradictory claims about
whose saints are. So that was the first big gaff
that he made right away. But let's get back to Flanders.
So the other thing about the stream was that it
was full of the pot kettle, the part calling the
kettle black. Which, now, if we were to just exchange
like arguments based on problems in the church, that would
be one thing, generally speaking, because you can always say, oh,
you got this problem, well, you got this problem, you
got that from. Let's keep in mind that the Romancolic
Church is a church built on a specific doctrine of
the papacy. That is the key foundational doctrine, and they
kind of stress that in their talk obviously, But it's
different when we talk out talk about problems related to
the magisterial claims of the papacy right and its contradictions.
That's different than just talking about moral problems in this
church versus moral problems in that church. Right, So we
could throw liberals back and forth all day, which ironically
they just cite a couple of liberal theologians from the
from the Orthodox sphere, and they act like that's the
voice of all of all Orthodoxy. Right, do we do that?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 1: If I could sit here and en list James Martin
quotes all day long and be like, oh, bro, we
got you, but he is not. Does he represent the
entirety of the novis ordo or traditional Catholicism. No. Right,
to be fair, he does not. But it does totally
undermine the House of Card falls. System falls apart when
we look at the magisterial and dogmatic statements of the popes.
That's the key here. And by the way, Taylor Marshall
has to understand, which I don't think he's gotten to
this point yet, where he grasps that you do have
to accept the ordinary, universal magisterial teaching of the papacy,
and that includes their canonization of saints. So you're gonna
have to accept John Paul the second as a saint.
You're gonna have to accept Paul the six. You're gonna
have to accept Johnny twenty third as blessed or whatever
he is. All of these innovators and all of these
guys who brought about this crisis in the Church, that
this apostasy that they admit and talk about, they're gonna
you have to accept them as saints. You can't reject
ordinary universal magisterium. And canonizations are part of ordinary universal magisterium.
So that means when he attacks Uni eight saints who
were Rivera saints, he's attacking his own saints. That's a
huge stupid mistake.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and then just to remember to remind people unionism
is not a Vatican two things. It started way before
we've got to midway telling us that yes, after Florence
is accepted, is accepted leven bread, that is, they did
several creeds, did different kind of liturgy. It is absolutely
not a Vatican two things. It's been like exist for
a while. And actually they wild say that actually we
latinize it to remove stuff some several paper and cyclical
let's says that we cannot touch the right, we cannot
touch the way they worship. And it just to this
day several creeds and stuff.
Speaker 1: Like this, right, Yeah, I had that in my notes
later on that that how can you claim to be
the Church with the magisterial faith of of one that
you have one faith that will ensure and promote this
unity when you have multiple creeds that your church confesses, right,
uni Ads don't confess the Philly, okay, in the creed,
but they're united to the rest of the world that
professes the Philly in the Creed. And supposedly we're supposed
to go, well, it doesn't ultimately matter because these two
things are reconcilable. Actually, we're going to see that the
two positions aren't reconcilable later on. But I just want
to point out this point that when you do the
appeal to pride thing, it has again a sort of
false piety emotional appeal, Like, well, I realized how prideful
I was, And the root problem of all the Orthodox
people is their pride, and they need to be converted
to the pope. And he actually appeals to original sin
is what keeps us from being saved in union with
the pope. This is bizarre, Like, so what's original sin
ultimately effect? I mean, I know that they would say
that it's you know, all of our sins, all our
our you know, actions against the divine law and moral law, etc.
Come from the root of original sin. But the whole
force of this discourse consistently was Flanders saying that original
sin is keeping you from recognizing the pope, which will
lead to your salvation. I mean, because they're I mean,
at least as far as I understood, they're kind of
trying to toy with the Peene idea that there's no
salvation outside the Roman Catholic communion, right, which Vatican two
is completely contrary to, by the way, and numerous papal
statements after Vatican Two were completely contrary to. And by
the way, ecumenism did not begin at Vatican two. It
began way earlier. Benedict the fifteenth was actually engaging in
ecumenical actions early on BENEDICTA six fifteenth with the big
supporter of the League of Nations. So I think the
papacy there was cracks in the papacy far earlier than
just Vatican two. But that's a different topic. My point
is just that the bizarre statements that original sin is
what leads us to deny the pope was hilarious because
this is really a vindication of the Orthodox claim that
really Roman Catholicism is sol of papem It's all ultimately
about defending the papacy. That's why Taylor Marshall. I mean,
most of his streams are about trying to fix the
problems in Rome and the papacy.
Speaker 2: Right, it is as good because you know, all throats
the streams he composes to Presdent, which you know will
will disagree as one who who skins him. Then we're
going to discuss that when we'll talk about pride and stuff.
But equals this president all throughout the stream. And then
he makes an argument that sounds very colvinistic. You know,
you're in total depravity. So by definition you are trying
to you're you're trying to to refuse a papacy like
it's literally you know, the fall of aid and causes
you to to.
Speaker 1: Total privaty, keeps you from being united with Frank, who
they think, by the way, is pretty much a heretic,
which is hilarious. So so he lumps the Orthodox then
with everybody else. All Orthodox are just like all the
Oriental Orthodox, which is objectively not true. Even though there
have been meetings, there's still not any official recognition of
sacramental sharing or uh liturgical recognition in the Diptics, right,
so none of that. So the fact that people meet
and by the way, Francis goes in praise in in mosques.
By his logic, Francis is a Muslim, right now, He's
not going to admit that. Well, I would actually say
maybe he is right, like I'm a free Masonic Muslim
because Francis goes in praise in the mosques. And Flanders
argument was literally that some Orthodox people will go to
a Coptic church. Therefore there is this sacramental sharing. And
then he has to correct Taylor Marshall on the fact
that their canon law actually allows them to go to
Schismatics to receive the sacraments in extreme cases, which by
the way, is an it's an innovation.
Speaker 2: Is they even have a right to lie in order
to get Eucharist in other places. It's also shows that
they recognize that, you know, we have valid sacraments, which
is one of the main thing about the church. Like
how like what like if the sacraments work, if you
have sacramental certainty, it means that you know, you can
attain salvation, you can you can wash your sins, can
you can be confessed.
Speaker 1: Taylor Marshall doesn't even know that the nineteen eighty three
Code of Canon Law and and Vatican two's allowances loosened
this up to where you can go to receive sacraments
from people that you are completely out of communion with.
But that actually makes perfect sense if you're in a
humanist and you accept all the uniates. I mean, if
uniates are accepted in the Roman Catholic comunion with completely
different faith, different canons and so forth, different saints, then
of course you could why couldn't you go receive In fact,
they even have canons and extremes cases where you can
be baptized. You can ask an atheist to baptize you
if you're on the point of death, which is utterly ludicrous,
right their whole ex operato system, which we'll get to
in a minute, with their misunderstanding of baptism. But I
just want to point out that it was completely disingenuous
to make the comparison to all of the Oriental orthodox
with the fact that some people will go to a
schismatic sect or something like that. And by the way,
so all of those same problems that he thinks are
probably Orthodoxy exist in the world room Catholicism all over
the place, not in extreme cases. I mean, if you
are a Roman Catholic you have within perhaps one diocese.
Let's say I listed all my different options. I could
go to the SSPX, which is split and by the way,
they can't decide or figure out if you can or
can't go to the SSPX if you're no asorto. Half
of them think you can, have of them think you can't.
So I could go to the SSPX, which itself is
split between two people who want to go back to
and reconcile with the papacy and the Bishop Williamson crowd
type who don't want to and still but still recognize
the popes right. I could go to a Uniate church
which doesn't accept multiple ecumenical councils as normative in their theology.
They might give a verbal accredence to it. Some of
them will actually just outright deny it. They don't believe
in purgatory, they don't care about Trent, they believe pallemism,
quote unquote. But I could so is that the real
Romancolic church I could go to. Yeah, I could go
to an FSSP church which is in commune with Rome
but has all the same ideas as the SSPX, because
they're SSPX people who've been reconciled to Rome. Right, so
there's that Latin Mass. I could go to a conservative
Novasto church which professes to have problems in Vatican two,
and do mental gymnastics on trying to reconcilt Vatican two,
but we'll still accept it. I could go to a
set of a contest sect or chapel, perhaps in a
big city, which themselves will all be split amongst one another,
claiming to be a Roman Catholic and claiming to have
validity in valid orders. I could go to a dioces
in Latin Mass which is different from all these and
will perhaps have a different view than all of these people.
Or perhaps I cant even find a crazy Conclavist Mass
who perhaps has valid sacraments because perhaps their so called
pope was ordained in the pre Vatican two, right. Or
I could find a Jesuit clown mass hip hop Mass
that I could say is the Roman Cathity. So within
one city, I have this vast array of completely different
faiths and liturgies, beliefs, perspectives on a dogmatic council and
the pope for the last sixty years. But I'm supposed
to believe that his analogy of some Orthodox people in
the antioch In church he saw one time, go to
a Coptic church that's equivalent to what I just listed.
Give me a break.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and they will not have the same creed, they
will not have some ciology, so we'll know they will
pray the saints like the Celibates Parlemas for example. Or yeah,
if you go to to the historians to the killdean Catholic, say,
Mike Celebrate, you know, is like the Syrian who you
called an historian despite him not being an historian.
Speaker 1: Right, he thinks it's not sat As Church, even though
the units accepted as It's just it's just nonsense. And
it's like they don't even know what they're arguing against.
They're just shouting. It's like the the whole thing was
like total basic bitch level stuff, Like they didn't even
delve into anything with any substance. And that's because it
was really just an appear to the masses. It was
like a very low level kind of like just hoping
that nobody's going to actually go and check any of
these claims and just be swayed by, you know, just
emotional appeals. Basically. Uh, the next point is that we
are prideful and we don't figure out what we can't
uh forgive, and we have grudges again, another emotional appeal.
And let's let's I want to keep stressing that there's
a reason why Flanders says, you cannot solve this matter.
Don't look into history and the theology to solve this matter,
because you're never gonna You're just gonna go around in circles.
It's not an issue of object he says, it's not
an objective fact issue. Really, really, I thought that that's
what Vatican one says is the means in the way
by which we solve the issue of the papac that
you go look in the at the objective historical facts.
But he doesn't want us to do that. He wants
us to listen to what he thinks is the root,
which is pride. Which, yeah, of course, pride and pride
is the root of every sin, as Augustine says, and
it's also the root of heresy, as the root of schism.
But just to say that is just presupposing that your
position is correct. Right, Maybe you're the ones that's in pride.
Maybe your acumenical research at the Ukrainian Catholic University. Uh,
in aid of NATO and whatnot. Maybe that was a
source of pride. Maybe your thought that you you are
going to solve the schism and your research to be
a ministry of reconciliation. And he said, maybe that's pride.
Speaker 2: It's terrible. So it says that, yeah, we we are
unable to forgive. Actually you know, it's it's fine. We
can we can forgive almost everything, but we can just
come into community if heresy because you know, union is great,
but you can only be united in truth.
Speaker 1: Can be.
Speaker 2: Like uh, you know, by this metric, you know the Romans,
you know, the pagan Romans, when the person at Christians,
they wanted to be united with them, they persecuted them,
not because they worshiped Christ, but because they worship Christ only.
They wanted to be united. Before this area of Doma,
it was called the paxt the orom the peace of
the Gods, so it was it was a union. So
but by this metric, do you think your martyrs that
were martyred by Rome, you know, who prefer truth instead
of union where they're prideful Christ themselves teaches that you know,
they will be schism Christ. Is that it brings the sword.
I'm not saying that we should look forward to schism,
but you know, just conflating any any sort of split
if being necessarily bad or prideful is is very wrong
because and you know the same way conflating any action
of unity as being necessarily good. You see, political unity
is also a tool of the anti Christ.
Speaker 1: Well, that's a great point that we're going to get to.
So I mean, I mean, but this is the kind
of reasoning that leads directly to patcha Mama right unity
at the expensive truth. And by the way, all the
reunion attempts the the reunionists, that was always their their
driving modest operandi. I'm just reminded of the excellent book
by Papadaccus, Crisis in Byzantium, which deals with the Senator Blackernee,
and it covers the fact that right after the Council
of Lions which confirmed the Phillyoquay, the East met and
had Blackerne, which condemned the Philly oquay, which, by the way,
is binding a normative for Orthodox. And we'll get to
one that's binding a normative Orthodox, because they actually touched
on that in the stream. But you see the same
designs for for motivations at the time of that reunion synod.
You see the same problems at the attempts at Florence's reunion.
And the problem is that it's great to have the
desire for unity, but again it can't come at the
expensive truth and the problem with ecumenism, and we know
that that's the motivation of Flanders is one percent totally
a cumunist, and even admits us. He says, back when
he was received in he was, oh, I was a cumnist.
Back then I was. He was always an acumenist. That's
the problem. That's the root here is that the assumption
that I'm going to solve these problems because my heart
and my motives are right, and I'm going to be
the way I can help with this, I can heal
the That is pride. That is probably assuming that you
don't know, assuming that that you know better than all
of these people who actually dealt with this problem for centuries. Right.
It's it's that's the pride here is not is not
saying any any position that's not your position is pride. Right.
So Isaac the Syrian, by the way, wasn't a Nestorian
at that time the Church of the East that he
was a part of was actually in union with the Orthodox,
and he does not teach an historian ecclesiology or Christology.
So so Marshall again has no idea what he's talking
about when it comes to the East. But I knew
this about Marshaal ten years ago when we would debate
the essen synergy distinction. He was totally lost, and he's
still totally lost. He doesn't know why it's an issue.
He doesn't get white even matters, And the exact same
is true of Flanders. I've never since seeing a person
who goes from Orthodoxy to Rome who knew or grasps
why the essence introducinction matter. They couldn't tell you exactly
what it is. They could say, well, it's like there's
a distinction between God's actions and essence or whatever. But
like man, we're all just saying the same thing. No,
we're not. And the Sinaut of Blackerne shows that the
Orthodox Church knew that and has always known that it's
in our liturgy that we accept the essence introducinction. Saint
Gregor Palomas has entire debates right the debate with Barlem
over this issue and so it doesn't matter how many
ecumenists say that we can mess these positions, when the
people who expounded these positions thought that then said very
clear that they couldn't be meshed. And all I have
to do to prove the Roman Catholic wrong on this
is to point out that for centuries they rejected Palomas
and now they accept him. That shows you that your
church is false. It's not based on truth. It's just
based on power, temporal power and being under the pope.
You can have as many faiths as you want as
long as you accept Peter in their sense right, as
long as you accept And by the way, when I
say Peter, they want Peter to be the head of
all the world religions. That's where this is going. And
by the way, you think that's crazy enough, Flanders loves Salavia.
