Speaker 1: Argue he was. I said, the position that he outlines
Speaker 1: is the same as the dogmatic position of Rome. I know,
Speaker 1: I studied Thomas for a long time. I know that
Speaker 1: he's not dogma. He is, however, the official philosophy of
Speaker 1: the Roman Catholic Church, although since Vatican Two, do we
Speaker 1: even know if that's still true? I don't know. We
Speaker 1: don't even know, because they tolerate all kinds of theologians
Speaker 1: who reject Thomas. So again, but what we're gonna what
Speaker 1: we're gonna start with is the question of the Ecomunical Council. Certainty.
Speaker 1: We're gonna be talking about epistemology today, and that's why
Speaker 1: it's a specific, unique talk about epistemology and not just
Speaker 1: about the papal claims and the Church Fathers. You see,
Speaker 1: the papal claims in the Church Fathers requires giant explanations
Speaker 1: because of the fact that they're almost always taken out
Speaker 1: of their context. They're copied and pasted from Catholic answers pages,
Speaker 1: and they don't take into account the context. For example,
Speaker 1: when you're an as in against Heresies makes this famous
Speaker 1: quote about out the church at Rome, you know, the
Speaker 1: Catholic answer stuff. They'll like, quote the paragraph just about
Speaker 1: the Church at Rome, and they don't finish the rest
Speaker 1: of the quote where he says why the Church of
Speaker 1: Rome matters. Does he say that it's an infallible charism
Speaker 1: given to Peter alone? Absolutely not. He says the Orthodox
Speaker 1: position that Rome is pre eminent because it was doubly
Speaker 1: apostolic because of Peter and Paul. You see, because Peter
Speaker 1: set up churches in other places, like the Church at Antioch,
Speaker 1: and nobody believes the Church of Antioch has a patrine
Speaker 1: supremacy because Peter ordaned the bishop there. Right now, the
Speaker 1: Roman Catholics are aware of this, many of some of them,
Speaker 1: some of not many, some of them, and they come
Speaker 1: up with infinite mental gymnastics. And we're going to that
Speaker 1: requires its own specific talk. We will eventually do that
Speaker 1: where we get through the specific papal claims, you know,
Speaker 1: from this father, this father, this father, and all the
Speaker 1: way up through to the split of the Eighth Council.
Speaker 1: And we're going to and the split is over the
Speaker 1: Eighth Council because actually, guess what, John the eighth pup
Speaker 1: John the Eighth signed the Orthodox Council. The Orthodox eighth
Speaker 1: Council forbidding the Filioqui. Many Roman Catholics, by the way,
Speaker 1: who figured that out, they convert. Now most people again,
Speaker 1: there's always an infinite series of mental genetics. They're like
Speaker 1: award winning I know because I used to do it.
Speaker 1: They are award winning Olympic mental gymnasts. Uh, and it
Speaker 1: never ends, and it's just a spiraling spiral, spiral of circularity. Now,
Speaker 1: let's talk about epistemic claims certainty in the Paopal issue
Speaker 1: and how ultimately it does relate to created grace, because
Speaker 1: this is going to revolve around a question of whether
Speaker 1: the individuals in the church can know truth. Now, ironically,
Speaker 1: Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Protestants all in some way will
Speaker 1: admit that individuals in the church can have certitude and
Speaker 1: know the truth. The means by which we have that certitude,
Speaker 1: the means by which we can know these things is
Speaker 1: where there comes to disagreement. So what we're gonna have
Speaker 1: to do, since this is a question of paradigmatic certitude, right,
Speaker 1: paradigm level certainty, We're going to have to question the
Speaker 1: paradigm itself, the authority in the paradigm within that whole worldview,
Speaker 1: to see which one is more correct, which one is
Speaker 1: coherent because we're at the level of final authority, we're
Speaker 1: at at the level of how do we know what's
Speaker 1: religiously true? So let's start with the Roman Catholic argument.
Speaker 1: And I think that it's pretty I don't think anybody's
Speaker 1: going to dispute that it's pretty standard that the office
Speaker 1: of the papacy is the starting point. Okay, I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't just anybody disagree with that. I mean a
Speaker 1: Roman Catholic might admit that you could read the Bible,
Speaker 1: it's materially sufficient and all this kind of stuff, and
Speaker 1: you could convert, but typically speaking, the final say so
Speaker 1: all TOI comes down to the papacy. They'll even say,
Speaker 1: for example, that the only way that we know the
Speaker 1: scriptures or the canon is because you know, in certain
Speaker 1: Western local councils, the pope affirmed the canon of Scripture. Now,
Speaker 1: the Orthodox position does not say the exact same thing
Speaker 1: about how we know the canon. We don't believe that
Speaker 1: it was just a decision of the Roman bishop in
Speaker 1: relationship to some local Western synods, which is typically how
Speaker 1: the Romanclolic position argues. But that's what they'll say. And
Speaker 1: then then we'll say so. So you see Peter because
Speaker 1: he was given the rock, or because he because he
Speaker 1: made the confession, he was said to be the rock,
Speaker 1: and then the church is built on this specific special
Speaker 1: place given to Peter as the Roman pontiff and all
Speaker 1: of his successors. Right, Vatican one is pretty clear. There's
Speaker 1: not a whole lot of dispute. I should probably pull
Speaker 1: up Vatican one because it's going to be relevant to
Speaker 1: the question of the ordinary magisterium as well, because the
Speaker 1: Romancalities are confused about this issue too, and they the
Speaker 1: same guy about Aquinas was arguing with me about this
Speaker 1: as well. So I actually found a good online Vatican
Speaker 1: one statement. Let's see if I can find that one again.
Speaker 1: I think this is pretty good, like a like a
Speaker 1: clear laying out version of it. All right, and let's
Speaker 1: find the ordinary statement. Yeah, there we go. So in
Speaker 1: chapter three, section eight, right now, again, I'm going to
Speaker 1: say that we all kind of know the I'm going
Speaker 1: to read it. But we want to make two points here.
Speaker 1: We want to start with the point of the ordinary
Speaker 1: magisterium because Roman Catholics are confused over this, and in fact,
Speaker 1: the SSPX and the normative Roman Catholics aren't even sure.
Speaker 1: They debate over this issue. They debate the status of
Speaker 1: ordinary magisterium and the desbate, they debate what is ordinary
Speaker 1: universal magisterium. So let's keep these facts in mind, because
Speaker 1: we're going to start to see how convoluted and confused
Speaker 1: this supposed simple system is. So let's see in that
Speaker 1: section chapter two, it says, wherefore we teach and declare
Speaker 1: that by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre
Speaker 1: eminence of ordinary power over every other church. Right, this
Speaker 1: is the statement of the supremacy. They are all in
Speaker 1: a hierarchical subordination. And it goes on to say, when
Speaker 1: it's matters of faith and morals. Now, first of all,
Speaker 1: that's pretty vague, isn't it. I mean, faith and morals
Speaker 1: could encompass anything and everything. The power of the Supreme
Speaker 1: Pontiff by no means distracts from the ordinary and immediate
Speaker 1: power of the episcopal jurisdiction of the rest of the
Speaker 1: bishops have exceeded from the place of the apostles. So
Speaker 1: we have this idea that it's a college, but the
Speaker 1: college only has that role in unison with the living
Speaker 1: magisterial teaching of the supreme pontiff. He has, of course
Speaker 1: this whole jurisdiction over the entire church, immediate over his
Speaker 1: own church in Rome, and overall churches with supreme jurisdiction.
Speaker 1: Now the again, and when we know when the statements
Speaker 1: are extraordinary, Right, extraordinary magisterium is the statement from the
Speaker 1: See of Peter with full apostolic authority for the whole
Speaker 1: church on faith and morals. Right, that's what makes it
Speaker 1: an ex cathedral extraordinary claim. And it is irrevocable and infallible.
Speaker 1: But that's not the only time that the church is
Speaker 1: irrevocably infallibly speaking, Let's put the quote up because people
Speaker 1: are going to say, I'm making it up or I'm not.
Speaker 1: I'm making up quotes. He's making up quotes from literally God,
Speaker 1: I'm making up quotes. If they had, by the way,
Speaker 1: if they had just read the essay, they would have
Speaker 1: seen the whole force and flow of my argument and
Speaker 1: they would have realized that So what if I misstated
Speaker 1: the word substance or accident, It's still the same point
Speaker 1: that it's created. But anyway, let's look at this statement
Speaker 1: on the ordinary magisterium, wherefore, by divine Catholic faith, all
Speaker 1: those things are to be believed which are contained in
Speaker 1: the Word of God, found a scripture and tradition, and
Speaker 1: which are proposed by the Church as matters to be
Speaker 1: believed as divinely revealed, whether by a solemn judgment that's
Speaker 1: extraordinary or in her ordinary universal magisterium. They're de fide.
Speaker 1: They are by divine and Catholic faith. That means dea
Speaker 1: fidae in Roman Catholicism. Okay, de fide, not de juree
Speaker 1: de fide, that's means of faith dogma. So the ordinary
Speaker 1: teaching magisterium is de fide guided by the terrorism of Peter,
Speaker 1: just as the rest of the doctrines are just as
Speaker 1: the now. Again, the reason they make this distinction is that, well,
Speaker 1: not everything has been specified right as extraordinary. But does
Speaker 1: that mean that just because it's not specified as extraordinary,
Speaker 1: it doesn't have to be followed and believed, no, right,
Speaker 1: because there are plenty of things that should, should and
Speaker 1: have to be believed that haven't specifically been dogmatically declared
Speaker 1: pretty obviously right in that scheme. Yeah, okay, so that's
Speaker 1: why it makes no sense to a lot of times.
Speaker 1: You'll hear the myth of the trads they'll be like,
Speaker 1: excuse me, there's only three, there's only two, there's only
Speaker 1: three extra cathedral statements. Ever, no, there's not. That's not true.
Speaker 1: Everything in Denzinger you have to believe. You can't. You
Speaker 1: can't reject anything in Denzinger because what is in Dnsinger
Speaker 1: is both extraordinary and ordinary universal magisterial teaching. In fact,
Speaker 1: an argument could be made, and again I don't care.
Speaker 1: The Romancavists can debate this all day long. I don't
Speaker 1: care what they what they think, they can debate it
Speaker 1: or what. I don't care what their position is. But
Speaker 1: they can't they can even argue amongst themselves whether they're
Speaker 1: catechisms are with or without error, right, because the catechisms
Speaker 1: are proposed by the Pope from the apostolic chair, with
Speaker 1: full teaching authority for the entire church on faith and morals.
Speaker 1: So their argument that they make is that you can't
Speaker 1: have the pope teaching universally in an ordinary magister away
Speaker 1: for the entire church, and it be wrong. Yes, all
Speaker 1: Roman Catholics will agree that a pope could have an error,
Speaker 1: a private error, on some theological position, But that also
Speaker 1: raises another problem, because if he could have a private
Speaker 1: theological error, then he could also be a material heretic
Speaker 1: or whatever. Right, Yeah, so then they have the debate
Speaker 1: like Taylor Marshall just had two days ago, about the
Speaker 1: mental gymnastics of what do we do if there's a
Speaker 1: critical pope? Because guess what, even all the Normies are
Speaker 1: now starting to wonder about Frank. They're starting to think, hey,
Speaker 1: maybe we got to revisit this question of Frank because
Speaker 1: is not very Orthodox and even the Norman Catholics are
Speaker 1: starting to figure that out. So there is a bit
Speaker 1: of a dilemma then about how to reconcile the ideas
Speaker 1: of you know, Vatican One and all that to the
Speaker 1: promise of Peter. And yes, somebody was pointing out I
Speaker 1: should also mention Florence. Yeah, I will mention Florence because
Speaker 1: everybody brought this up. News flash. Uh, we're going to
Speaker 1: talk about pentarchy two. Yeah, I meant to write that
Speaker 1: down my piece of paper here. Pentarchy's not a magical
Speaker 1: formula for how orthodox he determines doctrines, by the way.
Speaker 1: What we're going to see, by the way, is that
Speaker 1: when the when Roman Catholics try to learn about or
Speaker 1: come to Orthodox ideas, they tend to and I did
Speaker 1: this too when I was first looking at it. They
Speaker 1: tend to impose all of these Roman Catholic assumptions on it,
Speaker 1: like where's your final arbiter. Uh, if you don't have that,
Speaker 1: nobody knows what it is. Well, that's again, that's a
Speaker 1: Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the final arbner first
Speaker 1: of all. And they're gonna say, oh, that's Protestant, that's Protestant.
Speaker 1: We'll see if that's Protestant, let's see here when we
Speaker 1: get to that. But I just wanted to make the
Speaker 1: point though, that first of all, we have to understand
Speaker 1: that that universal Ordinary Magisterium is for the entire Church,
Speaker 1: has to be believed along with the Extraordinary Magisterium and
Speaker 1: any typical before the existence of the SSPIX, any typical
Speaker 1: Roman Catholic dogmatic manual or essay or treatise that I've
Speaker 1: ever seen. If you were to go to Catholic Encyclopedia
Speaker 1: right now and you look up Ordinary Universal Magisterium, it
Speaker 1: will say that it's guided by and protected by the
Speaker 1: Petrine Terrorism and all this kind of stuff, right. And
Speaker 1: then also I did want to point out I think
Speaker 1: there is a statement on absolute simplicity in Vatican one two.
Speaker 1: We're not talking about simplicity today, but there is a
Speaker 1: statement on God is absolutely simple. Yeah, completely simple, absolutely simple.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter either one same one. God is one, singular,
Speaker 1: completely simple, unchangeable spiritual substance. He must be declared to
Speaker 1: be in reality and in essence to sink from the world.
Speaker 1: We don't disagree with that. Supremely happy in himself. This
Speaker 1: is bizarre terminology and from himself an expressive and expressibly
Speaker 1: loftier than anything beside himself. And let's see, was there
Speaker 1: one more statement on and I think, let's see, this
Speaker 1: is essentially tomistic in its construction. That's why, by the way,
Speaker 1: and this isn't the only one. If you read the
Speaker 1: essay that non other Roman Catholics can actually ever read,
Speaker 1: they just bitch about. Well, if you read the essay
Speaker 1: about absolute simplicity that I wrote, eye cite the other
Speaker 1: previous doctrines on the simplicity from like the Council of Rhymes,
Speaker 1: God's Justice, this is wisdess, this is wisdom, etcetera, etcetera,
Speaker 1: and then the Catholic Encyclopedia on the explanation of what
Speaker 1: wisdom or what divine knowledge is what the divine attribute.
Speaker 1: Just look up the divine attributes and it says every
Speaker 1: one of them are identical to the divine essence, and
Speaker 1: the distinctions are only virtual, nominal or conceptual. I don't
Speaker 1: care whether you use the words virtual, where they use
Speaker 1: the word nominal, whether they use the word conceptual, because
Speaker 1: it's all the same thing. It doesn't matter. And let's
Speaker 1: do this again. Even though I already did this, and
Speaker 1: the talks that we did on legs going to Sleep
Speaker 1: already covered this in the talks on absolute mutimplicity and
Speaker 1: all that stuff, let's cover it again. See. I even
Speaker 1: know in the Catholic Psychopedia verd Is it's under the
Speaker 1: section about the divine knowledge is identical simplicity of God.
Speaker 1: They're all, all the statements are identical. They can't figure
Speaker 1: out what we're talking about. They think we believe in
Speaker 1: a bunch of different gods. All right, let's see what
Speaker 1: is it. What's the statement? Once again? Let's see, let's
Speaker 1: start up at the top. It is true that no
Speaker 1: single predicate is adequate or exhaustive as a description of
Speaker 1: His infinite, infinite perfection. And that's this divine names right,
Speaker 1: and thus we need to employ a multitude of predicates.
Speaker 1: He's wise, he's just loving, et cetera. If as if
Speaker 1: at first sight, infinity could be reached by this multiplication
Speaker 1: of terms they're saying. But at the same time we
Speaker 1: recognize that this is not so being repugnant to the
Speaker 1: divine simplicity. So they're not really distinct. There's not really
Speaker 1: a multitude of statements that are true about God. They're
Speaker 1: virtually nominally, conceptually distinct. I don't care which terms you
Speaker 1: want to use, pick any one of them, because they're
Speaker 1: not real. They're not in ry and while that truth
Speaker 1: and while truth, goodness, wisdom, holiness, and other attributes as
Speaker 1: we conceive and define them, express perfections that are formally distinct. See,
Speaker 1: they're just formally distinct, conceptual nominal. Right again, open up
Speaker 1: the typical tomistic treatise. They're all going to tell you
Speaker 1: that it's not a real distinction. It's not even disputable, disputed,
Speaker 1: all right, as applied to God, they're all ultimately identical
Speaker 1: in meaning. Did you see that they are ultimately identical
Speaker 1: in meaning and describe the same ultimate reality. This is
Speaker 1: why Saint Basil says in letter two thirty four. If
Speaker 1: you add up all these attributes and they say they're
Speaker 1: all identical, it's foolish exactly. So a little excursus there
Speaker 1: on absolute simplicity, again just as a reminder, because we're
Speaker 1: going to see that it's actually absolutely multiplicity that is
Speaker 1: the root of why the papacy comes to be an issue.
Speaker 1: It's the root of the whole problem because it's an
Speaker 1: over emphasis on oneness, because of the over emphasis on
Speaker 1: the unity of God, this modalistic conception, this Younomian conception,
Speaker 1: where all the attributes and all of the predicates are
Speaker 1: absolutely identical in meaning in reality. That leads to this
Speaker 1: idea that the only way to distinguish the persons is
Speaker 1: by philioque And how many Roman Catholic Gufus apologists who
Speaker 1: don't even know the issue will say that there's no
Speaker 1: other way to distinguish the persons without the philioquay. It's
Speaker 1: because they have no idea what they're talking about. They
Speaker 1: have no clue about why the Father is the soul
Speaker 1: cause in ark as every Eastern father teaches, every one
Speaker 1: of them teaches, the sole cause an ark of the
Speaker 1: Godhead is the person of the Father, not the common
Speaker 1: essence of God, the person of the Father. In fact, again,
Speaker 1: when I mentioned the Father as the cause of the
Speaker 1: Godhead directly quoting Saint John Damascus, what did doctor Feingeld say,
Speaker 1: You can't speak of cause in terms of the persons,
Speaker 1: in terms of God. He didn't even know what was
Speaker 1: the common language of all the Eastern Church fathers. Even
Speaker 1: the Creed says, we believe in one God, the Father,
Speaker 1: not the common essence of God. There is one common
Speaker 1: essence of God, but it's the common essence the Father
Speaker 1: communicates to the Son and through that son to the Spirit.
