Speaker 1: You know, like the Gnostics or whatever. I just call
Speaker 1: him crazy. So you're you're you're a goober. You're an idiot,
Speaker 1: a goofball. That's about it. Jooshah Fat Julian Canadian two dollars.
Speaker 1: Sam Shamun apologized, okay on about what I mean. Josiah
Speaker 1: A leron twenty dollars, God bless you. The Calvioc turned
Speaker 1: Orthodox because of you and your examples. Santos humane is
Speaker 1: ten dollars. Sam apologized about five minutes ago. Okay, I mean,
Speaker 1: if we want to be on good terms, I'm open
Speaker 1: to that. I hope this doesn't divide people. We all
Speaker 1: keep walking. Respect everything that you do. CAUCUSUS two pounds
Speaker 1: or two euros. I never thought Sam would do this.
Speaker 1: Lord of Mercy MKG Canadian five dollars and forget. I'm
Speaker 1: all for forgiveness, but what is a bipolar apology worth?
Speaker 1: Sam needs help? Well, I mean I'm fine with I
Speaker 1: have to think about what would be the wisest course here.
Speaker 1: So Joey says we're two dollars. We need Jay on
Speaker 1: the Whatever podcast? Now guess what? So I did talk
Speaker 1: to Brian today from Whatever, it looks like what we're
Speaker 1: gonna do is We're gonna have a debate on whatever
Speaker 1: in about a month, and I think I'm going to
Speaker 1: debate not so Aerdite that debated Jim Bob and Jake Rattlesnake.
Speaker 1: There's also going to be a debate about the CI's
Speaker 1: relationship to ISIS and al Qaeda that I'll be debating
Speaker 1: a post a profit. But it looks like that'll have
Speaker 1: to be June because the first time we can do
Speaker 1: it him and me is like June. So I think
Speaker 1: in June we're going to try to do that, and
Speaker 1: then I'll be going on to perhaps other large podcasts
Speaker 1: on the West Coast in the next month. So we're
Speaker 1: trying to make that happen. Tain't nothing ten dollars. Did
Speaker 1: you see Dave Smith versus Doug Murray on Joe Rogan
Speaker 1: Israel debate. I was actually gonna play this tomorrow, so
Speaker 1: you see that Rogan. I've got like fifty clips for
Speaker 1: tomorrow's stream that I thought would be funny to watch.
Speaker 1: It was just going to be a chill string. Murray's
Speaker 1: entire argument was an appeal to thirty. He said, if
Speaker 1: you've not been to Israel, you can't speak that's what.
Speaker 1: That's what not so Aerdite's debate partner was saying in
Speaker 1: their debate right which they were debating patriarchy and feminism
Speaker 1: and all that guy, All that guy I wanted to
Speaker 1: say is that you can't talk about Israel. Haven't been there, Like,
Speaker 1: what does that have to do with patriarchy. Let's talk God.
Speaker 1: Ten dollars. Dick Toddus, Pope number nine. All the princes
Speaker 1: of the world shall kiss the feet of the Pope
Speaker 1: number ten. His name alone will be spoken in the
Speaker 1: church is number eleven. This is the only name in
Speaker 1: the world. Greg was going crazy. Oh I'm a pope, Gregory. Yes,
Speaker 1: So again, if you're not aware of this, here is
Speaker 1: Dick Tatus, Pope number nine. All the princes of the
Speaker 1: world will kiss the feet of the Pope number ten.
Speaker 1: His name alone is that which can be spoken in
Speaker 1: the churches, number eleven. It's the only name in the world.
Speaker 1: There is that. So we got a bunch of super
Speaker 1: chats here. I'm trying to get through these, and then
Speaker 1: we'll go to refuting allbrecks, low tier paper stuff, MKG
Speaker 1: two dollars. That's why anti Muslim conversions are suspicious no
Speaker 1: head to quest two dollars. The latest community post is apology.
Speaker 1: He says that you started if you're not innocent. Okay,
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm sorry that he took it as a feud,
Speaker 1: like for me to DM him. Okay, I didn't know
Speaker 1: that causes him to be so mad. Okay. Most people,
Speaker 1: you know, they might be tempted to look at their
Speaker 1: phone if they're on an interview and their board or something,
Speaker 1: But most people like I, I've not looked at my
Speaker 1: phone this entire live stream. So how am I supposed
Speaker 1: to know that it triggers him when somebody messages him
Speaker 1: on him on his phone? Quest outset Eddie five bucks
Speaker 1: or all worldviews circular? You said it before in debates.