That's what Slavia wanted Peter as ahead of world religions.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly. I'd like to make a side note on
history because it brings up something that often comes up,
is is that we're prideful because we remember as a
fourth Crusade, uh you know, which is the second destruction
of Constantinople by a crusader army, which you know was
excommunicated by the pup for attacking the Catholic cities. But
you know, this whole Cruisade thing started because they mistook
just war. If holy war, holly ward is a Muslim concept,
you don't get salvation by going to war. Killing someone
is always bad. You can you can be part of
just what. But if you kill someone, you can become
a priest if you if your blood on your hands,
can go beIN the altar. And even since Basily says
that yes, we can accept that you go to war,
but under under some circumstances, if the war is just
you cannot be a war for you know, persecution. It
needs to be to defend Christians. So it's and you know,
like it doesn't cleanse your sins. And we're going to
see that rom itself today shows that the crusade where
not to defend Christians, because you know, Jerusalem has been
under Moslim rule for quite a while at the time
of the first Cruisade. But the first crusade, you know,
the crusade thing only kicks off when when the skis them.
So he says, we we are unable to yet to
forgive this. No, we can forgive you, We can forgive.
But what we cannot do is is forget or martyrs.
You know, if your revelations it's the martyr is the
blood mart as Christ Chris Evan and in Christ Christ
will avenge. So no, we just keep to tradition. What
we don't forget is what happened also after the Fourth Crusade,
because during the Latin Empires there has been many persecutions
of Orthodox Christians. Just after the Crusades, we also have
a crusades starting in Russia. So it's not only against Byzantium,
it's against it's against Russia that you know, for example,
Saint Alexander Nevsky, he fought, uh, he fought some things
that happened if autunami of twutally crusaders and these totally
crusaders have been you know, evangelizing the Baltic for quite
a while, but they never attacked before the Fourth Crusade.
So actually after the Fourth Crusade you just said that
we are a fair game. We also criticize the units.
We have many many martyrs against the units we have
even Union Busantine Empires. We're in community Rome that persecuted
and killed people. We have the Polish, the Polish York
over the Ukrainians, and and of course we cannot forget
or martyrs, and they were killed specifically for for these reasons.
Usually people counteract by saying, this has been the massacre
of the Latins in the in the it's the business
an empire. If you look at it, it was not
done by the Church. Why did this happen? It happened
because you had Venetians and Geneerans competing and they will
attack each other's suburbs. And actually, at some point the
Empress said, okay, you know authority in my empire. You're
trading rights and you started attacking each other in my empire.
I'm liquidating a part of the the Venetian carta is.
The Church doesn't have much to do with it. That's
by the way.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he has, he has a speaking of he has
a blog post where he touched on some of that,
and he that's the one of the blog posts where
he says, don't worry about getting into this historical thing
of back and forth on the papacy, because you'll get
into the question of forged documents supporting the papacy. And
we can't really know if those are forgs, are not?
Nobody even really knows. Do we even really know? If
those are forms? You're not? Actually your own Vatican admits
that those are forgeries. What are you talking about? All
of these key texts that prove the temporal power of
the papacy, everything from donation of Constantine the Galatian to
Creedles Is Asidorian, the Creedles right, the Simakian forgeries right,
these all played into not just backing up the petrine
succession of infallibility for Rome supposedly, but also in terms
of Rome's temporal power, which again obviously evolves into being
what it is nowadays, the Papal states, the Vatican Bank
a secular institution, something that Metropolitan Sera Fama Pireus calls
out very quickly in his his article that it's it's
it's largely about papal Cesero power, which is ironic given
their claims and critiques of Cero papism.
Speaker 2: Yep just finished the martyr So so yes, is it
called spiteful from members of martyrs, which is you know,
ironic because they himself I have no problem forgetting their
own martyrs. And you know, if you look at the
Vatigan too. The calendar reform actually removed many, many saints
from the calendar, some of which are martyrs. And you know,
even before you had saints being faced out, they.
Speaker 1: Move saints from the calendar, Clement of Alexandria, Sigmon of Trent.
I mean, they can just move. It's like, how is
that universal ordinary magisterial. If canonizations are universal ordinary magisterian,
which obviously they are, and then you can remove the saints.
It's it's ridiculous.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's it's it's it's it's bogus, because you know,
these people entered the church as the Orthodox fast the tradition,
and today they will tell you actually, you know instance,
you know, there's the paperwork about saints. It's not like this.
There's no formal chanization of Saint Augustine, it's like this.
But apparently they can be removed this way. And at
some points it has been some backlash because at some
points that removes Catherine of Alexandria, as they removed Saint George,
and you know he later add them back. But oftentimes
in order to to they will remove saints and you know,
later cover up by saying, oh, you don't always there
is the other calendar. It's fine, is they removed Saint
Cyril of Alexandria. So they say that there apparently the
church that have the authority of the Council of Ephesis.
But they were removed in Ceil of Alexandria because he
puts them some you know, he cast some shade on
on the purp. So yes, also this proves that, you know,
the orthodox way of making saint center the church is
part of the divinal human magisterium of church or church
is a divin human entity.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean for the first millennium, So for the
first millennium there was a local phenomena in it still
is an orthodoxy. Everybody. Nobody will admit that the Roman
Catholic pope in the first millennium is who confirmed all saints.
Everybody knows that's a post schism development in the Latin
Church because it's an innovation, because obviously it didn't work
that way before. The pope didn't decide through the Roman
see every single saint for the church. Now after the schism,
they do because it's an obvious innovation. So we are
the traditional church, you're not, Yes, So.
Speaker 2: They will say it's it's messy and stuff like this.
It's being recognized by tradition. The first the first step
for sanctity is actually not waiting for the pope to
accept it's to to acknowledge a person as a same.
So for example, today we have people who are making
icons of of surfing, of surfing rules. Why because this
is this is the Orthodox way, and a thinks there's
a good Baptist argument works here is that you know
the saints for us enter the church in this, you
know divin a human tradition. For Rome, it can be
done and done. It's just about paperwork. So I couldn't
even argue that there is no sanctity in in sanctuary
in Rome because because they adopted this new thing is
just about paperwork. Tomorrow you can you can be canonized
next day, you can be uncanonized depending on hobilities, you know,
if it always a papacy. For example, sin Cemon of
Trent was was removed from the calendar because of the circumstances.
Speaker 1: He's not acumenically viable given the history of a post
Vatican to Roman Catholicism. He's not ecumenically viable. So they
had to get rid of him. By the way. The
next point in their talk was he attempted to try
to comment on the Metropolitan Moscow patriarchy in the dispute
with the EP and the problem in the Ukraine. Now,
this is interesting again because he is from the university,
the Calm University and the Ukraine. So I think that
and we know that that's connected to the people at Fordham.
We know that the ecumenists there have been working with
the Roman Catholics and the Uniates to undermine the influence
of the Russian Orthodox Church there and the Canonical Ukrainian
Church and Metropolitan NUFRI. That's all being done at and
fostered by NATO in the CIA. What's very interesting that
they never even touched on this, and it's well known
in mainstream news, It's well known at good Orthochristian dot com,
countless articles describing and detailing the problems in Ukraine. No
mention of any of that, no mention of the problems
of how acumenists are a big part of this. Right,
I thought, Taylor Marshall is not a big fan of ecumenism. Oh,
but if it's to undermine the Orthodox Church there, oh,
suddenly acumenism is good. Right, So, but that just goes
along with their you know, ends justify the means Catholic
moral system that we get from Alfonsi's Lagwari. But he
talks about the rival. He says that that this is
crazy that one patriarch will be out of communion with another.
This is just crazy. Has he never read church history?
Does he not know of the countless examples of this
happening in the first millennium? And the pope didn't just
solve all these problems, right, He acts like this is
something that's like just unique to like twentieth century Orthodoxy
or nineteenth century Orthodoxy. This has happened in all kinds
of times in the first millennium. In fact, what's the
situation with the Synoty of Oak where Cyril of Alexandria
isn't he out of communion with Christostom and Rome? Right,
So there's a period where they're out of communion. Saint
John Chris Sistem for a long time in his life
was out of communion with Rome. Right, So there's plenty
of examples of Canon twenty eight of Chalcedon talks about
the very thing that he doesn't even grasp, right, the
very thing that he says, acts like a some normative
thing is right in the middle of the Council of Calcedon.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he says that quote at nineteen minutes, this makes
no sense the facts that you have indirect communion. Look
at church history, you know, at seventeen minutes they say
that rivalry between the patricids are are showing that there's
a problem all the consuls. You know, to an extent,
you've got rivalries between patricut and they are so so
bad as this isn't even acologies. They say that you
know that knows the African schism, if it's incipron of
cath that actually disagreeing perpet you know, it's happened, you
know during all this part where Rome was trying to
to show that that leadership of our Northern Northern africasm
graviation Cartho region and they say, but don't worry when
when we think about it, it's it's just it's just
an exception.
Speaker 1: It's been.
Speaker 2: Like if you look at you know, the church always
had problems. You know, even Central Christistom says that hell
is paid the skulls of bishops. The CHURCHI always had problems.
The church always had always as these issues. But when
we look at the kind of issues that both sides
are facing, we have the same issues as for the
Church of the first millennium. We have the same one.
We have people disagree and and what's great is that
it is a disagreement right now. It's it's not about faith.
We do not want to add things to decree. It's
mostly about jurisdiction. It's a it's it's a political squab. Actually,
the fact that we diunited politically, because you know, Church
did not come to make an umpire. It said that,
you know, don't with Caesar. You give to Caesar what diseases.
So the fact that we're not united politically, you know,
the fact that we're in competition just like the battery kids.
You know that inside the empire, it shows that we
need to be able to keep the theology is the best,
whereas they are united politically, and the things that you
just need to go up one person to destroy everything.
So there's a problem you're having are just as innovative
as your dogma. The problem the Roman church is just
as innovative as a Roman dogma. And now you can
you can just destroy everything there just one man.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, is it not obvious from Nicia that
the structure of the church involved patriarchates and national bishops.
Does that mean that we are confined and limited to
some sort of strict nationalism. No, But I mean it's
like these guys had never even they've never even read
the canons of the councils, Like they don't even know
the way that the councils operated. That they have no
idea the fact that this was the normative structure, was
honor being given in these councils. And there's no comparison
between the honor of the Bishop of Rome, nor does
a council determine the Bishop of Rome's local jurisdiction, nor
can it be compared to Alexandria or to Antioch. Right,
but what do you see here in this famous canon
of Nicia?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: Have these people even looked at Nicia? Do they even know?
Because all they do when they go to the church
father the church fathers just exist to be to be
quote mined for papal supremacy, presuppositions. That's the only reason
that that's all they care about. They don't ever debate
the theology, they don't ever talk about the Essen's interducetinction.
They will talk about any of that stuff because all
they care about is proving solar paper. That's the only thing.
And again duel Ingjur was correct when he said that
after Vatican One, all of a Catholic apologetics will be
papal lawyering. It will be just nothing but trying to
prove that the papacy and Vatican One was always the case,
when clearly the modus operandi and many, many, many examples
here you can see. I mean, if we were to
say something like Canon six, they would be like, oh,
your national church is, bro, you got a bunch of nationalism.
Speaker 2: Bro.
Speaker 1: You don't have like you got your pent archy, Bro,
you got your patriarchist Bro. The patriarchal system is out
of the canons of the councils. Do you not understand that,
like this is the modus operandi.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's very funny because he says that we are
not the Church of the Seventh Council. We don't as
the authority of the seven Council, but we keep the
countons of.
Speaker 1: Them, right, you don't.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And and you know something that's very funny, like
this Canon six, you will have some people who try
to turn the thing and say that actually it means
that Alexandria isn't the Rome. No, it says, and it
says that very clearly in in this canon that Rome
as extended jurisdiction, not because of Patron's supremacy, because of
we reco.
Speaker 1: There's no, there's no mention of of that.
Speaker 2: He actually actually goes on against the it's just great.
It goes on against the pain key by saying that
you know, it's it's not it's it was, it was,
it was developed. Yeah, it's part of tradition again the council, yes,
and it's And in order to to bring this argument,
he brings up the Council of Constantinople One, which is
this council is the best argument against the papacy even.
Speaker 1: Why why why has Constance album won such a great
argument against papes.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so constant pul One. So it brings it up
because it is a council that establishes Constantinople as being
a patriarchate before it was not patriarchet which is fine.
We agree with this even today. You know, the EP
gets the Thomas from the patriarch of Hiraklion in recognition
of that. But you know full well that they adhere,
especially especially Marshaled, to the idea of no salivation outside
the church. But this council in Neuran paper supremacy over
counsuls but was just great. And I have the Canon
of the Catholic Church that says that the Roman Pontiff
Canon thirty thirty eight, the Roman Pontiff alone, as you
can vook, the Commdical Council preside preside over it. The
second part it is to the Roman Pontiff to determine
the matter to be treated in the council and established
order in the in the ops of council. So not
only the Pope was not present any of the seven
mecamical council the first ones. But actually this council was
convened in skuse be from because this council actually happens
during the controversy of Lucifer of Callier. So Lucifer Cacleary,
who's the schismatic, refused baptism of people that were persecuted
in that our Chlesian And this council is convened excuse
of be from because at the time there are two
bishops of Pantioch, there is there is Belatius, and there
is a Polinius. And Police is not recognized by by
Jerusalem and Constantinople, whereas there's also yeah, Milicious is recognized
by Cruz, Jerusalem and Constantinople, and Paulinus is recognized by
Rome and Alexandria. So this council is convened by is
the part that is supporting militious you know, Besis militant right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Basil. This will come into play when I will
read from Basil's letters, which are completely contrary to Vatican
one people supremacy. We'll see that that was nowhere in
Basil's mind. There's no way he could write the letters
he wrote if you believe the Vatican one view, which
again they have this curious thing where on the one hand,
they are constantly interested in proving the Vatican One mindset
from the first millennium of Christianity, and then they turn
around and will say and admit that there was no
Vatican One mindset. It's a doctrine that evolved and it's
something that came to clearer and clear evolutionary truth over tom. Now,
wait a minute, which is it? Is it something that
was always there would say, try to argue when they
go to Clement or to Pope Victor, or to Leo
or these people that they misuse or is it something
that wasn't really clear but evolved, right, So they do
they do both things at once.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And it makes us great about Constant nuple is
that it's convenience schism be thrown and yet it is
an e commenical council. It it promotes communical truth. And
what does an ecumunical council mean? You know, a communical
means that it's in the empire. But what does a
true council mean? One that we follow is one that
show the truth of faith. And this council show the
truth of faith, of faith, and that means the Holy
Spirit seals the decision. That means it's infallible, you know
the paper and fallibility derections from this, you know, you
know before it was only for true ecumenical council. Now
it just was the perpect. This means that the Holy
Spirit operated at an ecomunic like in an a communical
council outside of the post, outside of the community. From
that means that Rome was on the on the wrong
side of a schism and even Meletius, who died during
this council.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I stressed to look at the quality of the
content that s Neck brings to the stream, look at
the quality of the content and depth that we go into,
and compare that to just the totally normy emotional appeal
that they did. That's why he says, don't go into
the actual claims. Just go by the fact that I
had a burning in my bosom at liturgy one day
that told me that I was in pride right, and
then they go on to this list, well, and they've
got some problems and they don't have the pope. That's
the essence of that whole day. Look at where I
mean what. They didn't even mention a single canon. They'd
even mention a single objection right of something like Canon
twenty eight. Now he made Snack made a great point
from constat the noble one. But the next council after,
well there's ephesis and then you have Chalcidon. The reason
I'm bringing Calcaton up is that if you look at
Canon twenty eight, which by the way, yes, the papacy
later rejected, and obviously they had to reject it because
it doesn't fit with their paradigm. But we're bringing it
forth because what this shows us is the canonical procedure
of the church, the mindset of the church at that
time to propose this canon right and again yes, eventually
the Bishop of Rome rejects this canon because he doesn't
like what's in that canon, obviously, but what it.