Speaker 1: So let's get back to ecumenical councils. Now. The first
Speaker 1: point is that we want to understand that, just on
Speaker 1: a really obvious level, the claim that we have doctrinal
Speaker 1: religious epistemic certitude can't be said to be on the
Speaker 1: basis of the papacy, for the simple fact that the
Speaker 1: papacy came into existence, you know, at whatever point you
Speaker 1: want to chart it, we would say the Bishop of
Speaker 1: Rome evolved into having this these exorbitant claims of universal premiscy.
Speaker 1: It wasn't that way at the beginning. Obviously, Rome had
Speaker 1: a premacy of honor that evolved to be this sort
Speaker 1: of out of control thing. And by the eight hundreds
Speaker 1: and John the eighth signing the Eastern eighth Council and
Speaker 1: forbidding the Philioqua, that's when the real problems start. And
Speaker 1: then of course you have you know, ten fifty four
Speaker 1: and all that, and really again comes to the four
Speaker 1: in the situation if you read sat Photius's Mistagaugy of
Speaker 1: the Holy Spirit. But Saint Photios also has essays or
Speaker 1: letter excuse me, where he talks about Frankish missionaries coming
Speaker 1: into Bulgarian areas and spreading the philioquay in the Creed.
Speaker 1: But the Creed had already been signed by Pope John
Speaker 1: the eighth saying don't add the filioqua to the Creed.
Speaker 1: But if you're a Roman Catholic, you say, who cares?
Speaker 1: Because the Pope can reverse that. Now they will say
Speaker 1: they won't believe that, they won't believe that that John
Speaker 1: the eighth signed the Eastern eighth Council and forbade the Creed.
Speaker 1: But he did, and I'm going to let me show
Speaker 1: you the proof of that. That's in Father Dragas's essay.
Speaker 1: That's why this is a really important piece that I always.
Speaker 1: I'm adding it right now to the links in the
Speaker 1: stream here. I don't know if has any one of
Speaker 1: them read this. I mean I've been linking this and
Speaker 1: putting this in here. I'm gonna put at the top
Speaker 1: for you guys, right there at the top, right, so
Speaker 1: that should be there. I'll even put it in the
Speaker 1: chat for you guys can read that. Be a big
Speaker 1: boy and read that. My chat's not showing up here?
Speaker 1: Where's my chat? Let's see refresh this. I can't see
Speaker 1: what's going on in the chat. Am I just talking
Speaker 1: to nobody? Is this is this even working? Can you
Speaker 1: guys hear me? You guys are talking about Joel Osie.
Speaker 1: Can you guys hear me? I just want to make
Speaker 1: sure I'm not yapping into the ether to nobody. Okay, so,
Speaker 1: uh we got I just want to I want to
Speaker 1: say that I want to remind you guys that let
Speaker 1: me know if you guys can hear me, so I
Speaker 1: don't just keep you happening. I know the chat's always
Speaker 1: behind in this, in this and obs and all that. Okay, good,
Speaker 1: So we want to remind our guys. Here are listeners
Speaker 1: what the doctrine of divine simplicity, says again, do I
Speaker 1: need to just put I'll put the New Advent article
Speaker 1: on the divine nature and attributes there for you. Make
Speaker 1: it simple. Again, this shouldn't even be disputed. Anybody can
Speaker 1: open up the volume one of the Suma and the
Speaker 1: first few questions that deal with divine knowledge, divine unity,
Speaker 1: divine simplicity. Uh, and it's all going to tell you
Speaker 1: that they're all identical and they're only distinguished in terms
Speaker 1: of a virtual, terminological or conceptual sense. They're not really
Speaker 1: in reality distinct. And the argument is that we have
Speaker 1: to guard the unity of God that way or else
Speaker 1: we'll be try try theists or multiple theists. And these
Speaker 1: same Goufhases will turn around and tell you that there's
Speaker 1: a real distinction between the Father, the Son, and the
Speaker 1: Spirit and it doesn't divide or cause composition in the Godhead.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is serious mental illness here that these
Speaker 1: guys can. On the one hand, they say, yeah, there's
Speaker 1: a real distinction between Father's son and spirit, but it's relational.
Speaker 1: I don't care whether you call it relation. Is it
Speaker 1: real or not? Right? Did the Son become incarnate or
Speaker 1: did the whole trinity become incarnate the Son did, right,
Speaker 1: So he's really distinct from the Father and the Spirit. Yes, okay,
Speaker 1: so there's a real distinction in God that doesn't destroy
Speaker 1: the unity of God. It doesn't result in composition, and
Speaker 1: it doesn't result in division. So you already agree with
Speaker 1: us that there can be distinctions in a thing that
Speaker 1: don't destroy the unity of a thing. Now, so let's
Speaker 1: keep that in mind. We will be refreshed on our essence,
Speaker 1: energy ads issue. And then when we start to think
Speaker 1: about the ecumenical councils, and we say, and we keep
Speaker 1: in mind that. Okay, So the pope, the papacy as
Speaker 1: conceived of as a Vatican one that's what I was
Speaker 1: reading earlier. By the way, Vatican one. I'll have to
Speaker 1: stick that in there, though I think I'll make up
Speaker 1: all these Vatican one quotes. What we need to be
Speaker 1: the case is Vatican one's definition to all have always
Speaker 1: been true, all right, So it needs to be true
Speaker 1: if it's going to function as a starting point for
Speaker 1: epistemic certainty religious certainty. Did Isaiah have knowledge and certitude
Speaker 1: about God? Did Noah? Yeah, they did? Okay. Did the
Speaker 1: apostles in the person of Christ in front of Christ,
Speaker 1: was the was the papacy there yet?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 1: Okay? So obviously, right off the bat, Okay, religious certitude
Speaker 1: cannot be grounded on an office, an external juridical office
Speaker 1: of a guy in Rome. Okay. So because people have
Speaker 1: obviously religious certitude known for certain about God. Proverbs talks
Speaker 1: about knowing God with certitude. Isaiah talks about knowing God.
Speaker 1: They directly interacted with the logos. Isaiah saw him. John says,
Speaker 1: Isaiah saw Christ seated on his throne when the Angel
Speaker 1: of the Lord appeared. Those Theophanes. Did they have to
Speaker 1: write to Rome and see if the Theophanes were real?
Speaker 1: Did Paul submit his letter to the Romans, to the Romans,
Speaker 1: to the church at Rome. He wrote a letter rebuking
Speaker 1: the church at Rome. Did he submit it to them
Speaker 1: for their approval so that they would No, he wrote
Speaker 1: to them with authority. Okay, So right off the bat, again,
Speaker 1: it's very obvious that on a basic epistemic level, religious
Speaker 1: certitude does not come from merely having or saying there's
Speaker 1: an external juridical guy who can make a decision. Okay, So,
Speaker 1: but what if we tried to argue that that now
Speaker 1: things have changed because of Pentecost and because of the
Speaker 1: coming Christ, and so now it's different. And now there
Speaker 1: is a juridical guy who sits in a magic throne
Speaker 1: and knows right, game of thrones and type of stuff,
Speaker 1: and that's that's how Jesus organized it, right. So so
Speaker 1: maybe it wasn't true in the Old Testament. They could
Speaker 1: have a direct kind of intuitive certitude or whatever kind
Speaker 1: of experience the prophets did, and they knew God existed.
Speaker 1: But now it's different. No, no, wait a minute, I
Speaker 1: thought Pentecost was supposed to be a better state of
Speaker 1: being than in the Old Testament. Pentecost is supposed to
Speaker 1: come to bring what would the Roman Catholics say, infallibility
Speaker 1: to the church. Who's the church ultimately the pope. So
Speaker 1: Pentecost is really in their mind just for the pope. Now,
Speaker 1: this is completely foreign to the mind of anybody who
Speaker 1: knows orthodox theology, because we would look to the earliest
Speaker 1: days of the Church and you can see that, for
Speaker 1: example the letters of Ignatius or in Irenaeus. The fullness
Speaker 1: of Catholicity exists in the local bishopric. There's nothing lacking.
Speaker 1: The local bishop has just as much spirit as the
Speaker 1: dude in Rome. There's no layers. This is not a
Speaker 1: chain of being where the pope is like closer up
Speaker 1: to the top of the chain of being, and all
Speaker 1: the rest of the podunk bishops out in the world
Speaker 1: are like way down. They're like they're floating there on,
Speaker 1: almost falling into non being on this big chain of
Speaker 1: being right up or closer to the absolute simplicity of
Speaker 1: perfect monad units or whatever it's to be. No, the
Speaker 1: power of Pentecost is fully present in the entirety of
Speaker 1: the church. Pentecost didn't hit Peter first and then spill
Speaker 1: out to everyone else. It just happened in the room
Speaker 1: to all of them. And if you remember what we
Speaker 1: said to Nick in the debate when Nick was bringing
Speaker 1: up all this stuff, every single statement that said to
Speaker 1: Peter is also said to all the other apostles. There's
Speaker 1: no indication that the other apostles only got that through Peter.
Speaker 1: Did Jesus say, Peter, I breathe on you, now breathe
Speaker 1: on them. No, he breathed on all of them. And again,
Speaker 1: this is the Apostolic model of the college, the collegiality,
Speaker 1: the college of the apostles. Look, for example, two chapters.
Speaker 1: After the statement of Matthew sixteen, Jesus says, surely, I
Speaker 1: say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be
Speaker 1: bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will
Speaker 1: be loose in heaven. He's not talking to Peter, He's
Speaker 1: talking to the whole all of them. And he says,
Speaker 1: and I say to you that if two of you
Speaker 1: agree on earth concerning anything, my Father will do it
Speaker 1: for you. So this is actually a promise of answered
Speaker 1: prayer and binding and loosing. Yes, it does apply to
Speaker 1: the episcopate, but it also, in a way applies to
Speaker 1: all of the body. And what the Roman charaturist does
Speaker 1: is restrict this, in this bizarre legalistic pharisical Talmudik way,
Speaker 1: to only the guy in Rome and only the people
Speaker 1: who are under him. But whether it's breathing on the
Speaker 1: entire apostles, the College of the Apostles, and saying whoever
Speaker 1: sends you remit, they're remitted, whoever sends you retain, they retained,
Speaker 1: Or whether it's the ability to sit on thrones and judge,
Speaker 1: does he say that's only in reference to Peter, and
Speaker 1: who Peter gives it to. No, he says that you
Speaker 1: will all right. At the last submer says you will
Speaker 1: all sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes. When
Speaker 1: we look at the new Jerusalem in heaven, does it
Speaker 1: have one cornerstone? No, it has twelve, because it's a
Speaker 1: cube with twelve foundation stones upon which are all the
Speaker 1: twelve apostles. Okay, it doesn't just say, it's not like
Speaker 1: one little Peter block and then everything kind of stacked
Speaker 1: on top of Peter. And if you remember the famous
Speaker 1: prophecy I think was in Isaiah that Nick said this
Speaker 1: was about Peter. No, the New Testament interprets the prophecies
Speaker 1: of he who has the keys and opens and shut
Speaker 1: as Jesus and the apocalypse. It's not Peter. Now, in
Speaker 1: the process of the Church coming to need government and
Speaker 1: to set up government, they modeled it on Everybody knows this.
Speaker 1: Even the Roman Catholics know this. They admit this. It's
Speaker 1: modeled on the Old Testament. Sure, and this model on
Speaker 1: the Old Testament in the method of levite priest or
Speaker 1: excuse me, yeah, levite priest high priest. Right, so there's
Speaker 1: only one high priest and he is in Jerusalem, and
Speaker 1: then you have levitees priests and levit.
Speaker 3: Chad Mode is your ultimate natural pre workout designed to
Speaker 3: take your performance to the next level. Chad Mode is
Speaker 3: for natty beast alphas only. Whether you're hitting the gym,
Speaker 3: invading a favella, conquering a small village, gambling, burning the
Speaker 3: midnight oil, mogging on your coworkers, or getting banned from Facebook,
Speaker 3: chad Mode gives you the competitive edge you need. It's
Speaker 3: as simple as mixing one or two scoops of our
Speaker 3: fine powder into water or juice, Providing you with a delicious,
Speaker 3: energizing beverage featuring a burst of sweet organic fruit flavor.
Speaker 3: Chad Mode will give you the extra edge you desperately.
Speaker 3: Craved Mode stands out from the crowd by excluding artificial flavors, preservatives, sweeteners,
Speaker 3: and dyes. We've even avoided so called natural flavors, ensuring
Speaker 3: a clean and effective formula. Only soy boys and Beta's guzzle,
Speaker 3: blue dye and sucralose further tanking they are already low
Speaker 3: testosterone levels. Chad Mode is made in America. Unlike your
Speaker 3: common TikTok peasants pre workout powder, it does not contain
Speaker 3: Chinese lab made caffeine and artificial sweeteners that soyboys so
Speaker 3: often crave. Experience the pure goodness of chad Mode with
Speaker 3: Blue Magic registered trademark organic blue Spirillina extract, organic lemon
Speaker 3: cherry and organic maple crystals. Forget synthetic caffeine, embrace the
Speaker 3: natural power of organic green coffee bean extract. Each dose
Speaker 3: of chad Mode mirrors the caffeine kick of a cup
Speaker 3: and a half of coffee, delivering a surge of energy.
Speaker 3: Alongside essential vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and herbal extracts. Chad
Speaker 3: Mode will allow you to fire your boss and mog
Speaker 3: on anyone who who opposes you. Chad Mode will give
Speaker 3: you a dominant and aggressive edge, like a lion hunting
Speaker 3: a gazelle, where the gazelle is a TikTok Jim zoomer,
Speaker 3: macro guzzling sucralose on the daily edging to TNF videos.
Speaker 3: Whether you're seeking a high potency, junk free pre workout
Speaker 3: or a better way to kickstart your day, chad Mode
Speaker 3: has you covered. It's not just for men. Chad Mode
Speaker 3: is a solution for anyone ready to conquer their fitness
Speaker 3: and life goals, dominate their coworkers and aggressively gamble their
Speaker 3: life savings. Don't miss out. Secure your supply of chad
Speaker 3: Mode on TikTok shop with a limited time, massive discount.
Speaker 3: Elevate your workouts and supercharge your days. Chad Mode not
Speaker 3: for your average Jim bro zoomer who guzzles synthetic blue
Speaker 3: dyes on the daily. Buy on the TikTok shop now
Speaker 3: with a massive discount provided by TikTok for a very
Speaker 3: limited time. Buy now while this is still available. Chad
Speaker 3: Mode has been flying off the shelves because it's the
Speaker 3: first of its kind, certified for Alpha or Sigma males only.
Speaker 3: Do not buy if you are a Beta, we will
Speaker 3: refund your money.
Speaker 1: It's under that right. So you have deacon priest or
Speaker 1: present her and episcops episcopate. So the model there, you
Speaker 1: can already see what they're own. Catholic does they say?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 1: Yes, see the High Priest is the pope. He matches
Speaker 1: up to the High Priest and the Old Testament. What
Speaker 1: does Hebrews say? Hebrew says that the fulfillment of the
Speaker 1: High priest is not There's nothing mentioned at all about
Speaker 1: Peter fulfilling the role the high priest. Jesus fulfills the
Speaker 1: role high priest. You see, what I'm getting at is
Speaker 1: that in Orthodox theology there's a real sense in which
Speaker 1: because we are the body, and every single lay member
Speaker 1: is fully a member of the body and fully participates
Speaker 1: in this experience of Pentecosts through chris mation, Chrismation is
Speaker 1: each person's personal Pentecost. What's the point of christ Nation,
Speaker 1: your personal Pentecost if you can't be led into and
Speaker 1: know the truth and know the Spirit. What did Jesus say,
Speaker 1: I will send you the Spirit and he will guide
Speaker 1: you into all truth? Is that just a statement to Peter, No,
Speaker 1: it's a statement to the all the Apostolic college there. So,
Speaker 1: what I'm getting at is that it's not by accident.
Speaker 1: At the same point in time where there is a
Speaker 1: massive division on the question of the Holy Spirit, in
Speaker 1: confusion over the hyposthetic origin the Spirit, his eternal manifestation,
Speaker 1: and his economic sending, it's not accidental that that's the
Speaker 1: same period in which we have the other aberrations, such
Speaker 1: as the rise of the papal supremacy, universal God Emperor doctrines,
Speaker 1: especially under the period of the Franks. I mean the
Speaker 1: papacy goes into it goes to Avignon, France, the See
Speaker 1: of Peter in Avignon, France for one hundred years almost,
Speaker 1: and three different guys are claiming to be the pope
Speaker 1: in France. And you think that there's nothing to the
Speaker 1: Frankish thesis, Give me a break. Obviously it's a tool
Speaker 1: of political power. Oh but wait a minute, Wait a minute,
Speaker 1: you were gonna you were going to say that that
Speaker 1: orthodoxy was a tool of imperial power. Wait a minute here,
Speaker 1: that's actually a problem for any church ever in history.
Speaker 1: The claim to be a church is dealing with political power,
Speaker 1: and so instead of cesero papism, you just have paper cicerism. Right,
Speaker 1: Charlemagne and the Franks and the Carolinian theologians specifically, they
Speaker 1: begin to make changes, such as the movement away from
Speaker 1: the stat from icons to statuary. Not that I'm making
Speaker 1: a huge deal about that, but the point is that
Speaker 1: this is where you start to see marketed differences. Right,
Speaker 1: the selivent only clergy, if you're not aware of it.