Speaker 1: I think maybe because people hear the word circular and
Speaker 1: they think of the fallacy of circularity, it might be better,
Speaker 1: as FDA says, to refer to it as recursive or
Speaker 1: self referencing. Gilbert Valenzuela five dollars. My family and are
Speaker 1: being baptized a Saturday. The Orthodox Church says, probab, your
Speaker 1: hard work played a big part in my conversion from
Speaker 1: the Roman Catholic Church. Hey man, I appreciate that that's
Speaker 1: great to hear. Bad ghosts Face five dollars. For what
Speaker 1: it's worth, Sam is taking out his post and he
Speaker 1: posted apology. All right, So Sam called you a coward,
Speaker 1: he didn't apologize, okay, I mean, I don't know what
Speaker 1: san Diego Sanchez five dollars, Sam the paranormal, paranoral ORB
Speaker 1: guy won't go Orb Novus Orbo Forever Notorious Knives five dollars.
Speaker 1: Look at Sam's latest YouTube post, Bad ghost Face two dollars.
Speaker 1: Never mind Sid two dollars. It's called samifesting. I condom
Speaker 1: Matt three dollars. Solo Orbo Skima Bear five dollars. Hello,
Speaker 1: orb theory a colcavayable five dollars, should debate orthodox musclem Now,
Speaker 1: somebody asked me about this today, and I'm not familiar
Speaker 1: with who he is. He's calling you out on TikTok
Speaker 1: and has seventy thousand TikTok followers. I tried to build
Speaker 1: up my TikTok, but it's difficult. So I wonder if
Speaker 1: he has does he have like a YouTube or something,
Speaker 1: I mean, if we maybe we can set it up
Speaker 1: outside of TikTok. It's just a hassle to try to
Speaker 1: do stuff like that on TikTok, So does he have
Speaker 1: a Twitter that'd be easier for me outset Eddy two dollars.
Speaker 1: How do you go to the bathroom with carnivore die
Speaker 1: without fiber? You don't actually need fiber, by the way,
Speaker 1: if you drink coffee, that works well at annual five dollars.
Speaker 1: I tried to listening for Bible explanations, but I stopped
Speaker 1: because it's impossible to follow the topic when he stops
Speaker 1: to bash somebody every two minutes. As funny as that
Speaker 1: can be, but it's our five dollars. He's calling Jay
Speaker 1: out for a debate. Now, I look, just forget it man,
Speaker 1: one shot a seventeen twenty dollars what you said about
Speaker 1: Internet apologists not being qualified to teach theology. If you
Speaker 1: look at David Wood's recent debate with Alex, this came
Speaker 1: to mind. There were a few months that we had
Speaker 1: a team up where we had a Jay Dyer up there,
Speaker 1: and Alex would have gotten eviscerated. Yeah. I mean I've
Speaker 1: messaged at Alex O'Connor for a long time to try
Speaker 1: to debate, so it just gets ignored. Chris Crimson Specter
Speaker 1: two dollars. Cat hairs are now meauricles. That's a good
Speaker 1: one as ghost. Two dollars, Jay, will you debate Harlot's
Speaker 1: on the whatever? Well, the way that show works is
Speaker 1: typically you debate anybody. I guess, but I'm gonna mainly
Speaker 1: be debating not so aradit, but I'm sure I'll also
Speaker 1: be debating the other people in there. Jbpelty a two dollars,
Speaker 1: Sam is going live in a few Okay, I mean
Speaker 1: I don't like I've laid out my critiques. So there
Speaker 1: you go, dank naked five dollars. What is it? We're
Speaker 1: gonna get to the papsy stuff in a second. What
Speaker 1: is a good starting point to learn about Orthodox position?
Speaker 1: I'm not a Catholic. I want to learn more. Pamazansky's
Speaker 1: book is a great uh kanachisis text Orthodox Dogmatics by Palmazansky,
Speaker 1: So I would start there and then maybe moved to
Speaker 1: Lasky's Mystical Theology Eastern Church. Jay Rock seven to eleven.
Speaker 1: Who is Jeff Daherty?
Speaker 2: Uh?