Speaker 2: Shows is that because if the purpose supposed to reign
of all the council, what does he have to seek?
You know, the canon promoted.
Speaker 1: And why why is it even there? That's the point.
The mindset of the council is concilier. Canons are concilier, right,
Papal letters and dogmas are not right, So canons are concilier.
And what does this canon say. It says that the
tradition of the fathers is what derives the patriarchy derives
its honor and its rights from the tradition of the councils.
We saw that with Canon six and Nicia, and here
in Canon twenty eight of Chalcedon. What you see is
that the rights and privileges of the throne of old
Rome were because it was the royal city, and so
constant and nobles should have equal rights and privileges because
it's new Rome, right, and so it should be magnified
as she is to the second in rank, and it
should have all the same powers and prerogatives because of
why magical peter powers. No, because of divine excuse me,
because of the canons of the councils, and because of custom.
And so this custom, right is what is the basis.
And it's rejected by the pope obviously, right, so the
papacy eventually has to do. You think this is the
only example. There are multiple examples. I got a list
right here of all of the canons and all the
ecamenical synods. Yes I have, and we're going to go
through some of these would show that each one of
these canons that's proposed in every economical synod, not all
the canons, but each canon that we have as an
example here is contrary to the attitude of Vatican One.
And again notice the double think schizophrenia of the Roman
Catholic apologists, who, on the one hand want to tell
you that the Vatican one mindset was always there. It
was always there clear and at the same time, well,
it wasn't really there. It was evolving. It was just
a seed form right in the Cardinal Newman notion of
evolution of dogma. It was a seed form that was there,
and it evolved all the way up to the time
of Vatican One. And so the most important doctrine of
the Church, which is not in the creed, totally absent
in John Damascus's exposition of the the Orthodox faith right,
which they accept as a doctor of the Church, totally absent.
Nothing there. It's the last thing that the Catholic Church
defines in an ecumenical council except for Vatican one. Right,
So it took all the way up to the eighteen
hundreds to define the doctrine that is the foundation of
the church and how you know the true church, and
it's not even in the creed. It's ridiculous.
Speaker 2: Some things that's interesting is that during the Council of Constantinople,
the first one, Malicious was presiding or it died, and
Malicious is a saint, so he wasn't skism be from
he died in schism, be from knowing about the schism,
because he was trying to mend it, and still is
a saint. So not only is there is you know
a saint, is there is salvation outside of the Roman communion,
But there is also sanctity, sainthood, and there's also e
commenical councils, and that's some things. You know. They would
say that, you know, this consul is only a communical
you know consernerable ones only a communical because the pope
accepted it. Yes, but it doesn't matter according to ecclesiology,
because it means that a really communical consul is the
spirit falling on it your church today, will Marshall accept,
you know, in a communical consul if it was convened
by you know, Pop Michael. You know Pop Michael is
in community with the church. He has the same theology
as as Marshall, who's not heretical according to him. If
if I don't know Francis actually you know, if if
Pop Michael makes an emmical consul and Francis accepted it,
will Marshall agree? Will do this? No, you won't. Exactly
is exactly what happened in the in the past. Of
of course you know they were not there was not
a trailer park, respect but still in kiss and be from. Yeah,
it's it's terrible sin to bring it up. And you
know again, you know, really we don't have the potency
of the consuls, But why don't you follow the canons?
Canon to ide is it was a great well.
Speaker 1: The canons show us the mindset of the church, and
it shows that they are innovators and that they don't
follow the canons. Now we're not just pointing, We're not
pointing the canons out like some sort of legalistic talmutic
thing like, oh, you just have to follow it because
it was an ancient canon. No, no, no. The point is
that the canons showed the mindset and the praxie of
the Church of that century universally, universally, and none of
these canons prove or back up the Roman Catholic view.
It's something that evolves over time on the basis of
canonical privileges. And we see the exact same thing with
Bartholomew now. Bartholomew now is trying to do the very
thing that the papacy did, which was to claim that
all of these canonical privileges that were accorded to them,
to the different patriarchates over over time throughout the centuries,
and the canons somehow now translates into a direct sort
of voice of God modus operandi. But if you look,
for example at Canon four of Nicia, we want once again,
let's see again how the Romancolic Church after the first
millennium completely departed from the normative way of appointing bishops. Now,
why would the pope want to appoint all bishops? Well,
obviously to make sure that they all agree on the papacy.
But now why if that's the case, why didn't Nicia
have the wisdom of the foresight to understand that the
pope should appoint every bishop in the world. Right? Who
appoints bishops at the time of Nicia Canon Ford It
is by all means proper that a bishops should be
appointed by all the bishops in the province. It's not
just the pope. And after the Renaissance it becomes normative
for the pope to sign off on all of the
bishops in the world. Right. So again, at a basic, basic,
fundamental level, they're completely ignorant.
Speaker 2: Of history, right, yeah, yeah, you're saying canons is the
current canons of a Catholic Church. It's they basically contadixase canons.
Some things that's interesting is that even says that there's
a need for the nice in Creed. But why is
it not present in the niceten Creed? If if that's
the things that ultimately matters, you know, if salvation is
ultimately linked, directly linked and mostly linked to the fact
to being community from why isn't it in in this
In this Creed at ten minutes it says, like we said,
it is the need for a nice in Creed, the
Creed talks about the church in terms of ontology. Does
they talk about the church ontologically? If the church is
built on on on Peter and you know not.
Speaker 1: Your salvation hinges on this sanctum, says, your salvation hinges
on being in union with the pope not only when
I'm signed, I mean, uh, Cantata Domino teaches that there's
no salvation or martyrdom, there are no martyrs outside of
the Catholic Church, right, Danzinger. Let's get our get out
our friendly Danzinger. By the way, it's not Cantata Domino
that first says this. Cantate Domino is referring to an
older statement and singer Pope Pallagius the second two four seven,
which says that there's no martyrs outside of the Catholic Church. Right,
we would agree with that there's no martyrs in other churches, right,
that's true, we're not acumenists. However, after Unum sanctem this
becomes there's no martyrs outside of communion with the Bishop
of Rome himself. That's why Cantate Domino expands that and
says no, So unum sanctum has happened, right, Cantate Domino
happens at Florence, and it says that you have to
not only be in union in the Orthodox Church, the
Orthodox Catholicy Church, now you also have to have the
requirement of being in union with the successor to Peter
to be saved. So this is a salvific issue, right,
Why is this absent in so many church fathers, so
many doctors of the Church, so many statements of the Creed,
so many places in the councils, This fundamental salvific doctrine
is completely absent until magically, surprisingly or not surprisingly, after
the schism. Now you have to be in union with
Rome to be said. Yeah, and by the way, they
don't even teach that anymore after Vatican too. You can literally,
through some generic invincible ignorance desire be said than anything.
Speaker 2: Yeah, like really, you know, if you think that Vatican
to change the Church, you should you should look at
an early church and its history, because the Roman Catholic
Church was in constant mutation, you know, which apparently support
was supposed to to prevent from. But the Vatican one,
if you look at the historians, if you look at
Roman Catholic storians the time, you know, get A was
a Roman Catholic historian, Dullinger was a Roman Catholic historian.
So they've been teaching. There was top of the class
and they said, you know, this is creating a new religion.
And even before that, like we said, like you know,
papalism is creating a new religion. It's been, it's been
in constant mutation. It didn't start with Vatican to Ecumunism
didn't start with Vatican two. You already have multiple rights,
multiple creeds, multiple disciplines, starting at Florence. So yeah, there was.
Speaker 1: There's a specific, terrible quote that Flanders has. I'm trying
to figure out what find in my notes where he
said he said something like we're frozen in seven eighty
seven and we don't even have the faith of the
ecumenical councils. He says something like this, like I'm trying
to see where I wrote down his exact phraseology. He says,
there's a a You just become your own. He says,
you become your own.
Speaker 2: He says, we don't have faith, and we don't have
the we.
Speaker 1: Don't have the faith of those seven councils. Now, let's
go through each of the seven councils again. Thank you
to Kai and Seraphim from the discord shout out so
uh in Nicea, So if you want to write these down,
you can go and look these up. I'm not gonna
screenshot every one of these, that we'd be here all night,
but I'm gonna list them. So in Nicea Canon four,
as we showed, we showed Canon six and const Antinople one.
Canon two discusses the fact that bishop stay within their jurisdictions. Uh,
this leads to confusion if they go outside of their jurisdictions.
There's no mention of the exemption of Rome here, so
they make an argument of silence. Oh well, it's just understood.
But remember constant Nople was convened in schism right and
later is accepted by Rome, so no mention of that.
But yet the Holy Spirit is guiding this council. It's ridiculous.
Canon three, the Bishop of Constantinople should have prerogatives as
senec mentioned, so we begin to have the prerogatives of
honor given to constat noble like Rome. In Canon six
of Ephesus, we have the Holy Synod, which is accepted
by the Church's ecumenical has authority over all the faith
all the faithful. No mention of the Roman bishop having
the real authority or the true authority or the principal
foundational authority over all the faithful. The canon specifically says
the Ecumenical Council is what has authority over all the faithful.
Canon seven is the statement on altering the creed. Canon
eight is contrary to the canons of the Apo, the
apostolic constitutions of the Holy Apostles, the transgressions of the
ancient customs, and the canons of the Blessed Fathers are
to be kept, and there's no mention of any special
authority of Rome in this canon. The canon reaffirms the
importance of the succession of the bishops and their own jurisdiction,
and explicitly condemns taken over other jurisdiction. There's no special
authority or exemption mentioned for Rome in Canon eight, which
it would have been the ideal place to mention it. Right.
Canon one of Chalcedon states that the ancient canons remain
in force. Now, remember every time that these canons state
that an ancient canon remains in force, it's presupposing that
modus operandi. Right, it's not saying that it's not allowing
a new mode of doing these things. Well, now we
did that with the canons. Now the pope can come
in and sort of arbitrarily decide what he wants and
what he doesn't want. Otherwise, Again, the whole praxis modus
operandi of canons itself is snodl. It's collegial. These don't
make any sense in the Vatican One mindset, and that's
why the Roman Catholic Church has a completely different practis
after the first millennium. So what we're trying to demonstrate
here is that his claim that we don't have the
faith of the Seven Councils is ludicrous. And he hasn't
even read these canons, or if he has, he's being
dishonest because he should have dealt with them. He should
have said, well, let's deal with some of their objections
from these ancient canons. So the ancient canons are in force.
There's no mention in those ancient canons of Rome having
the universal supremacy. It would have obviously been attached at
every point. I mean, look, none of the people at
this time operate like the Roman Catholic apologists. Now where
are all the Roman catholicapologists at this time in these councils.
They should have just been citing the popes all the time,
but they don't do that. Where is that mindset? It's
not here, right, and they do the flip flop. Well,
it wasn't there because it was nascent and seed form.
But now wait a minute, you just tried to argue
from all these post Apostolic fathers, Victor Clement, that it
was always there. Total contradictions. So Canon one of Chalcedon
is the ancient canons are in forced. Canon five says
that all the boundaries of the ancient canons remain enforced.
No exemptions for Rome mentioned Canon nine. Appeal your problems
in your local jurisdictions up the hierarchy until they reach
the throne of Constantinople. You hear that this is Calceadon.
You can appeal up the structure until it reaches Constantinople,
where is the mention of the final infalliable throne of Rome.
Now quite when the Roman Catholic apologies are presented with this,
you know what they actually say. They say, well, it
was just understood. In every one of these examples, they
always say, appeal to sign. It was just it was
it was, it was just. It's all. It's all there,
it's just no no actual it is appeal of silence. Well,
they all knew that.
Speaker 2: Even if you go look in Roman Catholic sources. For example,
before Vatican Ones, they had they had the Roman Catholic
historian compiled all the history of the councils. This guy
was named fl A, and f l A compiles history
of the council and he says, and it's okay, it
was blackmail to an extent. Of course, he got a
Roman Catholic bias. But if you look at it, it still
doesn't match the Roman Catholic understanding. When it comes to
Constantinople one he says that yes, yes, they we're not
in the community the purposes that The only other example
they have is a previous Roman Catholic historian who actually
quoted a false false acts of Consols. He says that
Baronius here Colin Baronius, which is a beatified in the
Roman chair here is quoting false stuff, and Barers notes
forger it's even it's Barnes also that push to remove
Syrilla Alexandria from the from the list of the saints,
because he's so he's a problem with papalism in in
ephesis because if it's still Alexandria. So yeah, you can
even go look at your own sources that will show
this at some point, if it even even you know,
goes on it was blackmail. But he still says that
that Honorious was a hertic. Still like, go read your
own sources. It just it banks the church.
Speaker 1: Yeah, okay. Canon ten uh, traditional jurisdictional boundaries and force
no exemptions for Rome. Canon twelve. We're we're still doing
calcilon Canon twelve. No bishop is allowed to set up
two multi metropolitans in one province. Any bishop who does
loses his rank. There's no exemptions for the Roman bishop here.
Again limited jurisdictions. And by the way, don't they have
three patriarchs of Aniochy said.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's actually bring at forty five minutes. Oh, you
you have overlapping jurisdiction. No, it's not really overlapping jurisdiction
because because it was a Roman jurisdiction, that is no
avoid and these are diasporus. However, yes, you have currently
you have three Roman Catholic bishop all in community in
the same city, prefacing different three different phase different saints.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Canon nineteen says each bishop or metropolitan is in
charge of their own jurisdiction and the matters of their
own area. This would have been a great place to
mention the obvious exemption of the Bishop of Rome. It's
never mentioned Canon twenty five, and again Canon twenty eight
of Nicia is contrary to the Roman Catholic scheme. Right,
it says Constantinople is equal to Rome and all the privileges,
and it's number two because Rome is more is ancient,
and it's doubly Apostolic from Peter and Paul and by
tradition and custom. Right. So, in other words, Canon twenty
stistic Canon twenty eight shows that they were not assuming
papal supremacy by silence. That's the key here. So all
of these other canons are shown to be interpreted in
the sense that we mean it, because they included Canon
twenty eight in here, which is against the papal view.