Speaker 1: The Council of Trollo, which is accepted it and I
Speaker 1: see it too, affirms married clergy and the West surprise
Speaker 1: rejected it at this point. Now their response is that, yeah,
Speaker 1: but we don't care what councils say, it's only what
Speaker 1: the Pope says. So ecumenical council once again doesn't really
Speaker 1: mean anything except rather just what the Pope confirms. Right,
Speaker 1: And we're going to get to the objections. I know
Speaker 1: what you're going to say. You're gonna say, yeah, but
Speaker 1: but you don't have any way to know the difference
Speaker 1: between a true council and a false council. Basic bitch argument. Dude.
Speaker 1: I'm going to settle that for you. That's nothing, that's
Speaker 1: not that's a dumb objection. Before we get to that,
Speaker 1: we're going to talk about the rise of Snodl church government, right,
Speaker 1: because first of all, we don't think that the church
Speaker 1: requires ecumenical councils to be governed. No, it doesn't. There
Speaker 1: was no ecumenical council for the first three hundred years
Speaker 1: the church is being persecuted. Were their councils? Yeah? There were?
Speaker 1: Were they binding? Yes? They were? You see, So it's
Speaker 1: the the wrong mindset. It's the Protestant Catholic dialectic mindset
Speaker 1: to approach church history and church government from the vantage
Speaker 1: point of Well, I only care about what's infallible and
Speaker 1: what's not infallible. That's all that matters. Is your council
Speaker 1: in follim or No, that's not the attitude. Do you
Speaker 1: see the church fathers when they discuss the Council of
Speaker 1: Gangra or the regional councils of Africa or whatever. Are
Speaker 1: they just sitting there saying, oh, what's infallible? What has
Speaker 1: the pope be creed? No, they talk about them as
Speaker 1: authoritative because they were Orthodox bishops, Orthodox Catholic bishops. Okay, Now,
Speaker 1: yes there are situations where false councils would arise, but
Speaker 1: again we're going to get that in a minute. Before
Speaker 1: we get to that, though, we want to look at
Speaker 1: the model of the church government that arises in Acts fifteen.
Speaker 1: And keep in mind too, before I talk about Ax fifteen,
Speaker 1: remember that the papacy is the supposedly the final are
Speaker 1: okay on the questions of certitude and authority in the
Speaker 1: Romancalolic system, Right, it's the final arbiter. What's the basis
Speaker 1: for this claim? Well, they'll say Matthew sixteen. So the
Speaker 1: basis for the papacy is Matthew sixteen. Yes, And how
Speaker 1: do we know that Matthew wrote Matthew and that's supposed
Speaker 1: to be a canonical gospel. Well, because the Church confirmed
Speaker 1: by tradition Matthew's gospel. So the papacy is vindicated by
Speaker 1: Matthew sixteen, and Matthew sixteen is vindicated by the papacy.
Speaker 1: This is a circle. This is a circle here. Now
Speaker 1: you say, well, I wait a minute, Jay, you talk
Speaker 1: about transcendental arguments. Those are circles right at ultimate paradigm
Speaker 1: level argumentation. That's circular. Jay, You're being inconsistent because you
Speaker 1: make circular arguments all the time at the level of
Speaker 1: worldviews and paradigms. Yes, I do, because I don't believe
Speaker 1: in the epistemology of the Roman Catholic system, which forbids circularity.
Speaker 1: The Roman Catholic scheme, it's epistemology, it's anthropology, it's tomistic
Speaker 1: system adopted generally. And what we see in Denzinger and
Speaker 1: what we see in Aught or any of those Roman
Speaker 1: Catholic dogmatic statements is a classical foundationalist of pistemology. And
Speaker 1: there's no disputing that. There's absolutely no question. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's absolutely the kind of epistemology that Aquinas teaches. For example,
Speaker 1: he does not adhere to any kind of a priori
Speaker 1: argument for the existence of God. When he talks about
Speaker 1: he cites the ontological argument, and he says in assuming
Speaker 1: when he cites Anselm, he refutes it. He argues against asel,
Speaker 1: and he says that faith is over here in the
Speaker 1: realm of science, and knowledge is over here. Now they
Speaker 1: do overlap, but they're two different realms. So knowing thing
Speaker 1: knowing things according to natural reasoning and science that has
Speaker 1: a level of certitude, because it's in heracle that issues
Speaker 1: of faith don't have the same kind of levels of
Speaker 1: certitude authority. No person who believes in a transitional argument
Speaker 1: can hold that because a transcendental argument, and that type
Speaker 1: of argument is premised on the rejection of classical foundationalists epistemology,
Speaker 1: because it doesn't work. It's circular, and it wouldn't be
Speaker 1: that way if that view didn't exclude circularity. But every
Speaker 1: one of them will say, we believe in the laws
Speaker 1: of logic, grounding foundational maxims that are self evident. Right,
Speaker 1: these things are certain, that's the stuff we know. This
Speaker 1: other stuff, this theology stuff, revelation. We might can have
Speaker 1: a reasonable certitude about those things. But what we know
Speaker 1: with more certainty is things like classical foundational axioms, laws
Speaker 1: of logic, law of non country, law of identity. This
Speaker 1: is why they have a problem with not submitting their
Speaker 1: doctrine of simplicity to revelation, and instead they start with
Speaker 1: philosophic simplicity, definitional philosophic simplicity according to what Aristotle says
Speaker 1: must be, not according to what Moses and Exodus right
Speaker 1: and up into the gospels. Not what they say about simplicity,
Speaker 1: not what simplicity is according to Saint Paul, or the
Speaker 1: inner gaya of the spirit, the operations and energies of
Speaker 1: the spirit distribute the gifts of the spirit. Right, that
Speaker 1: would mean a distinction between essence and energy. Right. So no,
Speaker 1: it has to be read and retooled and reformulated according
Speaker 1: to hellenic simplicity. And every one of them who ends
Speaker 1: up debating me at length about this issue eventually says
Speaker 1: that you can't have a distinction in God that's real,
Speaker 1: because that would be a violation of accidents and substance,
Speaker 1: and God has no accidents. Yeah, but we're not what
Speaker 1: simplicity is on Aristotle's definition, or mimi and IDEs definition,
Speaker 1: or Aquinas quoting both Aristotle and Miamides, or Aquinus quoting
Speaker 1: just Aristotle throughout the first few questions of the cinema
Speaker 1: about God's simplicity. And again watch them all. They're gonna run,
Speaker 1: They're gonna go crazy and take everything inside out of
Speaker 1: context because they can't follow a simple argument. I mean,
Speaker 1: the stuff is complex, but the argument itself is quite simple, right,
Speaker 1: which is that, why are you deriving what simplicity means
Speaker 1: from Aristotle or from Plato or from the Monad Because
Speaker 1: that's not what the Church fathers did. In fact, Basil
Speaker 1: went to great links to argue against hellenic philosophic simplicity.
Speaker 1: Read the refutations of the Unomians. When the Church Fathers
Speaker 1: argue against the unuimions, they say, you're using Hellenic philosophic
Speaker 1: simplicity that we don't adhere to. When Saint Max disputes
Speaker 1: with purists, he says the same point. He says, you're
Speaker 1: using dialectics from the philosophers and not going by what
Speaker 1: the gospels say, because revelation is what's certain, that's more
Speaker 1: certain than the laws of logic. In fact, the laws
Speaker 1: of logic are grounded on revelation. That's the transcendental argument.
Speaker 1: It's the other way around. In Tomism. The laws of
Speaker 1: logic certitude about mathematical principles, these kinds of things that's
Speaker 1: more certain, and then you have these other things like
Speaker 1: revelation that we can we can maybe tack on persons, right,
Speaker 1: it will establish the existence of one supreme super essence.
Speaker 1: This is what volume one, assuming the Countragentelis, does and
Speaker 1: then in the next volume he moves on to say,
Speaker 1: all right, let's tack the persons onto that. No, no, no,
Speaker 1: that's not how it goes. That's not how it goes.
Speaker 1: It's revealed that God is Father and personal. First, we
Speaker 1: don't start with us. It's of God. I believe in
Speaker 1: one God, the Father Almighty, as the Creed says. So
Speaker 1: with that in mind, we can now see why it's
Speaker 1: in our scheme. Circularity is not a problem because we
Speaker 1: recognize at fundamental paradigmatic level circularity is inevitable. But on
Speaker 1: the Roman Catholic scheme, you're not supposed to be circular.
Speaker 1: It's a violation of classical foundationalist reasoning and logic. And yes,
Speaker 1: that's somewhat anachronistic because classical foundationalism is the term that
Speaker 1: comes centuries after a quitnas. It doesn't matter, it describes
Speaker 1: the same idea, the same principle. I remember debating a
Speaker 1: Dominican once and he said, he said, the laws of
Speaker 1: logic are what are certain? The teachings of revelation are
Speaker 1: maybe ninety percent certain, maybe eighty percent certain. Do you
Speaker 1: see the stupid stupidity of this view? Any knowing atheist
Speaker 1: would point out, any clever atheists would point out that
Speaker 1: how is your God the true God when something like
Speaker 1: the laws of logic, which in your worldview are actually
Speaker 1: based on him, are more certain than him. That's dumb,
Speaker 1: That's stupid. If God exists, he is the basis for
Speaker 1: the laws of logic, Okay, then he's the presupposition of
Speaker 1: the laws of logic, not the other way around. The
Speaker 1: laws of logic aren't a God that we then subject
Speaker 1: God to. It's the other way around. And that's why
Speaker 1: when you understand what I'm saying, and then you go
Speaker 1: and look at what Paul says in Act seventeen, Oh,
Speaker 1: you realize he's not saying classical apologetics. He's saying what
Speaker 1: Jay says. He says, Greeks, your religion is foolishness, right,
Speaker 1: the wisdom of this world is certain. Paul says, no, no, no, no.
Speaker 1: You just said the wisdom of this world is certain
Speaker 1: and reasonable and rational, and then we tack on revelation
Speaker 1: on top of it with whatever kind of word. No, no, no,
Speaker 1: the wisdom of this world is foolishness. Does that mean
Speaker 1: Plato or Aristotle can't say true things. No, it's nothing
Speaker 1: to do with whether they make true or false statements
Speaker 1: at times. Has everything to do with the ultimate grounding
Speaker 1: of our authority and our belief systems, and that ultimate
Speaker 1: grounding and authority is Aerosol's metaphysics. No, it's revelation. Let
Speaker 1: me give another example. In Fulton Sheen's book Life of Christ.
Speaker 1: He begins the book I remember reading that many years ago,
Speaker 1: and I thought this would be good, This would be good.
Speaker 1: He begins the book by saying, I'm not kidding, and
Speaker 1: now I'm going for memory. So if you obsessive Roman
Speaker 1: Catholics out there, if you find one word that I
Speaker 1: misquote going from memory ten years ago, that's not going
Speaker 1: to work to go crazy have a victory parade. But
Speaker 1: going from memory what he says, and every Roman Catholic
Speaker 1: who talks about the Gospels will say this very there's
Speaker 1: a lecture work. Scott Hans says the exact same thing.
Speaker 1: I remember, this comes to mind any kind of Peter
Speaker 1: Kreeft typical apologetic manuals. They're not going to differ. They're
Speaker 1: going to say, if we say, how do we know
Speaker 1: that the scriptures are inspired? How can we know if
Speaker 1: revelation found in scripture is actually inspired? Fultensten starts off
Speaker 1: by saying, we don't come to the Bible with any
Speaker 1: presubpositions of divine inspiration, certitude, infallibility, or authority. We treat
Speaker 1: the Bible like any other book in the world, and
Speaker 1: we apply the neutral scientific methods of textual research and
Speaker 1: higher criticism, and we can come to a reasonable conclusion that,
Speaker 1: with a large degree of certitude, it's highly probable that
Speaker 1: the Bible and its texts are very likely inspired. What now,
Speaker 1: what does in revelation itself? Right? We all let's take
Speaker 1: some text that we all agree on, right, like the
Speaker 1: Bible or the Gospel of Matthew, for example, the be Attitudes.
Speaker 1: Does Jesus say that, no, he says, Heaven and earth
Speaker 1: will pass away, but my words won't pass away. And
Speaker 1: he says, truly, I say that not one jot or
Speaker 1: tittle will pass away from the law until all things
Speaker 1: are fulfilled. In other words, scripture and what's revealed is
Speaker 1: the pre eminent authority, even over your reasoning, even over
Speaker 1: your academic sciences. Now, the academic sciences can do great
Speaker 1: things to vindicate all kinds of the scripture, and anybody
Speaker 1: who doesn't understand that or that I say that, is
Speaker 1: just completely confused. Of course it can't. But we're not
Speaker 1: talking about the production of evidentiary justifications or the aid
Speaker 1: of evidentiary pieces of evidence. We're talking about the certitude
Speaker 1: at the most fundamental level. Right, So we're saying that
Speaker 1: the revelation is really the grounding here. And even the
Speaker 1: Roman Catholic system when it says that the papacy has
Speaker 1: proven from Matthew eighteen, even that is admitting that really
Speaker 1: this is coming from revelation, right, Okay, And then how
Speaker 1: do we know, according to Fulton Sheen and all the
Speaker 1: other classical apologists in that Goofy system, how do we
Speaker 1: know that these things are true? Well, we apply the
Speaker 1: sciences of textual studies and research. No no, no, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: we don't. Now again, I'm not saying you can't do
Speaker 1: textual studies, but textual studies don't give you the certitude
Speaker 1: that you're seeking. Does revelation of itself that way? You see,
Speaker 1: we're at the point of revelation as our final authority,
Speaker 1: and what can it appeal to. It can only appeal
Speaker 1: to itself. There's no other authority that God's going to
Speaker 1: appeal to to vindicate God. So at a fundamental, basic level,
Speaker 1: it's self referencing. And the mind of the classical foundationalist
Speaker 1: says that that's crazy, that doesn't work because that's circular. Yeah. Bro,
Speaker 1: all world views are circular at base. That's the point.
Speaker 1: Because every position, whether you're an atheist or whether you're
Speaker 1: a Muslim, or whether you whatever you are, cult doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: You are grounding foundations are going to be circular. At
Speaker 1: some point, they will be self referencing. This is what
Speaker 1: no Tomas can grasp because a self evident maxim like
Speaker 1: the law of non contradiction. Okay, it's fine to talk
Speaker 1: about that as self evident a certain way, but even
Speaker 1: a self evident maxim doesn't make any sense apart from
Speaker 1: being grounded in a world where self evident maxims are
Speaker 1: even possible, namely in a Christian world. So self evident maxims,
Speaker 1: the laws of logic are transcendental proofs of the God
Speaker 1: of the Bible. They're grounded in Him. They don't exist
Speaker 1: on their own. They're not autonomous. Man's reasoning is not autonomous.
Speaker 1: It doesn't have the ability to figure out the mysteries
Speaker 1: of the universe apart from divine grace and revelation. Now,
Speaker 1: it can get some things right, right. I mean, when
Speaker 1: an unbeliever discovers something true about earthworms and he says, oh,
Speaker 1: this proves dorminism. Okay, so maybe he's figured out something
Speaker 1: true about the earthworm, but that doesn't prove his whole worldview.
Speaker 1: It also doesn't prove that natural reasoning can prove that
Speaker 1: there's a super simple, generic substance that's crazy. No, it can't,
Speaker 1: and even if it did, that's not God. I am
Speaker 1: not joined with the Jehovah's witness in doing apologetics. We
Speaker 1: don't have the same God. There's not a common apologetic
Speaker 1: argument between a Jehovah's witness and a scientology proponent and me.
Speaker 1: But in the Roman Catholic scheme. There is you're doing
Speaker 1: the same apologetics of all the other world religions that
Speaker 1: believe in an absolutely simple super essence. That's not our God.
Speaker 1: That's not our God. Our God is I am that,
Speaker 1: I am personal, I am he, I am I is
Speaker 1: he is personal. It's not I am essence, I am it,
Speaker 1: I am super super essential, super moanad. I am he
Speaker 1: he Father personal He. Thus we come back to the
Speaker 1: question of revelation. It's not settled or known by human autonomy.
Speaker 1: Human autonomy does not put We don't put God's relation
Speaker 1: there and say I the human court of rationality and
Speaker 1: higher critical reasoning, we put God's word on trial. We
Speaker 1: put revelation on trial today, and we will see if
Speaker 1: it matches up to our human reasoning capacities. And guess
Speaker 1: what in the history of this approach, where do you
Speaker 1: think it led directly to higher criticism? And what do
Speaker 1: you think higher criticism came up with. We have judged guilty.
Speaker 1: You are guilty of fraud. This is not the word
Speaker 1: of God. This is the word of men. Our reasoning
Speaker 1: and our higher critical standards have determined this because we
Speaker 1: judged it on the basis of neutral facts, neutral reasoning,
Speaker 1: neutral logic, neutral laws have shown this to be completely inadequate.
Speaker 1: That's what happened in history, Dude. Why did that happen
Speaker 1: in history? Well, because, first of all, the entire approach
Speaker 1: is wrong. There are no neutral laws of logic. There
Speaker 1: are no neutral reasoning approaches because men aren't neutral. They
Speaker 1: are either in rebellion against God or seeking God right
Speaker 1: Romans one. The whole world has fallen into idolatry and
Speaker 1: is in rebellion against God, according to Romans one, and
Speaker 1: so none of them are neutral, none of them, No
Speaker 1: human beings are neutral. Romans three. There's no neutrality. If
Speaker 1: an unbeliever discovers something true, it's in spite of his unbelief.
Speaker 1: When we were debating with that pagan guy, all of
Speaker 1: his objective truths and principles are what he wants out
Speaker 1: that come from Christianity, but he doesn't want the Christianity
Speaker 1: also wants all this pagan nonsense on top of it.
Speaker 1: So if he does things that are true and good
Speaker 1: and right, it's in spite of his unbelief. In the
Speaker 1: same way logic, the laws of logic are theory laden.