Speaker 1: Well, he was some sort of evangelical ish pastor who
Speaker 1: then became a neo pagan and he debated Andrew So
Speaker 1: I haven't kept up with that guy. Accounts payable two dollars.
Speaker 1: I do not believe that Aposse Prophet is genuine in
Speaker 1: his conversion. You know time, I think will tell Joe
Speaker 1: five dollars. Sam didn't really apologize. He has a community
Speaker 1: post's apology for his audience. It says that you demonized him.
Speaker 1: I mean, where what's where's the demonizing? Where's the anything?
Speaker 1: All I did was ask him to debate, and you've
Speaker 1: got like meltdown. He doesn't have any evidence of me
Speaker 1: ever saying anything negative to him or bad about him
Speaker 1: or anything. I've literally always been respectful to him, and
Speaker 1: even after the drama when I asked him, when I
Speaker 1: asked him to come and set up something where we
Speaker 1: can have time responses. This is what I got.
Speaker 3: We're gonna call you out. We're gonna get you. Don't
Speaker 3: worry about it now, girl, get.
Speaker 4: Some more energies.
Speaker 5: Maybe I'll help you. Like I said, thanks, I'm going
Speaker 5: to show them more round from way.
Speaker 6: Down Jo David.
Speaker 1: Like he's referring to my jokes about James White that
Speaker 1: it doesn't make sense. But account's payable two dollars. He
Speaker 1: has a YouTube channel called or Orthodox Muslim outset Eddie
Speaker 1: two dollars Jay, Do you say pop or soda? Nobody
Speaker 1: from Tennessee says pop. That's a Yankee thing. Let's see,
Speaker 1: I'm trying to keep up with all the super I
Speaker 1: think I've gotten. Let me see, there's probably some more
Speaker 1: super jets over here. Let's see we got two new members.
Speaker 1: Shout out to the members with the members content is
Speaker 1: linked and I added a couple of things to the
Speaker 1: members content too, by the way, pretty recently. All right,
Speaker 1: so let's get to this in this one.
Speaker 4: This is a fun topic. You know, we covered the
Speaker 4: americ of the conception. Another one that often comes up
Speaker 4: with Protestant circles and Orthodox circles especially is the papacy.
Speaker 4: So I wanted to talk about that now. In the
Speaker 4: last video you mentioned that for you, though there are
Speaker 4: other factors that came in to your conversion from Protestantism
Speaker 4: to Catholicism, the papacy was a big one. Tell me why.
Speaker 6: Yeah, well, it really played a very big role, number
Speaker 6: one when I converted from Protestantism. But of course that's
Speaker 6: like considered that way Orthodox and Cathos then of course
Speaker 6: it becomes a whole different angle where you look at
Speaker 6: evidence for the papacy, and I began to look at
Speaker 6: the history of the papacy throughout the early Church, Pope
Speaker 6: Saint Clement of Rome very early on, and on and on,
Speaker 6: leading all the way up to and beyond Pope Saint
Speaker 6: Leo the Great, and I became ever more convinced of
Speaker 6: the incredible role of the pope throughout history. Now, of course,
Speaker 6: I may be get too far ahead of myself before that.
Speaker 6: Of course, as we know very well, the clear foundation
Speaker 6: of the papacy is the Scripture. It truly is, so
Speaker 6: that laid the groundwork for me. Scripture of course.
Speaker 1: Well, the first out here that I would say is
Speaker 1: that I went through all this same stuff too, right,
Speaker 1: So I had the same ideology as a Protestant who
Speaker 1: started reading The Catholic Apologist in two thousand and one.
Speaker 1: I went heavy into it. I read tons and tons
Speaker 1: of the secondary literature, and then I decided I to
Speaker 1: have to get the church Father's set right. So you
Speaker 1: see that set piece that's behind Lofton there where the
Speaker 1: untouched church Fathers are basically immaculate because he hasn't actually
Speaker 1: read them. I actually started reading them a lot, and
Speaker 1: I was fortunate enough to have a job where I
Speaker 1: could read the Church Fathers for about ten years straight.
