Speaker 1: Some some some some something's h.
Speaker 2: Oh, yeah, what's up, y'all. It's about that time. We're
about to bring in our guests for the evening. Her
name is Dasha Necrophilia. I mean Dasha Nescarakrova. Just kidding.
I'm just kidding you. Tonight's our esteem. The guest is Dasha.
I can't even talk it. I can't even say it.
I'm so nervous. Dasha Nekrasova. She is a podcast person.
She is a socialite person. She is a She is
on the Netflix series Succession, of which many of you
I'm sure have seen. She is was recommended to me
actually many years ago by my friends. My friends like,
you just listen to Dash and I was like, who
what are you talking about? And they were like, oh,
she's on that left podcast called Choppo trap House, and
I remember I tweeted at them or something and they said,
you're an idiot. So I didn't listen to Chopo Triphouse
because they call him and nasty names. And then she
was on another podcast called Red Scare, and I listened
to a little bit of that, but then I saw
that she was on Perfect Guy Life, the Sam Hyde podcast.
Prior to my presence on the SAMI podcast. There's a
giant empty window because she's signing in. Here we go
and there she is, what's up? Can you hear me?
I hear you? Do you hear me?
Speaker 3: I can hear you? Yeah?
Speaker 2: Oh nice? Perfect. So I was given an introduction. I
was talking about how I had a friend many years
ago who said, you need to go listen to the
to Dasha on the Chopo trip Hoals and you need
to listen to Red Scare And I was like, okay, whatever,
I'll check it out. And so I've heard of you.
But then when I saw you on PGL the week
or so before I was on PG, I was like,
all right, she might be all right, she might be
all right.
Speaker 3: Nice to meet you.
Speaker 2: Likewise, thanks for coming. And last thing you also besides
your podcast, you do, you were on Succession correct.
Speaker 3: Yep, and some other things. I'm an actress and a filmmaker.
Speaker 2: I remember mister Robot. You also had a you ran
mister Robot for Yeah exactly. Yeah, Now we can do this.
I'm pretty flexible if you want to do it in
a more formal way where we have like timed back
and forth, or if you'd rather do it in just
conversational format. Either way is fine with me. I usually
let guests pick how they want to do it.
Speaker 3: We can do it more casually, okay, Yeah, let's just
wing it, I guess.
Speaker 2: Okay. And before we get into it, are you fairly
new to Eastern Catholicism? Is that a turn? Did you
have a turn in that direction recently? Or is that
something you've been interested in for a while.
Speaker 3: I was chrismated three almost three years ago, so I've
been a practicing okay, well before that, but that was
when I was canonically changed rights.
Speaker 2: What can I ask you before we get into the discussion,
like what led you in that direction out of say
Protestantism or Orthodoxy or what was it about Eastern Catholicism.
Speaker 3: Well, I was already Catholic. I was baptized Catholic as
a baby, and I wasn't practicing until in my late twenties,
I guess. And then when I found out about the
Eastern Right, it made a lot of sense. I'm Russian.
Speaker 2: My dad's Orthodox, So how did you end up baptized
Catholic if your dad was your dad Russian Orthodox or
Russian Catholic?
Speaker 3: Russian Orthodox. My mom's Catholic because I'm from Belarus, which
is very close to Lithuania and there's a lot of
Greek Catholics over there, though I was baptized Roman Catholic.
Speaker 2: Okay, well, I'll let you go first. You can tell
us why Eastern Catholicism is true or preferable as opposed
to Orthodox Christianity. You can have as long as you want.
You can say whatever you want and I'll be quiet,
and then you let me know when you're done, and
I'll make my argument.
Speaker 3: Okay, are we starting?
Speaker 2: Yeah, if you're ready, sure, go ahead. You can go first.
Speaker 3: Am I on right? Now?
Speaker 2: We are on? Correct?
Speaker 3: Oh? Okay? Okay, So well I am not. I can't
really make an argument against Orthodoxy. I don't think that
Orthodoxy is wrong. I think that it's incomplete. I think
it doesn't have the fullness of the faith. And I
guess there's more I have to say, but I guess
I want to pause it to you. What would you
say if I told you that I was Orthodox?
Speaker 2: Well, if you were Orthodox, I'd be like, good job.
So what do you mean do you mean how I
make your argument?
Speaker 3: Well, that I am Orthodox, that I hold the true faith.
Speaker 2: Oh you mean little Orthodox, not Eastern Orthodox. Sure, gotcha?
So is that are you done? Or did you want
to keep making arguments? You're asking me a question?
Speaker 3: I mean, I guess. My argument is that Eastern Catholics
are Orthodox. They might not be big o Orthodox, and
they might not belong to one of the many ethnic
schismatic churches of Eastern Orthodoxy, but that they do all
the true faith and they're in communion with the true
universal Church. And my other argument, I guess, is that Orthodoxy,
as evidenced by its fruits, is not universal.
Speaker 2: Well several things there. So first I would say, in
regard to the claim that it's wrong and that it's incomplete,
we have different ideas about what the word Catholic constitutes.
So it's of Orthodox Catholic constitutes first and foremost, not numbers,
but the fullness of truth. So the Catholic Church, even
in the fourth century, whether you're an Orthodox or whether
you're Roman Catholic, the fourth century Church was reduced to
the very is that what is that? I don't know,
you are you letting loose air freshman?
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 2: Okay, So it can't be a numbers thing in terms
of what you're calling universality, because in the fourth century
the majority of the Church was Aryan and Semirian, so
it was the true church was reduced to a small
number of people. Likewise, in the iconoclass controversy, when you
have the Seventh Council defending icons the majority was against iconography,
so it can't be identical to numbers. If you look
at Canon six of Nicia, which is the first documentical Council,
it mentions patriarchates that are based around national churches. So
there's nothing inherently wrong with national churches in that regard,
because even the Ecmmenical councils recognize that. And in regard
to this question in terms of schismatic local churches or whatever.
If you look at Ephesus, the Ecumenical Council ephesis, they
are the first council to grant to the Church of
Cyprus autocephaly, which means that they're self governing, independent churches.
So that the tradition of the first thousand years of
Christianity itself already shows this localized synodal autocephalist type model
that the Roman Church used to accept in the first
thousand years, So it's actually, I would argue the Roman
Catholic papal system that began to deviate in the eighth, ninth, tenth,
and eleventh centuries.
Speaker 3: Okay, but what about now with the Roman Church taking
on more of a synodyl structure, and in what way
really is Eastern Catholicism meaningfully different from an autocephalus or
autonomous Orthodox Church besides the papacy.
Speaker 2: Well, first of all, the two statements from the chi
eighty document and the Alexandria Document, I would argue our
contrary to Vatican one. So you're right that they move
in more of a synodal direction. I Vatican two has
the same idea of synoidality, but if you look at
Vatican one, it's very much a papal autocracy and you're
not really allowed to go against that if you hold
to Vatican one. So I would argue that Chiad and Alexandria,
even though they are concessions to the Orthodox claims and critiques,
there are actually contradictory admissions that Vatican one just doesn't
work and is kind of the root of the problem.