Speaker 1: They don't operate independently. They don't operate on their own.
Speaker 1: They're not abstract and personal principles that float around just
Speaker 1: there by which we then judge God. If God doesn't exist,
Speaker 1: there are no laws of logic. There are no objective principles.
Speaker 1: They only make sense if God exists. It's a complete
Speaker 1: reorientation of your thought process. You have to reorient your
Speaker 1: thought process. You can't say Jesus is Lord and then
Speaker 1: turn around and say, oh, but not in the areas
Speaker 1: of textual criticism, and not in the areas of how
Speaker 1: we vindicate and look at the scriptures. You don't believe
Speaker 1: that he's lord. There is he lord over textual criticism too?
Speaker 1: Is he lord of the laws of logic? I remember
Speaker 1: when I asked that Dominican guy that he was like, what,
Speaker 1: I don't even understand. You're talking about the laws of logic.
Speaker 1: It is more certain than revelation. Is Jesus the lord
Speaker 1: of laws? Of the laws of logic? Do they not
Speaker 1: arise from him?
Speaker 2: As the logos not logos logoss low gosh, the loah gosh,
Speaker 2: the law goss logos.
Speaker 1: The laws of law of logic are not equal to
Speaker 1: the personal logos. They are reflections of the logi, the
Speaker 1: uncreated logi. They are examples exemplars, but they're not the
Speaker 1: exact same thing as the logos, because the logos is
Speaker 1: not an impersonal force that permeates the universe, like the
Speaker 1: Stoics and like Marcus Aurelius, and like all these are
Speaker 1: the Greeks said, did the Greeks talk about this idea?
Speaker 1: And is John appealing to that? Yeah, he's appealing to that,
Speaker 1: but he's appealing to that on the basis of the
Speaker 1: wisdom texts in Solomon wisdom. The logos that's out there
Speaker 1: in the world that the Greeks are looking for is
Speaker 1: the wisdom that Solomon's talking about in Proverbs one through ten.
Speaker 1: You see, when we understand that Christ is the source
Speaker 1: of these things, that Christ is the lord of logic,
Speaker 1: that the wisdom that exists anywhere in the world is
Speaker 1: ultimately His, then you have the right attitude to understand
Speaker 1: that there's not.
Speaker 3: That.
Speaker 1: If Plato said something true, and you did at times,
Speaker 1: it's because of the Logos in him, Jesus in him.
Speaker 1: Now does that mean he participated in theosis? I'm not
Speaker 1: saying that. No. But Paul says that the word is
Speaker 1: near you, even in your heart. Christ is present in
Speaker 1: some way in every single human being because they're meaning
Speaker 1: their logi. The logos of each person, of each thing
Speaker 1: is from Him because all things are made through him.
Speaker 1: He owns all things, they're all his. They all have
Speaker 1: their meaning in him. Logic has its meaning in him,
Speaker 1: not independently of him. It's not neutral. There's no neutrality,
Speaker 1: and that's what they can't grasp because once they grasp
Speaker 1: there's no neutrality, they would be forced to our position.
Speaker 1: So let's bring it back then to the papacy. Let's
Speaker 1: come back to Rome and the vishop. So with this
Speaker 1: in mind, we start to understand that, like the video
Speaker 1: that I just put up, thank you to Lewis for
Speaker 1: pulling that out that epistemically, in terms of epistemology, knowing things, certitude,
Speaker 1: knowing religious beliefs, having certainty about religious beliefs, it makes
Speaker 1: absolutely no sense to say the confession that we have theological,
Speaker 1: and many of those points where Mechalics do confess with
Speaker 1: us theologically, they'll say, yeah, Jesus Lord, yes, I believe
Speaker 1: in the sovereignty of God, I believe in providence. I
Speaker 1: believe that logical truths ultimately have their grounding in God.
Speaker 1: But then they turn around and they don't. They're not
Speaker 1: consistent with it. They'll turn around and say, but there's
Speaker 1: neutrality in these things, right, I mean scientists are neutral.
Speaker 1: We approach the Bible with neutrality. No human being approaches
Speaker 1: the Bible with neutrality. According to Paul's very clear teaching,
Speaker 1: there is no neutrality.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: You are either rebelling against God, child of unbelief, Paul says,
Speaker 1: practicing idolatry in some way, or you're on team Christ
Speaker 1: and seeking what's true. You're not. There's no middle ground,
Speaker 1: like I'm not gonna you know, I'm gonna be over
Speaker 1: here in the middle ground. Oh, the scientists, the scientists
Speaker 1: and the logicians have the privileged position of middle ground
Speaker 1: neutrality by which they can be the arbit No, they
Speaker 1: don't all beliefs, all propositions, they're all theory laden, they're
Speaker 1: all paradigmatic. They're all conditioned by the presupositions and the paradigm.
Speaker 1: That's why tomism doesn't work, not just in terms of
Speaker 1: absolute devienne simplicity, but in terms of epistemic systematic approaches.
Speaker 1: It's a wrong epistemology because it's a wrong anthropology. Why
Speaker 1: is it wrong because it doesn't believe in the news.
Speaker 1: They believe in a body and a soul, and half
Speaker 1: the time the soul is identified with the intellect in
Speaker 1: their anthropology. Hence why being studied is so important. Hence
Speaker 1: why Barleem rebuked Saint Gregory and said, your monks aren't studying,
Speaker 1: they're just praying. Yeah, but Paul said, the wisdom of
Speaker 1: this world is foolishness. And in all those chapters where
Speaker 1: Paul talks about his vision, Paul is talking about what
Speaker 1: Gregory is talking about. You see, So when you make
Speaker 1: fun of us and you mock the things that you
Speaker 1: don't understand, it's the very thing that Paul's talking about
Speaker 1: when he had his vision, when Paul was translated into
Speaker 1: the third heavens and saw the uncreated light, he's talking
Speaker 1: about the noose. And that's why Paul says, to pray
Speaker 1: in your body and your soul and in your spirit,
Speaker 1: in your nows. Noos is a faculty given to man
Speaker 1: by God for knowing God directly. Roman Callochs don't believe this.
Speaker 1: They've never believed that that It's not anywhere in their
Speaker 1: doctrine anywhere nowhere gone lost because it's a development that
Speaker 1: happened in the East. Now, because we believe that there
Speaker 1: is body, soul, and noose, we have a triparteipe view
Speaker 1: of man. We believe that the heart and the mind
Speaker 1: have to be working in harmony. Can't just have intellect.
Speaker 1: You can't just have a hamster wheel of intellect running
Speaker 1: trying to figure this stuff out, because it's not a science.
Speaker 1: It's an existential change and conversion that affects the whole
Speaker 1: being body, soul, and news, the whole being of man.
Speaker 1: And by soul we mean man's inner soul, his the
Speaker 1: seat of his desire, his heart and intellect right and
Speaker 1: then the news again being the faculty by which we
Speaker 1: know God directly. So we believe that in Eden, God
Speaker 1: created Adam with that faculty to know him directly. Now,
Speaker 1: after the fall, the noose of man is darkened. This
Speaker 1: is not Plato's news, not the same thing. Plato believes
Speaker 1: that the Trinity is some kind of weird monad diead
Speaker 1: triad noos that kind of like just happened. That's not what,
Speaker 1: has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Totally different.
Speaker 1: But in our view, if you don't understand that as
Speaker 1: part of the anthropology, then it makes no sense to you.
Speaker 1: Why as as Orthodox, we believe that you that you
Speaker 1: can know God directly, and here's where the Roman Catholical said.
Speaker 1: But if you know God directly, then then you're a Protestant.
Speaker 1: That's the Protestants say, Prota, the Holy Spirit guides you,
Speaker 1: and you know truth directly, and you don't need the pope.
Speaker 1: So it's just you and the Bible. You become your
Speaker 1: own pope. It's just you and you're sect over there.
Speaker 1: And there's a million popes as many popes as there
Speaker 1: are Protestants. Every Protestant is his own pope. Now what
Speaker 1: we say is these are two errors feeding off of
Speaker 1: one another. We don't believe either one of these, and
Speaker 1: the functioning of the church and the first millennium did
Speaker 1: not operate on either of these ways. Okay, So let
Speaker 1: me show you here and we will look at the
Speaker 1: famous quote from Now. I've read about six or seven
Speaker 1: of Ratzinger's books, so I'm not speaking from ignorance. Now Again,
Speaker 1: part of the reason that there might be some confusion
Speaker 1: about me just recalling from memory quotes, I have a
Speaker 1: really good memory so typically speaking, but yes, guess what,
Speaker 1: I'm not infallible in my memory, so sometimes I'll get
Speaker 1: things wrong, and I don't always remember every quote exactly correct, right,
Speaker 1: But typically speaking, the point that I'm making is not
Speaker 1: I'm right most of the points that I'm making. So
Speaker 1: we're gonna look at this Benedict quote here. We want
Speaker 1: to see what he says about the early Church, because
Speaker 1: we're pointing out here that the papacy again, is not
Speaker 1: just a thing that that somehow magically solves questions. It's
Speaker 1: a thing that kind of rows up over time. And
Speaker 1: it helps to see that because then you understand our
Speaker 1: vantage point. You understand that you don't you're not gonna
Speaker 1: come to trying to understand orthodoxy with a Roman Catholic presupposition.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: So this is why we've been talking about how ultimately
Speaker 1: this isn't a question of epistemology. Then we're gonna look
Speaker 1: at the councils and we're gonna look at how they
Speaker 1: matter and why they matter. Oh and I got to
Speaker 1: read the Acts fifteen to two. I forgot to do
Speaker 1: that because this is the first council, right. The first
Speaker 1: Synod is not nicea it's not Gangre or any of those.
Speaker 1: It's actually Acts fifteen. Let's see what And I've read
Speaker 1: this book. I've read against six or seven of Ratzinger's books.
Speaker 1: I read this one back when I converted to Roman
Speaker 1: Thossism a long time ago. Principles of Catholic Theology. He says,
Speaker 1: against this background, we can now weigh the possibilities that
Speaker 1: are open to Acumenism. The maximum demands on which the
Speaker 1: search for unity must certainly founder are immediately clear. On
Speaker 1: the part of the West, the maximum demand would be
Speaker 1: that the East recognized the premacy of the Bishop of
Speaker 1: Rome in the full scope of eighteen seventy Vatican One. Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's Roman Catholic dogma. Right, of course, they have to
Speaker 1: accept the full scope, and in so doing they would
Speaker 1: submit in practice to the premiscy as is the Uniates accepted. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's why they are Uniates. On the part of the East,
Speaker 1: the max demand would be the West declare the eighteen
Speaker 1: seventy doctrine of premacy erroneous and in doing so submit
Speaker 1: in practice to a supremacy such was accepted within the
Speaker 1: WA's This removal of the philia, okay, the creed and
Speaker 1: including the Marian dogmas of the nineteen twentieth century. As
Speaker 1: regard Protestantism, the maximum demand of the Catholic Church would
Speaker 1: be that the Protestant ecclesiastical ecclesiological ministers be regarded as
Speaker 1: invalid and that process be converted to Catholicism. Yeah, because
Speaker 1: that's what's always been the case, is that whichever position
Speaker 1: is true, we know that it involves the conversion of
Speaker 1: the heterodox. Now, while the first three maximum demands are
Speaker 1: unanimously rejected by Christian consciousness, no they're not. They're rejected
Speaker 1: in ecumenism. So Benedict doesn't believe Vatican one. He's searching
Speaker 1: for a unity that we can all agree on that
Speaker 1: doesn't reflect the maximum demands of Vatican One. It's a
Speaker 1: no brainer that this is obviously not the teaching of
Speaker 1: Vatican one. Yeah, exactly. Now let's get to one of
Speaker 1: these other key key quotes are now and we're gonna
Speaker 1: deal with the nonsense objections of and again, I have
Speaker 1: read these books, and you can believe me or not.
Speaker 1: I don't care whether you believe me. I know what
Speaker 1: these books teach. I've read them. There's all kinds of
Speaker 1: modernism in Benedict by the way, for the people who
Speaker 1: think he's some kind of super trad yeah, right, give
Speaker 1: me a break, dude, Page one. Nor is it possible,
Speaker 1: on the other hand, for him to regard as the
Speaker 1: only possible form and consequently binding on all Christians. The
Speaker 1: form of this premiss he talking aout Vatican one's so
Speaker 1: that was taken in the nineteen twentieth century. Right, So
Speaker 1: we can't continue to expect the Orthodox to accept Vatican
Speaker 1: on the symbolic gestures of Pope Paul the six And
Speaker 1: in particular, he's kneeling before the representative of the ecumenical patriarch,
Speaker 1: the schismatic according to this quote, right, or an attempt
Speaker 1: to express this. So he's saying that we can't continue
Speaker 1: to expect the Vatican one definitions to be binding upon
Speaker 1: the Orthodox. And then finally we have the best quote
Speaker 1: of all, which is I'm gonna make the point most
Speaker 1: forcefully here and again I have read this book. It's
Speaker 1: not taken out of context. This is what the book
Speaker 1: is saying. Because Benedict has always been a rabbit ecumenist,
Speaker 1: as have all of them. Francis is not some radical
Speaker 1: in the sense of ecumenism. He's doing the same thing.
Speaker 1: They all did, so, he says later on at page
Speaker 1: two sixteen two seventeen, Patriarch Athanagaris, from their vantis point schismatic,
Speaker 1: spoke even more strongly when he greeted Paul the sixth
Speaker 1: and the final, against all expectation, the bishop of Rome
Speaker 1: is among us, the first among us in honor. So
Speaker 1: he was stating what the Roman views of the Orthox
Speaker 1: view has always been. It is clear in saying this
Speaker 1: that the patriarch did not abandon the claims of the
Speaker 1: Eastern churches or the knowledge of the premiscy of the West. Rather,
Speaker 1: he stated plainly what the East understood as the order,
Speaker 1: rank and title of the equality of the bishop in
Speaker 1: the Church. And it would be worth our while to
Speaker 1: consider whether this archaic confession, which has nothing to do
Speaker 1: with the premiscy of jurisdiction, but confesses a primacy of honor.
Speaker 1: That's our view, and agappe if it might not be
Speaker 1: recognized as a formula that adequately reflects the position that
Speaker 1: Rome occupies. So it's not binding upon the churches. Right,
Speaker 1: we should not choose the maximum road of Vatican One,
Speaker 1: and we needn't expect anything more than was operant in
Speaker 1: the first millennium. What here he is admitting. He's going
Speaker 1: to admit that in the first millennium of the Church,
Speaker 1: in the first millennium, the operation of the Roman bishop.
Speaker 2: Come on.
Speaker 1: The operation of the Roman bishop in the first millennium
Speaker 1: was not according to Vatican. In other words, Vatican One
Speaker 1: is not how Rome operated. Yes, exactly, that's what Orthodox
Speaker 1: have been saying for a thousand years. Thank you. So
Speaker 1: here is Benedict. He's going to admit that the Vatican
Speaker 1: One definition of the papacy was not how the Church
Speaker 1: historically functioned. In other words, Rome must not require more
Speaker 1: from the East with respect to the doctrine of the
Speaker 1: premiscy then has been formulated and was lived in the
Speaker 1: first millennium. When Patriarch Athanagaris, on the occasion of post
Speaker 1: visit to the Finar, designated him as the successor of Peter,
Speaker 1: most esteemed amongst us as one who presides in charity.
Speaker 1: This great church leader was expressing the ecclesial content of
Speaker 1: the doction premiacy as it was known in the first millennium.
Speaker 1: Rome must not ask for more. Booh yeah, So here's Ratzinger.
Speaker 1: The supposed trad admitting that Vatican One was not the
Speaker 1: way the Church operated in the first millennium, and that
Speaker 1: this tradition is absolutely correct, and that's what had been
Speaker 1: formulated in the first millennium. Absolutely By the way, he
Speaker 1: goes on to say all kinds of even crazier stuff,
Speaker 1: especially his quote about how the resurrection isn't that's a
Speaker 1: doozy from rent Singer. Anyway, We're not going to go
Speaker 1: in all that today. But now we bring all that
Speaker 1: up to point out that that even amongst your supposed
Speaker 1: greatest theologians, the admission is there that the Church of
Speaker 1: the first millennium did not operate according to the definition
Speaker 1: of the Vatican ie monarchy. Of course not. We know that.
Speaker 1: We have argued that for a thousand years. We know
Speaker 1: that because Revelation says that it didn't operate that one.
Speaker 1: Let's look at the Council of Jerusalem first Synod. Now
Speaker 1: the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter,
Speaker 1: and when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up
Speaker 1: and said, men and brethren, you know that a good
Speaker 1: while ago God chose among us that my mouth would
Speaker 1: be the means by which the Gentiles should hear the
Speaker 1: words of the Gospel believe. So, God, who knows the heart,
Speaker 1: acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as
Speaker 1: he did to us to the Jews, right, and he
Speaker 1: made no distinction between them and us, purifying their hearts
Speaker 1: by faith. Now, therefore, why do you test God but
Speaker 1: putting a yoke on the next of the disciples that
Speaker 1: they are not able to bear. But we believe that
Speaker 1: through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we shall
Speaker 1: be saved in the same manner as these. So this
Speaker 1: is the beginning of the council. The council opens a
Speaker 1: uh oh, Peter spoke, I guess that means Vatican One's
Speaker 1: definitions are all true. Because Peter spoke, no, let's read on.
Speaker 1: Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas
Speaker 1: and Paul declaring, how the miracles and wonders this is
Speaker 1: about whether Gentiles needed to keep Mosaic law right. So
Speaker 1: this is what the Jerusalem Council is about, right, And
Speaker 1: so Barnabas and Paul had worked miracles amongst the Gentiles,
Speaker 1: and after that they became silent. James answered and said, so,
Speaker 1: James is the Bishop of Jerusalem. Okay, so now we
Speaker 1: wouldn't we don't argue that. Oh well, okay, so Peter
Speaker 1: spoke first, so he's number one. Barnabas and Paul are
Speaker 1: then the secondary apostles right after Peter, and then James speaks.
