Speaker 1: It's me, dire Way. Who is this, I.
Speaker 2: Don't know, it's me.
Speaker 3: It's Amid the Ruins, a guy who makes a dire
Way of music. It's Amid the Ruins, dire Way community.
Speaker 2: What I've talked about in you know, probably one hundred
articles of Jays analysis is the implementation of the AI
smart grid in the giant smart cities, which is what
IBM talks about publicly building. And that's where we're going,
and that's what I think we have to be really
concerned about. So all of these tensions. They are putting
a long term strategy to basically get everybody moved into megacities.
They'll be forced to they'll be forced off the wind
and so forth for an environmental reasons and basically concocted
and invented environmental nonsense, and then you'll be stuck in
some hell a whole mega city in a basically a
cart in size apartment, living over a target or something,
or inside of a target or a Walmart. As I
said several years ago, it's actually coming true now there's
actually target cities m M. This is all part of
the long term globalist strategy. But to get there, you've
got to have the constant clash, the constant alchemical blending
and mixing and smashing together right out of Manicheanism to
produce the convergence, to produce the synthesis. And that's what's
crucial in all this, and what is absolutely true from
an alchemical, esoteric, philosophical, angieobolotical perstrictive the fact that the
rule elite seek to be host Jason alsos dot com.
You can't try to fix today's problems politically. This is
what so many people have. Old circles, not ride and
whatever I need it. They all seem all right, welcome here,
we are, We're back. And I like it when people.
If you keep coming and keep coming at me, keep
coming at me, I just double down and I do
more streams, and I do more responses, and it has
more effect. Lord willing God, God's grace. So I'm not
deterred by all of this constant drama and nonsense. And
if we want to go into that kind of stuff,
we can. I'm happy to do that. Let's talk about
who some of these people are, what they're into, what
they're doing, the geopolitical forces behind what all's going on.
We can go into Denzinger got Denzinger pulled up for
you here right now, and we can get into the
present implosion that's going on on. Apparently within the world
of trad Catholicism. Things are heating up, not just Tracktholicism,
but even the world of normies in the Catholic realm
as well. Now, as you know, we've had a lot
of I've had a lot of interactions over the years
here and there, mainly blogging ten years ago with Taylor
Marshall when I was new to the issues of divine
simplicity and the energies and all that. And actually initially
I kind of liked Taylor back in the day. He
used to comment on different blogs that I would go on,
and he used to comment on mine at times. And
then things obviously went in a different direction. So once
I left the world of Rome, I didn't, as you know,
I didn't immediately go into orthodoxy, but just found it
less and less convincing. But the irony is that where
I was at ten years ago is the position that
Taylor has presently adopted. That's the big irony here is
that he would have called me a loon, a trad
maniac at the time and then here we are ten
years later and he's adopted this SSPX type of position.
Now we're not going to focus on Taylor Marshall on
all these antics of the Roman Catholic apologists, but I
do want to hit on some of this just because
the world of Roman Catholicism from the inside is different
than the world of Roman Catholicism from the outside. Now,
that could be said for any position or organization or
church or entity. Sure, I'm not saying that that in
itself is what proves or disproves any given position. So
I'm not saying that because I can find a bunch
of problems in these different position in these so called theologians,
that that just proves the whole thing, or in their
lives or whatever. I don't do the drama with people's lives.
That's typically what other people do. The only reason I'm
pointing this one out is because it's illustrative. It's illustrative
of what happens when you don't have the normative experience
that we would say it's consistent with the Batristic experience
in terms of how we come to know God and
what the experience of the Church and the Saints are
supposed to be. So. For example, if you listen to
the stream that I did with Snack yesterday or the
day before, whenever it was, we talked about the admission
on the part of Bishop barn that there was this loss,
something was now missing. And yet at the same time,
the Romancolic Church is supposed to possess the fullness right,
and the Orthodox Church is lacking. But yet we're told
that Vatican Two was partly an attempt to try to
find the missing links to the Church Fathers, the missing
links to the Eastern Liturgy, all of these different things. Right,
So we're gonna go into a lot of that today.
We're going to go into this and another thing I
want to do too. I may set it up as
a SEP stream. I may just do the kind of
critique of Vatican two and wasn't infallible and all that
in this stream, and then right after this, I might
do a second stream, or I might do it all
in one. I'm not sure what the best way to
approach it is. I'll just have to see how it goes.
But we're also going to cover some of Pelicon, because
there's a separate book. I know that we haven't worked
our way through the totality of the Pelicon series, but
I might skip over to this one instead because this
one is a really good introduction to the philosophy of
the Cappadocians, probably the best that I could think of
if you're new to the topic. And I mean, I'm
trying to work through a book right now, writing a book,
so I'm utilizing some of these kind of really good
key sources. Obviously the Bradshaw book that I'm reading this
through for the second time, really really good stuff. But
we don't want to just critique the just quote contradictions
between Vatican two and previous dogma. We also want to
understand the different paradigm. And this is something if you
go and listen to the many talks that I've done
with Father Deacon and Iyas, then you know that we've
covered this right. We've covered it many many times. He
and I have done multiple, multiple streams going through Riscyte
philosophy categories how that is transformed in the Orthodox understanding.