I mean, it's not the only problem, but it's kind
of the root of the problem. So yeah, like conceding
our position would be in my view like admitting that
the Roman system was the one that deviated.
Speaker 3: Okay from the original.
Speaker 2: Well, you have a snod concilier model in the first
thousand years, right, So the councils are called by emperors,
they're not called by popes. There was one pope who
tried to call the council latter in six forty nine
and that wasn't enough. That's why there was the sixth
Ecumenical Council to decide that issue. And if popes were
able in the first thousand years to call and confirm
and ratify the councils latter in six forty nine would
be a Roman Catholic Ecumenical council. But it's not because
there was a later council, the sixth Council, which settled
the issue. So the model, and you can see this
in the canons of those councils two, which is church law.
So each council has canons. Every one of the acumenical
councils of the first eight centuries has canons that don't
line up with the model and the structure of Vatican
One's autocracy, where there's an exemption for the Roman bishop
who can universally and unilaterally make decisions and dogma in
the church.
Speaker 3: Okay, what about Canon eight, which says that you can't
have two bishops.
Speaker 2: Well, I would argue that Eastern Catholicism immediately is a
problem for that, because in the Roman Catholic Uniate system,
there's three patriarchs of Antioch. So Eastern Catholicism, if you
are you referring to cannonate.
Speaker 3: Of what exactly, it's not lawful to the same city.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, in the metropolitan original church structure, you
would have one bishop per region or per area. And
if there's three bishops of Antioch in the Uniate church,
then the Uniates don't follow the ancient cannons. And that's
that's one of the critiques that we would make of
the Uniates, is that they don't follow that. If you're
referring to America, like in the sense of the Odd
rokor Yeah, No, America is a unique situation because of
it being an an Enlightenment propositional creation. So some people
have pushed for a single jurisdiction. I actually don't think
that would be good because there is state influence in
say the patriarchate of the ep and the go arch churches,
so we don't want them dictating everything in the church.
But you're correct that there are situations in either the
West or the East where there's not a perfect lineup
with the ancient canons. So I'm not saying it's okay
to violate the canons. But this isn't really this is
a problem really for either Rome or Orthodoxy. It's not
unique to Orthodoxy to have rival jurisdictions.
Speaker 3: I wouldn't say the Catholicism does have bribal jurisdictions.
Speaker 2: But if there's three patriarchs of Antioch that are Eastern
Catholics right now, that would be a violation of the argument.
Speaker 3: Okay, well, I guess so.
Speaker 2: In other words, the papacy will tolerate it as well
because of unique situations, just like Orthodoxy has to deal
with the unique situation of expatriots in America.
Speaker 3: Wasn't like the ethnic nationalist idea condemned by a council
and Constantinople.
Speaker 2: Yeah, any it's and it's more than justsconstant Ople, it's
other patriarchates as well. Agreed that if you put your
nationality above the Gospel that's a violation of the principle
of the universality of the Gospel call. Absolutely so. But
you know, I go to Russian church. We have black
people that come, we have Japanese people that come, we
have eight you know, other Asian people that come, Greeks come,
and then native Russian people there. So you know, in
my experience Antiochians or Arabs and whites in the Bible belt,
I don't see a lot of the Ethno nationalism. But
I imagine that it exists in both communions, just like you
would find it anywhere. Protestants have Ethno national churches. If
you go to Poland, they're going to be very Ethno Catholic, right,
So don't I don't see that as unique to Orthodoxy.
Speaker 3: Okay, hold on, I'm gonna look at my nose.
Speaker 2: It's okay, I got notes too.
Speaker 3: I guess yeah. I feel like it's on you to
make a case for.
Speaker 2: Okay, I'll make a case. Uh, let me let me
make this point then, So, for a long time, the
Roman Church condemned the people who are known as kind
of the founders of Orthodox Christianity, which if you call
them schismatics, you would have mark of Ephesus, Saint Photius
of Constantinople. Uh, and then you would have Gregory Palomas.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: So for us these are the pillars of Orthodoxy, but
for the Roman Catholic Church they've been condemned in ecumenical
councils and other places because they are the pillars of
the schism. However, in the twentieth century, because of Amanism,
because of the work of Eastern Catholic scholars like Francis Devornik,
who's probably the most famous of all these, there's been
a rehabilitation of people like Photius Palomas, and Eastern Catholic
churches now are allowed to revere, even though they already
did for many centuries, revere the people that Rome considered
schismatic heretics. Now they're able to be revered as saints.
John Paul the Second put an image of Gregory Palomas
up in one of his private chapels. The Eastern Catholics
used the same festal Minion, which is the Book of
the Saints that we use in the Orthodox Church. So,
in other words, even though the Uniates were continuing to
revere people that Rome condemned, and now Rome has said, okay,
you can do that. It's fine. They've even reversed this
for people like Nestorius in the SiO Malabar Church. Under
the Catholics, you can revere Patriarch Nestorius, which would mean
that ephesis is false because ephesis doesn't just say is
a bad person. All the anathemas of Ephicis are against Astorias. So,
in other words, my argument against Eastern Catholicism is that
Eastern Catholicism itself disproves Roman Catholicism because you were also
theologically of the same position as the Orthodox, and many
of them still are. For example, Melkites in their catechism,
the Melchite Catechism says there's only seven councils, but the
paper as he says, you have to accept all the
papal ecumenical councils. You can't have your cake and eat
it too. So the very existence of Eastern Catholicism as
our theology within the papal system, rejecting the papal later
teachings and dogmas like Trent, that is itself a disprover
of Roman Catholicism.
Speaker 3: So in which way, are like Melkites are Russian Catholic
then not Orthodox?
Speaker 2: Well, if you choose to unite yourself with a position
that is, you know, for example, Gregor Palomos wrote treat
Use against the phillioqua right, he calls it a Satanic doctrine.
And then after that you get Byzantine Synods, which are
called the Palomide Synods, which condemned the Roman position. So
if you're Orthodox, you would have to follow the Byzantine
Synods of the Palomide Synods as they're called, which condemned
the papal position of the phillyoquay. So you couldn't be
Eastern Catholic consistently and at the same time believe in
the papal confessions and the Papal views and Purgatory and
the teachings of Trent. You know, Trent has stuff in
there too, like created grace in the Anathemas, which an
Orthodox person could never So it's almost like you're saying, well,
I want both systems and I can still be Orthodox. Well,
you would have to not believe the heterodox papal thing
if you're Orthodox. Does that make sense?
Speaker 3: Yeah, But I also think that the Slavic mind especially
is able to comprehend and exists in contradiction and that actually.
Speaker 2: Well, now, wait a minute, So you're saying that because
you're of the Slavic mind, you can accept the contradiction.
Speaker 3: Mm hmm, it's not, isue?
Speaker 2: I mean, are you trolling?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 2: I'm well, how could we allow contradictions in theology? That
would mean so, like, so the Trinity is true but
also not true?