Speaker 1: The point is not you can't read into the ordering this.
Speaker 1: Romancas love to do this where they say like, because
Speaker 1: you know Peter said it first, then he gets the
Speaker 1: special gift. Okay, but what a minute, Peter walked on
Speaker 1: water and then failed. I don't see any Roman Catholics
Speaker 1: reading into some mystical meaning about how that means to
Speaker 1: see if Peter is going to fail when Peter was
Speaker 1: trying to walk on water. No, no, no, it's a
Speaker 1: very selective reading of these mystical meanings. Right, So so
Speaker 1: Peter spoke first there for Vatican one. Oh wait a minute, here,
Speaker 1: let's read on. Men and brethren, listen to me. Simon
Speaker 1: has declared how God did at first visit the Gentiles
Speaker 1: to take out a people for his name. And with
Speaker 1: these words the prophets agree, and then he quotes the Psalm,
Speaker 1: or he quotes David. After this, I will return and
Speaker 1: the tabernacle of David will be rebuilt. Excuse me, it's
Speaker 1: Amos nine, not David Amos nine eleven. We did a
Speaker 1: talk on Amos. Go listen to that, so that the
Speaker 1: rest of the gentiles might seek the Lord. Right, So
Speaker 1: the gentiles being brought into the church predicted in Amos.
Speaker 1: He's arguing known to God from eternity or all of
Speaker 1: his works. Therefore I judge. Therefore, I judge that we
Speaker 1: should not trouble those from among the gentiles. And then
Speaker 1: he lists basically what were the statements to Noah. Right,
Speaker 1: So the reaffirmation of the Noea covenants here, that that's
Speaker 1: really all that's necessary if the gentiles are going to
Speaker 1: come into the Church, that they abstained from things polluted
Speaker 1: by immorality or polluted by idols, from sexual reality, from
Speaker 1: things strangled, and from eating blood. For Moses has had
Speaker 1: through many generations, those who preach him in every city,
Speaker 1: being read in the synagogues every Sabbath. Then it pleased
Speaker 1: all the apostles and with the whole church to send men,
Speaker 1: to send chosen men of their own company with Paul.
Speaker 1: And they have a letter right about the decree of
Speaker 1: the council. Nothing about Peter presiding as pre eminent. They're
Speaker 1: in Jerusalem. The final judgment appears to be given by
Speaker 1: it James. Therefore I judge this and then the decree
Speaker 1: early canon law. Nothing about how this decision was made
Speaker 1: with the universal approval of Peter. Right, it's collegial Peter,
Speaker 1: Paul James. The apostles are all making this decision because
Speaker 1: it's a college of apostles. Where is the premissy of
Speaker 1: Peter here? Where does this anything like Vatican One? No,
Speaker 1: not at all, nothing like it. So that's why the
Speaker 1: doctrine evolves to get to the point of Vatican One.
Speaker 1: And the Roman Catholics know this, and that's why they
Speaker 1: have the idea of doctrinal development, the development and evolution
Speaker 1: of doctrine. In fact, they make the argument that, well, yes,
Speaker 1: it's true that at that time the doctrine of patrine
Speaker 1: premascy was not what it was that Vatican won. But
Speaker 1: that's because it's like a seed that's planted and the
Speaker 1: seed grows into a tree. Initially it's a seed becomes
Speaker 1: a tree. That's literally how they argue for that. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's like Bonker's level, right, And we just saw rat
Speaker 1: Singer says, come on, Let's be honest, it wasn't that way.
Speaker 1: Now we have to understand that this is not just
Speaker 1: about a question of this guy having the right to
Speaker 1: decide doctrines, because that's not what the doctrine of papal
Speaker 1: infallibility and supremacy comes to mean. It moves from this
Speaker 1: to being galactic god emperor and the guy who can,
Speaker 1: at the time of unum sanctum excommunicate anybody in the
Speaker 1: world and presumably the entire world if you wanted to.
Speaker 1: And they even have ridiculous debates about this, like what
Speaker 1: if the pope excommunicated everybody? But I mean there's literally
Speaker 1: like absurd level debates in you know, like scholastic neo
Speaker 1: scholastic type stuff like this. It's laughable. But so it
Speaker 1: moves from that to Peter having not just a spiritual
Speaker 1: authority but a literal universal world leap. If you enjoy
Speaker 1: this video, be sure and take use of the promo
Speaker 1: code for the show sponsor. For this channel sponsor, which
Speaker 1: is chalk dot com. That's choq dot com. You can
Speaker 1: find the links in the description below the video. You
Speaker 1: get fifty percent off any of the great organic actually
Speaker 1: better than organic supplements that they offer at chalk dot com.
Speaker 1: If you want to support my channel, the best way
Speaker 1: to do that is head on over there and use
Speaker 1: that promo code J fifty that's J five zero to
Speaker 1: get fifty percent off. Can also use the recurring subscription
Speaker 1: of J five to three Life that's J five three
Speaker 1: LAFE if you want to sign up for automatic recurring
Speaker 1: subscriptions on those excellent supplements. Health is absolutely necessary in
Speaker 1: combating the toxic culture that we live in. I also
Speaker 1: would say, if you want to get access to my books,
Speaker 1: head on over to the shop at my website and
Speaker 1: get signed copies there. Thank you. Our authority that he
Speaker 1: is over every monarch in the world, and in fact,
Speaker 1: every monarch eventually has to submit to him. Now again,
Speaker 1: we believe that the Church is superior to the monarchy,
Speaker 1: there's no question about that. But the idea that Peter
Speaker 1: is supreme over all monarchs and that ultimately what Jesus
Speaker 1: is saying here is that Peter's descendants in the papacy
Speaker 1: are to live in giant palaces with the Vatican Bank.
Speaker 1: That's what this justify. Okay, so this is not just
Speaker 1: a theological quibble. This evolves to be galactic God emperor,
Speaker 1: and that's why it's insane. It's madness. And all of
Speaker 1: the sata's the set of acontess clowns. They realize how
Speaker 1: crazy all this is, but they believe it all the
Speaker 1: way up until point X y Z right, and sate
Speaker 1: of acontasm is not going to get you anywhere you
Speaker 1: are going to be. You will despair eventually because sixty
Speaker 1: years no pope. Now there's never going to be a pope. Oh,
Speaker 1: Mary's going to come and there'll be an apparition and
Speaker 1: she'll restore the papacy. Oh, it's the end of time.
Speaker 1: That's why there's no papacy. No, no, sorry, But Vatican
Speaker 1: one says that the successors of Peter continue until the
Speaker 1: end of time, and the Church, if the gates of
Speaker 1: Hell cannot prevail against it. In the Romankeelic view, necessitates
Speaker 1: there being a living magisterium in communion with that guy
Speaker 1: in Rome in that chair until the end of the world.
Speaker 1: That's what it says. It doesn't say at the end
Speaker 1: of the world it's done, and then there's one hundred
Speaker 1: years of no pope. No, it says until the very end.
Speaker 1: So you have to be in communion with Frank to
Speaker 1: be a Roman Catholic. Ah. But wait, Frank and Vatican
Speaker 1: two have obviously contradicted everything that came before. Oh well,
Speaker 1: let's invent a host of myths by which we can
Speaker 1: mentally gymnasticize and soothe our conscience and make ourselves feel
Speaker 1: like we're still Roman Catholic even though we're not in
Speaker 1: commune with anybody. We're LARPing online, or we are attached
Speaker 1: to some group over there that doesn't even have a bishop,
Speaker 1: or literally that thinks that all of the bishops have died.
Speaker 1: There's no bishops left in the world. Maybe a priest
Speaker 1: or too. If the church has died, then the church
Speaker 1: has died and you're not in the church. Time to
Speaker 1: rethink things. Bro, it's the wrong sect that you're in.
Speaker 1: That's why you're caught up in an end Times cult.
Speaker 1: You might as well be at John Hagen's church, right.
Speaker 1: And it all started from the stupidity of the circularity
Speaker 1: of how we base our beliefs and our claims on
Speaker 1: philosophical nonsense, the idea that the papacy is proven from
Speaker 1: the Bible, but the Bible is confirmed by the papacy
Speaker 1: in the fifth century. It's circular. So what if it's circular, Well,
Speaker 1: classical foundationalism doesn't allow for its circular arguments. And if
Speaker 1: you're to give up your classical foundationalism, you can't be
Speaker 1: a Thomist anymore. Okay, well i'll be. I'll be a
Speaker 1: non Thomas Droman Catholic, and I'll go to a Byzantine
Speaker 1: right church. Why do you care about being in communion
Speaker 1: with people who go to mosque services, who pray towards Mecca.
Speaker 1: Pope Urban the Second called a crusade Benedict and his
Speaker 1: whole crew attend mosque services and pray towards Mecca. It's
Speaker 1: not the true religion. It's not authentic Christianity. It's an aberration. Again,
Speaker 1: why do you think after this this kerfluffle around the
Speaker 1: year one thousand, soon after that, the Church of Rome,
Speaker 1: this is what you guys believe, it moved to Auvignon,
Speaker 1: France in a palace. So Jesus's intention was for the
Speaker 1: See of Peter to be in Auvignon, France for one
Speaker 1: hundred years, with three different guys claiming to be the
Speaker 1: legitimate successor to Peter in France. In France, and you
Speaker 1: have this mythical idea that the Roman Catholic Church has
Speaker 1: consistently maintained this undefiled unity throughout history and wasn't a
Speaker 1: tool of politics. Give me a fucking break, dude, total
Speaker 1: lying to yourself, lying to yourself. Everybody knows the Sea
Speaker 1: of Peter is not in France because a bishopric is
Speaker 1: supposed to be where the bishopric what's set up? Okay,
Speaker 1: if the patriarch of Moscow comes to America, America doesn't
Speaker 1: become the seat of the patriarchy of Moscow. Right now,
Speaker 1: let's talk about some of the next that some of
Speaker 1: the more so. Now then we see the So that's
Speaker 1: the problem of the circularity. That's why this position. Remember
Speaker 1: this position. The whole point of it is to make
Speaker 1: it easy for the Roman Catholic to know the dogma.
Speaker 1: It begs the question. It moves the problem back a step.
Speaker 1: How do you know that you are properly interpreting when
Speaker 1: it is the ordinary, universal, infallible magistarium Because you see, ordinary, universal,
Speaker 1: infallible magisterium comprises what the Church has always taught. Well,
Speaker 1: that requires a lot of reading, doesn't it. That requires you,
Speaker 1: as an individual knowing a lot about Church history, and
Speaker 1: a lot about the Church fathers, and a lot about
Speaker 1: all these endless papal decrees and all of these endless
Speaker 1: canon law and all this endless ecumenical council stuff that
Speaker 1: takes a long time, doesn't it. Yeah, right, that's why
Speaker 1: people go get doctorates in theology. But I thought that
Speaker 1: the point of the papacy was to make it simple
Speaker 1: so that the average Catholic can know what's true and
Speaker 1: what's false, what's heresy, what's orthodox. Really it does that
Speaker 1: really work? Though? I mean, it sounds good on paper,
Speaker 1: condu doesn't it. But wait a minute, when we start
Speaker 1: looking at the actual workings. That's why I read thank
Speaker 1: you to Lewis. We re uploaded that that clip from
Speaker 1: that old talk. It's right below this video uploaded. The
Speaker 1: papal circularity problem within the realm, the confines of Rometholicism,
Speaker 1: the problem is still there, people chasing their tails because
Speaker 1: when you actually want to try to apply this Roman
Speaker 1: Catholics can't agree or figure out what's dogma and what's not.
Speaker 1: Especially since Vatican Two, it's nothing but sixty years of confusion.
Speaker 1: And it's not just sixty years of confusion. There's confusion
Speaker 1: before Vatican two. There's confusion at the time of Vatican One.
Speaker 1: What is doctrinal development? What does that mean? The evolution
Speaker 1: of dogma? What and why is Ratzinger saying that Vatican
Speaker 1: One was not the mindset of the church in the
Speaker 1: first millennium. And you'll say, yeah, but that's his private opinion.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter if it's your private opinion or where
Speaker 1: you write it. If it's wrong, private opinion or being
Speaker 1: wrong does not exclude a person in traditional Catholicism from heresy. Now,
Speaker 1: they might not be a bad willed heretic, They might
Speaker 1: be a material heretic or whatever. They might not be
Speaker 1: formally heretical, they might not be fully heretical, or event
Speaker 1: all the different terms in scholastic neologisms you want, doesn't matter,
Speaker 1: because again, the point of all of this, the point
Speaker 1: of dogma, the point of denzing, or the point of
Speaker 1: all this was supposed to be so that we could
Speaker 1: know what the dogma was. But then when we start
Speaker 1: buying all the encyclicals and we buy Denzinger and we
Speaker 1: start reading it, you start feeling like a bit of
Speaker 1: a Protestant, don't you, Because you're not a Protestant with
Speaker 1: the Bible anymore. You're a Protestant with the papal encyclicals.
Speaker 1: And that's why Vatican One didn't just say that you
Speaker 1: have to be in communion with the history work Magisterium.
Speaker 1: It says that you have to be in communion with
Speaker 1: the living successors of the Bishop of Rome. That are
Speaker 1: the guy over in Rome, not the guy in Kansas,
Speaker 1: not the guy in Fillmore, New York. Not those guys,
Speaker 1: the living successors until the end of the world, and
Speaker 1: not until the end of the world, and then one hundred,
Speaker 1: two hundred, three hundred years of no pope. Obviously that's
Speaker 1: a sect. Obviously that's not the church. Now let's get
Speaker 1: to some of the critiques of our review. You guys
Speaker 1: don't have a way to know what the ecumenical councils were. Now,
Speaker 1: first of all, again let's take just the bold faced
Speaker 1: claim that we know what the councils are on the
Speaker 1: basis of what the Pope says. Excuse me. The Pope
Speaker 1: declared at the eighth Synod, the eighth Eastern Synod, not
Speaker 1: the eighth Latin Synod, the eighth Eastern Synod, that the
Speaker 1: philioque should not be used, and he ratified that eighth
Speaker 1: Eastern Synod, that is proven in the essay below. So
Speaker 1: just saying the pope, you guys don't follow John the
Speaker 1: eighth who said to not use the philioquay, and then
Speaker 1: the Philioka was added, and then now at Vatican two
Speaker 1: for the purpose of the Uniates, even the Uniates don't
Speaker 1: say philioqua in the Creed. This is ridiculous. This is
Speaker 1: nothing but a dimission of our view. And the schismatic
Speaker 1: weirdos who act like all of the Eastern Catholics are
Speaker 1: crazy because they now revere Pope Gregory Palomas after John
Speaker 1: Paul the Second or whoever said that it's okay through
Speaker 1: Revere Gregory Palomos. It makes no sense because Barlem and
Speaker 1: Gregory had a debate and they don't believe the same things.
Speaker 1: You can't believe and not believe the philioque right, it's
Speaker 1: not they're mutually exclusive views. You can't believe in absolutely
Speaker 1: simplicity and believe in the uncreated energies. They're mutually exclusive views.
Speaker 1: That's why there were synods declared. I mean, in the
Speaker 1: Rabic Catholic view, orthodoxy is schismatic and heretical. You can't
Speaker 1: reconcile it. And if you're a UNI eight, you have
Speaker 1: to accept the Council of Trent and purgatory. Now most
Speaker 1: of them don't. That's why it doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 1: So all the union Ads ought to be schismatic because
Speaker 1: they don't accept Trent. Most of them they don't accept
Speaker 1: all this filioquay nonsense. They didn't recite in the Creed.
Speaker 1: How do you have the same faith if you get
Speaker 1: two different creeds. Obviously it's not the right church. You've
Speaker 1: got different creeds in your church. Your church says the
Speaker 1: creed without the filioquay is okay for the Uniates. The
Speaker 1: Creed with the filioquay is okay for the Latins. That's
Speaker 1: two different creeds, dummies, and Constantinople Nicino Politan Constantinople creed
Speaker 1: Niceno Constantinopolitan creed says not to change it. That's why
Speaker 1: if you read the drag Us essay that I put below,
Speaker 1: he shows you that even up to the eighth, even
Speaker 1: up to Pope John the eighth, there was the agreement
Speaker 1: on the basis of the Canons of contentinoble One that
Speaker 1: you can't write a new Creed. And I went by
Speaker 1: the way, and I looked up Roman Catholic scholars who
Speaker 1: admit this. They say, yes, John the eighth did affirm that,
Speaker 1: and then they turn around and say, but yeah, but
Speaker 1: so what because later on we changed our mind. This
Speaker 1: position is madness. It's just what it's sola papa. That's
Speaker 1: all Roman Cathosism is. It's not concerned with tradition. It's
Speaker 1: not concerned with ecumenical councils, it's not concerned with collegiality,
Speaker 1: it's not concerned with the Bible. The only thing it's
Speaker 1: concerned with is the papacy. The only thing that they
Speaker 1: do apologetics for is the papacy. They'll talk about these
Speaker 1: other things, but their argument in any of these realms,
Speaker 1: whether it's the phillyoqui, whether it's absolute simplicity, whether it's
Speaker 1: any of these things, they just go back to the papacy.
Speaker 1: Mc key's, m key's, m key's keys mac kei's, because
Speaker 1: that's all they are is apologists for the papacy, because
Speaker 1: there is a vicious need to vindicate this gigantic man
Speaker 1: made system, which is obviously an aberration. Now. When Paul
Speaker 1: wrote to the Church at Rome, he warned them that
Speaker 1: they could be grafted out. It's an odd thing to
Speaker 1: write to the Church at Rome, isn't it? In Chapter eleven,
Speaker 1: beware you gentiles that you might be grafted out? Does Paul?