There's not a one to one necessarily correspondence between the
meaning that those words had in Pagan philosophy and the
meaning that they come to have in the patristic mindset
as the theology is explicated over the centuries. All right,
classic example logos right logos is not synonymous between the
usage in I don't know why that didn't show up
the alert boxes on it's supposed to show up. Let's see,
where's the alert box. Oh, it's behind Taylor Marshall. So
let me let me move the alert box and then
I'll replay your little ding your little ding dong there,
Thank you for your little ding dong. We love your
little ding dongs here. All right, let me fix that. Yes,
there we go, easter worshiper in the house. What's up,
Easter worshiper?
Speaker 1: At me?
Speaker 2: Make me smaller. It's kind of hard to make me
smaller next to Taylor Marshall because Taylor Marshall is literally
like that's all, but we will try. Okay, So I
got the ding dong zombie box in its right place.
Let me lock it there and they'll replay this for you.
There you go, look at the easter worster with his
little ding dong ding donging in and then we got
a little bitty tiny baby Taylor Marshall. Anyway, so the
whole point of all this is to get at the
real points of departure between our theology, our paradigm, our
system and theirs. And the fact that we have some
overlap does not mean that we have synonymous systems. And
that's the key here. Are there overlap between orthodox and
tomistic ideas, Sure, but there's overlap between any position potentially
and any other position, right. I mean I could say,
I mean, say, for instance, a luciferians as I believe
in one God, and I could say, well, I believe
in one God. Well, there we go. We've got the
same system at work, no way, because we both agree
there's quote one God. Yeah, but what that we mean
by that is obviously radically different. So the fact that
we're using the same words really has nothing to do
with necessarily having the same meanings or conceptions. This is
the word concept fallacy. And it also doesn't mean that
there's no similarity or no overlap. For example, when a
Saint Maximus utilizes neoplatonic ideas, there's some overlap, but there's
also dissimilarity, Okay, So that it's really it really doesn't
matter whether there's similarity or dissimilarity, because it's a case
by case basis as well. There might be a situation
where there's no similarity. There might be a situation where
there's a lot of similarity. So there's no one size
fits all way to look at, compare, and analyze without
considering context as a whole, paradigms as a whole. So
that's what we want to do here. But in regard
to Taylor, the reason I'm bringing him up is because,
so this last couple of weeks, well within the last week,
I've had two traditional Catholic friends, a couple of the
few remaining ones that still will interact with me. I
have about four or five maybe that still will interact
with me that I've been friends with for a long time,
many many years. One of them reached out. I won't
say anybody's name, but one reached out and has been
having a kind of crisis. I'm not going to go
into anybody's personal details or anything like that. Another one
reached out, similar situation for different reasons. By the way,
one doctrinal, others not so much doctrinal, but both of
which I think stem from the Roman Catholic struggle. And
in the case of Taylor Marshall, I'm going to say
it's the same thing. It's stemming from the Roman Catholics.
I know what it's like to be a Roman Catholic.
I know what it's like to deal with the issues.
I know what it's like to struggle with reconciling Vatican
two to the Prior Dogmas. I know what it's like
to be in the world of the SSPX and attending
the Latin Mass. I mean, I understand all this. I
know it very well from being there. And again, I
don't hate Roman Catholics. I don't hate Tim Gordon or
any of these people that are kind of freaking out
and having these fits and episodes. I don't hate Taylor Marshall.
I think that they are doing the very things that
I've experienced. But of course it's a lot different to
reflect on, you know, a mindset or attitude that you had,
you know, maybe ten years ago. And I'm not saying
this like, oh, I'm better than Taylor Marshall because iude
ten years ago, but I did, and I can have
some insight into what is going on here. And the
problem is that the Roman Catholic system is a bunch
of systems. So on one level, yeah, you could say
it's the papacy, and it's these councils, and it's these books,
and it's Denzinger, and it's this church over in Rome,
and it's the Gregorian Academy, and it's all this different stuff. Yeah,
I know, But on another level, the actual prexus of
the Roman Celic world is a lot of different things
that you rely on. So sometimes it's extremely scholastic and philosophical.