Speaker 3: Who said the Trinity wasn't true?
Speaker 2: I'm saying that if you are okay with contradictions, it
would seem to open up Pandora's box for anything.
Speaker 3: I mean, I don't know any Eastern or Russian Catholics
who struggle with like venerating Palamas for example, or you know,
not we don't have to say the Philly Okay.
Speaker 2: Sure, but but why would you want to be in
communion with It's an entity that basically said you were
heretic and wrong for you know, the last eight hundred
thousand years, and then oh, by the are bad? You
can you can do it now? That would be in
the papacy admitting that, you know, I mean, how are
they wrong in condemning these guys as heretics and schismatics
but now you can rever them as saints?
Speaker 3: Well, it takes humility to own up to your mistakes.
Speaker 2: That's true, however, rue but how that's true, But the
papacy claims that it doesn't make these kinds of mistakes
in dogma well and indefectibility, right, So it's not just
him teaching in a magisterial sense without error. It's also
that the Roman See cannot defect from the faith in
anything regarding its teaching on faith and morals.
Speaker 3: I mean, I know how they've defected in some ways.
Speaker 2: That's what I was going to ask you. Don't You
have a lot of criticism on Twitter of Francis.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but I don't. I don't say that stuff anymore.
Speaker 2: So is it not true anymore or you just don't
say anything.
Speaker 3: I think when I first, you know, became a practicing Catholic,
when I found out about set of accantism, I was like,
that's crazy, and I tried, you know, to debunk it,
and found that I, you know, with my limited intill
I kind of couldn't, and that you know, there were
a lot of compelling cases for it. But since then,
I guess I've advanced or grown in my spirituality to
just have the humility of not it's not really my
business and I guess, Yeah, I wouldn't consider myself a papist.
I think it's a little unfair to call UNI it's
Eastern Christian's papist.
Speaker 2: Well, go ahead, and I mean to cut you off.
Speaker 3: Go ahead, well, because it's not about just having the
apostolic succession or the sacramental and integrity. It's about having
the like jurisdictional unity of having the Bishop of Rome,
of the idea of the papacy as a visible head
of a unified church, like a visible principle of unity,
which Catholicism offers and Orthodoxy does not.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I think that that's probably where if
I was going to make your argument, that's where I
would go. It's just interesting that the UNI eight churches historically,
for example, the Malchi Catechism, have not said that they've
held to the Orthodox position. They've tried to stress over
the centuries more of a sonodal model. And if Francis
really did provide that and give that, I think that
there would not be so much confusion post Vatican Two
about what Catholic teaching is. For example, you had a
pretty consistent teaching on the death penalty up until John
pull the Second and Francis. Both taught openly that the
death penalty is contrary to the Gospel, when for centuries
it was part of natural justice. You have the teaching
in Vatican two that Catholics and Muslims worship the same God,
and even that Abraham had the.
Speaker 3: Genuous. That's not true.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it is. What do you mean, No. Tatze three,
Lumingentium sixteen.
Speaker 3: What is the quote It says all paths lead to
God or no.
Speaker 2: This is a statement on the relationship of Muslims to
the Church. I can read you the both statements. Here's
Lumingentium sixteen and I'll read no. Tate three. So this
is the first one. It says those who have not
yet received the Gospel are related to various in various ways.
The people of God, in the first place, are the
people whom we must recall to whom the Testament promises
were given according to the flesh. So this is about
the Jews. On account of their fathers. This people remain
most dear to God. God does not repent of the
gifts that he gives. And then it goes on the
next sentences. The plan of salvation also includes those who
acknowledge the Creator, first among whom are the Muslims who
profess to hold the faith of Abraham and adore the
One True God with us, the merciful God who on
the last day will judge mankind. So that's the first
statement from Lemagentiem sixteen that Muslims adore the One True God.
Adoration is a term of worship in calac theology. And
then no Stratate III statement is the Church regards with
esteem the Muslims. They do adore the One God, living
and subsisting in himself, merciful, all powerful, and the creator
of heaven and earth. They take pains to submit to
his decrees, just like Abraham, with whom the faith of
Islam takes pleasure in Lincoln itself. So this says that
like Abraham submitting to the One God's decrees, Islam does
the same, and they outdoor the same God. So the
problem is that horse Jesus says that you have to
believe in him to have access to the Father. In
John five through nine, he debates the Pharisees about this
and he says that Abraham believes in me. Well, of course,
Muslims don't believe in the Trinity, nor they believe in
the deed to Christ. So Muslims do not have the
same deity as Christians.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's tough.
Speaker 2: Well, this is also why you were actually on the
right track criticizing Francis, because Francis and Benedict and John
Paul the Second have prayed in the mosques towards Mecca.
Speaker 3: I know he kissed the Qur'an. I don't know why
he did it. It's not for me to say I
think you should debate the Diamond brothers.
Speaker 2: Well, why wouldn't I debate people who have an actual
like bishop or an actual anastic, you know, like taunture
like they don't have. They don't recognize an episcop it.
So if you are.
Speaker 3: Like, I don't know, I guess we like.
Speaker 2: You were saying that earlier, the Catholic Church needs a
recognizable jurisdiction and episcopate, right, yeah, okay, Well they don't
have that. They're not under any bishop or episcopate, So
by your own definition, they're not Catholic.
Speaker 3: Okay, But they like I don't know if you would
say this, I guess, but consider the church to be
like a mystical body.
Speaker 2: Well the but the yeah, I mean, that's mystical body
can't be invisible church. That's the Protestant teaching, right. And
so if you look at the papal and cyclicals like
Mystichi Corporus or satist Cognitum, those are two famous papal
and cyclicals, they identify the mystical body with the Roman
Catholic Church and the pope as its head. So point
being in all of that was just that I don't
really think Francis does provide the unity and the guidance
that Catholics usually refer to when they want to prove
the papacy. I think it's a disservice actually to the unity,
because there's no guidance on these basic moral questions. I mean,
Francis just reversed the position from the Holy Office in
two thousand and two or three about blessing to skittles
people after the services, right, I know they're not married
gay couples, but the previous question to the Holy Office
as to whether those couples could be blessed was no.
Francis reversed that, and to me, that's just another example
of how the papacy is more of a geopolitical institution
like it caves to what needs to be done at
the time.
Speaker 3: What about Russia, I.
Speaker 2: Don't have a problem admitting that there's been corrupt Russian bishops.
The Russian church was full of KGB and KVD people,
but by the way that had a tear system. If
you don't know, like they had tears of bishop. Based
on the way the KGB would do it is like
if they were really compromisable. They were in this category
all the way down to non compromisable. So it wasn't
like all the bishops in Russia were you know, KGB
or whatever. But I mean I go to Rokor, which
Rokorp is the people who fled Bolshevik Soviet, you know,
white Russian seeking to get rid of it, to get
alp from under the persecution. So it's not like a
black and white type of thing. But no Russian bishop
is equivalent to what the papacy claims for itself. So
when people say, well, you're saying the papsi's corrupt, but
you got to corrup Russian bishops. Sure, but the Russian
But nobody thinks the Russian bishop is infallible or that
of the church or anything like what Vatican One claims.