Speaker 1: Does Paul conceive of, uh, the the Jews in Rome
Speaker 1: like theyre being a Jewish pope, and that because you
Speaker 1: know they won't be, they won't be grafted out. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm just trying to think of the mental gymnastics that
Speaker 1: a Roman Catholic would say to explain this. Well, Paul
Speaker 1: is only speaking of the gentiles in the Church of
Speaker 1: Rome being grafted out. Of course, because of the Petrine
Speaker 1: promise and supremacy, there will always be a Jew there
Speaker 1: in Rome that will never be cast down. No, this
Speaker 1: is nonsense. Come on, he's saying. He's warning the Church
Speaker 1: at Rome, which is almost all gentile. Right you too,
Speaker 1: you gentile, gentile church at Rome, you can be grafted
Speaker 1: out too, just like Jews were. If you're haughty. Very
Speaker 1: interesting that Paul would warn the Church of Rome of
Speaker 1: being haughty, prideful and being cast out. Well, they had
Speaker 1: reason to be prideful because they were doubly apostolic. As
Speaker 1: Irenaeus says, No mention anywhere of divine infallibility being the
Speaker 1: basis for their pride only because they're doubly Apostolic, and
Speaker 1: every Orthodox icon makes this point. Right about Rome, it's
Speaker 1: Peter and Paul, the feasts of Saint Peter and Paul,
Speaker 1: and they are both holding in our church. The let's see,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna get I gonna put a thing on the
Speaker 1: screen here for everybody. They're both holding the church, all right.
Speaker 1: It's not Peter holding Paul holding the church. Peter and
Speaker 1: Paul have absolute equality. Peter might have a placement of
Speaker 1: being first, but absolutely nothing in the New Testament anywhere
Speaker 1: about the supreme, jurisdictional god powers of Peter and the
Speaker 1: Roman Catholic said know that. They say, yeah, but it developed,
Speaker 1: it's a thing that developed. No, it doesn't. Our theology
Speaker 1: doesn't develop. That's why you guys don't even care about
Speaker 1: the first thousand years of the creed, I mean of
Speaker 1: the church, the first thousand years. You guys don't even
Speaker 1: They don't even care. All they care about is what
Speaker 1: the popes have said. They don't do theology, they do
Speaker 1: papal apologetics. Now let's look at Nicias Canon six, because
Speaker 1: this is one of the best clearest arguments, and we'll
Speaker 1: go through all of the casustri and all of the
Speaker 1: endless mental gymnastics that they use on this one as well.
Speaker 1: What does Canon six of Nicias say, let the ancient
Speaker 1: customs customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail that the
Speaker 1: Bishop of Alexandria has jurisdiction in all these since the
Speaker 1: like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also likewise
Speaker 1: in Antioch and the other provinces. Could it be any clearer?
Speaker 1: Absolutely nothing like Vatican one here this conciliar statement that
Speaker 1: Rome accepts. They accept Canon six unless they just arbitrarily
Speaker 1: decide to reject it. Right, I mean, part of what
Speaker 1: was ecumenically accepted is that the honor given to certain
Speaker 1: preeminent cities. This is going to get us to the
Speaker 1: point of talking about pentarchy, because pentarchy is nothing but
Speaker 1: a canonical honor. Has nothing to do with how we
Speaker 1: determine well, I want to say, nothing to do, but
Speaker 1: it has nothing to do with what makes something religiously
Speaker 1: true or false. We'll put it that way. It certainly
Speaker 1: goes into when we look at councils and when we
Speaker 1: look at synods. Right, was it recepted, did important churches
Speaker 1: receive it? But guess what this is what no Roman
Speaker 1: Catholic can grasp. Every bishop is equal. Even if Bartholomew
Speaker 1: suddenly thinks that he has papal powers, it doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: Everybody knows that even these positions of patriarch are made
Speaker 1: up by the councils. They're honors given by the councils,
Speaker 1: and they move. They're movable. Sometimes there's a patriarch that
Speaker 1: created it a council, sometimes there's one that's moved elsewhere.
Speaker 1: In preeminence or honor, they're just titles of honor because
Speaker 1: of these being important cities. The patriarch of Constantinople has
Speaker 1: absolutely no more power than bishop whoever of po Dunk Tennessee. Literally.
Speaker 1: I know that's hard for you Romanchathlics to fathom, but
Speaker 1: pentarchy is no magical formula for Orthodoxy has nothing to
Speaker 1: do with the magical formula of five by which we
Speaker 1: determine if the three of the five have done it
Speaker 1: fought no total nonsense, total ignorance. By the way, the
Speaker 1: fact that these people making these arguments are going to
Speaker 1: this level of stuff shows they have absolutely no idea
Speaker 1: what they're talking about. They're just making this stuff as
Speaker 1: they're making it up as they go. They're reading like
Speaker 1: the most basic bitch stuff, right, Catholic answers cut and
Speaker 1: paste to answer this stuff. It's childish, childish. Notice that
Speaker 1: the Canon says that it is a custom. It doesn't
Speaker 1: say de jura or dvina. It's not it's not divine law.
Speaker 1: It's a custom. And the jurisdiction of the Bishop of
Speaker 1: Rome is likened to the custom of the jurisdiction of
Speaker 1: the Bishop of Alexandria and Antioch. Now they know that
Speaker 1: this is problematic. So what they do is they say, well,
Speaker 1: this is not talking about the universal jurisdiction of the
Speaker 1: Bishop of Rome. This is only talking about the jurisdiction
Speaker 1: that the Bishop of Rome has in Rome, because of
Speaker 1: course everybody knows the Bishop of Rome has a universal jurisdiction. Really, really,
Speaker 1: why is that universal jurisdiction nowhere else in here? I mean,
Speaker 1: this is a ridiculous comparison and a confusing comparison and
Speaker 1: a nonsensical comparison. If everybody supposedly here understood that the
Speaker 1: universal jurisdiction was just a given, come on, No, that's
Speaker 1: extremely weak. Furthermore, when we read the fathers of this
Speaker 1: time period, they don't teach the universal jurisdiction of the
Speaker 1: Bishop of Rome. Now the Roman Catholics say, oh oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: but Athenasious appeals to Rome. Appeals are made everywhere all
Speaker 1: the time, to different bishoprics, And if Athanasius thought Rome
Speaker 1: was Orthodox, then it makes sense for him to appeal there.
Speaker 1: But appeals are made all the time to all kinds
Speaker 1: of different places. So the fact that an appeal is
Speaker 1: made is not a proof that they believed the Bishop
Speaker 1: of Rome had universal, infallible, pre eminent authority over church
Speaker 1: and state. By the way, now when we start asking
Speaker 1: about the universal power of the Bishop of Rome over
Speaker 1: the state as well, guess what all of those documents
Speaker 1: that were used to prop this up in the late
Speaker 1: and early Middle Ages, like the Simachian the documents of
Speaker 1: Pope Simachus, the Galesian de Credos, the Donation of Constantine.
Speaker 1: Nobody admits anymore that those are real. Everyone admits, the
Speaker 1: Vatican admits. Every scholar in the world, the Vatican across
Speaker 1: the board for a long time admits those are forgeries.
Speaker 1: The documents of Pope Simachus, Galatian decredles, the false degredles,
Speaker 1: as they're known as the Katina Greca that Thomas Aquinas
Speaker 1: cites against the Greeks for the philioque and for the
Speaker 1: premacy and infallibility of the Bishop of Rome. The Katina
Speaker 1: Greca is a forgery. It's not real, and nobody believes
Speaker 1: that Katina Greca. Now there might be some guy David
Speaker 1: Bowden in his trailer in Kansas might believe in the
Speaker 1: donation of Constantine, but nobody else in the world believes
Speaker 1: in the donation of Constantine. And these were crucial to
Speaker 1: proving the temporal supremacy of the Bishop of Rome for centuries. Now,
Speaker 1: when I was a Roman Catholic, I thought, well, yeah,
Speaker 1: but okay, but maybe it doesn't really matter because we
Speaker 1: don't really need that to prove what is a theological doctrine.
Speaker 1: But it's not just a theological doctrine. That's the thing.
Speaker 1: You see, this is not just confined to the room
Speaker 1: of theology. This evolves into a temporal worldly empire with
Speaker 1: a giant international bank. Let's look at the obvious here.
Speaker 1: Do you think that's what did Jesus really have in mind,
Speaker 1: that there be a giant international Vatican bank in palaces.
Speaker 1: I don't think so. But just on its surface here
Speaker 1: we see that very clearly. This canon likens the jurisdiction
Speaker 1: of the Bishop of Rome to Egypt, to Antioch and Alexandria.
Speaker 1: Now these are important cities because these are cities where
Speaker 1: the apostles set up early seas. These cities of themselves
Speaker 1: possessed no magical authority. There's nothing magical about any of them.
Speaker 1: In fact, when we look at the Apocalypse in chapters
Speaker 1: two and three, there are pre eminent cities there that
Speaker 1: you know, John wrote the Letter to the Seven Churches, right,
Speaker 1: the Apocalypse is a letter that's written to those seven
Speaker 1: churches of Asia Minor. Some of those churches don't exist anymore,
Speaker 1: and that's because they were warned. In the letter to
Speaker 1: those churches, Jesus says, if you are not faithful, I
Speaker 1: will remove your lampstand. So there's no magical city anywhere
Speaker 1: that doesn't fall under the threat of the covenantal curses.
Speaker 1: By the way, did you notice that Jesus's statements to
Speaker 1: the seven churches perfectly mirror the covenantal curses of Deuteronomy. Yes,
Speaker 1: Jesus reaffirms the Covenant curses and blessing, because he's the
Speaker 1: one who gave the covenant curses and blessings in Deuteronomy,
Speaker 1: and he does the exact same thing to New Israel
Speaker 1: the Church in the Warnings and blessings to the seven
Speaker 1: churches of Asia Minor. So when Jesus looks at the churches,
Speaker 1: he says, you either be faithful, or I will remove
Speaker 1: your lampstand. I will cut you out right, removing the lampstand,
Speaker 1: being grafted out, being cut out, all the same types
Speaker 1: of statements, same thing Paul said in Rome's eleven. Therefore,
Speaker 1: no magical, special, juridical, perfect infallible status to the Bishop
Speaker 1: of Rome. And by the mere fact that at the
Speaker 1: Sixth Council the entire Church thought that they could excommunicate
Speaker 1: the Bishop of Rome, it proves that they didn't believe
Speaker 1: in the Vatican One view of papal supremacy. It doesn't
Speaker 1: matter whether Honorius was or was not Orthodox. Let's just
Speaker 1: set that aside for a moment, because what is demonstrated
Speaker 1: by the excommunication of Pope Honorius is that the mindset
Speaker 1: of the entire Universal Church at the Sixth Council had
Speaker 1: no problem whatsoever doing it. Therefore, papal infallibility is not
Speaker 1: the universal teaching of the Catholic Church. The Orthodox view
Speaker 1: is the universal teaching of the Orthodox Catholic Church. So pentarchy,
Speaker 1: there's nothing magical about five cities or five patriarchs. I mean,
Speaker 1: the Moscow patriarchate didn't exist in the first century. In
Speaker 1: the third fourth century, right, other patriarchates come to be
Speaker 1: that don't exist. The patriarch of Constantinople nowadays is a
Speaker 1: title of honor, and he's not even a patriarchate of
Speaker 1: a patriarchal city anymore. It doesn't even make any sense anymore.
Speaker 1: It's just a title of honor that's retained, and he's
Speaker 1: no different than my bishop. He may think, and as
Speaker 1: many patriarchs and popes have thought. He may think. They
Speaker 1: may think that they have universal bishopric powers and authority,
Speaker 1: and that they're God emperors on earth. But that doesn't
Speaker 1: make And again, let's take it back to the level
Speaker 1: of simplicity. Or if Vatican One's definition a papal supremacy
Speaker 1: was true in the first century, and if that's how
Speaker 1: the true Church viewed it, why were all these church
Speaker 1: fathers so varied in their view of Matthew sixteen. Why
Speaker 1: wasn't it pretty universally understood? Why didn't everyone just write
Speaker 1: to the Bishop of Rome? Why do you even have
Speaker 1: a council? Councils are a waste of time an effort,
Speaker 1: and in these centuries, traveling hundreds of miles to some
Speaker 1: council it could be life threatening. What a ridiculous hassle.
Speaker 1: Just write a letter and ask the bishop. Basically, the
Speaker 1: Bishop Rome could just sit there reading letters all day,
Speaker 1: or moving around to different churches, or send his leagates
Speaker 1: out and they could just decide every matter. Why waste
Speaker 1: the time of debating in a council? I mean, look
Speaker 1: at the show image here, the ancient icons show a
Speaker 1: bunch of people seated debating matters. What a waste of time?
Speaker 1: Just as the pope, it's that simple. Why he doesn't
Speaker 1: need all these other people. He is the super bishop.
Speaker 1: What a waste of time an effort? And what is
Speaker 1: canon sick showing you it's very obviously collegial, it's limited jurisdictions.
Speaker 1: And you say, and the Catholic just make it up.
Speaker 1: They just say, yeah, but it's understood that he also
Speaker 1: had universal jurisdiction. No, it's not. Why is that now
Speaker 1: we're mentioned, don't you think they would say that? And
Speaker 1: they'll say yeah, But they sent it to the papal
Speaker 1: legates for ratification. They sent it to every bishopric for ratification. Okay,
Speaker 1: Sonodal letters were sent to all of the bishoprics and
Speaker 1: the key, especially the key metropolitan aias, because they were
Speaker 1: the most important, because they were some of the biggest churches.
Speaker 1: So ratification itself cannot function the way the Roman Catholic
Speaker 1: wants to. For how we know what's the true and
Speaker 1: a false council. I'm gonna throw you for a loop
Speaker 1: here because guess what, there's no external, magical, juridical formula
Speaker 1: anywhere that can solve the issue of true and false
Speaker 1: because it begs the question ultimately if counsels are reflections
Speaker 1: to the teaching of Revelation. In fact, the liturgy actually
Speaker 1: two Sundays ago, if you were there, if you were
Speaker 1: paying attention, you noticed that on or a Sunday of Orthodoxy,
Speaker 1: the liturgy says we agree with the fathers and the
Speaker 1: Holy Teachers when they agree with Revelation. That's in the liturgy. Now,
Speaker 1: this is another thing that the Roman Catholics bamboozled by
Speaker 1: this question of how will the faithfull know what's true
Speaker 1: and false if they don't have a pope. What do
Speaker 1: you think the liturgy is for? The liturgy is there
Speaker 1: to teach you and catechorize you. When you go to it,
Speaker 1: and when you listen and you pay attention to what said,
Speaker 1: you get the correct theology. The liturgy is the teacher.
Speaker 1: We don't need the pope when we have a local
Speaker 1: liturgy that perfectly embodies and teaches the wholeness of the faith.
Speaker 1: The wholeness and fullness of Catholicity is present in a
Speaker 1: local bishop. And this is what they can't grasp, which
Speaker 1: is that Orthodoxy is local and decentralized. And we think
Speaker 1: Jesus set up a local, decentralized church. He didn't set
Speaker 1: up a superworld bureaucracy in one city that has a
Speaker 1: super spirit. Right, everybody else has a little bit of
Speaker 1: the spirit. But in Rome they have the super spirit
Speaker 1: because they have the super bishop. If the church has
Speaker 1: the sacraments, and they have the Dogma, and they have revelation,
Speaker 1: and they have the liturgy, and they have Pentecosts, and
Speaker 1: when you've been christmated, you have your personal pentecost you
Speaker 1: have everything you need. There is no need for the
Speaker 1: infallible Bishop of Rome, because the Holy Spirit is our teacher.
Speaker 1: That was the point of Pentecost, and the fact that
Speaker 1: even the Old Testament saints who didn't have Pentecost could
Speaker 1: know the faith and know the truth without the Bishop
Speaker 1: of Rome. It's looney tunes. It's silly, it's childish to
Speaker 1: think that that guy is the way to know true
Speaker 1: and false. It begs the question, how do you know
Speaker 1: you're interpreting the papal documents correctly? You don't, Well, I
Speaker 1: just read it. I just read it, and I can
Speaker 1: see what's clearly true. Really, have you ever misinterpreted a
Speaker 1: papal statement? Have the papal statements always been clear? Why
Speaker 1: are their clarifications on the clarifications and then clarifications and
Speaker 1: the clarifications of the clarifications of the clarifications. It's a
Speaker 1: system of circular absurdity. And again, if we move up
Speaker 1: to okay, so the question of floor, oh well, wait
Speaker 1: a minute. At Florence, the entire Orthodox world agreed with
Speaker 1: Rome and accept the feel like, no, they didn't. The
Speaker 1: whole reason Mark of Ephesus is a saint is because
Speaker 1: he didn't accept the agreement of Florence. I mean again,
Speaker 1: And the only reason they would make that argument is
Speaker 1: is as if it takes five of the pentarchy tempt No,
Speaker 1: it doesn't, it would take all the bishops in the world.
Speaker 2: I mean.
Speaker 1: Athenasius actually says this in the Aaron Crisis. He says,
Speaker 1: he talks about the fact that the whole world has
Speaker 1: gone after Arianism and only a handful of bishops remain.
Speaker 1: So technically it wouldn't matter how many bishops. It wouldn't
Speaker 1: matter if every bishop in the world almost accepted Arianism
Speaker 1: or whatever. I mean, it would matter in the sense
Speaker 1: that that would be a crisis. And that's what happened.
Speaker 1: Most of them did, but it took contramundum, athanacious contramundam. Now,
Speaker 1: the mere fact that the Orthodox Church has existed for
Speaker 1: the last thousand years without the pope proves that the
Speaker 1: claim that we can't exist as a church without the
Speaker 1: pope is wrong. And even your own papal church admits
Speaker 1: that we have existed for a thousand years without the papacy.
Speaker 1: How did we do that? If to leave the papacy
Speaker 1: means your church falls apart, on the contrary, your church
Speaker 1: is falling apart. Certainly, our church has problems. We have
Speaker 1: many problems. We have to deal with all kinds of
Speaker 1: nasty problems, and we have to have some of the
Speaker 1: same problems. But at the question of truth and falsehood,
Speaker 1: ultimate certainty, ultimate authority impairs paradigms. The system of Rome
Speaker 1: is a house of cards because it's built on that
Speaker 1: one guy. So if everything that's built on that one
Speaker 1: dude doesn't work out, if it doesn't, if that doesn't
Speaker 1: stand up, the whole house of card falls. Our system
Speaker 1: is not built on one dude. It doesn't destroy Orthodoxy.