Sometimes it's very obsessively the opposite, where you're relying on
mystical experiences and visions. Now, what's different with Orthodoxy is
that we don't stress or look to visions and mystical
experiences to confirm what just happens to be our chosen presubositions. Right. So,
in other words, if I had a mystical vision that said, Jay,
all of your theology in terms of Orthodoxy is absolutely correct,
and I angel so and so Angel soprano, Angel t soprano,
confirm that your theology is perfectly orthodox, go forth with
this angelic blessing. In the world of Orthodoxy, the first
thing that we would do is say that that's probably prelist,
that's probably a delusion that was sent you see, and
if you read the philocolia. This comes up right where
the inclination is to not leap into and jump upon
these visions. And a couple of the key signs that
the saints and elders and fathers all kind of talk
about that indicate when a vision is legitimate or illegitimate
has to do with what we how we view ourselves, pride, humility,
the experience itself being one of kind of overwhelming peace, love, assurance,
or does it lead us to this pre list of
now being super prideful. If you listen to the debate
that to the father Deacon doctor Anonias has had with
Matt Slick, you can see a perfect example of the
ultimate reliance upon the individual's experience, subjective experience that will
then be the determining factor for what he accepts from
that point on, because it was this supposed Calvinist experience
that he had that's going to tell him the Protestant
Canada scripture and Calvinism and his you know, do it
yourself sect of Matt Slickianism is the true church and
the true way to go. You see, it's that formative,
mystical quote unquote experience has determined the rest of his
system and What's funny is that Rome Catholicism has this
just incessant emphasis on a kind of external, juridical authoritarian
response to this question of how do you know and
what's the right way to go? It's almost a worship
of authority. And in fact, I would critique that very
simply that Roman Catholicism is a worship of authority. Right,
That's it's one of the key problems here is this
idolatrous worship of authority. And yes, it's possible to have
an idolatrous worship of authority, right, I mean, what is
it the Catherine of Sienna that says, even if the
Pope were to tell you directly the words of Satan,
you should still follow it. Because it's the pope. That's
worship of authority. It's ludicrous, right, forget the exact quote,
but it's you know, it's something like that. And so
between Matt Slick and Taylor Marshall, you would think there
would be a world of difference, right, You would think
there would be just an infinite chasm of dissimilarity between
the experience of the Calvinist and the experience of the
mystical Tonist, Right, which apparently now it's a mystical tonism, right,
it's not a rationalism. Right. But I'm gonna play this
experience because a lot of people didn't believe me when
I said they thought I was making it up. Oh,
Taylor Marshall didn't actually claim to have a vision of Milker's. No,
he does. And what I'm getting at is that you
will notice the similarity between the Protestant and the Roman
Catholic excess is exactly the same, like the relying on
the subjective experience, which is ironically the very thing that
both of those groups. Right, Matt Slick as a presuppositionalist, typically, Oh,
you can't just rely on your experience. You got to
prove your arguments, right, Matt claims to be a presuppositionalist,
And likewise with Taylor, Oh you can't just rely on
your subjective experience, you got to submit to the pope.
He's made a career ten years of making this basic
argument that you can't have Christianity without the office of
the papacy. But now, because of his mystical vision and
all this other nonsense, he's better. He knows better than Rome.
And that's just the standard process that happens. So I'm
going to play you and you'll notice notice the similarity
between the claims. I'm not saying they had the same experience.
I'm just saying that this is all indicative of humanist
religious creation. Whether it's Protestanism or whether it's from Falsism,
they both are basically the same in terms of worshiping creatures,
obsessing over incessant creaturely things. And what's missing here is
the authentic experience of uncreated grace and the cleansing of
the News. Neither of those positions has any conception of that.
Yet this is fundamental to orthodoxy that without the undergoing
the process of repentance and the cleansing of the News,
which is not just the mechanical experience of going to
auricular confession in the Romancallic Church, it's the actual transformation
of the individual. And that's not even possible in the
Romancealoic system because of their doctrine of the beatific vision.
You don't have. There's no possibility of the experience of
uncreated grace in this life or seeing God knowing God
directly in this life, because their whole theology is predicated
on that not being possible in this life. Likewise, the Calvinist,
even though he doesn't really have the categories, he just
much confesses created grace. He just as much confesses and
denies the possibility of actually participating in the uncreated grace
of God and having a direct experience in life from
God and with God. Both of the positions, even though
they're radically different in all these frills and fancy talk
and whatever, at a fundamental level, both deny the reality
of experiencing uncreated grace, experiencing and possessing that in this life,
experiencing and possessing that on an individual level, right, and
they preclude that as even a possibility with the rest
of the theology that they confess, both the Protestant and
the Roman Catholic. Now, what did the Protests and the
Roman Catholic share in common? Hmm, oh, well, it just
happens to be absolute, define simplicity the Augustinian presuppositions, because
a quitness, of course, adopts the basic Augustinian presuppositions about
who God is in terms of his essence, the Phillyoque
created grace, et cetera, et cetera. And when the Reformation happened,
they defaulted to accept all of those same positions without question.
So the real root of this dialectic between the Protestant
and the Roman Catholic is not in do you like
Calvin or do you like Thomas Aquinas. In fact, I've
got a great little book here from a philosopher who
helped me in my transition from Calvin to Aquinas. His
name is Arvin Boss. He's a pretty well known academic
Quinus and Calvin contemporary Protestant thought, and he just shows
all the similarities and the kind of easy, smooth transition. Now,
what was Taylor Marshall's background, Well, it wasn't he an Anglican.
I'm not faulting converts, by the way, That's not the
point here, right, there's nothing it's not being a convert
in its off that has isn't problematic. I'm just pointing
out that the doctrine of God is the real issue here.
Who is God? What are we talking about? What do
we mean by these words in terms and phrases. Do
Roman Catholics have the same triadology and Christology as the
first millennium? Do they have the cappadition Doctor of the Trinity?
I don't think that they do. It's very easy, I think,
to demonstrate that. We'll look at some of that in
this book. My allergies are going bad, so I've got
like a super sinus headache today. And we will get
to the super chat TOURNAMENTE. But first I'm going to
play this teleormercial clip. Now, hopefully this works. I'm on
a different computer than I'm usually on, so I'm not
positive at the sound will come through to you, guys.