Speaker 3: But if anti Catholic Orthodoxy is going to define itself
in opposition to the Catholic Church, they can't have an
ecumenical council. The schisms are only proliferating, especially with Ukraine.
And you know Christ says that that may they all
be one. You know, he calls for us to be unified,
undivided like the Trinity. And even though Orthodoxy has yeah
preserved the Orthodox faith and the Epistolic succession, they don't
have Catholicity.
Speaker 2: Well again, only if you define Catholicity as numbers. But
as I pointed out, like the numbers were not there
in the fourth century, so.
Speaker 3: I'm not talking about talking about like ecclesiastically.
Speaker 2: Oh serious, Okay, Well I would say to that, like
if you look at patriarch it's and schism. That's actually
nothing new that existed in the early Church. You had,
for example, the second Ecumenical Council is called Constantinople. One
that was had out of communion with Rome. Sat Melidios
of Antioch was the bishop, the saint who presided there.
He died out of community with Rome. This was three
eighty one. That council defined the Trinity for the Church
for the rest of the church age, and Rome didn't
accept that council and it's teaching until many centuries later.
So you actually have an example in the early Church
of a schismatic council that teaches the dogmatic teaching on
the Trinity and Rome later accepts it hundreds of years later.
That's another example of like, that's normal for the church
to have. I'm not saying it's good, but it's normal
to have those kinds of patriarchal schisms that happened. And
even the Roman system has to admit that the Second
Acumenical Council was had out of commune with Rome, and
Rome recognized the Saint Melia says a saint even though
he died out of community with Rome. So that for
us is I could proof that when you see something
like I'm not saying it's good, but when you see
the ep and the mp in schism, that's actually normal
church history. And then I would say about your claim
of ecumenical councils, like, there's nothing about ecumenical councils that
was ever promised to the church that those would forever
guide the church. Those were imperial things that happened. That's
why they're called by emperors. There's no ecumenical council for
three hundred years, right, so you've got until nicea, how's
the church governed? How does it exist? By the way,
most of those people don't have access to the pope,
So how are they going to know what the faith
is if you need the papacy. Yet people in Ephesis,
people in Corinth, people in other places outside Rome, they
still understood and knew the faith and were catechized without
being able to access or ask questions of Rome. So again,
we have synods in councils that are normative for us
in the Orthodox Church. The Palamite synods, for example, those
constitute our ninth Ecumenical Council. So in other words, we
a lot of these things are really kind of bugaboos
that they're kind of like nothing burgers when you really
get into the history of it. And lastly about schisms proliferating,
the Macedonian schism was just healed like a couple of
years ago, and that was like an eighty year Orthodox
schism that was healed without the papacy, which is why
but France and not Francis Benedict said, and I think
it's introduction to Christianity. He says something like, the Orthodox
Church has maintained the faith for a thousand years. Well,
then we don't need the papacy to maintain the faith
if we've maintained it without the papacy for a thousand.
Speaker 3: Years, Okay, But there are inconsistencies in Eastern Orthodoxy. There's
much well the reception of converts, so well.
Speaker 2: I can find inconsistencies in Catholics out there too, right,
Like James Martin says that you can live any way
you want, but that really isn't a defeat for the position,
because what matters is like, what's the actual historic means
of reception in the Orthodox Church. It's called economia, which
means that you can make that flexible at the local level,
so there doesn't have to be one single way to
receive people. I'll give you one example. After the Council
of Florence, there was a synod that happened in fourteen
eighty four and all four of the Orthodox patriots patriarchs
of the East minus Rome, which was in Florence, they
held a after Florence Council to reject Florence. And in
that council they said for example, that the means and
methods of receip means and methods of It's okay, it
means the methods of receiving converts can be by chrismation
from Rome if they abjure the Roman positions. But today,
the reason that some Orthodox do not just default to
that is because there's Novasorto churches where they will baptize
people in the name of the land, the sea, in
the air. Right, You've got some really wild now Asorto priests. No,
I'm serious, you can look that up. There's really wild
Novusorto priests that will do crazy stuff. And so some
Orthodox bishops and jurisdictions that receive Roman Catholics or wild
crazy Protestant sects, if they can't determine that there was
anything trinitarian even done, they might opt to have a
one size fits all policy. And it's typically in the
Orthodox Church left to the local jurisdiction. So it's not
the case that there's no consistency, it's just that it's
a local parish issue.
Speaker 3: I mean, I guess I would say that the unity
of faith that's been preserved in the Eastern Greco Russian
Church is pretty abstract that there's no real evidence of
like solidarity when go Arch and rocurt don't even co celebrate.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but again, the fact that you have a removal
of one bishop or patriarchy from the other's diptychs or communion. Again,
there's many instances of that in church history. And because
that happens, even if you think the first thousand years
are Christianity is Roman Catholic, like, that would actually be
a defeater for the Roman position because if that's something
that itself is a cancels out, you know, the position.
If you think Roman Catholicism was the Church of the
first thousand years, then that defeats the Roman Catholic claims
of the first thousand years because that existed in the
early Church, multiple instances of those types of patriarchal schisms
and removing from the diptychs and communion. So that didn't
disrupt the union of the faith, so to speak, because
the laity are not always held to the same requirements
of the bishops. So for example, Saint Melidios is still
a saint in the church even though he held a
council out of communion with Rome. Rome accepts him as
a Saint retroactively, and that to me shows that it's
the Orthodox Church that's consistent in preserving the same faith,
the same approach to the councils and the sacraments and
the canons, and it's Rome that deviates. I'll give you
one example. After the Schism, the papacy decides that the
papacy will confirm every bishop in the world. Prior to that,
in the Apostolic Canons and the other Conciliar documents, you
have the recognition that any bishop can be ordained by
two or three bishops or a metropolitan right and or
a metropolitan. Now it becomes the Pope decides every bishop
in the world. That's clearly a revolution in ecclesiology.
Speaker 3: But that's no longer the case.
Speaker 2: No, that's still the case.
Speaker 3: The Eastern Catholic churches are sweet year as they're in
their own right and are able to argain no.
Speaker 2: No, I mean they may be to a degree autocephalus
or considered that, but the Pope still has to decide
that he has universal jurisdiction according to Vatican One.
Speaker 3: Well, I think that's good thing.
Speaker 2: Yeah, But what I'm saying is that even if you
think it's good it's a departure from the early tradition.
There's no way in the first thousand years of Christianity
the pope could confirm her to cite all the bishops
in the world. It's a well known change in ecclesiology
after the eleventh century.
Speaker 3: I'm still not so sure that that is the case.
That they're beholden to the head of the the See
of Peter, but they're not autocephalus. I guess they're autonomous.
Speaker 2: Well, you're still as a Roman Catholic, even if you're
in a different right, if you're a Byzantine right or
Chaldean right or whatever, you're still bound by the teaching
and the jurisdiction of the Roman see for example Canon
forty three. The Bishop of Rome, in whom resides the office,
is given a special way by Peter, the first apostles
to be transmitted to successors and the head of the bishops.