Speaker 1: If Bartholomew is a heretic and he is, doesn't destroy Orthodoxy.
Speaker 1: If Bishop ware says something heretical, it doesn't crumble Orthodoxy.
Speaker 1: If half of the Orthodox world goes into apostasy, it's
Speaker 1: not it's a tragedy. But the Orthodox Church isn't doesn't
Speaker 1: end because of that. That's why Jesus created a decentralized church.
Speaker 1: He didn't build it on one galactic god emperor in
Speaker 1: three guys fighting over who's the successor of Peter in
Speaker 1: France in the Middle Ages, that's looney, that's crazy. So
Speaker 1: the fact that Saint Marco of Emphysis did not, with
Speaker 1: the other patriarchs, sign the Union of Florence. Proofs that,
Speaker 1: I mean, that's fully in accord with Orthodox ecclesiology. It's
Speaker 1: unfortunate that those other ones did sign the Union of Florence.
Speaker 1: But that's not a proof against Orthodoxy. That's only a
Speaker 1: proof against Orthodoxy when you have a misconception about our ecclesiology.
Speaker 1: There's no magical five. It's not grounded on the magical five.
Speaker 1: If it was grounded on the magical five, for three
Speaker 1: hundred years, there weren't the magical five. I mean, Nicia,
Speaker 1: you start to have this discussion in Canon sixth there
Speaker 1: of these important cities, there weren't. There wasn't a magical
Speaker 1: five in the second century, and not everybody knew what
Speaker 1: the Church of Rome was doing. How are you? How
Speaker 1: were you in the second third? For any of these
Speaker 1: early centuries. Do you think they had time to follow
Speaker 1: the soap opera drama of Vatican Insider, to keep up
Speaker 1: with the latest tweets from Frank to see who's Orthodox
Speaker 1: and who's not, what they should and shouldn't do. It
Speaker 1: would take years for something to reach Rome and be
Speaker 1: disputed and then be written back and then have an
Speaker 1: exchange back and forth for years. Read their letters of Basil,
Speaker 1: Read the letters of Augustine. I've read them right. It's
Speaker 1: years of back and forth. So it's loony tunes to
Speaker 1: think that the Church could be grounded on these appeals
Speaker 1: to Rome. And by the way, if you make the
Speaker 1: argument that everybody was appealing to Rome to subtle things,
Speaker 1: then you prove my point about councils being superfluous. If
Speaker 1: just appealing to Rome was the way the early Church
Speaker 1: settled things, there was no need for councils. The mere
Speaker 1: fact that the councils existed, that they were called by
Speaker 1: the emperors proves I review. Now they said, well, wait
Speaker 1: a minute, though, you don't have ecumenical councils anymore. Ecumenical
Speaker 1: councils existed and are defined by the term ocumene. The
Speaker 1: ocumene is throughout the imperium. So yeah, they only make
Speaker 1: sense in that way because the meaning of the word
Speaker 1: is in accord with the totality of the empire. When
Speaker 1: the empire ceased to exist, no, for us, there would
Speaker 1: not be ocumene councils. But guess what, there were no
Speaker 1: acumenical councils for the first three hundred years, would the
Speaker 1: church do well? They had synods? They had synods in
Speaker 1: here they're talked about in this book. Right, there are
Speaker 1: local synods prior to and I see it. The senat
Speaker 1: of Ancaira is prior to a Nicea and Caira is
Speaker 1: three fourteen and it's a local cyna that talks about
Speaker 1: canons and rules that were set up for the governance
Speaker 1: of the church. Now, this synod had nothing to do
Speaker 1: with knowing what the Bishop of Rome thought. And similarly,
Speaker 1: canons are had throughout the church. This but for example,
Speaker 1: an Caira, the capital of Galatia, is a regional council
Speaker 1: with about a dozen bishops present. Okay, and it basically
Speaker 1: settled if you basic canon law, things about who can
Speaker 1: attend the Eucharist, what happens to people that are lapsed,
Speaker 1: this kind of stuff. Uh and bishops. Right, where is
Speaker 1: the appeal and decision of the Bishop of Rome in
Speaker 1: this council? Oh, it's not there, but didn't need well,
Speaker 1: I thought that all the church fathers would appeal to Rome.
Speaker 1: Now this is is the local senence sinodal Okay, So
Speaker 1: if the church can function sinotally for three centuries, without
Speaker 1: necessarily any appeals to Rome or without an ecumenical council.
Speaker 1: Then doesn't that seem to suggest that the normative ecclesiological
Speaker 1: governing of the church is sinodal. Yes, exactly, of course
Speaker 1: it does. Now, then when controversies raged throughout the Empire,
Speaker 1: you have the institution of the ecumenical councils. Now we
Speaker 1: affirm the ecumenical councils on the basis of the fact
Speaker 1: that they're true. I know that's a kind of a
Speaker 1: shocker here, But there's no magical formula to a council
Speaker 1: that makes it true because it's a council. Of course, Yeah,
Speaker 1: we don't believe that. We don't believe that it's because
Speaker 1: we give it the title ecumenical council that that makes
Speaker 1: it true. Because there were robber councils and false synods.
Speaker 1: But the only way ultimately to know what's a false
Speaker 1: council and a true council is the exact same epistemic
Speaker 1: dilemma that the Roman Catholic has in describing or figuring
Speaker 1: out a false true a false pope from a true pope.
Speaker 1: It's no different. It's the exact same question and dilemma
Speaker 1: moved back a step, so just to say, the only
Speaker 1: way to know the difference between a true and false
Speaker 1: council is by the pope begs the question that the
Speaker 1: pope is Orthodox and he's a true pope and not
Speaker 1: a false pope. And even all the Roman Catholics who
Speaker 1: just follow Frank are wondering is he a true or
Speaker 1: false pope? And even when they go back in history
Speaker 1: and they look at people like John John the twenty
Speaker 1: third or do excuse me twenty second who was excommunicated. Oh,
Speaker 1: he was ex communicated, but uh, yeah, he was still pope,
Speaker 1: And who cares. We don't. We don't care about the
Speaker 1: stupid debates because they're using sonodal church government. Now the
Speaker 1: Roman Cathicals say, yeah, but yeah, but but it was this,
Speaker 1: the sonodal stuff can be true, and it's still true
Speaker 1: that the pope is infallible. Why are they had synods
Speaker 1: that have no mention or interest in the Bishop of
Speaker 1: Rome that are making canon law, governing the church sonotally
Speaker 1: for hundreds of years before the first Ecumenical Council. If
Speaker 1: it's not what we say it is, it's obvious our
Speaker 1: view is correct and caira gangra. There are canons and
Speaker 1: synods that govern the church locally. So it's only when
Speaker 1: the emperor and then when we begin to have the
Speaker 1: conversion of the imperium all right, Constantine, Theodosius, et cetera,
Speaker 1: et cetera, that the councils can become empire wide, imperial.
Speaker 1: That's the meaning of ecumenical council. So it doesn't become
Speaker 1: a question then at that point of the number of
Speaker 1: people there right, it's not ecumen because it's five hundred bishops.
Speaker 1: Some councils had a very small number of bishops. Some
Speaker 1: councils had hundreds. So it has nothing to do with
Speaker 1: the number any more than it has anything to do
Speaker 1: with that number of pentarchy or five cities, has nothing
Speaker 1: to do with it, no. So that's why for us,
Speaker 1: for example, even after the split between East and West,
Speaker 1: the only reason we don't talk about ecumenical councils is
Speaker 1: because the okumen A pretty much cease to exist right
Speaker 1: out well after the fall of Byzantium. But we do
Speaker 1: have synods and councils that are binding. The Palamite synods
Speaker 1: and councils are binding on orthodoxy and the fact that
Speaker 1: we sing that in the liturgy, and we talk about
Speaker 1: those synods and we just what last week, two weeks
Speaker 1: ago honored Saint Gregor Palomas and the uncreated Light, and
Speaker 1: it's in the sonoticon of Orthodoxy two. So you have
Speaker 1: to believe those things. They're not optional, right, And so
Speaker 1: this is even this is a misunderstanding that Orthodox have too, right.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's not like I mean, imagine being in
Speaker 1: a church in the three in the year three hundred.
Speaker 1: No Orthodox person would would would would say, well, we
Speaker 1: haven't had an acumenical council yet, so no teachings are binding.
Speaker 1: That's that's absurd. Let's retard it. Right, But there are
Speaker 1: some Orthodox people who have this mindset that the only
Speaker 1: thing that's binding on Orthodox is the the Seventh sent No,
Speaker 1: that's not true. It's not true at all. The medieval
Speaker 1: synods are binding. Now, ultimately, why are they binding? Ultimately
Speaker 1: it's a question of what's true or false, And there's
Speaker 1: no way to get around that question. It doesn't matter
Speaker 1: whether you're Roman Catholic, whether you're Protestant, whether you're Orthodox.
Speaker 1: Nobody has a magical formula for the ultimate question of
Speaker 1: whether this thing is true or false. Okay, you can't
Speaker 1: just say, well, we know it's true false by a
Speaker 1: whole bunch of people deciding it. No, a whole bunch
Speaker 1: of people can be wrong. Okay, well we know that
Speaker 1: it's true false because the pope decided it. No, because
Speaker 1: that begs the question that you are correctly interpreting the
Speaker 1: pope and that it's a true pope not an anti pope,
Speaker 1: which by the way, there have been like forty Ani
Speaker 1: popes that it is the that the Pope is himself Orthodox, etc. Right,
Speaker 1: So no, it's not true. And if there are Orthodox
Speaker 1: who are misinformed who think that just because it's not
Speaker 1: an ecumenical council, it's not something that we pay attention
Speaker 1: to or but I mean, the liturgy is not an
Speaker 1: ecumenical council, and every Orthodox person follows the liturgy. So
Speaker 1: this is really a weird Protestant or even Roman Catholic mindset.
Speaker 1: Like the only way we know what dogma is, the
Speaker 1: only way to know dogma is to know it individually
Speaker 1: and personally. So now at this point in the Roman calics,
Speaker 1: well I wit a minute, though, see see this is
Speaker 1: where you lose me, because you're starting to sound like
Speaker 1: a Protestant. You're sounding like the guy who says that
Speaker 1: we was the Holy Spirit guides me. Here's the difference
Speaker 1: between us and the Protestant. We don't believe that the
Speaker 1: Holy Spirit has deemed to guide people as atomistic individuals.
Speaker 1: No church father ever taught that. Nobody ever taught that
Speaker 1: in history of the church until after I don't know
Speaker 1: Adam Smith and the economic revolution. This idea of atomistic
Speaker 1: individualism is what are the means? Well, the only way
Speaker 1: that we're going to know the means by which God
Speaker 1: ordained to guide the church is to go back to Revelation. Right.
Speaker 1: So you're so, what an't it? This is circular? Yes,
Speaker 1: it is circular because at the question of ultimate foundations
Speaker 1: of paradigms and worldviews, circularity is unavoidable. So what makes
Speaker 1: a council true? It being true? There's no other way
Speaker 1: to answer that question. We would even say the same
Speaker 1: thing about a pope. What makes a pope a true pope?
Speaker 1: That he's orthodox, not a magical formula. Not magically. We're
Speaker 1: going through some right, you know, white smoke burning in
Speaker 1: Rome and some guys who wear creepy red capes making
Speaker 1: some decision that no, there's no, there's no infallible guy
Speaker 1: that the Holy Spirit is guiding these clowns and mobsters
Speaker 1: in Rome. And yeah, they are clowns and mobsters, all right,
Speaker 1: and everybody's starting to figure that out. That's who the
Speaker 1: Spirit is guiding to be the the cart of Jesus
Speaker 1: on earth, a bunch of mobsters, give me right, come on,
Speaker 1: So no again, everybody who existed in the year three
Speaker 1: hundred knew that the Church was governed by scripture, by
Speaker 1: the bishopric, the local bishops, and this synod. There hasn't
Speaker 1: been an ecumenical council. Does that mean because we've had
Speaker 1: three hundred years of Christianity and no ecumenical council, nobody
Speaker 1: knows what the church teaches? Did everybody just right to Rome, Pope,
Speaker 1: tell us, please, we don't know what Christians it is.
Speaker 1: We don't trust reading the Bible and going to the
Speaker 1: liturgy unless you interpret the Bible and the liturgy for us.
Speaker 1: This is this is why they should have shouldn't they?
Speaker 1: I Vatican One was true in the year three hundred.
Speaker 1: Did anybody do that? No? Now, let's fast forward up
Speaker 1: past these regional synods, just for a brief moment. I
Speaker 1: want to think about something here, which is that Rome
Speaker 1: admits that John Damascus is a doctor of the Church.
Speaker 1: Now that one of the reasons I continue to go
Speaker 1: to John Damascus is because not just the fact that,
Speaker 1: you know, as a Protestant, I read him and he,
Speaker 1: you know, changed my mind on things like icons. But
Speaker 1: as I delved into defense of the Orthodox Faith, my
Speaker 1: assumption was that Aquinas is teaching nothing different than than
Speaker 1: Saint John of Damascus, because they both like Aristotle. So
Speaker 1: it's gotta it's got to all be. In a court,
Speaker 1: there's no way that there's two different sis. It's got
Speaker 1: to all be. It's just got to be. But I
Speaker 1: hadn't really read and understood John Damascus at that time.
Speaker 1: I didn't understand that he talks about God having one
Speaker 1: energy and many energies. I couldn't make sense of that.
Speaker 1: I didn't know what that meant. I couldn't understand what
Speaker 1: he meant in book three when he talks about the
Speaker 1: uncreated energies deifying Christ's humanity in the incarnation. It didn't
Speaker 1: make sense to me why. I mean, well, I mean,
Speaker 1: I'd accepted what he said, but I just assumed that, well,
Speaker 1: that's no different than what Aquinas teaches. But then it's not,
Speaker 1: you see, because eventually when you really understand the difference
Speaker 1: and why one of them is teaching, for example, that
Speaker 1: the grace that's given to Christ and the incarnation, the
Speaker 1: grace that Christ communicated to his human nature, and the
Speaker 1: incarnation is created. It's a created, habitual grace. Let's see that,
Speaker 1: because they will lose their mind thinking that I'm making
Speaker 1: this up. Let's find this quote and we're going to
Speaker 1: see why they created grace. Stuff matters. By the way,
Speaker 1: somebody says this, the drag Us link is broken. Okay,
Speaker 1: let me let me reget that. Reget the link again. Here.
Speaker 1: I might have cut the HTM off there by accident.
Speaker 1: Let's see. Let me put it in the chat. Let
Speaker 1: me try that link. Okay, the link works for me.
Speaker 1: I've tried it twice. Now. That's an important essay, really
Speaker 1: important essay. It was one of the first when I
Speaker 1: was when I was runan Catholic and started to look
Speaker 1: at Orthodox. It was one of the first essays I
Speaker 1: read that was really kind of whoa I never really
Speaker 1: I didn't know anything about you know, John the eighth
Speaker 1: and the eighth Council. But I did want to show
Speaker 1: you this quote about the grace. I'll get so many
Speaker 1: messages I can't keep up. The source inside the link
Speaker 1: itself is broken. So the essay has a citation in
Speaker 1: which the link is broken. I can't I can't help
Speaker 1: that the link inside that old essay is broken. I
Speaker 1: mean I can look for that. Just use wayback machine.
Speaker 1: See if you can pull it up on wayback machine.
Speaker 1: Rome didn't recognize the Council of eight six nine's for
Speaker 1: over two hundred years before the reverse course exactly exactly.
Speaker 1: So Jeff Jablonski is making a great point there. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean you'll find you'll find Roman Catholic historians kind
Speaker 1: of go back and forth on what happened at the
Speaker 1: Eighth East and the eighth West. But typically they will
Speaker 1: they will say that it that it was ratified, but
Speaker 1: that later some decision was made. Otherwise it doesn't matter,
Speaker 1: because the point is that John the eighth ratified the
Speaker 1: Eastern eighth Council and didn't want to use the feel okuayh.
Speaker 1: So here is the statement from I think this is ought.
Speaker 1: I'll put the link because everybody's gonna crazy put their links,
Speaker 1: making up quotes, right, So here is the well, I
Speaker 1: need to screenshot it. No, Lincoln, let's see here. Okay,
Speaker 1: So here's the the Aught quote about Christ's humanity having
Speaker 1: created grace. And you'll see as we get to the
Speaker 1: created grace part towards the end that this really just
Speaker 1: kind of lines up with the argument I was making
Speaker 1: the whole time. Even the grace and the incarnation in Christ.
Speaker 1: Humanity in Rome's rhetically is created. Ought says, by reason
Speaker 1: of his endowment with the fullness of created habitual grace,
Speaker 1: Christ's soul is accidentally holy. Right. So this is where
Speaker 1: I when I was talking with classical theists, and I
Speaker 1: said that At says that the infused it's the infused substance,
Speaker 1: when I should have said infused accident. Right. But the
Speaker 1: point being is that even the Roman Catholic scheme, even
Speaker 1: that system, recognizes that what Christ does to his humanity
Speaker 1: and the incarnation is the exact same as the type
Speaker 1: of grace that we receive ourselves, because we're participating in
Speaker 1: his body. Right. And this is why St. Cyril, when
Speaker 1: he argues against the Storists, he uses the argument from
Speaker 1: the Eucharist. He says, the Eucharist is not just the
Speaker 1: body and blood of some man, it's the body and
Speaker 1: blood of God himself. Therefore it's participating in the uncreated energies. Right,
Speaker 1: this is what Maximus argues against purists, It's what the
Speaker 1: Sixth Council is teaching. It's what Book three of Saint
Speaker 1: John Damascus argues in on the Orthodox Faith. And it's
Speaker 1: clearly once again contrasted here with Christ's soul is endowed
Speaker 1: with the fullness of created habitual grace. His human soul obviously, right,
Speaker 1: that's created grace. And when we get again, when we
Speaker 1: get to the to the list from Aught, we're going
Speaker 1: to go through every one of the points that Ought
Speaker 1: talks about to see that I am right and you
Speaker 1: are wrong. And we will go to a bunch of
Speaker 1: other Catholic authorities and writers to look at the what
Speaker 1: exactly it means when they say created grace. So let
Speaker 1: me see if we so people are saying that within
Speaker 1: the drag as essay, there's a link that's broken and
Speaker 1: and yes, that is an old website, So I would
Speaker 1: try a wayback machine because most of the time when
Speaker 1: I've had I've had to do that with this site.