So you can't argue that all these canons presupposed the
papal view when Canon twenty eight shows that did not.
So Canon nineteen go ahead.
Speaker 2: Twenty eight is great because it also shows that the
room and honest by being doubly apostolic. You know, like
a lot of times, a lot of people for kids
that Paul actually came first. I going on to scripture,
Paul came first, room, and this seat was doubly apostolic.
And even if you look at early history and I
think that you've got Ignatius of Antioch, you've got a
famous church historian ucpiusis area. We even stated that this
is the second pope, the second perp forgot his.
Speaker 1: Name as Cletus Climent and go like that, yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so Linus was actually named by Paul. So you
have a pope which is you know, supposed to be
the office of petron Line, which is in Pauline succession
and apparently still held the charism of Peter, which is ridiculous.
So and of course you know this canoners is that
Rome is first, but is there equal Yeah, that means
that means here clearly it's premacis.
Speaker 1: And what that shows the canon, the fact that Canon
twenty eight is contrary to papalism and the papacy rejects
it shows that the rest of these canons cannot be
presupposed to be Roman supremacy. That's the point. Canon twenty
five says the election of bishops is by the metropolitan,
not the best of Rome. Again the post first millennium,
the second millennium of Rome Catholicism. The pope approves all bishops.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and even bring that up saving shoots the stuff
in the food because they they talk about the investitive crisis,
which was about the pope not electing bishops. And yes,
because there's some things that happened and then and these
crisis happened just right after after excuse him.
Speaker 1: Right, yeah exactly, because uh so, let's move to Trollo
breaking up to to destroy their own arguments throughout the stream.
It's just their whole stream was nothing but like things
that undermine themselves, the pot calling the kettle black. Now
Trollo is is, of course the synod that we accept
as ecumenical, because it's eventually accepted at uh Nicea too.
All right, So now the Roman Catholics have had a
change in their position right after Nicia to the Western
Church accepted it, and then soon after I don't remember
at the top I had which pope it was, but
one of the popes after uh Nicea too, I read
out Jesuits, and not a crazy Jesuit, but a scholarly
book on this long time ago about how there was
initially the acceptance of the Canons of Trollo and then
later particularly in relationship to married clergy. The pope obviously
later rescinded that because Trollo includes the famous Canon on
married priests. But for a time the pope had accepted
the Trello canons, which because they're they're part of Nicia too, right,
So when we look at Trollo, and by the way,
for us, for orthodox Trello is normative, right, it's it's ecumenical.
The first Canon, of course talks about the heretics that
are condemned, and Honoreus is included in the heresiology as
a condemned heretic. Uh and they were condemned by the
unanimous acknowledgment of the faithful that was revealed to the church.
They were synotically anathematized, universally considered to be anathematized, and
that includes the Bishop of Rome here, So there's no
They had no problem with the council condemning the pope,
and for a time the Pope accepted the canons of Trollo.
Canon two of Trollo says that it reaffirms the previous
canons and understandings of the canons, and that they remain
in force. There's no mention of any new foundation or
Rome superseding or being the over riding foundation. And again
Trollo shows that they understood the canons in our perspective,
because the Pope later rejects aspects of these canons in Trollo,
anything to.
Speaker 2: Say on that tonight, no no tutuis is really great. Also,
Trula is interesting because it shows that, you know, what
has become a mandatory celibacy in Rome evolved and originally
so was condemned by Consul. You know, mandatory celibacy was
condemned by consulright.
Speaker 1: So Canon A explicitly permits men to be married before
becoming ordained. This was the norm throughout the church. Now
it's a discipline that became normative in the Latin Church,
but it was normative throughout the entire church back to
the time of the Apostles. So it's just ludicrous to
introduce an innovation to make it mandated when the entire
church at this time accepted it as normative. It's just
it's it's a proof of innovation.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, we'll talk about this. It also mentions, you
know that as you start to and get in practices
that you know, resemble divorce. But we're going to make
a whole part I believe in divorce and things. We're
gonna Yeah.
Speaker 1: By the I'm gonna let me. I should cite the
UBI article. I know you guys are going to do
a a longer treatise on this, but uh, they did
bring up the divorce.
Speaker 2: I think we should develop it later those things they.
Speaker 1: Bring it up. So, but just for the sake of
people in the chat, because this always comes up. Here
is a patristic Florida Jellium from Ubi Petris citing church
fathers on this matter. And by the way, the canon,
this is another point that I've noticed, Uh, the canons
of Saint Basil, which allow for divorce and remarriage, where
part of the Eastern Roman Catholic Church. So by their
own admission, since the East admitted this and allowed this,
the Pope admitted and allowed this because there was one
church allowing this for the first millennium. You see what
I'm say.
Speaker 2: Yeah, if it was wrong, when the pope correctness, I
thought it was to collect things exist.
Speaker 1: Okay, So Canon twenty one, I'll just real quickly go
through the rest of these canons, Canon twenty one of Trollo,
Canon twenty five, Canon thirty two, Canon thirty six, Canon
fifty five, Canon eighty two, Canon ninety all post problems
for the Vatican one understanding being the case and true
in the first millennium. When we come to Nicia two,
I'm gonna list the canons Canon one, Canon three, Canon ten,
Canon eleven those are problematic. And then there are multiple
Apostolic canons which we still hold as normative, which these
councils approve and prepare situate the Apostolic cannons. That's the
thing is that the Apostolic canons are perpetuated and approved
and Canon one five, fifteen, thirty three, thirty four, thirty five,
thirty nine, forty five, sixty four, seventy four, eighty one
all are contrary to papal supremacy now in their church,
in their mind, they don't care. You can throw all
of that in the trash. It doesn't matter because after
nineteen eight, well after the first millennium, the pope is
basically the arbiter of canon law too. Right, everything switches
to Rome now again. Notice how canon law in the
first millennium is sonodle. After the schism, it's all papal
who changed the canon. So in nineteen seventeen they had
the trad canon law, which by the way, the trads
all follow the nineteen seventeen code. And then in nineteen
eighty three John Paul updates the canon law to have
a updated canon law, which by the way allows things
like communing with heretics and schismatics in extra stream cases
or perhaps not in extreme cases. Even so, a lot
of the trads. If you're in Sata world, if you're
on a set of a contest, you know this. You
know that you will appeal to the nineteen seventeen code
because there's a change in community getting sacraments from heretics
and schismatics, which Flanders has to correct Marshall on. Marshall's like,
I wouldn't do it, and then he's like, well, actually
you can according to canon law. So even between them
they don't even know what the romancalolicy position is. By
the way, it wasn't the pope supposed to solve these
problems of where do I get communion? Where do I not? Oh,
there's all these problems, Oh communion. We don't know who's
in communie with you. You don't even know if you
could go receive communion from a heretic or not. Marshall
thinks you can't, Dode thinks you can. Who knows whether
you can or can't. And in the Roman Gallic world
because the nineteen seventeen code right there, it was very
limited in the extreme cases. After a Kumenism in the
nineteen eighty three code. Oh, let's just do whatever you want, bro,
pretty much right, pretty much?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I just want to stress against it. Of course,
all the things we're saying, you know, bring the you know,
Orthodox position. There's another layer of problem for rom because,
of course, as the Union's acceptedles the unions accept the
Apostolic is the Apostolic grade point the constitution. You know,
if Rome in order to say that the Apostolic Constitution
and not valid, they will use atheistic argument, you know
from atheist scholars say oh, you know, it's actually quite
too late texts. The latest paper found is this is
quite no, it's just tradition. You know, if I, if
I start using sort of arguments, you can't even use
your Bible. But you're saying that you have the Bible
because of tradition. So here another layer of dishonesty, another
layer of contradiction in Rome.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so he says, we have a fan, right, so
I'm going to move on. We have a fantasy of union. Uh,
there's no real unity in in Orthodoxy because of the
metropolitan one metropolitan being out of union with another. Well,
then that would apply to your own church in the
first millennium because of the any instances where one metropolitan
or bishop was out of union with another and it's
later resolved by councils. So by your own standard, the
Roman Catholic Church for the first millennium had a false
fantasy of union. But in fact the order our church
is united. We have one creed, we have one faith.
We have the same canons that we follow, and we
have a canonical jurisdiction throughout the world, and we have
a single Eucharist that we participate. And we still fence
the table from the Roman Catholic Church. No longer fences
the table. You can go to the bat I have
the countless friends who are atheists and they go to
the Vatican. They walcome and get communion. Now, there may
be abuses of canons in the Orthodox Church, but typically speaking,
you don't do that. Like you can just walk up there.
Oh bro, I'm off the street. Bro give me that
wayfer dog ha ha. Look check it out, bro, got
a wafer. I have friends that did that. They're like, well,
I brought back my wafer from from the from the Vatican. Bra. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Things that even have like eucharista servant. I don't know
as they call it. It's a eucharistic minister. And they
can be women.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they have women and they have it's only alter
all kinds of crazy stuff. Yeah. So let's see. So
the accusation that there's a fantasy of union, uh totally
is undermined in the fact that they can't decide a
Vatican two is true or.
Speaker 2: Not the seven Consuls, So they say, oh, you can't
even do them in your own consuls, can you?
Speaker 1: Right? I think.
Speaker 2: Is the exact example of what's.
Speaker 1: The what's the Amazon? So on? What's Vatican too? What
are those right?
Speaker 2: Uh? Will they will say that, you know, he's the
final document in English, is not publisher. It's fine, and
I've heard it's the Vatican too. Vatican do itself said
stated it is an ecmmunical consul. If you look at
lum Gentium, it's it's like it's his title, Ecumunical Council
with solent Magisterian dogmatic constitution.
Speaker 1: And then then they misused the Paul the six quote.
Paul the Six did not say the council was not
teaching authoritatively. He says that defined no new dogmas. Yeah,
so what that doesn't mean it's not dogmatic. That's a
total trad myth. I was in trid world. I know
all the trade myths. I tried to use that one
for a while when I went to the SSPX maths.
Oh bro, we don't have to believe Vatican. Oh really,
you don't have to believe Vatican two. Have you ever
been to a Vatican two church. When the SSPX people
when they reconcile to the Vatican, do you know what
they have to accept Vatican two? You can't reconcile, would
not accept Vatican two. All the FSSP were made to
accept Vatican two when they were reconciled out of the SSPX.
Any SSPX person that goes back to Vatican, to the
normative diocesan union, you have to accept Vatican two. Any
catechumen in the world who's brought into the Roman Catholic
ARCI program is taught Vatican two. The Pope himself has
reiterated that Vatican two's reforms are magisterial and irreversible. Francis
has said this multiple times.
Speaker 2: I've quoted that, Yeah. Some things that's great is that
it would say that Vatican two doesn't add any new dogma,
but Zenza will proceed to reject Vatican too, because Marshall,
by having this position, actually shows that there is something
to be rejected, which means that there is something that,
according to him, was added, was something new.
Speaker 1: What do you mean it doesn't so, yes, it's hundreds
of pages of dogmas. What are you talking about? Like,
it's not it's not dogma, it's not dogmatic, what actually
it is? So this is double talk, this is sophistry.
And this is what happens when you get into the
world of rome caanthosis. This is what Tim is going
to learn the hard way if he's if he's a
legitimate convert. Uh, he's going to learn this spiraling world
of mental gymnastics and craziness to where on the one hand,
the documents of Atticant two are called the dogmatic Constitution
on the Church. There By the way, let's let's put
something the rest really quick here. What is required in
the Roman Catholic system for something to be dogmatic. A
lot of them are confused and they think that it's uh, well,
the pope has to explicitly state that it's an infallible
extra ory. No, no, no, it's not the only thing that's.
Speaker 2: Required done like, it's never been done like this. If
you look at pastor Atonis, it says actually the requirement say,
oh yeah, it's very high requirements. No like and everything
says it's not except per it's the requirements are not
so hard to reach. It needs to be a revelation
of a new doctrine of faith and morals, which is
already a huge spectrum. You know, lumin gentium covers covers
that definitely covers the faith. There's another dogmatic incisions that
covers a moral side. That's well, let's face.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's actually a condemn it's actually a condemn proposition,
for example, that you only have to hold to the
universal extraordinary magisterium. That's a condemn process.
Speaker 2: That's because several points. So it needs to be said
by by a pope, which is not really hot magestial authority,
you know, as.
Speaker 1: It's enough, it's a is it faith and morals? Is
it related to faith and morals? Is it from the
Sea of Peter? And is it for the whole church?
That's all that's required it And it doesn't matter whether
you it can fall under either extraordinary or ordinary. If
those three criteria are met, it can't be erroneous. So
to call Vatican two, when it easily fits all three
of those criterion not dogmatic is ridiculous. You have to
follow Vatican two, and everybody knows you have to follow
Aatican two. So they're just lying to themselves and saying, well,
I don't have I personally I'm going to reject the acumenical.
The pope has enforced this multiple popes for sixty plus years.
You can't reject sixty plus years of papal ordinary magisterial teaching.
Speaker 2: Yeah. And something else that's great is that even okay,
let's admit for the sake of arguments that it's not
it's not an ecomical council. You know, it will still
fall under ordinary magisterium, and ordinary magisterium has to be followed.
And I'm quoting here if a religious submission religious and yeah, docility,
And in pastor tourneys they say that if you if
you go away from it, you go away from the
truth of the Catholic Church. Uh, and you can lose
faith and salvation because of it. Like you cannot go
away from this. Beout, you know, starting to loud, Everybody
who doesn't like poor Francis to just read past Atonis.
It's it's five pages long, grobably less every Saint Roman
Catholics that have read this and know that it is
a comenical and knows that it is infallible. H Like
I've seen many people apostatize because yes, this is actually
this is not traditional at all. This is this is
a very very modernist take, a very you know, not
in perils, but the absolutist take. If if you don't
like poor friends, just read pasta Autonois because this is
this is the rules you have to follow. Actually, you know,
finally enough about this actually pushed secularism in the West
quite a bit, because of course, if you belong to
a nozenation, you have this man, you know, the poping
rooms as the leader of a nozenation. Let's say that, no,
you have to follow, you have to follow faith models,
you have to follow decree, you have to follow all
the ordinary magisterium. It means that the pope can state
a revolution whatever it wants in your country. And today
you know, to an extent he's doing this is pushing
for more migrants. It's a question.
