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