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