Speaker 1: Let me put this in the chat. Here is the
full text of Vatican One, which hardly any of the
treads have even read. For the most part, very few
of them have actually read. It's only ten pages. You
ought to go read it, right, it's your most If
the papacy is the most important doctrine, we can only
be saved by the papacy. You would think that the
Romancaolics would all know by heart Vatican One. Of course
they haven't. But when you go read it, so there's
the decree. And by the way, don't just read I'm
not trying to rebuke you snack, but don't just read
Past Returners because Past Returners there is only two sections
of Vatican One. If you read all the sections there,
and it's not that long, it's about ten pages, you
will say that everything that we're saying is absolutely correct.
You have to follow the Universal Ordinary Magisterial and you
have to accept all of his juridical decisions and decrees.
This is condemned. The idea trads, the idea that you
can reject the Holy Office, the Congregation of the Doctrine
of the Faith, It's decisions, all any of the pontifical
congregations and their decisions, any of the judgments and decrees
that you can pick and choose, that is condemned. In
Denzinger sixteen eighty three, seventeen ninety two, sixteen ninety eight,
all condemned that proposition, because that was the proposition that
all the modernists we're using to get around the papal
statements at that time. You see, Ah, but here you
have it, the trap that now binds you to Frank.
You can't get around Frank.
Speaker 2: Yep. Some things that's great is that they contradicts it
so many times during the extreme And I'm going to
give an example of you know, founders who say that
is absolutely not prideful you know yet yet actually said
is that he is devoid of pride. He says, is
devoid of pride, and that other people have different opinions
than him because because they have pride. He says, it's
like around twenty twenty thirty times we try to count
something that's better that he says that, oh actually he's
a cure for pride is submitting to the purp and
not asking questions. And what does he do if you
look at his Twitter, he says that we should pray
for the intercession of the Corey dump tracks, even though
the Pope made made an official statement saying that the
Corey dump tracks is is foolishness.
Speaker 1: Wow, that's a great point.
Speaker 2: So so you know, like who's fight for her? Like
is it really an antidote to your pride? Because if
you're not smilding the pope and they say, oh no,
actually we don't like you submit to the purpe. No,
not like this, Yeah, I mean that's the other your
not just herem So you're making no sense good addicting yourself.
The fact that Marshall does this is it worse because
even World books, you know, suld just technically submit is
a purb but not following is a magisterium, and as
following is a pope.
Speaker 1: All right, so I've got most of the major points hit.
I mean, let's get to their their sort of crux,
and now I mean you're free to bring in any
more points you want to. But one of the things
about economia that they bring up, I just want to
point out the absurdity of the of the room. So
they want to give all these emotional appeals. Allow allow
me to do a little bit of a funny mock
because most of their what I'm going to do right
now is like the substance of their kind of approach.
So let's let's take a look at pre Vatican to
Moral Theology, one of the most famous books if you
were in the ssp X, if you were a trad
you probably have Canon Ripley's book from tens called This
as the Faith. It's it's very popular. A lot of
trads have read this book and refer to it. If
you look at the section on page one about what
constitutes a mortal sin on the Lord's Day, you have
lists of activity, okay, lists of activities that are servile work,
and you have things like servile work would be plowing, sowing, harvesting, laundry, laundry, lawnmowing, cobbling, tailoring, printing, masonry, mines,
and factory work. However, in some places there is the
custom of justifying knitting and crocheting, but it's also permitted
to go walking, riding, driving, rowing, and journeying, even though
even though these works can be fatiguing. Fatiguing, literary and
artistic works are lawful even if they're done for money. However,
servile work is forbidden even though it's done as a
form of recreation. For example, if you were to walk
two and a half or three hours for some kind
of work and it was to become arduous, this would
be mortal sin. So I found on Lord's Day this
is the most talmudic like crazy stuff ever in a
normative Roman Catholic moral theology. This is why we don't
have this problem, right, We didn't have to swing from
this insane ai autism of crazinessness level over to Vatican
to clown mass. Notice the pendulum swinging of the madness
in Rome. Catholicism of the extreme of this in this
was written in nineteen fifty one, nineteen fifties. This is
what your your your confessor would tell you in nineteen feet.
Oh my child, my child, did you work? Did you walk?
Did you walk two hours? My child?
Speaker 3: Did you start sweating when you walk two hours? When
you hit the when you hit the fifth mile of
the two hours of the walk, you lost all grace.
Speaker 1: Son.
Speaker 3: You're entering the fighters a hell once you hit once
you hit the fifth mile, you're about to fall over
into Dunte's and Pheradom, My child, it's ridiculous.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Is this stan mudic? And again it's fairy setic
And is this is good exactly? Yeah? If it follows
the text, you know it would have been, you know,
at the time of Christ on the side of the
Pharisees saying you know.
Speaker 1: You can't hit grains on the habit.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, in front of the adulterous wife. Yeah, yeah,
you know you can. You can have too stole the
kind of Christ of where where is Jesus doing? Economy?
Are you?
Speaker 1: Now? This is I cite one crazy example. Uh, but
by the way, that actually characterizes the Latin trad mindset.
Like if you're in the trad say the world, you're
characterized by that kind of obsessive, superstitious attitude. Actually, and
a lot of o c D. Actually a lot of
people who are extremely excessive compulsive disorder people. I let,
I met multiple SSPX priests, all of whom had actually
to get counseling for their extreme OCD. So it's it's
actually a feature of that religion. There's something else weird
going on there, This idea of you know, just like
if I sneeze during the Mass, I'm damned, it's a
mortal sin. The mass is not valid. Just crazy stuff
like that, But it's an attitude.
Speaker 2: Of, yeah, that everything needs to be tidy nosed. Is
it called the church a mess? No? Church is traditionally
to evolve, it evolves this way that we involved in
dogma or anything. But if you look at all the
churches organized, it's it's been it's been organizing, it's been
organized this way. And of course, you know, economia is
essentral to this because at some point the the application,
the very application of the canonman actually go against the
first idea of the canon. That's why it's brought up.
That's why it's it's it's even in the Bible. That's
why it's the one thing to be very very tidy,
very very understandable. And you know you're just doing loawyering.
If you look at early Church, it's not about lowering.
People are making some level of concession. And here you're
you're like, even so a graph about salvation there, the
graph about salvation. It looked like a board game, you know,
like the float shot.
Speaker 1: Chart from like Final Fantasy with hit points and all
kinds of crazy stuff.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it looks like an RPG. And you know you
can get new This kind of indulgence is by praying
it this time turns this way. In this church. This
is not it's working. You know, there's not being mystical
here says nothing. It's it's it's a.
Speaker 1: Weird it's a weird obsession with a legalistic spirit exactly.
And Vatican two is partly a reaction to that. That's
what I'm trying to stress is that is that part
of what's going on here is a reaction to that.
So Taylor Marshall was mad about economia and oh, I
think Forrancis is actually bringing a gnomia into the church
or the dogs. It's a conspiracy. Francis is a secretly
or the dogs right with his with his gravel voice.
But what I'm trying to say is that that we
didn't have that problem because we understood that you can't
have a one size fits all answer to every single
moral problem. And that was the problem of the Pharisees.
So economia is the bishop making the decision. How do
you think the church and the first millennium operated through
the local bishop making the decision. You can't ask the
pope to solve all the problems in the ancient world.
He's a thousand miles away. How's he going to solve?
Speaker 2: Think things? As a canon and I see as it
states that like you know knows this, Penancey's like, oh
you do this, you gets this, you know, it's like
a menu things is something you know, like even criticizes
that just what you do, what you priest does. Yeah,
this is a canon. But he says that Penance needs, uh,
like you need to understand the independance. It needs to
be in accordance to the penitent. You know. That's why
I mean.
Speaker 1: This is actually this is they will actually cite that
in their proofs of how indulgence is developed. They'll actually
admit they'll say, well, indulgences are because in the early Church,
if you would committed a serious sin and you were uh,
you were refraining from the table for six years, if
the bishop gave you that long of a penance, he
could also if he saw that you were truly contrite,
he could remove that temporal punishment of six years or
whatever that was that was laid upon you from coming
to the Eucharist. And so therefore that's how they they
will argue this in their apologetic That's how they will say,
oh see, now we have the ability to remove any
kind of temporal and it just turns into this giant
like algorithm equation scheme, which is ludicrous and crazy.
Speaker 2: Economy. So we have canons that they teach economy in
the in the early consuls, and they tell you not
to be aspered about about the canonical law.
Speaker 1: And by the way, all we have to do to
refute that stupid argument is just appeal to the Uniates
once again, because the Uniates will operate just like we do.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, so he uses this for re baptism and christnation.
Here we talk about this.
Speaker 1: I do want to touch on that real quick, because
he said that we don't see that in the councils.
Uh really really so? Uh So Canon eight of Nicia,
what does Canon aid of Nicia do well? It has
different It has certain specifications based on the case for
how to receive schismatic bishops back into the church. So
it's not universal in all cases. In all situations, how
even a bishop would be received from schism back into
the Orthodox Church. And in this case, in Cannonade of Nicea,
they can be received in a way that's different in
other cases. Right, where's cannonadd And I see, I was
gonna read it. It reads that the schismatic novationists can
be received. I'm way off. It says con concerning those
who call themselves Cathari, that's not the medieval Cathari. These
are novationists right. And by the way, some tried this
week said that they that I think Cathari might be Orthodox.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 1: I made a video they gun one hundredousand views and
the cathari were stupid heretics. There were Gnostics in the
Middle Ages. If they can't if these purists, these are
the purest and novationists, if they came over to the
Catholic Church and absolute, the Catholic absolute Church, this great
and holy centered Icia decrees that they who are or ordained,
should continue as they are in clergy. But if they,
before all things necessary, that they should be professed in writing,
that they observe and follow the dogmas of our Church,
and then they will not commune persons who have been
twice married commune with persons who are trice twice married.
I think it's somehot digamy. And with those who have
lapsed in persecution and have had a period of penance,
so you could actually relax the period of penance.
Speaker 2: Yeah, somethings. That's great. Also with the canons against the
cath right. So you know, it's where the Gnostic says
you you've got the council of Gangra, which is accepted
a chemical council, and that that shows that you you
are anathema if you believe that receiving if you believe
that receiving the Eucharist from the hand of a married priest.
Is makes it dirty, and it's a great segue for
it for the next part because you know, after bringing Conomia,
of course they are they are talking about about divorce
and stuff like this. So to court martial it says that, oh,
we are blushing when when we talk about divorce, really
because it seems like there is a there is a
tradition here. It seems that so first of all, I'm
going to cover everything that relates to the priest stood
when it comes to divorce. So he says that, oh, yeah,
we're important loose morality. Actually know, if you look at
a father to that, Tournam has a great talk on
Roman Catholicism that mentions this. If you look at Nicia,
it states that a priest cannot live with with several
women in this house, but that that does not include
his wife. And actually is they were talks about maybe
restricting this like you're making you know, cilbism monetary at Nicia.
And it's actually a father of the desert who came
forward and said that no, by doing this, you would
set yourself to a higher standard than the apostles themselves.
So we were part of tradition that even suggested that
the apostle remains married, you know, remain married, which actually
was you know, his confirmed some apocalyphone which talks about
divine Apostle Peter preaching with his wife. He states that, yeah, monetaries,
clerical celibacy fosters a great a great missionary spirit, which
is realicuous because we're going to talk about this later,
because he goes on full it makes really bad argument
like prosperity gospel tire, but he says it fosters a
great missionary spirit. And then then he quotes, then he said,
we converted the Barbarians, you know, before greater missionary spirits.
If you look at it, you know the only barbarian
tribes that converted to to to you know the United
Church where the Franks and the Franks in their first
counsul some years after being converted, they even make a
cannon stating that, uh so it's the concept of audience
five five eleven for everybody was stating that at least
the king needs to approve anybody joining the clergy unless
there are sons of clergy, which shows that you know,
the guys who we eventilize the Franks were actually married.
We're having wives. We're going to talk about the Franks
industries or papers in part. So this is about clerical celebacy.
Even today they will admit that they they expanded on
it is the easy added, you know, just like the Pharisees. Again,
you know, burdens that are very hard to to hold.
I'm not going to comment on the pedofile stuff, but
you know about the pedophile stuff. Then he brings up
divorce itself, the Orthodox and blushing when you bring up divorce. No, again,
we follows the low You mentioned the canon of puzzle
about about divorce, and they said, oh, you know, we
we don't know divorce.
Speaker 1: They cite some Greek obsc your Kansas St. Basil. Really
nobody's heard of him. Who's that?
Speaker 2: Yeah, And even even like when he starts talking about this,
actually frienders on him, saying, oh yeahs a, yeah, there's
a there's a pope who said you can remarry if
one of the spouse is dead. It's already kind of
contracted in like Marveles to do a double takes what
a pos it is of course. Yeah, yes, actually there's
a there's a purpose. We said, we said this, I.
Speaker 1: Think you or you put that in the message, and
he was like walking you as fast as liking.
Speaker 2: I twated another purpose. So this is what's about, you know,
remarriage of dead spouse if the spouse is dead, which
you know, which already contracts the ideas that your marriages
is turtle, and so it's going to be broken. Yeah,
you know are you aren't you engaged in adult three?
Well once you have to to wipe in the heaven
if you do this according to your own standards. So yes,
that's a that's a problem. And I brought up another
canon by Pope Perpugenius to a second as a council
of Rome. So this is a purple the consul defining
a doctor for by the way, Eugene is a second
as a council of frobe In in eight twenty six
says that you can actually divorce for adultery, you know,
which is biblical and remarriage. So you're not following the purple.
Speaker 1: Of that, by the way, I love this. Yeah, I'm
not saying it.
Speaker 2: Didn't address it. I still want my money back. You
owe me to two euros. So he says that, yes,
so he says it's about divorce. So no, we do
not blush. We just we just follow. If you look
at so then it brings up you you can have
four marriage and real marriages, you know, if you look
at it. I've never never seen it being being put
into effect. I've never met anybody. We we are ower marriage.
It's a ceremony of free marriage is actually very it's
a repentance.
Speaker 1: Random claim he says from my and Orf Like, oh,
Myndorf one time said that there's four marriages. Well you
didn't source it. Maybe he did, but who cares? Like like,
I've never heard that. I've never seen that. Who when
when has this actually happened? Right?
Speaker 2: Yeah, we we we have rules that says that you know,
of course your marriage can fail and that doesn't mean
you have to become a monk because your marriage failed,
because it will be arbitrary again, which you know. But
but I think we've been a kind of to say,
you know, when you're married two times, it's already it's
it's already almost settled.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the canonical there's like restrictions on it and gets
more and more kind of restricted in terms of how
it's viewed. Yeah, I don't. I think those arguments are
really terrible and disingenuous when they when they try to
do the moral gotchas. I mean, come on, dude, as
a Roman Catholny, you can't be playing any moral gotchas
on anybody else with all of the nonsense of the
pedos and Franks, clown masses and puppet masses and all
this gibberish. Uh. And at the same time, when you
admit that all the things that you attack us for
are in the Eastern Church that you believe as part
of the Roman Collity Church for the first million, for
the first millennium, So you're just you're just undermining your
own argument and your own church every time you do that.