Speaker 1: So this put me in a position that a lot
Speaker 1: of people don't have. I was also doing university at
Speaker 1: the same time, and I had a very easy job
Speaker 1: for about ten years in my twenties, and so that
Speaker 1: Philip schaff Church Father's set was a lot of my
Speaker 1: time at work. And I initially had a similar situation,
Speaker 1: probably to Albrech, where I thought, Okay, it's either Roman
Speaker 1: Catholic or it's Protestant, right, that's what it's got to be, right,
Speaker 1: And there weren't a whole lot of internet options back
Speaker 1: in about two thousand and one two three where you
Speaker 1: could look into, you know, like the Orthodox sphere or
Speaker 1: something like that. What you guys have today didn't exist
Speaker 1: in two thousand and three. And probably maybe Albrecht was
Speaker 1: getting into this kind of stuff back then as well.
Speaker 1: I don't know what year he converted, but it might
Speaker 1: have been around the same time as my interest in
Speaker 1: church history and the Church Fathers and the question of
Speaker 1: the canon, you know, back in early two thousands. But
Speaker 1: the problem is that it's very much it's a thing
Speaker 1: that's based on a lot of assumptions, and there's a
Speaker 1: lot of to use the Loftonian term, there's a lot
Speaker 1: of nuance and context that Roman Catholics leave out of
Speaker 1: their favorite quote minds. And when I first encountered the
Speaker 1: quote minds through you know Butler and Daalgren and Hess's book,
Speaker 1: Stephen Ray's work or Scott Hans books. I have all those.
Speaker 1: I read all those guys. I was reading all that
Speaker 1: stuff in the early two t thousands, right, Jerrymattitics is stuff.
Speaker 1: I got to be personal friends with Jerrymattics. So I
Speaker 1: went from Bonson World to Roman Catholic Thomas World in
Speaker 1: two thousand and one two three. That's when I was
Speaker 1: really reading and converted. I was already believing the Roman
Speaker 1: Catholic stuff in two thousand and one, but I didn't
Speaker 1: have the I wasn't convinced enough to convert yet. So
Speaker 1: it took me till about two thousand and three before
Speaker 1: I converted. And by the way, I took the name Augustine,
Speaker 1: which is funny. When I was received in the Kelly Church,
Speaker 1: and so you know, I've been there, done that. I
Speaker 1: know this whole process. I know the thinking, but what
Speaker 1: happens is that you're tempted, I think, to make the
Speaker 1: decision on bad reasons. In other words, you're when you
Speaker 1: get deeper and deeper into these papal things and you're
Speaker 1: reading the objections and this and that. I remember one
Speaker 1: time in my twenties there was even like a week
Speaker 1: where I remember vividly, just non stop reading every day
Speaker 1: for a week about the papacy stuff, and I could
Speaker 1: not decide. I was reading William Webster's book, his trilogy
Speaker 1: about it. It's all these Protestant you know, quote minds
Speaker 1: against the papacy. I was reading all these papal apologetics,
Speaker 1: and I felt like, you know, at a certain point,
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna go with papacy because it just seems
Speaker 1: like things like the canon, things like you know this,
Speaker 1: that it just doesn't work in the Protestant world. But
Speaker 1: what happens to people who are new to the world
Speaker 1: of Rome, which was me back then, is that you're
Speaker 1: not yet acquainted with the masses of papal documents and
Speaker 1: texts that you will have to read. Right. So, just
Speaker 1: like we see with like the Hadiths, it's not just
Speaker 1: the Bible and the ex cathedral statements or the Bible
Speaker 1: and you know the Catechism of Trands or the Bible
Speaker 1: and Denzinger, right, I mean they don't even read Denzinger
Speaker 1: like I know Denzinger like the back of my hand.
Speaker 1: I could. I could demolish these guys going through Denzinger.
Speaker 1: But you don't know that yet, right. You think it's
Speaker 1: just this Protestant or Catholic choice. And then when you
Speaker 1: go into the world of Rome, you're confronted with an
Speaker 1: entirely new set of problems. Now you have to understand
Speaker 1: the post pre and post Vatican Two teachings. And this
Speaker 1: confronts every Roman Catholic at a very fundamental parish level,
Speaker 1: because many Roman Catholic parishes are pretty much Protestantized. You see,
Speaker 1: they have guitar masses, they have women that hand out
Speaker 1: the Eucharist, they have clown masses, they have all the
Speaker 1: most insane, wild liturgical abuses that you could think of.
Speaker 1: And then what happens is you try to make sense
Speaker 1: of this. You try to say, well, I don't have
Speaker 1: to I know already the cope, the wave of cope
Speaker 1: that you will go through. You will begin by saying
Speaker 1: I don't have to accept all of the Vatican two stuff.