But let me it's not that long. It's just a
little clip. It's going to illustrate the point I'm making. Welcome.
We got three hundred and seventeen nerds. If you would,
we only got eighty eight likes. Please smash like if
you're enjoying this time. Even if you can't directly hear
it through the right way, at least it will echo
in this the microphone to a degree, so you'll be
able to hear some of it, but you'll get the
point here. A visionary I'm turning, not a profit.
Speaker 4: But I have seen supernatural things in my life as
a Christian, as a Catholic, and one of those things
happened last night, and I'm reluctant to to share it,
but I think it'll be of comfort to other people.
So yesterday I went to confession and one of the
things I confessed was being prideful and judgmental and worried
and concerned about the state of the church.
Speaker 2: And there no, I'm gonna pause is just for one
minute to make a brief comment here. First of all,
another thing that will that will be very common. And
by the way, it's the Eastern European and Russian Orthodox
who typically will actually make this valid curtis, which is
that who comes on streams and talks about their their
repentance and their humility. I mean this itself is prelest okay,
so uh, you'll notice Orthodox, but they don't typically come
on the live streams to talk about their humility.
Speaker 5: And oh, my friends, you see before, when I was
a Roman Catholic, when I was an Orthodox person, I was.
I was taken by my pride. I was lifted up.
I was, I was vain, I was I was I
was full of my own fancy. I was I was
fancy free friend, I was full of myself. And then
I read about the papacy until I realized that all
of those years I had been deluding myself. Friend, I
had been caught up in my own bus. And then
I prostrated myself before Rome. I prostrated myself in a
profound act of humility. I perhaps laying there for eighteen hours.
In fact, I lost all sense of space and time
in my experience of profound humility and repentance.
Speaker 2: And then I knew deep down that my.
Speaker 5: Whole life had been but a lie.
Speaker 2: You see, I mean, this is just it just oozes, right,
I mean, who was this guy? There was a guy
a couple days ago, right, Orthodox so called guy Roman Idean.
I see clown people guy, And what does he do?
He's got all these tweets about how humble he is,
how much he wants to be beaten down.
Speaker 6: Because of his pride and because of his vanity. And
please I invite other Orthodox as I pray, to comment
and beat me down with your words. To your brethren,
this is all ball, it's all prelessed, it's all fake,
and everybody who's honest can see through this nonsense.
Speaker 2: You're not fooling anybody here. You built a brand. Now
you have a problem with the system that you built,
so you got to cover up for this garbage by
uh oh, I had a mystical experience. And by the way,
let me explain to you, my profound humilitary brother, I'm
just I'm just taken aback by mine. And this is
what Flanders did. Remember when Flanders did his stream, and it
was like, I, uh, I was so prideful. I was
full of pride. And now let me explain to you,
and let me tell you how prideful I've been, as
if that's not itself just oozing with this this. Come on, man,
everybody can see through that stuff. It's not it's just gross, dude,
it's just cringe and scandals.
Speaker 4: And it's been a kind of a struggle for me lately.
Speaker 2: So you might confess that in the.
Speaker 4: Presets of very good things to counsel me on that.
And later that night, which was last night, I was
doing examination of conscience for bed and I was thinking
on that point of being worried and concerned and judgmental
and all these negative thoughts and emotions about the Holy
Catholic Church when the church, and as I was suddenly
like I saw this beautiful woman. She had blonde hair,
she was perfect, no wrinkles, no spots, and I immediately
discerned that this was Holy Mother the church, and she
was writing and paint. She was in a bed and
there's sheets on her, and she was very sick. And
I noticed that her breasts were engorged with milk.
Speaker 2: Now, you trads, I mean this is gold. I couldn't
have asked for something about it. You trads. You guys
have attacked me incessantly. You've gone ape over me, you
have done said everything. And I'm not mad. I forgive
you guys. Okay, I'm not worried about it because I
know what it's like to be a trad. Okay, And
I'm gonna be honest. I didn't want to forgive you guys,
but I have to. I have to make myself because
Christ tells us we have to.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 2: But look, you guys have attacked me. I told you
that this guy was wrong, and he won't debate because
he knows that we would floor him when it comes
to Tomism, when it comes to divine simplicity, when it
comes to these issues. Right. And when I would bring
this up for months and months on Twitter, I would
constantly try to talk. I would say, you know, let's
do this, let's do know as you do, he blocks
me right, And now what's happened? What Within a few
months after this blocking, what does he do? He comes
and does this car video of this ridiculous claim to
this mystical vision of engorged milkers. Let's play this again.
Speaker 4: Beautiful woman, she had blonde hair, she was perfect, no wrinkles,
no spots. And I immediately discerned that this was Holy
Mother of the Church.
Speaker 2: And she was writing a paint.
Speaker 4: She was in a bed and there's sheets on her,
and she was very sick. And I noticed that her
breasts were engorged with milk, tons of milk.
Speaker 2: And I mean, you know what, if you guys think
that is a valid approach, if you want to fall that,
then you get what you deserve, you see, I mean
to follow this over what we have in Orthodoxy is
just sad. I feel sorry for you guys and all
you have to do. Look, it's okay to be wrong. Okay,
I've been wrong many many times. It's not the end
of the world to be wrong about something. Right. I
was raised Protestant. I came to eventually see that. I
just it's just not right. I tried to defend it.