It's stupid.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Undivorced, you know, it seems to take a job
at this. I'm going to take a job too. There
are annulment, which is just a joke.
Speaker 1: Everybody knows, even the trads no annments or jokes.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So annulment is great because it says that it's
not a divorce. It's in all effects, it's a divorce,
but it's just showing that it's the sacrament never happened.
First of all, you can have as many an elements
as you want, because technically went married, which is IPO critical.
And something that's interesting is that what happens to whatever
happened to your marriage, if you know if it failed,
what happens to it, does it mean that you know best?
It does? It means that you know if your marriage fels,
it just means that you were never married. It just
sounds like shreddingers adult three. You just you just can't
know whether you've been married.
Speaker 1: And the trads even bitch about the fact that annulments
are like there's a zillion annulments everywhere in the novasorto,
and it's abused all the time. And oh, but by
the way, we have a legality point by which they
again they're doing the exact same thing as the Pharisees,
like we are better than you because we have a
legality that allows us to have a uh, the appearance
of moral superiority over you when you do the exact
same things in your and your worst. There's high there's
higher rates of divorce amongst them than there are per capita,
even amongst Orthodox Supposedly Lewis had quotes on that, and
y'all stream, by the way, everybody, if you don't if
you want more than our stream. Go listen to uh David.
They touched on a lot of points that I'm not
touching on, that we're not touching on. But David the Mill,
the real Medwhite. I'll link him and uh snack and
Lewis's stream below here a little bit. But Throadinger is adultery.
That's hilarious.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Something that's great also is that you know annulment
is not only a moral problem, because you know, there's
more grounds for annulments and for divorce. You know, basically
is even in the Catechism of Flirt of Moscow, its
list it makes a list of of what what can
you know be a basis for divorce, It boils down
to two points, really, you know, which is.
Speaker 1: How many times can you get an old They have
infinite allowance you could conceivably be uh annulled and an
infinite number of times.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So the filler, the Cateochicism of Filirt of Moscow
states that basically you have it boiled into two points,
really adultery and one person being in imminent danger of death.
So you know, which is again understandable and it's it's
perfectly acceptable economy unless you have to say that a
wife as a sacramental duty, you know, to let children
being infected by a contagious disease or being bidden up
by a drunk husband, which would make you a very
sill right. Uh. Something else is that annulment bring up
a real theological problem and for people are so you know,
in love if if the great Saints in Augustine, we're
going to touch on that again. You're creating donatism because
by having you know, by having an aulement, if your
marriage fails, it means that that you don't you don't
have sacramental certainty because you know, in order to do
this you also have to resort to to to prost
and thinking, oh, actually the ministers of of these sacraments
is not the priest. It's it's espouses. But you know,
isn't it one of the sacraments that the priest can do.
Isn't one of the seven sacraments of the church. That
means that everybody can perform sacraments? Yeah, just like the
person and think, so, yes, you're creating donatism. You you
you you treat you you tell you tell you that
you're prestant and you're you're you're thinking like a perstant
you know, the keys are to to bind and and bind.
A priest can reasonably be the fruct The priest can
reasonably barrow you from the Eucharist or the bishop in
that case, the same thing can be done with marriage.
So we do not blush. We are just consistent. You
actually are worse, and you try to hide it, which
makes it even worse. Then then talk about contraception. Uh
we talk about this in the industry with David as well.
If you, if you alders to the same stand that
as you are. First of all, you allow it right now.
The unit's a lot of stuff right now. And and
you know, just because you do natural family planning doesn't
mean that it is not a form of contraception. It
is going against against natural law, you know. Yeah, uh yeah.
Speaker 1: Also, I wanted to cite uh octorum f day. I
meant to cite this earlier, which is this condemning the
center of Pistoia the jansen Us, because actually oxworn Fide
condemns the make sure this is a whole document here
before I put it up. It actually condemns the SSPX
trad position not just on certain sacraments, but on any
of the sacraments because it condemned the proposition that the
Roman Sea can give defective rights to the Church at all.
You cannot believe or hold that the Roman Sea has
promulgated defective rights, because that would undermine all of the
sacramento unity that the Romancy is supposed to provide. And
it was actually the Jansenists, the Synotopustoia, which was arguing
that the Roman Sea had made errors and had given
defective rights and the liturgy should be in the vernacular,
et cetera, et cetera. And the reason I bring that
up is that all of the trads are mad about
all of the sacraments after Vatican Two. It's not just
it's not just the sacrament of the Mass and the
Latin Mass, and whether the words are valid the words
of Institution, which you know, the decrees after Trent say
that you have to use the there's a specific valid form,
right And then the whole argument is that the New
Mass changes that by using the word for all and
not for many. And so every trad knows about that dispute,
right well. The problem is that the more consistent the
trads got, they also got into having problems with the
other sacraments right, So then the priestly right of ordination
becomes a problem, and you get people writing order of Melchizedic.
I think Michael Davies has a book on that, and
people analyzing and pointing out how the Novasorto when it
did the new right for ordination of priests, it's very
similar to Anglicanism. But if Leo the thirteenth had infallibly
condemned Anglican ordinations, then it becomes a problem. And that's
where you get the trads who start doubting ordinations for
post Vatican to priests or whatever. Right now, I'm not interested.
I don't really care about the bunch of squabbles anymore.
I'm not involved in that world. What I'm trying to say, though,
is that all of these sacraments underwent the seven Sacraments
underwent revision, and so it doesn't matter whether you say
that whether you have a problem with with one or
all of the changes in the in the revised sacraments.
Octorum fide dogmatically condemns the idea, and this condemns all
the trads by extension who aren't set of a contest.
It condemns the idea that the Roman Sea can promulgate
defective in any sense rights for the whole church, and
most of the trads ultimately end up saying that the
texts themselves, the new rights themselves, are defective. Now, not
every trad says that. You got some that say, oh, well,
we can reconcile Attican two with everything before it, but
most of them are getting they get to the point
where they're honest themselves, and they're like, this doesn't work.
Mortelium animals cannot be reconciled with Attican two, right, I mean,
they're totally, they're totally nine day and then and then
we get Pacha Mama. Right. Obviously it's a different faith,
it's a different thing. But again I'm just trying to
stress that if you're gonna be honest with yourself, you're
gonna be honest with what's in Denzinger, right, the dogmas
that you have to hold as a Roman Catholic if
you go back to something like actorm fide, which actorn
Fide is in here the condemned propos One of those
condemned propositions is that the Roman Sea can give defective
rights at all.
Speaker 2: Yeah, just just a quick side note on the use
of vernacular. You see a lot of treads that, you know,
things that Latin is superior, and actually they do by.
Speaker 1: A magical thing where if they cite the Lord, the
our Father in Latin, as if that's going to impress
everybody in wow. Then because I saw a triad the
other day saying that Latin burns the demons greater if
you say if you say it in Latin. Yeah, so
literal Hollywood, right, like the excessist Hollywood.
Speaker 2: Level for yes, also saying that you know it's a
magical language, saying that you're comparing all high masses depending
on you know, if you're using Latin or not. This
is exactly worshiping a language, and this is you know,
we're going to right.
Speaker 1: And that's what you get in the whole. A lot
of the mindset of the troad world is magic. It's
like God is a technology that I'm forcing into doing
my will through. If I perform this ritual perfectly in
the in the mass, and if I say the words right,
and if I don't sneeze during the mass and commit
a moral sin by sneezing, then I can conform God
to doing what I want.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and you see this very pocritical, you know, attack
on vernacular, saying your Latin is superior. It needs to
be like it, it needs to be Latin. It's not
a mass. I've seen someone you know, literally being idologious
towards this language by saying that the Elder of Ages
is a treatent in Latin Mass. She's ridiculous. And that's
also on the trilenty Latin Mass very quick at nine
minutes minutes, Clander says, I cannot be a proestant because
because I can't, I can't just do worship like like
like it was done like a worship, a way of
worshiping that was created five hundred years ago. This can
be applied to the turn to Latin Mass. It's it's
oppressed that inspired mass to to to an extent it
was done the concept of twenty, which condemned press and
to an extent that it was also you know, lightened.
It contradicted to precedent mass and stuff like this. We're
going to ritualism into these is use of of of Latin.
The idea that Latin is a super language is is ridiculous.
These ideas that you need to centralize everything on Latin
ex actually doing the work of the anti crest again
by trying to to to to create you know, what
is given mystically and divenly. You know, with the glossalalia,
the speaking in tongues uh and doing doing it politically,
you're just recreating the bubble. Bubble was destroyed because because
for for for this reeason as well. So that's that's
very good. They also create. You know, this criticism of
vernacular is is also you know, totally forgetting the early
the early history, because what is the you know, most Bible,
it's a vulgate. Why is it called vulgate because it's
a vernacular? If if if the Mass was performed in Latin,
is because it's it was a vernacular in the first place.
And you cannot say that, you know, performing in vernacular
is bad or has heresy because you have says that
are literally saints, because they even invented vernacular the same
Curly and Sine Methodius who invented the Glagolitics script which
later became the Slavonic. All Slavic languages are saints because
of this. So you're just denying you want saint, you
won't church again talking about the Mass I'm just gonna
you know, just for the ritualist, I'm just gonna quote
what Fortesque Roman Catholic story that is thatwards the rites
for the Catholic Encyclopaedia. Right in under the entry Liturgy
of the Mass, it says that the liturgy of the
Mass that existed in its earliest form in the Roman
Mass as witnessing, justin Martyr's second century account, is of
Eastant time. So you know, just just to remind you, no,
there is no supremacy in in the masses, no supremacy
instead of like this in any way you have to
accept all of masses because of the units. Anyway, that
was just a quick side note on languages also, you know, uh,
this worship of languages is idolization of languages. You can
see it up here in in other you know, Protestants
like you have the Protestants Baptists who will worship the
Bible itself, things that.
Speaker 1: We just read the Great they won't magically.
Speaker 2: Not yeah, KGV onlyst you know, even Islam. You know
they say, oh, if you don't head in Arabic, it
doesn't work. They do the same thing. So at the
first minute or engaging in idolatry. They don't speak Latin,
but the Latin Church like we both in a relationships
two talk in Russia. Do we do we do Slavinic thing? No,
because it's not.
Speaker 1: Right. It's always it should always be vernacular for the audience.
I want to read real quick quote from Emal's in
the Chat st Emil, but his analysis of their stream
was great when I think he summarized it well. He said,
the Roman Catholic Church that these trads belong to is
like an idealized platonic form that only exists in their mind.
It does not correspond to the actual external world in
any meaningful way. This is how their devotion and submission
to this imaginary church is an exercise of humility, supposedly
on the one hand, right and at the same time,
they have the ability to disregard anything that the that
the present pope says that they don't like. The idealized
pope that exists only in their minds is the source
of stability, certitude, and Catholicity in their argumentation. But the
real actual Pope that exists in the world, on the
other hand, is an apostate who needs to re enter
into kim union. With their idealized platonic form of pope,
which again has no basis in metaphysical reality. So although
they are not set of a contest, they exactly mimic
and operate like the say it is if you go
watch my streams critique instead of a contism from the
John Pontrello book. This is the point that Pontrello makes
about the set of a contest, that they have an
invisible church and Charipeter that they're united with, which has
no correspondence or connection at all to the actual guy
over in Rome, which is known throughout the world as
and received as the Roman. See right, So the same
thing is true. The same thing is true with these guys,
and Emo goes on to say that they're basically doing
the same thing as the set of a contest, even
though it's the recognize and resist position of the absurd
Roman Catholics who think that sixty plus years of the
Roman Sea has taught error and apostasy. So they're praying
for the Church for the for Francis to come into
communion with a pope and Charipeter in their heads. In
their Protestant mindset, they are the price of sense. That's
the mind blowing a reality here.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, and I'm gonna I'm going to quote them
at fifty six minutes. They say the deobe that Pope
Francis has a massive conversion to what to to your face,
isn't any Catholic? Isn't it the standards? But that makes catholic?
You're not the standard? He is? A standard is humility?
Speaker 1: That's like the opposite. He spent this whole stream talking
about humility being submitting to the pope, and then he
judges the Pope and says the Pope needs to repent
and submit to what I think?
Speaker 2: What about at one or nineteen, Room is failing, Room
is working against the truth his words. That's what he's saying.
Speaker 1: But you can say this, did you know how many,
by the way, didn't you count up how many times
he talked about his humility?
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, so he talks about his own humility, or
he says that other people have a different opinion because
because of their pride. I've been lenient. I've conted the
total of twenty eight times, you know, which is when
you're humble, you just have to brag about being a.
Speaker 1: Yeah, humble, b humble. I'm so humble. Now, by the way,
uh Sadas reject the Conclavists, So actually the Conclavists are
more consistent than the Saydas. That's the result of the
the uh John Patrello set of a conscious stream that
I did. The conclusion of that is that it's actually
more consistent within within the framework of Vatican One to
elect another pope, which technically can't happen in Canon Wall
because only the Roman Curia can elect the pope. But regardless,
the Conclavists at least understand that you can't have a
complete defection of the Roman See. That's that's that totally
denies Vatican One. So technically speaking, Email, I appreciate that
super chat. But technically speaking, the Satas don't reject, don't
accept Pope Michael, but they would actually be a little
more consistent if they did. But then you get into
the problem of which of the trailer park popes are
you going to accept? All right, well, so let's.
Speaker 2: See, moving on, I've got a great point. At fifty
seven minutes, he starts saying that, oh, you know, we
need we need consoles. With the consoles it needed to
be assembled, and before that we had no idea of
this existed. We do, and it brings up another argument
that just destroys the papacy is Acts fifteen. He says,
look in X fifteen. Yeah, we know X fifteen because
you know there very consols before even the before the
emperor stepped in to make the console ecumenical, which meant imperial.
And look at Acts fifteen again he quotes the councils.
You know, that's biblical that destroy this position. Acts in
Acts fifteen. You know you should read it. It's a
short chapter. It's probably the most relevant chapter in terms
of ecclesiology in the New Testament. In Acts fifteen, peer
is here. Peter is not leading, right, you have Saint James.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they have to go crazy mental gymnastics to try
to fit that into that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm gonna Saint James is actually leading the council.
Saint James is a priest, so is the levi. Priest
is the one who you know, also has the authority
also in the eyes of the people, to lead this council.