This is Eastern canlaw. You're Canons right. He is the
vicar of Christ and the pastor of the entire Church
in virtue of his office, and thus he enjoys supreme, full, immediate,
universal jurisdiction and power in the Church, which he can
always freely exercise. So even Eastern Catholic canon tradition recognizes
that you still have to believe in the Vatican, one claims.
So it's not the equivalent of Otto sephially in the
Orthodox Church, which means there's no one above the church
except the synod.
Speaker 3: Right, but even prior to I mean Leo the thirteenth
in Orientolium Dignitas, another pope, Benedict with another number, they've
issued decrees about how to regard the Eastern churches. The
Union of Breast allowed them to preserve their theological Orthodox
traditions while being in communion with the true Catholic Church.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but it's a politically minded union that offered things
like at Brast, the Pope said, I'll give you schools,
I'll educate the children, I'll pay for all this, but
you got to be in union with me. So it's
a union of convenience and opportunism, which puts theology secondary. Right,
But for the Orthodox position like the theology is what
comes first, not the geopolitical promises and pragmatism of the papacy,
So that itself is proof that if the pope's telling
you that you can believe the Eastern theology, but you
have to submit to me in terms of my supremacy.
That's like that right, there is a prediction because that
means you can't hold to the Eastern theology like the
single you know, monarchical trinitarian position that denies the fairly
oak what you can't believe in uncreated grace because Rome
teaches created grace. You have to believe in purgatory because
Trent teaches purgatory as well as other place. You see
what I'm saying, Like you have the halfway house position
doesn't work.
Speaker 3: But that was not the case with the Russian Greek Catholics,
like Silovaev wrote about this extensively. They had they were
within Russia. They got there was no political benefit to
them being in communion with Rome. And it was born
of Russian theologians and clergy who saw a real need
for there to be unity with Rome. And it is
just orthodog see without schism.
Speaker 2: Well, but you keep saying it's schism, but from the
Orthodox vantage point, like to be in communion with people
who openly teach things that are kind of crazy, like
what Nostre taught to Ambatican two teaches like that for
us is not possible. For example, when you read Paul
or the Church Fathers, they say flee from heretics, do
not try to be in communion with them. And so
if Francis is, for the sake of argument, a heretic,
then from the Orthodox perspective, we would not want to
be in communion with him. And I grant you that
in the case of Russian Catholics, Okay, they may not
have had any geopolitical advantage from that, but there were
Jesuit missionaries that have spent many centuries, going back to
Ukraine in the fifteen hundreds all the way up until
later on eighteen seventeen eighteen hundreds, like Jesuits were really
trying to convert and bring Russians into Catholicism. They promulgated
pillioquoid based icons to do this. I mean, they were
busy for this at this for a long time. But again,
you can't mix oil and water. If say, the papacy
teaches something like created grace and the Orthodox Church teatsy is, no,
we participate in uncreated light life and immortality, like those
are two conflicting positions. Likewise, you can't have two creeds
in the church. How could you have a church that
says in the one place that there is a philioquay
it's a double eternal hypersodic procession, And the Eastern Catholics say, no,
we don't accept that. We believe in a crete without aphilioque.
That's two rival confessions within a church. But I thought
you were saying, like the papacy would bring unity and clarity.
Speaker 3: Well, I don't think that the philioque is that big
of a deal.
Speaker 2: Well you may not think that, but at least historically
it was centuries of controversies and even battles over this
kind of stuff. So like if you, I mean, I
could argue that it is a big deal. You can
see the Photius mystagogy argues why it's a big deal,
all the way up into Palomos writing the Treatise against
the Phillioque. Centuries up. There's two. There's two, there's two councils.
There's a Roman Catholic Acumenical Council Lions twelve seventy four,
which first defines and dogmatizes the double eternal hepsite procession,
and then Florence restates that and defines it. So Rome
saw it as important enough to define it twice, and
the Orthodox have in response to that the Palamite Synods
rejecting it. So it's definitely important issue because there were
centuries of debate and at least councils on both sides
condemning each other.
Speaker 3: But all of the canonical American Orthodox bishops now are
basically in agreement that it was an issue of semantics, and.
Speaker 2: There are that's not true.
Speaker 3: No, I'll send you the article. Okay, what about Maxims
the Confessor?
Speaker 2: Maximus is as he's a In fact, I was gonna
tell you should read Maximus. You would like his cosmic
theology book that SBS puts out. It's a really good book.
It's really short too. But Maximus doesn't teach the Philioquay
teaches the single monarchical role of the Father as the
sole principal arcade Fountain source.
Speaker 3: Doesn't he say that through the Sun is meant in
the same senses from the.
Speaker 2: Sun right, So through is the Eastern. Through is the right,
So through is the Eastern doctrine of the eternal movement
and procession of the spirit and the energies. It's not
the equivalent of eternal double hypostatic procession, and even the
Vatican statement on the Philioquay from a few years ago,
think it's the nineties. If you read the Vatican statement
on it, if you scroll down to the section where
it talks about the Eastern versus Latin view, the Vatican
clarification of Philioquay admits that there is still tension precisely
over the position of double eternal hypostetic procession or not. So, no,
it's not the same. And if you want the Orthodox
statement on through, it's called the Tomos against John Becos,
and that's a condemnation of Becos's unionist position that threw
is the same thing as from Also Maximus teaches the
energies everywhere and although as a uniate you might believe that,
like the papacy, it's not really a papal teaching.
Speaker 3: Well that's where yeah, it's a unia, I'm allowed.
Speaker 2: So, but why would you want to unite with a
church that got the theology wrong for the last thousand
plus years? Like it doesn't make any sense, That's what
I'm saying, Like, why do we need Francis and his
whole superstructure if we're admitting by being uniates and we
think that that's the right theology. They got it all
wrong for the last thousand years, Well, because of.
Speaker 3: Unity.
Speaker 2: But the point is that he got it wrong. How
is he going to give us unity when he got
the theology wrong for a thousand years.
Speaker 3: Well, the church exists in time, that's true.
Speaker 2: That's true.
Speaker 3: You know, I truly believe the gates of Hell will
not triumph against it. But in time, you know, I
also believe that in the fullness of time the schism
will be healed and will be irrelevant ultimately. But here
on earth there's only one church that in principle has unity, and.
Speaker 2: That is well again, I mean, if you if we
define unity by say the four marks, right one holy Cavogavastolic,
that's the Creed's definition of the four marks of the Church.
If we take those marks first of all, I would argue,
I don't see Rome actually providing the unity that it
claims to provide, because there's a gigantic schism in the
Western Roman calogy church just over Vatican too, and how
to interpret it and what it means. I don't think
that it's holy because it's pretty much caved to many
of the degeneracies that are out there and in fact
the Orthodox Church. If you can trast the saints between
the East and the west of the last say thousand
years in the Roman system, you've got a lot of
really wild crazy stuff like Margaret Mary Ella Coquay, and
you know it relies on a lot of sort of
histrionic apparition. Claims to me that doesn't.