It's okay to be wrong. I got into wrong Catholicism.
I lived it, breathed it, took it so serious. I mean,
I was super committed to this stuff, right. It wasn't like, oh,
it's just a you know, cultural thing. I'll pretend, dude.
I mean I've read Denzinger twice. No nobody does that, Okay,
unless they're serious about their Catholicism. People don't just sit
down and read through eight hundred page books about Catholic DNMA.
You don't get so serious that you're going to the
Latin Mass for years and years and years if you're
not taking this serious. So I get it, dude. I
understand the modus operanda, the mindset. But this is embarrassing.
And it's not just embarrassing because oh it's some kind
of rivalry with I don't follow Taylor Marshall. I don't
keep up with the tried drama. I haven't kept up
with that in at least a decade. I left all
of that stuff, haven't been back. I don't miss it
at all. I have no interest in any of that stuff,
although I will debate Roman Catholics. But it's illustrative. That's
the point here. It's illustrative that it's the exact same
issue that you saw with Taylor Marshall. I'm excuse with
the Matt Slick and the debate with doctor Ananias, Right,
what is the foundation really of these positions? Is it
really all of this high falutint philosophy and dogmatics and
magisterium and councils and all, or is it really the
subjective desire and experience and the impetus to want to
ratify what is your own position? As father deacon? Doctor
Ananias said it really well. I think it describes adequately
the Roman Catholic perception, which is, and you could say
the same thing for Calvinism. Are we not I'm speaking
as a Roman category Calvinist formerly being one. Are we
not really just defending an idea? I mean, are you
not really just worshiping your idea of God? I never
really thought about that when I was a Roman calthuy
if It wasn't until I heard, you know, Orthodox critiques
where I started thinking that, you know, my idea is
not a correspondence to who God is or what God is, right,
they don't match up. And I know that in theory,
Roman Catholics confess via negativa, and I know they confess that,
and I know in some sense Calvinists we confess that
unless they were like a Clerkian or something. I mean,
they actually think that our ideas are like literally, I'm
synonymous with propositions in God's minds. So but there is
a process. And if you go watch Father Peter Heres's
talk that he did that's really good on heterodoxy, it's
the talk that he did about a month ago on
the Holy Fathers. I highly recommend this talk because the
all of the issues that we're talking about here today
with Calvinists or with the Roman Catholics of Thomas, none
of it can be settled through factual propositions, debate, and analysis.
You may think that sounds weird. What why would you
do apologetics, discuss and debate if it can't be settled,
Because ultimately, it's not an issue that's intellectual. The reason
that it's not is because it can be right. But
what I'm saying is that it can't be reduced to that. So, yes,
God can use argumentation, He can use good arguments to
persuade people. But the issues at hand here are not
propositional rational problems. There are problems that man in his
heart has and the whole basis of both the Calvinist
Protestant Augustinian slash Tomistic Romanclitic approach. By the way, it's
not actually actually Augustine's view of elimination is closer to
our view. But setting aside that the Roman Catholic perception
of how we know God and the Calvinist conception or
prosing conception of how we know God are themselves both
propositional and based on created grace. So you see, the
system has already determined from the outset set the limitations
and possibilities of knowing God. This is why Saint Gregory
Palamos says that if you go with Barlum's presubpositions it
leads to atheism, you will end up atheist. I'm not
saying that necessarily every person ends up atheist. He's saying
that if you followed it out to its consistent logical conclusion,
you would end up atheist. And that's because again, the
system is determined from the outset that you don't actually
directly know the God that you're proclaiming to believe in,
teach about, dogmatize about, you know, creative effects. You never
have the direct experience of his uncreated energies, at least
not in this life. But doesn't that really beg the question?
Then how do you know God? I mean, this is
really the whole entirety of the argument throughout the debate,
the dialogue with a barleymite right between Palamas and Akandino's
that's where it leads. I mean, this is really just
rehashed what doctor Bradshaw says in Aristota Lisam West right.
If we take all of these assumptions Actus puris all
the Aristilian movement of eternal matter on actualized actualizer type
of stuff that you see in Phaser and that you
see in every tonis that I've ever heard of, or
the the Ruman Catholic doctrine vince siplicity, then we're left
with an unknowable, ah unsaving knowledge of God. And it's
not the doctrine of the Compendosians, you see. But let's
hear this again because I just want I want you
to understand that. I mean, I told you guys that
Taylor Marshall is he's not even that great of an
exponent of Cathol and I said it ten years ago,
and here he is relying on something utterly ridiculous.
Speaker 4: Immediately discerned that this was Holy Mother of the Church,
and she was writhing in pain. She was in a
bed and there's sheets on her, and she was very sick.
And I noticed that her breasts were engorged with milk,
tons of milk tons by the way, with babies and
children crying out to her that were hungry, and she
wanted to feed them, and she was she was upset,
but she was so sick she could hardly sit up
from her bed. And then I thought to myself, Oh,
she doesn't want she's poisoned. She doesn't want to nurse
the children.