He says that Saint James says that I represent Donland
is the apostle, but he represents the the presbyters, the
eldest of Israel. So in Act fifteen, ultimately, at some
point Peter talks with authority, because Peter has some authority
of the church. Nobody denies this, you know, even even
Central Christostom Will says that they were They were Cory
fay A, you know, prural people that had authority, that
included James, James, Peter, and and John. The a confusion
to be between which Peter it is, between which James
it is. We're going to cover that in a moment.
But in Act fifteen, ultimately Peter speaks. But it is
James who has listened to Peter now and it is
James declaration that is word for word the apostolic brief.
If Peter was a perfect supreme authority, why doesn't it
why doesn't do this? And I'm going to quote Saint
John Chrysostom on this part, which said, no words speaks
John here, no words of the other apostles. There the
piece for James was invested with the chief rule. And
think it no ship. So yes, here here you have
you have James, like Peter in did spoke more strongly,
but James here more mildly. For this it behooves one
is the high authority to leave what is unpleasant for
others to say, well, where he himself appears in the
mild part. Okay, I don't really know you can go
about this.
Speaker 1: I don't really know.
Speaker 2: Act fifteen is there for showing that the papers is true.
We even have, you know, historical accounts from Usabis of
cs Area saying that James was especially prominent. These James,
whom the early Christian surnames the Righteous because of his
outstanding virtue, was the first, as a record tell us,
to be elected to the episcopal throne of the Jerusalem Church.
Clement you know, was pope. Outlines Oatlands in book six
put this Peter, James and John after the ascension of
the Savior, he dot claim eminence because the Savior had
especially honored them, but chose James the Righteous as a
Bishop of Jerusalem. So again there is a debate, you
know which James. Especially in Rome, they start says that
you know, these James is a lesser you have, you
have another James. Anywhere tradition remembers James as a priest.
Tradition remembers James especially in especially important and we even
have traditional texts that mentioned that the priesthood came came
to the Apostle through James, because James, James was by Christ.
He was you know, the half brother of Christ through
through through Joseph. So you know Joseph being in this
sad little nine it was especially important. And we need
to stress this and something that's great. As James destroyed
all the heiresses, Saint James, brother of brother of God,
destroys all the heresies Acts fifteen. He destroys, you know,
ultimate supremacy of Rome in his epistle, destroys brother Stantism,
and he also destroys the claims of you know, Judaism
and Islam. That we we actually lost the Covenant. No
James is a hint that that propagates the Covenant to
the nuture. Are recommend reading the books by Simon Claude Mimoni,
who was Jewish himself and a great historian, and talks
about this that James, well, a very important figure for
the early Church is that he's the one who brought
bought all these things. So yes, very important, very stupid
of them to bring X fifteen. You know, probably things
that reach the Bible as a prostant thing, because if
you read X fifteen you'll see that. I want to
stress too.
Speaker 1: There's point that you're making about Basil about James actually
continues on in terms of the attitude of the greatest
of the some of the greatest of the Eastern fathers,
like Saint Basil. Right when Basil writes in letter sixty
six to the to Saint Anthonasius, he writes a letter
and he says, I have appealed to the bishops of
the West for help in this matter and regarding an
Aryan in his diocese. That excuse me at Antioch. Now,
by the way, why is the appeal to the bishops?
What is you just ask the Pope, the bishop of
the West. Now he appeals to the bishops of the West,
he says, And then he goes on to say that
we know that Antioch can function like the head of
a body, right, he says. The heretics are trying to
sunder it to it, render it asunder, he says. But
if you Athanasius, go and fix the problems in Antioch,
he says, then an Antioch like a head, will heal
the whole body. Now imagine that if I were to
read that, they would say that that's talking about the
Bishop of Rome the head of the whole body, and
he's talking about the church in Antioch, right, and he
says that the church in Antioch stands as the head,
so to speak, of the whole body of the church,
and all else are mere disjointed members. Now it is
the prayer of the whole East that this be fixed.
And he says, I've asked Rome for help. In the
next letter, so this issue continues, So he writes a
letter next to Malicius of Antioch, who's the head there
right now, because the Roman costs well. But he's not
calling the bishop of Antioch the head of all the
churches exactly right. These kinds of phraseologies are used in
the Church Fathers, and they're lifted out of that context
and used to try to prove the universal supremacy. But
that same language is used of the guy who's the
lawful bishop of Antioch. He then writes the next letter
to Athanasius, letter sixty nine, and he says, I have
again asked Rome for help. He says that, but they
have failed to help us because they are men ignorant
of the faith. So Rome failed to condemn because they're
ignorant and silly. He says, And then he goes on
in the next and he writes a letter to Pope
Saint Demasis, and he doesn't say anything about Pope Damasis
being like, you know, the universal greatest head of all
churches in the world. He just says, will you please
help us? We need help in the East. And there's
nothing about any magical petrine power here when he writes
to demasists Pope Demasis. So then here's the killer is
that Later on when he writes another letter to another bishop,
to Eusebius of Samisada. This is a letter two hundred
and thirty nine, he says that no help is going
to come to us from Rome. He says, because there
are a bunch of men ignorant in the faith and
they've actually strengthened the cause of heresy. And he says,
because I wrote to their corfeus, their corfeus, the patriarch
of Rome, the corfeus of the western jurisdictions. He doesn't
say our mouthpiece there, corfeus. So what I'm getting at
is that when you read through these letters, the actual practice, language, terminology,
and usage of Saint Basil is nothing like Vatican One.
The Roman Catholics come back and revise all this and
reinterpret it and say, oh, but it's actually is Vatican
One because it's an argument from silence. And he's appealing
to the he's appealing to all the bishops. He appeals
to Athenasius. He says, Athenacious, I know that you can
fix the problems in Antioch. Right, all there's not why
is he doing that? Like all he has to do
is just say, Damass fix all the problems. And then
he turns around and says that Damases was the voice
the core fees mouthpiece of the Latins. He says, but
he was useless. He was useless in this.
Speaker 2: Yeah, which you know we're going to talk about church
fathers now because he said old church fathers. He approves
the papacy. What he doesn't understand, you know, and you've
read you all said you cannot just cherry picture fathers, right,
it's really hard to read the whole church father But
what they should understand is that if you look at
all letters between between you know, people of the church
are structured. So letters of the fathers it always starts
with an assessment of the person they're talking to, and
it starts by you know, giving great praise. And for
example on his website is actually you had the same
Theodore of the Studio, and we say we said a
lot of great things about about about Rome. Yes, because
when Rome is Orthodox, they have no problem giving it
all the praise. It's fine. But when it is not,
we don't. And for example, by taking Theodore of the Studio,
he wrote letters to the patriarch of Constantinople saying that
he's the head of the church.
Speaker 1: Yeah, what if this biology the site with Basil Antioch
head of the church.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So the quote mining fathers is they're using praise
for a lot of things. First of all, when they'm
in Peter at the time, I mean the the episcope
as a whole. We talked about this quite a while,
but you cannot just chair pick this. This is why
I hate, you know, going into quote minds, the quote
that they that they use, you know often you know
a doctor themselves. I always see them citing secondhand works.
I never see them citing the Patrologya Latina, Patrologia Greca.
Because if you go into these books and we've seen
people you know, coming from the twild world. A great
friend and manted to one extent, Jehan MacLean, he he
went to the PG. It made it made him aposthetize,
because it's it's filled with flalsification. It's filled with you know,
even sometimes admission of of oh we have different manuscripts,
Oh we with these stuff that says the orthodox think,
oh there is this alternate version of this of this
church father. Uh, it's it's it's filled with errors. If
you read Dollinger. Dollinger actually dug into it, and he
has a he has a book and the papers is
that just six hundred pages of showing interpolation in this
book he said. He says that at times you will
have ten layers of clalsification. So again a church fathers
and court. Mind, it's it's a bit difficult to you
to use as is. If you if you, if you
use the same metrics, you will see that just random
bishops at the head of the church. Random bishops are
described as being the pillar of the faith. You even yeah,
random bishops of priests as uh. You know, he says
that it is great to be in communion with you.
You see it from all the fathers. So claiming the
Father proved the papacy because they says, the purpose doing
great when he's doing great things, you know, orthodox things.
Speaker 1: Not let's move the csterl papism if you can, if
you got more on that.
Speaker 2: I think it's still something about about church as Oh yeah,
but churches. I just want to address something he claims,
you know, historical fact proves the papacy. Really if you like,
he quotes Pop Victor, he says that, you know, he
says that Pop Victor, for example, is is saying, I mean,
the example of Pop Victor and the controversy of Pasha
proofs proofs pacy. I'm just going to read eu Zibius,
and we got to see that it doesn't match anything. Victor,
who presided of his church at Rome, you know, not
the entire church immediately attempted to cut off from the communion,
from the community the parishes of all Asia. Keyword attempted.
You know, he cannot have it doesn't it doesn't have
this power. Also, you know the fact that he excommunicates
someone that he tries to exommunicate someone that outside this jurtyisdiction.
Not only the popes did this one day so heresy
or proceed heresy, they would do this. So the parishes
of early Asia, the churches that agreed with them as heterodox.
So you know that, you know, saying that not orthodox
would mean the wrong dogma, So that would make this excommunication,
you know, ipso factor and infallible. And he wrote letters
and declared all the present the Holy excommunity wholly excommunicate,
which means that, you know, if he really had this supremacy,
they would have been excommunicated for real. But this did
not please all the bishops, and they bethought him to
consider the things of peace, enable, unity, and love. So
here you have the pop going ast unity. Apparently they
they gloated about the propab exist point just after saying
that every sort of schism is bad. Words of theirs
are extent sharply rebuking Victor. Among them was Iranus, who
sending letters in the name of the bresen in Gold
over whom he presided. So you have Victor presiding over
bresen in Gold, which is in the Roman jurisdiction. Why
isn't the pope presiding over God himself?
Speaker 1: Yeah, what do we just say with Basil? Basil Rif's
letters appealing to Athanasius, to Malicius in Antioch and he
writes a letter to Damasis and the bishops in the West.
He's tried to secure condemnation from all these people. All
he had to do if Vatican Warnastery is get the
Pope to just wave his hand.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so maintain that the mystery of the resurrection of
the Law should be observed only in the Law's day.
He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off
the old churches of God, which observes the tradition of
an ancient custom. And what's great about this is that,
you know, if if there was really, you know, this
papal supremacy was even this paper infallibility, nobody would have,
you know, complained with it. People are like, oh, you know,
he's perk made a decision, this arretic, let's follow this.
The problem is the matter was only resolved as the
first secondical console, so he did not have the authority himself.
He tried it got rebuked. If this happens today, a
guy who rebukes the Purple will be excommunicated, Like, you know,
even Cardinal Sarah, you know, the just based black cardinal,
he would say that you have to follow Francis. It
doesn't it doesn't appartly doesn't personally agree with Francis, but
it doesn't you know, rebuking Yeah someone as I do.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I want to stress this. So can we move
to the cesserl papism or do you have any more
on that? I mean, we can do streams in the
next and upcoming future. In the near future, will will
address all the papal claims from the church fathers individual
and in fact, if you have I mean, you're welcome
to throw more in a you want. But yeah, Petris
just responded to Ibarra. By the way, I'll put that
at Lincoln again in the chat ef everybody wants to
read on say Maximus a confessor, how Ibara attempted to
use this to prove Vatican one in in Maximus, So
there is.
Speaker 2: Will be Let you be purchased. This is I'll just
quickly state about you know, historical council again, the other
pope who made an eretical console, you know, Pop Liberius,
who was rebuilt by the Church, who promoted air in creeds.
Doesn't you know, isn't it? You don't have to follow
this always they say we can't have any more any
more consuls. You know, we actually we actually have ec
Medical Council. We use that the eighth Ecmmdical Counsole that
was the fourteen Synod, that was approved by Pope John
the eighth, which means that it also it's lially destroys
this claim that we have a disagreement of as a philoquy.
We do not have a disagreement of as the philoquy
because we have this eighth counsul the ninth is fully
is fully in effect. We don't have different disagreements over
the energies. We seeing that we be seeing Palamas, we
see yeah, that.
Speaker 1: We don't even know if the energy doctrine is true.
What are you talking about. I've never heard an Orthodox
the Elogian deny the doctrine of uncreated energies. It's in
our liturgy. Everybody holds to that I know of holds
to the cinema black Renee and the uncreated energies. I've
never it's in the liturgy. I've never heard anybody not
say this. Now, David Bentley Hart, we don't even know
if we don't even know if David Bentley Hart attends
a church, right, he just says he's Orthodox and says
everything anti Orthodox rejectsment ecumenical councils that condemn origin. I mean,
you have an entire book Christ and Byzantium about Blackernee,
which contains all the documents of Blackername, by the way,
great book by Papadoccus, and he says, we don't even
know if the essence energy doctrine is true. What a
bunch of nonsense. There's not a single Orthodox theologian in
the twentieth century. That and the ones that are becoming saints,
like Saint Justin Popovich. Right. You can read the famous
Georgia Manzides has a whole book on uh Palamas. You
can read Father Staniloy. His whole systematic theology is premised
on the Essen senterdu distinction. You can read Father Florowsky,
powerful proponent of the Essen Center distinction. You could read
Vladimir Lowsky. All of the greatest theologians who they didn't
they didn't want Site, and they didn't want Site. A
great theologian they cited who where bolgacaw like and Salt
like weirdos?
Speaker 2: Right, yeah, which which is you know, disingenuous. We're not
attacking you know, Catholic morals and dogmat by by quitting,
you know, specifically James Martin.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, well, let's just site James Martin said that.
That's all. That's all.
Speaker 2: Ro We're gonna talk about Roman Catholics and James Martin,
James Martin, but just James Martin. Yes, bog is a sociologist.
It's ridiculous. Yeah, I think we can. Oh no, yeah,
it says just that he says, you need the emperor
to convince the council. No, we actually do not need
the emperor to convince the council. We we convene the
Council of Jerusalem. Uh. They say, oh, but that's just receptionalism.
The real medwik is a great, great video, but receptionism.
Speaker 1: We am a cavin to teach receptionism. That's the irony here.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we I mean, yeah, it's being being a full receptionist.
He's even said they say, oh, actually they call it
solar scripture a plus, Church Father. But they said, oh,
but we have the pup. But when they don't agree
that the oh but we can look in tradition to
you what you're doing sole scripture, Church Father.
Speaker 1: They do solar scripture with papal writings. That's their thing.
Speaker 2: Yes, So yes, they teach.
Speaker 1: Let me pick the I like marai boss I like
mortalium animals, I like lamentabilising, like Penni dominici gracious, I
like uh humani jen humanum genes of the I don't
like the encyclicals after Vatican two. So pick and choose
the encyclicals that you want, trads, because you're just being Protestant.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Also, yes, of course we do not need the
emperor to convene. Council. Act fifteen is a great example.