Speaker 3: Signs and wonders that we.
Speaker 2: Have rude How's how am I rude about it? What
do you mean?
Speaker 3: Online? I see poth the woman bleeding from her eyes, and.
Speaker 2: That's that was a trackcats claim. I wasn't That was
his claim that some woman bleeding is like a proof
or something. I know that wasn't my video or I
was just quoting an SSPX dudes claim. Okay, so I'm
readed about this. Fine, I'm rude, Maxing, I'll rude my.
Speaker 3: They have Marian Orthodoxy too.
Speaker 2: I don't know what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that.
Speaker 3: To me lass, Oh, I can't hear you.
Speaker 2: What I'm saying. What I'm saying is like the four
marks in the way that Rome would interpret it, one
Holy Catholic Apostolic. I'm saying that I don't see the
modern Roman system actually producing the four marks of the Church,
one Holy Catholic Apostolic. The way that for example, the
Cappadocians who wrote the Creed and added one Holy Calthic Apostolic,
the way they conceived of it doesn't match up to
the way that Rome would conceive of one Holy Catholic Apostolic.
Let me give an example. It's the Cappadotions like Basil
and Gregorness and Gregor Nazianzus that helped write that Creed
and add that. And if you read Basil's letters, Basil
complains in multiple letters that during the schism in the
East at that time, Rome was absolutely worthless, degenerate, did
not provide any help, did not provide any solutions or unity,
in fact made it worse. So how would the person
who under who wrote that creed understand one Holy Calocic
Apostolic too in some way be essentially located in and
identified with Rome? And the Roman bishop of the Roman.
Speaker 3: Sea Rome descended and Basil plead to Pope Damascus to
help resolve the area.
Speaker 2: Correct But in those letters Basil complaints that he made
it worse, He didn't do anything, It was worthless. But
what I'm saying is that when Basil wrote the creed
with everyone else of the Council, they clearly didn't mean
the way Vatican won in the papacy interpret one Holy
Catholic Apostolic, because they would identify that with Rome and
the Roman Sea who.
Speaker 3: The Catholic Church.
Speaker 2: The Roman Catholic Church would say that the four marks
of the Church, one Holy Catholic Apostolic are also still
essentially what you find in the guidance and rock foundation
of the Roman See. And I'm saying that the people
that wrote that creed that Constantinople one in three eighty
one didn't believe that because they complained about Rome being
ineffectual the council and the creed was had out of
communion with Rome. And so there's no way that that
is somehow the property of Rome, the four marks of
the Church.
Speaker 3: But the fact that they even sought intervention from Rome.
That Canon six, as you mentioned, uses Rome to justify Alexandria,
because Rome already clearly had primacy.
Speaker 2: Right, but primacy is not the equivalent of supremacy or universality.
If you look at the Alexandria document, it well, it's
through the Chiady document first, So this is the Roman
improved Chiady document. The very last statement says, and this
will address your question and what I think you're talking
about canonical appeals. So it's actually Sartica that has the
ability to appeal to the Bishop of Rome. So Sartica's
canons are three forty three. And note this is the
Roman Catholic statement on this. It says, over the centuries,
a number of appeals were made to the Bishop of
Rome from the East in disciplinary matters, such as the
deposition of a bishop. So this is what you're referring
to with Basil. An attempt was made at the Senate
of Sartica to establish the rules for this procedure. Sartka
was received at the Council of Trollo. The canons of
Sartaka are determined that a bishop who had been condemned
could appeal to the Bishop of Rome, and then the latter,
if he deemed appropriate, might order a retrial. So it
is not the Bishop of Rome deciding, it's him allowing
for a retrial, and other patriarchates could also be appealed to.
Appeals regarding disciplinary matters were also made to Constantinople and
to other seas, so this was not a unilateral thing
such appeals. Yes, correct Athenaious.
Speaker 3: Correct, did he appeal to the Constantino?
Speaker 2: I think he did at one point? Yeah, I made
this argument in the Mya Barro debate. Yeah, so appeals
were made to and treat it in a sonodal way.
Appeals were made to the Bishop of Rome from the east,
but the Bishop of Robe did not exercise canonical authority
over the churches of the East. No, wait a minute,
you said, did he appealed to constant the noble? I no,
I don't think he appealed to con that. No, But
what I'm saying so, yes, he appealed to Rome because
Rome was first seas, so you always wanted to get
the first sea on your side. Uh. But when people
would appeal to Athenasius is what I meant to say.
So let me correct that, because no, Athenasian is not
appealed to constent to noble, because concept correct, And so
did Saint Maximus. Right, Maximus appealed to Pope Martin because
you always wanted to get first see on your side,
as well as any other seas. But what I'm saying
is that the Alexandria document is an assuming the CHI
eighty document is admitting in paragraph nineteen that the appellate
structure was not an autocratic decision of the Bishop of Rome.
In fact, let me read this part again. The Canons
of Sartika determined that a bishop who had been condemned
could appeal to Rome, and if the Roman bishop deemed
it appropriate, he could order a retrial to be conducted
by the bishops in the province of that bishop. So
that's it. He's not deciding the issue. He's in a
canonical legal way saying that you can have a retrial.
So that's not a Vatican one position, because Vatican one
is the argument that the Bishop of Rome was universally
had your universal jurisdiction over all the churches, as the
Eastern Catholic canon law says. Right, But notice what eighty
says at the very end, appeals to the Bishop of
Rome from the East expressed a community of the church.
But the Bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority
over the churches of the East.
Speaker 3: He still does that.
Speaker 2: Well, that he does, that doesn't mean that it's right
to do that, or that he had that power that
would that might just constitute an abuse of power. So
just appeal the appealing to the fact that he did
it doesn't prove that it's canonically correct.
Speaker 3: But the Easterners are now out, and honestly.
Speaker 2: It's well, you can call it autonomous in the sense
that they have their own rights and whatnot, and they
own their own there's the full uh quote for those
that are in the audience if you're curious. But the
canon law of the Uniates again I think Canon forty
five or forty three, excuse me, says that you are
subjects to the Vatican one definition of the papacy, so
they can Rome can call that autocephalus, but it's in
name because you're still under Vatican one total papal supremacy.
By the way, you've been arguing that it's papal supremacy
for the what do you mean, You've been arguing that
the Uniates need the papal office. So so how are
you now arguing that it's autocephalss It's not an autocephalus.
Speaker 3: I'm not I'm saying it's autonomous.
Speaker 2: Well, we're still to.
Speaker 3: The hierarchy of the Church, but they are able to
economia style decisions about how to govern their own churches.
Speaker 2: That's true, but it's still you still have to accept
Vatican one's autocracy. So the Pope might allow you to
have that ability to rule yourself. But if the Pope
decides to step in and say, hey, all you Uniates,
you're going to have a new version of the Eastern
Byzantine Rite Liturgy and it's going to have a guitar mass,
you have to do it.