Speaker 2: So wait a minute, So Holy Mother Church is poisoned. Really,
I'm you sure you want to go that route. I mean,
just just on its face, this is preposterous. Okay, Taylor Marshall,
I don't believe you. I think it's bullshit. It's it's
it's absurd, and I mean, really, what do you need?
Why would you even continue listening to this guy? I
don't get it. I mean I get the impetus to
hold on to what you feel like is so necessary,
so important, so save Western civilization. But it's not gonna happen.
It's done all right, you're not going to get it
from the SSPX. And just on this point alone, I mean,
let me show you the absurdity of this from the
Roman Catholic dogmatic perspective, the idea that mother Church could
be poisoned and giving this out is ludicrous. The Church,
in terms of her sacraments, in the Roman Catholic position,
cannot be poison cannot be Uh. I'm trying to find this.
It's a it's a comment in oxworm fee Day, So
I'm just trying to find it here it is. So
I'm going to show you the Denzinger text for yourselves.
So let's come down here in fifteen seventy eight. So
I don't know, hopefully you guys can read that. It
might be a little too might be a little too small.
I can make this bigger if we need to hear
trying to change the size of this anyway, we'll just
leave it as it is, dancing in fifteen seventy eight.
So now this is this the condination of the Senate
of Pistoia. So if you remember, there was a group
called Janseness, and Janseness were radical in the sense of
being strict Augustinians and the Jansenists wanted to do a
lot of things that were kind of similar to what
Protestants wanted, and even similar in ways to Orthodox But
eventually this became condemned and it was not seen to
be consistent with Catholic teaching. Because maybe I can make
this bigger. Like this, there we go. Because the problem
with the Jansenists presupposition, in light of the office of
the papacy and the claims of the Roman Sea, it
would be to presume that the Church has already and
for a long time, aired in something fundamental. It would
see suggest that the failure to perform the rites and
the sacraments in the vernacular, which is one of the
key points that they were having an issue with, right,
it would suggest that the Church had committed a serious mistake.
And it's, as you can see, very problematic to say
that the Church can commit some serious mistake in her
rights and in her liturgy and in her sacraments, because
it would mean that it is a compromising of the
fundamental constitution of the Church in Roman Catholic theology. In
other words, it would mean that something that she could
never fail to have, namely holy sacraments valid sacraments, sacraments
to save the world are now lacking, and so in
other words, it would compromise the indefectibility the church. Right.
So that's the problem with this idea and why it's
considered injurious theoretical, et cetera. When you look there at
fifteen seventy eight, it says the prescription of the synod,
this is the Synod of Pistoia of the genteness about
the order of transacting business in the conferences, in which
after it prefaced in every article, that which pertains to faith,
to the essence of religion, must be distinguished from that
which is proper to discipline. Now, what they're doing here,
the Jansonness are making an argument about distinguishing dogma from discipline, right,
and so conceivably you could see, okay, there might be
a distinction here. But the problem is that this argument
was being used to justify that the Roman Sea had
aired in terms of its discipline. In itself, discipline there
is to be distinguished from what is distinguished what is
necessary and useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from
that which is useless or burdensome for the liberty of
the sons of the New Covenant to endure, but more
so from that which is dangerous or harmful, namely leading
to superstitious and superstition of materialism, in so far as
by the generality of the words it includes and submits
to prescribed examination, even the discipline established and approved by
the Church. As if the Church, which is ruled by
the Spirit of God, could have established discipline which is
not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure,
but which is even dangerous and harmful and leads to
superstition and materialism. This position is false, rash, scandalous, dangerous,
offensive to piaced ears, injurious to the Church and to
the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, and
at least erroneous. Therefore, it is a jansonous proposition to
say that the Roman See can establish bad rights or disciplines.
So as you can see, it doesn't really matter what
one thinks of Vatican two as an individual Catholic or
its rights in terms of its novasorto promulgation, no sort
o missay, et cetera. Because you can have all the
opinions you want, you cannot say that the Roman See
can establish bad disciplines for the entire church. And yes,
these new sacraments are for the entire church obviously. So
really this is a no brainer. And I bring it
up because it will go towards reputing not just Taylor,
but the entire SSPX type of position, this idea that
Vatican two is not infallible and it's really up to
the whims of whatever judgment or any individual Roman Catholic
makes that he doesn't really have to accept it unless
he unless he, I guess, chooses to. I mean, what
does it mean to have an optional pastoral ecumenical council?
So it's optional. That's funny because every FSSP person who's
ever been reconciled from the SSPX to Rome f SSP
has been made to accept the Vatican Two. Why would
that occur? Why would that happen if it was an
optional council? This is a trad myth, it's a trad lie,
as we'll see here in a moment, that Vatican two
is optional, and it doesn't matter how many times the
Vatican restates that it's not optional, they will continue on
saying that, well, I don't have to accept when the
Pope says it's not optional because he didn't say it dogmatically.
This is ludicrous, all right, This is just absurd levels
of coping mechanisms. Right, welcome everybody. We have almost four hundred.
There's the super chat. If you want to leave a
super chat, feel free to support the stream by the
super chats. But that's just one example. Now we're not
going to just stop there. We're going to look at
a couple more places in Denzinger because one of the
key points that is crucial to grasping the mistake of
the trads is the question of the magisterium and the
ordinary and universal magisterium. So, being that I do know
Denzinger like the back of my hand, I would like
to direct you direct you to another section in Denzinger.