Speaker 1: In GeoCities type site before. Most of the time I've
Speaker 1: been able to find whatever link was broken with way back.
Speaker 1: But let's see, it looks like there's what's the part
Speaker 1: that I mean, the essay is here, what's the part
Speaker 1: that's broken that matters? So you're talking about the first
Speaker 1: link that's at the very top. That's just the same essay, right,
Speaker 1: It used to be at I think that was tr
Speaker 1: Valentine's site. He used to have all these orthodox essays up,
Speaker 1: so orthodox outlet for dogmatic inquiries. This old site just
Speaker 1: mirrors the essay, So it's not the broken link is
Speaker 1: not a substantial link unless you mean something within the
Speaker 1: essay that I'm not that I'm not seeing. But no,
Speaker 1: as well, by the way that in that essay, Photius,
Speaker 1: Saint Photius says that the Bulgarian missionaries were Franks spreading
Speaker 1: the Philly oquay, and he does not mean Franks in
Speaker 1: a generic sense of Westerners. He means Charlemagne Franks. He
Speaker 1: makes it clear somebody was challenging me on that too,
Speaker 1: and I was right. Okay, So we got these points
Speaker 1: on sanctifying grace that we want to get to. Uh
Speaker 1: now again, I promise you that we are going to
Speaker 1: do a talk where we go through the papal claims
Speaker 1: claimed by claim of claim like the big ones, the
Speaker 1: important ones. But what we wanted to focus on today
Speaker 1: was the circularity. So now on the question of individual
Speaker 1: certitude and the teaching of the Holy Spirit. Let's see,
Speaker 1: I wanted to make a few points on this because
Speaker 1: let's see I was making I had a discussion with
Speaker 1: Lewis about this I wanted to make. So he was
Speaker 1: asking a question like, so, how would we respond to
Speaker 1: like a Roman Catholic or a Protestant, Like if we're
Speaker 1: making this argument about the Roman Catholic, then it sounds
Speaker 1: like we are saying the Protestant view, like, oh, it
Speaker 1: was just the Holy Spirit. God's the individual. Well, again,
Speaker 1: there's no magic formula to know true truth or falsehood
Speaker 1: apart from directly knowing God. And in fact, there's a
Speaker 1: statement from Saint Gregor Palamus where he says essentially that
Speaker 1: same thing. He says, there's no there's no external phenomenon
Speaker 1: out there that's going to grant you the certitude that
Speaker 1: you get from revelation. So there's this is why it's
Speaker 1: an initiatory religion and experience and not a rational one.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that it's irrational, but it does transcend rationality.
Speaker 1: It doesn't mean you can't have certitude, but certitude is
Speaker 1: a gift of grace that comes in the context of
Speaker 1: the Church. So there's no way to grant that certitude
Speaker 1: merely by reason to people outside of the experience of
Speaker 1: God directly. So that's why it really is a direct
Speaker 1: perception knowing of truth and God directly. Now does that
Speaker 1: mean that we're gnostics and we don't have any created
Speaker 1: phenomena that's involved in this religion. Do we just forsake
Speaker 1: everything created and like retreat into some gnostic thing. No,
Speaker 1: because Christ took on matter, right, He's sanctified matter, So
Speaker 1: we would say then, I think that if the individual
Speaker 1: can know directly, and he can, then we've already kind
Speaker 1: of made ground and made progress, even in contrast to
Speaker 1: the Roman Catholic system, And the Roman Catholic is already
Speaker 1: halfway agreeing with us, because again, the pragmatic point of
Speaker 1: the papacy was so that the individual could know truth right.
Speaker 1: So we're agreeing that the individual can at least to
Speaker 1: some degree come to truth right, and we're agreeing with
Speaker 1: the product the Protestant says the same thing, Yes, the
Speaker 1: individual can know true. Okay, So what happens is that
Speaker 1: we get the idea, as we said earlier, of the
Speaker 1: self evident, neutral maxims that are supposed to be the
Speaker 1: judges of the truth. That's where it starts to be
Speaker 1: a problem for the Roman Kulic because there aren't self
Speaker 1: evident maxims that aren't theory laden. They are, So as
Speaker 1: a Roman Catholic, you can't, on the one hand, adhere
Speaker 1: to a foundationalist classical foundationalist epistemology of neutral, non theory
Speaker 1: laden beliefs and then turn around and say that ultimately
Speaker 1: the individual can know truth. So what we're disagreeing on
Speaker 1: ultimately is the means. And when we start to ask
Speaker 1: the question of the means, it comes down to a
Speaker 1: difference of epistemology and a difference of anthropology. That's why
Speaker 1: I mentioned the doctrine of the news, because that's the
Speaker 1: one thing that the Roman Catholics the Processts don't have.
Speaker 1: They both believe in the exact same dichotomy doctrine of man,
Speaker 1: that man is a being with body and intellect, and
Speaker 1: that knowing God involves. For the Thomas, the analogia entus
Speaker 1: knowing created effects and never God directly himself. There's no
Speaker 1: doubt about that. Again that even I think was at
Speaker 1: one point pretty clear in the discussion with classical theists
Speaker 1: is that we're not ever knowing and experiencing God himself directly.
Speaker 1: It's always only created effects. So even if they say
Speaker 1: that the real presence is in the Eucharist, it doesn't
Speaker 1: really matter because you're not really going to God because
Speaker 1: you're still only getting created effects. It also makes no
Speaker 1: sense to say the Eucharist is the essence of God.
Speaker 1: That's crazy. Nobody believes that, although they're confused about it.
Speaker 1: That's the point. So what we're ending up differing on
Speaker 1: is the means that God has chosen for us to
Speaker 1: come to, and no religious truth. Even the Roman Catholic
Speaker 1: will agree that the Holy Spirit has a role in
Speaker 1: teaching the individual. So it's a question of the means
Speaker 1: that's the real point of departure, and not just the
Speaker 1: means that God has ordained to bring us to truth,
Speaker 1: but the anthropology to get to that truth. So Rome
Speaker 1: has analogia entus, the analogy of being for knowing and
Speaker 1: predicating about God right the divine names, even though in
Speaker 1: the divine names, by the way, Dionysius says their energies
Speaker 1: right as I showed you in the thing I tweeted,
Speaker 1: I have to I mean again, just go read the
Speaker 1: divine names instead of trying to argue with me. People
Speaker 1: need to read these actual documents. There's three places where
Speaker 1: he talks about the energies in the divine names Dinasius.
Speaker 1: That is point being Quitas relies on Dinysius pretty heavily.
Speaker 1: That's why I'm bringing them up. But instead of the
Speaker 1: analogia inis and created grace in Rome for knowing God
Speaker 1: and experiencing God, in Protonism, you have what's called analogia
Speaker 1: fide in Algia of faith, by which they just mean
Speaker 1: the Bible, the canon of the Protestant Bible, of course.
Speaker 1: So what we have here is is two different schemes
Speaker 1: of knowing God, analogia inis anologia fide. Orthodoxy doesn't believe
Speaker 1: either one of these. Orthodoxy does have the Bible, it
Speaker 1: does have a canon scripture, and it does believe that
Speaker 1: that's the word of God in terms of Christ revealing
Speaker 1: himself to us through that means. And we have an
Speaker 1: analogia in the sense of the uncreated energies, right, the
Speaker 1: operations that come down to us. Saint Basil says in
Speaker 1: a letter two thirty four, whether God's wisdom, his justice,
Speaker 1: his mercy, these energies are operations that come down to us.
Speaker 1: We do. We can make an analogy to human operations, right,
Speaker 1: uncreated light, you can make an analogy to created light.
Speaker 1: They're not the same. But we can speak of God
Speaker 1: as Father as an analogy to humans as father. So
Speaker 1: there is a valid analogia in Orthodoxy, and this analogy
Speaker 1: is taught by Saint Basil, is taught by Gregory Naziana Zeus,
Speaker 1: It's taught by John Damascus very clearly in his book.
Speaker 1: This shouldn't be debated. But there are a few small
Speaker 1: areas of Orthodoxy that will say that there's not even
Speaker 1: any apps. Roman idea says there's absolutely no analogia at
Speaker 1: all period, which is not true. That's completely incorrect. That's
Speaker 1: why he has to go so far as to say
Speaker 1: that scriptures don't even matter. Can't you can't call the
Speaker 1: Scripture as a word of God, because that would be
Speaker 1: the sickness of religion and analogia. His error is in
Speaker 1: mistaking the analogia entis for the logi.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: So Saint Maximus says the analogy very clearly in his writings.
Speaker 1: He says, the analogia is relevant to the energies, the
Speaker 1: uncreated energies, and the uncreated logi the logo. So that's
Speaker 1: the important difference, and that is related to the doctrine
Speaker 1: of the news. Again unique to Orthodoxy and relevant too
Speaker 1: because of both Protestantism and Roman Catholicism teaching created grace.
Speaker 1: Let's stress that the Protestant is in no better position
Speaker 1: than the Roman Catholic actually on this stuff, even though
Speaker 1: they might think they're in a better position because they
Speaker 1: don't believe in analogia entis. If they're like Calvinists and
Speaker 1: they think they're skirting around that and they're saying, oh,
Speaker 1: it's just the Bible, right, the canon scripture is our analogia,
Speaker 1: our true analogy. It doesn't work because even still in
Speaker 1: the Protestant scheme, you're never actually interacting with or touching
Speaker 1: upon the Divine. There's no direct experience of the divine
Speaker 1: at all. Ever, in that they also only believe in
Speaker 1: created grace and created effects, because the Bible is a
Speaker 1: created effect. So what the Roman Catholic tries to do
Speaker 1: with the analogia of things out there in nature and
Speaker 1: the analogia from scripture to the divine essence. Right, absolute
Speaker 1: divine simplicity means that we are predicating analogies from creatures
Speaker 1: up to the divine essence, which is nothing like creatures.
Speaker 1: By the way, Paul says in next seventeen that the
Speaker 1: divine Lussia is nothing like created things. But because of
Speaker 1: absolute divince siblicity, the Roman Celics make this confusion. So
Speaker 1: neither analogy andthis nor analogia feedde are correct. The analog
Speaker 1: whether it's in scripture or whether it's in nature, are
Speaker 1: according to Saint Maximus, according to Saint John Maamascus, according
Speaker 1: to all of our teachers, the uncreated logoi the logie
Speaker 1: that's the solution to this dilemma. And it's never going
Speaker 1: to be solved by these guys until they actually just
Speaker 1: do their homework, until you actually just read the Eastern
Speaker 1: fathers themselves. You have to go and read them. There's
Speaker 1: no other way around it. Okay, So I'm gonna take
Speaker 1: questions because I'm sure there's gonna be a million questions.
Speaker 1: And again we are this is just the talk on
Speaker 1: circularity and epistemic claims. This is not the talk on
Speaker 1: the various misuses of papal stuff. But let's talk about
Speaker 1: created grace, because this came up again. So we've been
Speaker 1: talking about the creative grace. I'm saying that the Roman
Speaker 1: Catholic and the Protestant both have the created grace problem.
Speaker 1: The Roman Catholic position is not unclear and it's not undogmatic.
Speaker 1: Let's take one. This is father Barker Baker. I've got
Speaker 1: it listed on the well here. If I don't say
Speaker 1: the exact name right, they'll say I've made it up.
Speaker 1: Let's see, it's all got to be very precise. Real
Speaker 1: is made up? Father? What is this guy's name? Barker fundamentals?
Speaker 1: Loos is only three? By ignacious press? What is sanctifying grace? Justifica?
Speaker 1: And you'll notice by the way he uses almost all
Speaker 1: the exactament terminology I used in the discussion with uh
Speaker 1: classical theists, except that again I misspoke, and I said
Speaker 1: created if you used subs and not accent. Again, it
Speaker 1: doesn't matter, because the force of the argument still holds
Speaker 1: justification as the spiritual process by which a person through
Speaker 1: faith in Christ receives sanctifying grace of God. We've already
Speaker 1: considered the major aspects of actual grace in this essay,
Speaker 1: which we will look into, and then so we will
Speaker 1: look into the ess to the issue of Saint Frankrace.
Speaker 1: The question we want to answer is what is it?
Speaker 1: Baltimore Catechism says that the grace of God confers in
Speaker 1: our soul's new life, that is, as sharing in the
Speaker 1: life of God himself. Oh oh no, wait a minute,
Speaker 1: the life of God isn't created, is it? No, God's
Speaker 1: life is uncreated? Question one eleven. What is this new life?
Speaker 1: Is it a created gift of God to men? And
Speaker 1: notice how clear and simple and straightforward they are. Right,
Speaker 1: They don't launch into endless nonsense. They just outright say
Speaker 1: what's very obvious and what any Roman Catholic would say
Speaker 1: when you go ask them, Go ask any priests and
Speaker 1: they'll tell tell you this or is it the communication
Speaker 1: of God himself? Now? Remember how I argued from Trent right,
Speaker 1: and those guys didn't even know that what I was
Speaker 1: that I was quoting was from Trent. The guys on
Speaker 1: Twitter losing their shit, They thought that they got me
Speaker 1: and the quote was actually Trent itself talking about the Canons,
Speaker 1: and they thought I made it up. No, I got
Speaker 1: it from Denzinger seven ninety nine. Because I've read Denzinger twice.
Speaker 1: It doesn't mean, by the way, I might not misstate
Speaker 1: a word every now and then. Right, the most common
Speaker 1: opinion on Catholic theologians is that sanctifying grace is a created,
Speaker 1: supernatural gift. We're talking about the gift itself, the grace itself.
Speaker 1: We are not talking about the bread and wine and
Speaker 1: the Eucharist. We're not talking about waters of baptism. We're
Speaker 1: not talking about an angel. Okay, because every Roman Catholic
Speaker 1: he tries to deal with this, We'll say, well, but
Speaker 1: there's created things that are grace, therefore it's created grace. No,
Speaker 1: we're talking about the gift itself. We're not talking about
Speaker 1: water and bread and wine. We're not talking about sacraments.
Speaker 1: The grace itself is conferred on the believer, and it
Speaker 1: is really distinct from God. Can you read that? The
Speaker 1: Council of Trent said, the sanctifying grace is God's justice,
Speaker 1: not by means of which he himself is just, but
Speaker 1: by which He makes us just. So it is not
Speaker 1: God's justice or righteousness, or love or glory. Can you
Speaker 1: get this through your thick Roman Catholic skulls? It is
Speaker 1: not God's justice. It is a created, supernatural gift created.
Speaker 1: Can you read that? And every Roman Catholic I ever
Speaker 1: asked says the same thing. And then they go on
Speaker 1: to say, well, but it does prepare you for the
Speaker 1: participation in the divine nature. Now, wait a minute, those
Speaker 1: two things don't make sense because the divine nature is
Speaker 1: not created. Now why are the confused on this? Because
Speaker 1: of absolute divine simplicity? And because the Roman Catholic Church
Speaker 1: rejects the essen synergy distinction? Okay, not rocket science. This
Speaker 1: is not hard to get. It's not hard to figure out.
Speaker 1: What does Father Harden say? Now, I don't feel like
Speaker 1: this is on my wall in the group. I tweeted
Speaker 1: all this stuff. So if you want, if you think
Speaker 1: I'm making it up, I don't feel like clipping every
Speaker 1: single one of these pages, you can just go and
Speaker 1: find the quote in Father Harden. I mean this is
Speaker 1: a common book too. Everybody's familiar with Father Harden's Catechism
Speaker 1: used to be in every bookstore. Even secular bookstores carry
Speaker 1: this catechism. What is creative grace? It is something create?
Speaker 1: What is sanct fying grace? Something created giving to us
Speaker 1: by God which gives us a created likeness of God's
Speaker 1: nature and life. Uh oh, exactly. It is a supernatural
Speaker 1: gift infused see into our soul, a positive reality, spiritual,
Speaker 1: supernatural and invisible. It's a created, supernatural gift. It is
Speaker 1: not God's nature, likeness or justice. It is created. There's
Speaker 1: only two types of things, created and uncreated. So that's
Speaker 1: Father Harden's book. I'm not misquoting it. You can go
Speaker 1: look for yourself. This is uh the Bishop of I
Speaker 1: just went through listing all the different typical teachings that
Speaker 1: I could find. The Bishops of Australia have a lengthy
Speaker 1: essay on grace and if you want the links, they're
Speaker 1: all on the page. This is not even controversial. It's
Speaker 1: like you guys are trying to trap me, play gotcha
Speaker 1: on something that's not even that controversial. So what if
Speaker 1: I use the wrong word? If the point is that
Speaker 1: it's still created, bro, what does what do the Bishops
Speaker 1: of Australia say? By the way, if if if it's
Speaker 1: if the Romanchanic Church is the true Church. Why can't
Speaker 1: they just say the uncreated grace, like the sixth Council
Speaker 1: in John Damascus, in Saint Maximus against Piros, say why
Speaker 1: do we have to have all this confusion? Why can't
Speaker 1: they just know that every church father in the East,
Speaker 1: who dominated all those councils, teaches uncreated grace and Theosis.
Speaker 1: Half of these guys don't even know what you're talking about.
Speaker 1: You top theos. I've had Roman Catholics at the time
Speaker 1: you say theosis, they think you're talking about paganism.