Speaker 3: I mean, that would be a problem. That would be
a problem.
Speaker 2: But well, did you know Vatican two did start revolutionizing
the Eastern liturgies?
Speaker 3: Of course, yeah, yeah, And I guess you know, if
you don't have acts, if you're an Orthodox and you
you know, prefer the theology and reverence of a divine liturgy,
and you don't have access to an Eastern Catholic one,
then you should stay. You know, it's hard to I
can't make a case for novo sorta. And if the
Pope treated Eastern Catholics the way he treats like SSPX
or traditionalist Catholics, they, I mean, we would have some
serious issues with that. And in America, in the Ruthini
in church, there was a massive schism of the turn
of the century where OCA got a lot of their
parishioners from because there was not yet a Ruthenian bishop
in America and Bishop John Ireland had a huge issue
with married clergy. So there have Yeah, there have been.
The Eastern Catholics have been mistreated by Rome. They've but
they the point is that Rome has made efforts to
rectify those mistakes.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I just still don't see why it's it's a
positive thing or help. I mean you could say that, Okay,
the MP during the Cold War, you know, that was
a you know, Soviet KGB and infiltrated thing, and there
was other bishops that were in the Cold War, you know,
co opted or whatever. But like if you get into
and I know you liked geopolitics and this kind of stuff,
you talk about that on your podcast, you know, I
like that a lot too. If you look at the
history of the Vatican's relationship with Western American you know,
geopolitical power. I mean, that's pretty much an open and
shut case if you look at Gladio, if you look
at John Paul, the Seconds connections with the CIA. So
my argument there is just that that shows us that
the decisions, for example, at Vatican two, when it comes
to nostratate or the wording of lumagentium. Those decisions were
very consciously made in a way to placate Jewish groups,
Muslim groups, Protestant groups. Protestants even helped to devise the
Novasorto liturgy. To me, that's all very like a caving,
as John the twenty third said, a jorniamento, right, like
let's unite with the world. It clearly changed and revolutionized
the Catholic Church. So so again like what is the
papacy actually giving? And you're saying, well, it's unity, But
if it's a unity at the cost of truth, then
how is it is? It's a false unity.
Speaker 3: But it's not costing Eastern Catholics truth because they're Orthodox.
Speaker 2: But if you have to defend and accept the teachings
of Vatican too, which you do, then it's not Orthodox.
That's the point.
Speaker 3: I don't have to.
Speaker 2: Yeah you do. What are you talking about?
Speaker 3: Look Vatican two, Yeah it was, it's been. There's been
a lot of mistakes and the Nova Sorto is experimental
in an experimental day. And yeah, part of the reason
why I just changed rights was because I mean, not
only did I feel that like a nova's Orto mass
resonated with me. I also didn't particularly care for like
a Latin Mass, and like I said, I have a
Slavic soul. So it just makes sense.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well that's why you'll eventually, I think, move towards Orthodoxy,
because if you look at for example, there's about five
places that I've found. There might be even more, but
there are five places in Roman Catholic dogma where you can't,
like not believe Vatican two. I'll give those two.
Speaker 3: You can't, we will make you a heretic.
Speaker 2: Well you just said you don't believe it. I thought
you just I don't believe.
Speaker 3: I have some critique.
Speaker 2: Oh okay, so you do accept Vatican.
Speaker 3: Too, I supporting it in any.
Speaker 2: Sure enough? Fair enough? Well, I mean, do you want
to do some super chats? We got a lot of
super jets here. Do you want to keep going? Uh,
it's up to you. I could. I never get tired
of talking about this stuff. But there's a ship time.
Speaker 3: Happy.
Speaker 2: So I was at this juncture in two thousand and
seven or eight, and I read his book back then
when I was trying to figure out whether I want
to be Orthodox or UNI eight. So I had a
phase of being interested in uniate stuff. But are you
you're cool with super chats?
Speaker 3: Yeah, let's do it.
Speaker 2: Okay. I appreciate you coming on a great conversation. I
wouldn't mind interviewing you about like your other stuff too
sometimes if you're down for that.
Speaker 3: I just watched my movie honestly.
Speaker 2: Okay, I mean can I have three books now on Hollywood?
You know that?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Would you read those? Are you too busy? I'll send
them to if you want to read them?
Speaker 3: Sure?
Speaker 2: Okay, Yeah, I love you know, film symbolism, film breakdowns.
So let's see. We got GB fars me fifty dollars,
he says, belated tip for the excellent intelligence agencies in
the Church episode do you did? Thank you man? I
appreciate that. DC woodworking three dollars says nothing. Brayden Morris
five bucks says nothing. Jordaane fifty bucks says. In God
Logic's livestream today about twenty minutes in, a Muslim said
that Vatican two shows that Jesus is a Muslim since
Rome believes they have the same God. Well, that's a fallacy,
but that's a funny line of argumentation. And by the way,
if you want to pop in here, feel free. Who
knows it's probably it's just a random call in, So
he does a call in thing, so mean Eugene. Five dollars,
Jay Dyer Rumble in the Jungle twenty twenty five. I
don't know what that means. Tribe called Jake. Five dollars, Jay,
you're getting cooked and she's smoking American spirits. I like
to you know, she's got Virginia slims, so basically she's
no well. Emmanuel became a member for two months. Thanks man,
I appreciate that. He says, add more smugness, you mean
me or her? Roll Stakes became a member for twelve
months and says it's cigarette time Ao. Two pounds appeal
to big cigarette fallacy. I like it, slow boy, whiteboard.
Two dollars. She is an airhead. Let's be nice. Let's
not be me to Noublet.
Speaker 3: Two dollars make you underestimated.
Speaker 2: I didn't. I mean I thought you had some you've
been learning. I appreciate that. To double at two dollars
appeal to frenzy of fallacy. Uh Rachel Wilson became a
member for two months. Other women who attempt to debate
and turn out to be clueless with insane vocal fry
embarrass me. Well, I think she's been she's been nice
about it, so let's be nice about Brandon Morris.
Speaker 3: Say what she should debate someone?
Speaker 2: Then Rachel's a big debater. She does debate Braden Morris.
Five dollars. Why is she rising you? Well, why wouldn't
she look at me? Look at this? Who?
Speaker 1: What?
Speaker 2: Everybody rises me? Sincere hypocrite became a member for two months?
I wonder if she holds to the papal minimalist position
in order to justify being Catholic when she sees errors
in the pope. That's a good question. Would you say
you're a papal minimalist?
Speaker 3: Sounds like sounds like a.
Speaker 2: Hushed tones. Two dollars. We can fix her, convert her
from phronsia taint nothing five bucks. I'm sensing, girl brain.
Can we play her at two x speed? You'all be
nice now, Evan two forty nine. She's not bad at debating,
but she's very busy mewing to numble at two dollars.
This is a trap. Something that doesn't feel right. Tribe
called Jake. Five dollars. Send her to the shadow real
Orthodox for theesis five dollars, healing begins in the Orthodox Church.