And of course this is related to Vatican One. So
let's scroll down here to sixteen eighty three. All right. Now,
So at the time of Vatican One, there were some
interesting questions raised along the same lines, relating to not
just bad disciplines, but other aspects of Roman Catholic dooma
like the Roman congregations, or the idea of jurisdiction, or
the idea of the Holy Office condemning people. Right, So,
In other words, there were arguments being made like, well,
I don't really have to agree to the condemnation of
a heretic from the Holy See or from the Holy Office,
because that's just an exercise of discipline. So therefore, conceivably
could discipline be rejected. Well, we look at sixteen eighty
three and it says it reads we persuade ourselves in
the middle there we persuade ourselves also that they did
not wish to declare that that perfect adhesion to reveal
truths which they recognize is absolutely necessary to attain true
progress in the sciences into refute errors could be obtained
if faith and obedience were given only to the dogmas
expressly defined. This is the argument that I only have
to adhere to something expressly defined. For even if we're
a matter of concerning that subjection which is to be
manifested by an act of divine faith, it would not
have to be limited to those matters that have been
defined by express decrees of the councils or the rom
upon defendency. What would have to be extended to the
matters handed down as if only revealed by the ordinary
teaching part of the church spread throughout the world, and
he says that this is false. Right, you don't have
to only adhere to dogmas. You have to hear a
to all of the decisions and decrees. And we know
this because the next point sixteen ninety eight continues this argument,
because it explicitly states in sixteen ninety eight, judgment and
decrees cannot be doubted even when they are merely juridical.
So the judgments and decrees of the Roman see cannot
be doubted even if it's something just juridical. There's also
seventeen ninety two the object of faith, by divine and
Catholic faith, all those things that must be believed which
are contained in the written Word of God in tradition,
and those things which are proposed by the Church, either
of sall the Magisterium or by her universal ordinary teaching power,
are to be believed as divinely revealed. So you see
that you can not reject the universal ordinary stat Magisterium
under the guise of saying that I will only follow
the dogmas expressly defined by extraordinary Magisterium. It's explicitly rejected
there both attempts, and by the way, there are more.
If these are not good enough for you, but hopefully
these should be good enough to really kind of make
the point right now. Next up, I would direct you
to another issue that I'm not really trying to get
bogged down in drama because I don't really care about
this kind of stuff. However, it is worth noting that
the trad world is just as problematic as the world
of the Nosorto that it claims to be superior to.
And if you go to this church militant article, there
is and this is I'm saying this is because this
relates to Taylor Marshall. Because if you go to this
Survivor Speaks, there's an entire documentary presentation here. Okay, this
video here, so be sure and go. I'm not gonna
play it because I don't want them to. I don't
trust any of these groups. They'll just try to copyright you.
Ding you there. These these guys, these people are are
something else to deal with. So if you go and
play the Spotlight clip, it will it will make this
point that I'm making about all of these different problems
in the SSPX world. And one of their top quote
canonists this what's his name? I forget that our gray,
our gay or some Spanish name. What's the guy's name,
father something, It's in this article and in this video,
this guy is like, you know, in all this trouble
over this and he ends up with a castle and
he ends up promoted. I'm not making this up to
living in a castle. It's in this video. I'm not
gonna play the video. I don't remember the guy's name father,
somebody his Hispanic named guy, and now he lives in
a giant castle. You can't make this stuff up. Now,
this is supposed to be, you know, the center of
trad world SSPX. I was looking for the picture of
the castle, but I can't find it anyway. You can
go watch it in that video that I linked there. Now,
when I say this, it's not because I'm interested in
supporting Michael Vories and Church Militant and the Gordon brothers
and they're historyonics today. It's just to show you that
the trad world appears to be imploding and enveloping itself
in its own kind of implosion. So you've got Michael
Voris and his crew going after SSPX crew and these people,
and this I guess I'm told led to Taylor Marshall
blocking Gordon and all these characters or his former co
host anyway, I don't know if I can share this,
but really what my point in all this is just
to say that it's not accidental that I've had to
one trad rip or in another Catholic guy reaching out
this week saying, look this, I don't know how to
deal with all this. I can't make sense of all this.
And tomorrow, all right, you've got Francis is going to
drop his new and cyclical and it's called for Telly Tutty.
I'm not joking. I know that sounds kind of like
the Fortelli's like goonies. Well, Francis's goons, his goonies are
going to drop for Telly two D. Francis is new
and cyclical on human fraternity and solidarity. And what do
you think this is cyclical is based on. It's based
on that humanist style meeting that he had with the
Imam's in where was it Abu Dhabi or somewhere, And
I said this in Cyclical is going to be about
the humanist gatherings, the Humanist Manifesto Council that Francis originally
had planned for this year until COVID happened right. So
part of the reason why people are kind of having
these issues is that they know what's coming. Okay, we
will be looking forward to Francis's explication of Fratelli tutti
and how we're all brothers and sisters in a free
Masonic sense, even though we're not all brothers and sisters. Okay,
but I'm trying to figure out how to do this.