It was not convened by Roman Empire.
Speaker 1: By the way, there there are councils prior to the
uh to Nicia, right, there is UNCAS, and there are
councils after that, and so look the normative. So it's
three hundred years of Christianity without an ecumenical council. Okay,
So the ecumenical councils are not the normative way that
the church is governed. They happen sparsely every hundred year.
So this is this assumption that Orthodoxy lacks ecumenical councils
is really really misses the point of how the church
is actually in praxis governed, which is so nottally so
every church that everybody's Orthodox, their church is part of
a synod of bishops, so that that's the ormative way
the church is governed. What do you mean, there's not
We don't have to have for the church to survive
in our cemenical Council. And even the Vatican admits that
the Orthodox churches have existed for the last thousand years
as Orthodox without the papacy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that proves that we don't actually exist. Support from
like the document of Kurtis is great zero point sixteen,
this document signed by the pope. In the ways the
primacy of the seal Rome was understood, particularly from the
fourth century onwards with reference to peters Well among the apostle,
the primacy of the Bishop of Rome amongst the other
bishop was gradually interpreted as a prerogative. That was this
because it was successful of Peter, the first of the Apostles.
This understanding was not adopted in the East, which had
a different interpretation of scripture. And further on this point,
the old document of Kitty is about sinidality being very important,
and you know see it by themselves, by the very
nature refuting the ideas that you know, just in the
centralized authority, right, and.
Speaker 1: That whole stream, by the way, it was basically just
worship of authority and the irony here I want to
make a point about because a lot of people don't
know this, but if you read the documents of the
second Senator of Nicia two and seven eighty seven, he
made this goofy mistake of talking about how well the
whole church in the East is Cicero Papism, and they
followed emperors. And have you not read he hasn't. By
the way, have you not read the actual canons and
acts of the councils that are at least in English
so far, because you might be surprised to see the
way that your own popes and now these are our
poptes too, like we would agree with the Seventh Synod
in the posts at this time. But in your mindset
and his mindset, the Catholic Church is the church of
the first millennium. Oh guess what who do they say?
Are the emperor? The emperors are the God ordained emperors,
the God ordained emperors. That's a phrase from Nicia too.
That's the letter if you read, if you have the
chaft set, it's the letter of the Synod. There's two letters.
There's a letter of the Synod to the Emperor and
the Empress. And what do they say. They say, you
reign like David. They talk about theocracy, they talk about
them being the Orthodox imperium, and so on his own grounds,
his church for the first millennium admits simphonia. The very
thing he says is ceral papers, which is goody.
Speaker 2: Yeah. And what's great is that there will any times
there is an interaction between the church in the in
the East, in between church and state. In the East,
they will say it says or papies. But first of
all you're excommunicating, you know, the entire Churchdren's business, the
empire which you claim you you're united too. And also
it happens in the west. You know, you you claim
at some point, doing your Prosperity Gospels, that you converted
the Barbarians the Franks. When they were converted, the first
thing they put into place was caesaral papies, and they
put symphonia into place. Look at Saint Gregory of Tours,
he rights the history of the Franks, the merrior of Angians,
the merror of Aingians. You know, not only were Orthodox
because by then Gium recognize them of Orthodox. The emperor
who was Orthodox, send them, you know, consulate titles, all
kinds of glory. But they had orthodox eclesiology. And if
you look at the history the Franks. In History of
the Franks, they are talking about first of all rights
that they don't have any they don't have anymore, you know.
But also the fact that there was this link. You know,
the clergy was sort of an administrative class. There was
a very a very strong link throughout French history active
you will see the calicanism between between the clergy and
between the.
Speaker 1: The state.
Speaker 2: The first consul that the Franks made so so clovi
Is converted at the at the end of the four hundreds.
In in five to eleven, they already made a council
that state relevant that stated that you cannot enter the
clergy unless you have the unless the king is with you.
So can you really claim you converted friends, No, because
they didn't convert to Papism. They converted to Orthodox symphonia.
That's the very beginning of the conversion. Is the real conversion,
the real conversion of the West after the Barbarian invasions.
You can see throughout papal history. You can see, you know,
for example, Charlemagne trying to challenge things Charlemagne putting So
this is not like I'm not saying that Charlemagne was Orthodox.
I'm saying the merivingion, we're Orthodox, we have a good claim.
So this Charlemagne started to introduce heresy. Charlemaine wanted to
create a parallel authority. But peppin.
Speaker 1: Another and another rebuttal to this nonsense.
Speaker 2: The even acknologies, even a clergy when say, oh, there's
the institution institution crisis. You know, yes, because because at
some point the emperor was putting out, like choosing the pope.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the pope is the office of the papes are
being worn out to these nobility. Yeah, don't even know.
Speaker 2: Yeah you have. Like for example, Charlemagne wanted to to
bring the felocal. He tried to make his own parallel
authority of the church. Probably or the further rebuked him,
said no, you made counter Counsul wrote that you cannot
change the creed, you know, And ultimately it's a descendant
of charleman Or the third, the first, who wants to
recreate the empire of Charlemagne. That in states the Philoquo
in Rome by you know, coming to Italy saying, oh no,
it's Holy One umpire removing the pope, putting out his
own preferred pope and say, noticing the philoquay, that's the
philoque come into came into place. So you know, it's
really if you look at the old history of the
church even later, you know, the Gallican Church, it didn't
really answer to Rome. If if you look at it,
there was it was a Gallican priest and he said,
is this literally promoted by Vatican One? You know, this
full answer like being answering to to Rome. That doesn't
work like this. The gallicans when the when the poor
try try to you know, be more ultimate maintained, you know,
bring more power. So he's actually had at the same
arguments that that we do, you know, bring up consuls.
You had the King of Friends at some point Louis
the fourteen stating that you know the purpose of vicker,
but I am the lieutenant of God. You you had
you had kings, you know, after after declarations of like
after some declarations of supremacy by the pope, you had
kings sending in commanders. That's that's the real, that's the
real thing that happened. You're sending like our militiam and
our army capturing the purpse, holding the hostage. Yeah, you had,
you had, you know, Peppin, you know, trying to you know,
creating the paper state, you know, to vassalize the paper states,
the avenue and papers is the same thing if if
any interaction between between church and state and the East
is caesar papers, And guess what you're with the most
scient papists and and you answer to this was paper Caesaries,
which was yeah.
Speaker 1: And the and by the way, that doesn't end in
the Middle Ages or the Renaissance that continues all the
way up at the time of the election of Leo thirteenth.
Because as every trid knows, you all know, if you're
a studied trid about the story of Cardinal Rampola, I'll
put the old Catholic Family news article in the chat.
You can see it there preserved at Free Republic, which
is it's from two thousand and three. Did the Freemason
Cardinal Rampola almost become pope? And what does every trid
say about free Masonic infiltration? Oh, that's who's ruining us
all that they got us and all this stuff right,
And what's the story of Cardinal Rampola. The Austro Hungarian
emperor have the power of vetoing a certain election to
the papacy. So literally they believe that their papacy was
saved by Cicero papism in this story that all the
Trids believe for the most part. I'm sure there's some
trade who doesn't believe it, but most Trads, most SSPX,
most seat of a contests believe this story about Cardinal
Rampola and he was prevented from election because the cardinals
were going to elect him because the Austrian emperor knew.
And so the Austrian emperor had this veto power over
certain people being elected by the cardinals. So but when
that happens, it's not cesro papism. It's good, you see
they but there's countless examples of this kind of stuff,
and so for them to call it cesra papism on
our side, it's just total dishonesty and ignorance. I mean,
do they really not know any of the stuff.
Speaker 2: If you call this Caesar PAPIs, it means that the
West was never really Catholic and you know, actually that's
the truth. If you look that they are anathematicism against
this kind of organization. If you look at these two
friends from Klobs the first king were converted to Vatican One,
they had the Gallican organization. If this is an anthem,
it means that Friends was never Catholic because Friends adopted
them a low of secularization of the Vatican One, because
they considered that it was treachery, that it incited treachery
against the nation way too a nationalist. Yeah that's fine. Uh, yeah,
this is really existsful claim Caesar papers.
Speaker 1: And by the way, as you pointed out too many times,
the Council of Constance actually solves the problem of when
they have multiple so called claimants to the papacy. Now,
I thought the Papacy was there to solve the problems
of disunity, But what about the Council of Constance.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Council of Constance is great because you have many
people who bring up the Council of Florence. The Council
of Florence a full part consul that was preceded by
the Council of Constance. And in the Council of Constance
there is a you know, consular document that was signed
by the Pope, that was chosen by the council. It
is called Hike Sunkta can look it up and it's
used by the tries today to try to remove paper authority. Interestingly,
and Hike Sancta states that the council is above the Pope,
and ultimately it is because of the propagation of considerism.
If I some during the Council of Constance that that
many Eastern bishops said, oh, maybe we can we can
mend the schism this, maybe we should try to have
a discussion. So as the Council of Basil, you are
the first Eastern bishops coming. And then and then of
course Florence, because we came to Florence because we're like, oh,
you know, these guys just propagated Hike Sancta in any
communical council presided by the Pope, signed by the pope
twenty years ago. You know, these guys are not going
to contradict themselves so drastically over the course of twenty years.
But they did. Florence was a big job. They really
met right as a whole show if you have the
Counsul of Florence, but as the Council of Florence itself
contradicts the other councils. So it's you know, they would say,
oh is this Machestereo. It's perfect, it doesn't contradict. You
have two consuls that tragically contradict one another. Uh, these
after schism, so they should they should theoretically know about it, right.
Speaker 1: They should.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: Another thing I want to address that they put that
I think you guys mentioned on youall stream, which was
the ever appealed to. Oh you guys in Byzantium fell
to Islam because of your Eastern orthodoxy? Uh do you
do you know who was in union with who when
Byzantium fell? Do they not know this?
Speaker 2: Yeah? So they should know this first of all the
East in general. So you're creating a schism again because
the entire East, like most of the packet of the East,
fell to Islam in full community. From this includes that
is not limited to joselym Alexandria, Antiock and even Byzantium.
Byzantium fell under a union emperor and we cannot accept
him as like you know, if you see his constantly
in the eleventh he was he is a brother of
Emperor Johannes Emperor. Joannes even killed and martind like ordered
the killing of many i Tonite priests because they refused
a union. He wanted union. So yes, you know he
constantly felt. But they forget to understand that there even
was a contingent of of people and Venetian ships that
it came to help. So yes, if if you know
the fact that constant plyple felt is a curse orthodoxy,
it means that you know, it's it's Roman constant pus.
Speaker 1: And if we're going to start reading the curses of
what's going on in civilization, then Western civilization has been
cursed by being Roman Catholic, and the degeneracy and the
apostacy that we see can be blown on Rome. I mean,
come on, that's ridiculous way to try to read the
tea leaves and the omens.
Speaker 2: Agains the colors person. But this is prosperity gospel to
forget that, you know, Rome was you know, the Roman
Patricks was also invaded like to today today all of
northern Africa, which was you know at one point the
beating of the Romans reisdiction is today still Muslim. What
what can we say, oh you splinter in all different branches.
We we we we never splintered in different benches. People
went away from the church. He said, oh you have
the old calendarist. You have you have Silva Kantis. It's
the same thing. Oh you have the old ritualist as
old ritualists. Yeah, some group went away. Actually we were
back in even with many of them. But if if I,
if I use this metric to determine truth. First of all,
you know, it means that Islam who took over all
these places, maybe true. You know Nottings believes this. Say
the one will conquer constant noble as the right faith
again says that Protestantism. You know, Oh, Presentism comes from Rome.
You know there are songs of Rome. You know, maybe
maybe they are true, Maybe they are the truth. The
other the one we evangelize more, you know, the Pacha
mammas that was to prevent too hard and evangelism like
evangelism in the beating heard of Roman Catholicism. So yes,
this this is really weird. A prosperity gospel. We evangelize
more than you we evangelize. The barbarian already showed that
the Barbarians were not evangelized to.
Speaker 1: Romanic evangelis right. I mean, go to New Orleans, go
down to the Congo and see if that's legitimate Christianity.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you have people who call themselves Christians because they
were evangelized by rob who practice mutual cannibalism, have patcha
Mamma worship. These kind of things didn't appear after Vatican too.
This is how they were evangelized. They were evangelizing.
Speaker 1: Yeah. This is the old culturation of the Jesuits. And
again I know there's different types of culturation, but my
point is that the syncretistic approach run with allism is
not real evangelism.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So we can even say, like, did you evangualize
these people? I don't know, because right now you never
evangelize this place. It is coming back to Roome. So yes,
I talk about it in my stream type view. But
the Jesuits, so yes, this is really a weird kind
of prosperity gospel. We evangelize more people than you. If
you look at who re evangelized, at some point it
says who's a Greek? Who is a Greek? You have evangelized, well,
the Latins. If you look at the Christianity spread, you know,
if we eventulize someone first re evangelize.
Speaker 1: Okay, I'm gonna let you if you have any of
the last points you want to get to. I'm not
trying to rush you, but I got a few mores
I want to make, and then maybe we'll wrap this up.
Because we were almost three hours, which which is a
good I think we dealt with most of the big ones.
But I'll let you have the floor and then we'll
do the super chats. I got, I got one point
I want to get to, and then I'll let you.
I'll let you finish here and then I'll do my
point and then we'll do the super chats. And by
the way, I'm also I'll put their stream into the
description of the show. I did share it on my
channel in the community tab, so you guys can find
their stream there. But if you're watching this, you know,
months down the road or a year from now or whatever,
I'll put David and Everybody's streaming here, and I have
their original link to Taylor Marshall stream too, so but
David and Lewis and Snack I'll have their response in
the description of the show as well. Yeah.
Speaker 2: So yeah, we covered some other points in other streams.
So let's look make it too redundant. Yeah, Ultimately, what
I want to say that their own point is to
say that we are with the branch. We are withted
branch because we do not have the authority to do
a whole lot of things, because they worship authority and
not God. Actually, be sure that we still have this authority.
We still keep to the cannons, We still keep to
we still are able to have consols that are accepted
by tradition. And at the same time, it makes the
point that that Rome itself is not using its power.
That it has portents, but it's not using it. How
can I say that, you know, if if there is
no display of of this of this power, how can
I say that you are not the with the branch.
You know, as can be room can be grafted out,
and you can say that you have tranquility in mind
by saying, oh, you know the perful results thing, Oh
this is going to be true. You know, his popby
selected by the people that he names the cardinals. The
cardinals are all paused. It says, oh exactly, sy, it's
the only like, it's the only way out, accord to
one twenty. Yeah, the papacy is the way out for
the problem caused by the papacy, because with other papacy
you will have these problems in the first place. If
you like, this is the problem.