I hope Dasha will eventually visit Advine liturgy or a
vesper's service. Have you ever been to Orthodox divine lergy?
Speaker 3: Yes, I'm getting married to an Orthodox person. I've attended
many Orthodox services, many different churches.
Speaker 2: And why don't you just go with him to the church.
Speaker 3: Because I'm Catholic.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but if you believe it's the same.
Speaker 3: Like, well, they would don't won't give me communion?
Speaker 1: Oh?
Speaker 3: But Orthodox people communion? I see, because actually grieves se
what Catholics grieve, Discism grieve.
Speaker 2: I see, well, I a grieve it too. It's while
we're over here, always trying to convert Catholics. But roll
stakes five dollars, Daniel Dyer, your your chat is melting
into an entire I can fix her simp swamp fest well,
Emmanuel twenty Mexicans, he can be twenty Mexican dollars. If
at the Mugnus fails try to be cute. I think
he's referring to me James five pounds future. Why mom,
she's tried to tempt you. Stay strong, Alder. If she's
married to Orthodox dude, she's on the right path, right,
so she's gonna be She's she's doing the right thing.
Alderbana two bucks. I just want to meet new people
and do cool things. That's Matthew mcconnie. Jubb became a
member for two months. What's up? Blow in the Dark?
Lynton Demons, Zach Hope thirty not thirty. A's jay has
never been this gracious. That's not true. I've done tons
of debates. I try to be nice informal debates. If
it's informal, I get mean exactly, it's a Yakubian syop
Evan two forty nine, Lana del Rey Cringe, Max Buddy
yp one hundred ars. I hope that's like close to dollars,
because I don't know what a hundred rs is. But
usually when I get a weird currency with ars in
front of it, it's like two dollars, it's like two
dollars English American?
Speaker 3: What is this is? How you make money is through
these super chats.
Speaker 2: It's one form of making money. So I have other
means of making moneys. But it's a it's amy car,
it's real currency. Yes, you're not familiar with super chats.
Speaker 3: I see plent tays do it, but I don't really
get it.
Speaker 2: Basically, they send money to ask questions, but sometimes it's
a weird foreign currency like ars. I don't even know
what that is. Ar Buddy says, I'm giving j a
solid fifty years of age. I don't know what that means.
I'm not fifty two. Me and Eugenie two dollars. You
cannot call J anymore a mean person because he was nice.
There we go. Georgia's too props to Jay for acting
very serious. Is this not serious? I don't what do
you mean? Cards two dollars appeal to the blazed off
pyramid dank fallacy. That's referring to my yakub memes. Evan
two forty on mods. Please ban all the simps. Edward
Trotter five dollars says nothing. Braden Morris two dollars. This
is the real KGB sorcerer, exactly, Punk talking about me.
Punk giver twenty czks check money. We know that ain't
worth nothing. Papa France is throwing big guns today. Francis
sent you apparently storm mode ten pounds. When's the debate start?
It already started? What are you talking about theories or
see me Punk Giver twenty Yeah, Punk Giver twenty check
theories master. J H. Browsie five dollars. She's got an
e date and debate mixed up at some point. Ed
Trotter two dollars at midnight. Climax, uh Agnostic Kuzamachi five dollars.
My worlds are colliding. This is a crossover episode that's yeah,
exactly epic right Bumblebee twenty bucks. This was a fun
debate to watch. Thank you. Rachel Wilson five dollars. Pro
tip for Dasha troll your hair, giggle, show your bear knee.
They're not good debate tactics. Yes, Punk Giver, this is
literal pillow talk. Alex Oric two dollars, says nothing, David
Arabic script, bunch of gibber jabb that it's five dollars.
I heard Bronze Age Mindset is an interesting book. You
have thoughts, I've not read it. Sonia K ten dollars.
I like you, Jay Well, Thank you Sonia K. Or
should I say son Jack? Alex Oric two dollars Phrnsia
and sig fallacy. Jamie definitely mops beds. Half of these
super chats. I don't know what you are talking about,
bez deell Nick five dollars. The rational Anglo cannot comprehend
the whimsical, superstitious Slavic mind, that is the superchat that
summarizes the whole thing. Yes, my rational anger mind is
mystified by the whimsical slavic mind made by Jim Bob
ten dollars. L's in the chat for boodles. What is that?
Is that a person in the town alex or five dollars.
I would debate this chicken my sleep marboroughs lingual inquirer
five dollars. Jay will not debate old calendar. It's just
boring debate Carmaggio ten dollars. There as several saints cannot
be reconciled between the two churches. For example, Joseph fought
Kuntsevich and Alexander Nevsky both fought the opposite sides. That's
that's an interesting point, since there hypocrite. Ha, what a boomer?
Oh he got me, he got me Not a boomer,
but I'll take it. I'm the father of boomer jokes.
Eto Tolkien five dollars, jam sending this in the monopoly
money designed five dollars. H Okay, this is a good one, Dasha.
Is it true that Charlie XCX wrote Me and Girls
about you?
Speaker 3: I was part of the inspiration for it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there you go, bust down a jubilee one dollar Dasha,
listen to this. This is a deconstruction of your worldview.
Sorry not sorry? Hey, I have your ex linked in
the show description. If you guys would like to go
ahead and follow Dasha any closing comment statements, ideas things
you want to leave us with.
Speaker 3: I have a brief quote from Slovaka. He says that
the East has truth but no order. The West has
order but needs the east soul. Unity is the divine Well,
all right.
Speaker 2: We can take that Solova have quote to heart and
we got one last supertest, Chase. Chase says, for two dollars, Dasha,
what proof would you need to be Orthodox?
Speaker 3: I don't know. I guess there isn't any. I think
if God wanted me to be Orthodox, he could have
easily made me Orthodox.
Speaker 2: What if this conversation is one of those means.
Speaker 3: I was baptized Catholic.
Speaker 2: Okay, well, so if I was baptized Hindu, so sh
remain Hindu? Or not, I mean no, but okay, all right,
So do you anything you want to plug? Any projects
you got coming up you want to plug? People should check.
Speaker 3: Out my podcast Red Scare. Maybe we'll try to implement
some kind of super chat. But we are on Patreon,
Patreon dot com, slash red Scar.
Speaker 2: Do you not do any of your stuff on YouTube?
Is it too edgy? Or like? What's how come y'all
aren't there?
Speaker 3: We don't have the executive function to pivot to video,
but are curious about it. Yeah. Also, I made a
movie called The Scary of sixty First that if fans
of yours might enjoy. It deals with kind of conspiracy
and satanic influence.
Speaker 2: Oh definitely. Would you come back and do an interview
about that and your other art projects?
Speaker 3: Sure?
Speaker 2: Awesome judgmental Cat five dollars, Lumbago ten dollars, bro. My
love for Yakub is cosmic, straight up dank vibes. I'm
token on that, Primo Kush Yakub's chill mega mind. I'm
riding with you, you know, total meltdown dude. Thanks man, that
was a wild super chat. Jay Russ