So here, what we're going to look at is a
couple of documents. So the first one is Francis here,
and I want you to be very clear. Here's what
Francis says, so hopefully you can see this. Okay, here's Francis.
This is the sixty eighth address to the National Liturgical
Week in Italy. We can affirm with certainty and with
magisterial authority, the Liturgical Reform is irreversible. Can you hear me?
Do you hear that? I'm going to put it in
the chat for you so you can read it for yourself.
We affirm, with certainty and with magisterial authority, Turgical Form
Reform Vatican two is irreversible. Do you hear me? Can
you be honest? What does it say? Okay, says that. Now,
let's look at oh man, I hate it. One does this.
This is John the twenty third. I'm not gonna read
this whole thing. You're gonna have to go to Google
Translate and you're gonna have to put it in there.
I'm gonna give you the quote or the link. Okay,
and you go to Google Translate. It's not that long.
Here it comes. This is the address at the opening
of Vatican two. And when you read this, when you
put it in Google Translate, you can make it out. Fine,
it's not disputable what he means. He's very clear that
this is an ecumenical council. It is called with the
full authority, full power, full apostoric, apostolic universal sense. Right,
so there's the opening of the council, John the twenty
third his speech telling you it's dogmatic. There's Francis telling
you it's dogmatic. Now what about Paul the six. Oh,
you see he said that it's pastoral. So what there's
nothing in Paul the six calling it pastoral that somehow
means that it's not protected by the terrorism or not dogmatic.
He says it defined no new dogmas. So what that's
not the criteria for what makes something dogma in real Catholicism.
So there in the link you'll see the speech of
Paul the six nineteen seventy six, restating and explaining his
comment of it being a pastoral council and laughing and
making fun of the people who act like it means
that you don't have to accept it. I mean, come on, guys,
so this alone, right, here's three clear testaments from the
popes that you have to accept Vatican two, and it's
thus a tread myth that you don't have to accept it.
I think what I'm gonna do is do a separate
stream for this book. And actually I may just cut
it short and just do this. Was it infallible?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 2: So I'm going to do a separate stream about Vatican
two and the documents. I'm gonna do a different stream.
It wouldn't make sense to final least because I want
this to be a clear, like precise video just on
that topic that way, and plus a lot more people
will watch it too if I cut it at this
and come back later and do a different one, because
the longer this goes, the less people are gonna watch it.
But there so I've given you the three documents they're
in the links. If you're watching this a year from now,
if it's we're still here, hopefully you can pull up
those links and you've got three testaments. John the twenty third,
Paul the sixth, Hope France is telling you the Vatican
two has to be accepted. Vatican two opens with the
full papal authority. The documents close with full papal authority.
It's a trad myth that you don't have to accept
Vatican two. If an SSPX person comes back into communion
like the FSSP, they're made to accept Vatican two. And
to deny this would be to deny the Universal Magisterial
Teaching authority. It would be to say that Rome has
for sixty plus years enforced heresy, bad doctrines and rights,
and bad disciplines, which is condemned, which is the denial
of the terrorism. So there you go, so that there's
really not much to debate about this. Now. I was
gonna read it, but the problem is that it's Google translates,
so I'll have to scroll down, and when you scroll down,
it jumbles up the text, so you'll have to go
read the actual three documents that I placed into the text.
I'll put the three documents also in the show description
as well. But there you go. So there we have
the pretty clear presentation that you cannot reject the magisterial teaching,
whether ordinary or extraordinary. Primal Edge says, for fifty dollars,
an entire community in Ecuador, ninety people just became Orthodox.
Awesome Roman Catholic priest. No bishop is becoming an Orthodox priest. Wow,
praise God for that, and thank you Tristan for that money.
Much appreciated Orthodox one hundred dollars. Do all Protestants have visions? No?
Are they from Christ or mockery? I mean, I would
say in theory, it is possible for Jesus to appear
to a Protestant. Sure God can do whatever he wants
to do. He hears the prayers of Cornelius, so sure
he could do whatever he wants to. But you know,
that kind of a manifestation is not going to produce
you know, pre list, it's not going to produce these
kinds of self appointed prophet type things. I think this
light is drumming, It's like drum my mind crazy. So
outside the church, we don't speculate on you know, where
those those visions come from, so we just try to
keep it consistent with what we know Revelation says, right,
So we're not going to speculate about like whose visions
outside the church are coming from?
Speaker 1: Where?
Speaker 2: What's the best book to give a trad Probably this one,
I would say, if you're new to Orthodoxy and you
want introduction to our different theology, I would say read
this if you're If it's a trad who's pretty well
versed in philosophy, this one, and by extension to you
could do pelicons, metamorphosis. Those are all good. But I'm
going to do another stream on the other stuff. But
I'm want to cut this one short because i want
this to be more accessible. Jire Bear ten dollars. I
would say, go watch Craig's debate and talk on immaculate conception.
Craigs are really good on that. But anyway, I'll talk
to you guys later. I'm gonna have to go do
some other things. This stream is going to be have
to cut short. There was other things that I thought
I wasn't gonna have to do tonight, but I'm gonna
have to go do that. So I'll talk to you
guys later. And God bless. Hopefully this is clear with
three key examples. They'll also be in the show description.