Speaker 1: I can read it and interpret it in a conservative way,
Speaker 1: but then you haven't really been presented with reading the
Speaker 1: pre Vatican two encyclicals like Lamentabiley, Patchindi, Dominici Gracias, like
Speaker 1: Humanum Janus, like Mauri Voss, like Quanticura, like Mesticiko Porus,
Speaker 1: like southeiast Cognitium. I can keep going. You don't know
Speaker 1: those things yet. You haven't read the pre Vatican two
Speaker 1: papal doctrines extensively. Well, I started doing that right. I
Speaker 1: realized if I was going to understand Catholicism, I'd have
Speaker 1: to go to the Rock of Peter and his great
Speaker 1: successors in the last three centuries and their vast array
Speaker 1: of papal and cyclicals. So guess what I did. I
Speaker 1: read them all. I read thousands of pages of papal
Speaker 1: and cyclicals. I read all of the of the thirteenths
Speaker 1: and cyclicals. I read all the important Pisce to tenth
Speaker 1: and cyclicals. I read multiple maybe not all of them
Speaker 1: because they're not all translated into English. But I've read
Speaker 1: Pias to twelfth extensively. I've read Piss the eleventh extensively,
Speaker 1: and I've even gone back into the Butler the Alberigo
Speaker 1: two volume set that the Jesuits put out some decades ago.
Speaker 1: It's like a two hundred dollars set of the Ecumenical
Speaker 1: Council's original translations from the Jesuit scholars and Tanner and ALBERTA. Goo,
Speaker 1: I think, is it? And so I started reading the
Speaker 1: actually the Ecumenical Councils from the Roman Catholic vantage point, right,
Speaker 1: that's a very rare, unknown set. It's a two volume set.
Speaker 1: So I immersed myself in all this world. On top
Speaker 1: of the source documents, as well as getting Denzinger and
Speaker 1: reading it entirely all the way through, as well as
Speaker 1: having the Catechism of Trent as well as having the
Speaker 1: documents Attican two. I also got the secondary literature. That
Speaker 1: means I went through all of the traditional Catholic apologies.
Speaker 1: And so what happens for a lot of people who
Speaker 1: go into this world, who get to this stage is
Speaker 1: you begin to confront do you want to be a
Speaker 1: trad cat or you're going to defend the novasorto. Each
Speaker 1: of them has their respective challenges. I went the route
Speaker 1: of trad cat. I went to the SSPX, I attended
Speaker 1: to the Latin Mass for around eight to ten years,
Speaker 1: maybe nine years technically eight or nine years, and I
Speaker 1: was in that world very seriously, very intently. I even
Speaker 1: met with a guy about going into monastical life back
Speaker 1: in my twenties, so I was serious enough that I
Speaker 1: really wanted to think about monastic life. However, the thing
Speaker 1: that turned me off from monastic life was when I
Speaker 1: went to the diocese spiritual director for that. He was skittles,
Speaker 1: like flaming Skittles, and then I read that most of
Speaker 1: the Dominicans in the Roman Catholic world are flaming Skittles.
Speaker 1: Bye bye, I'm out. I'm so glad I never went
Speaker 1: that route. But the problem is that if you go
Speaker 1: this route, this delusion that these people are into, this
Speaker 1: is what you're going to have to choose between. Do
Speaker 1: you want to be a crazy tradcat. Do you want
Speaker 1: to be a Skittles novasorto? Do you want to be
Speaker 1: a do you want to go the route of the
Speaker 1: diocesan Latin Mass. Oh turns out Francis has been shutting
Speaker 1: those down, So good luck finding your way through the
Speaker 1: maze of this nightmare.
Speaker 6: It was very clear extree me out of Protestantism. But then,
Speaker 6: of course, a lot of the claims that we can
Speaker 6: make for the papacy, we know very well the Orthodox
Speaker 6: will say, Okay, I can be on board with that. Yeah,
Speaker 6: but we know that that then changes when we go
Speaker 6: into history, and in my opinion, the evidence for the
Speaker 6: papacy on the Catholic side is much stronger.
Speaker 4: Do you feel like on the Catholic side some of
Speaker 4: the evidence that has been put forward sometimes is reading
Speaker 4: too much into it. Not that there isn't strong evidence,
Speaker 4: but what I'm saying is impopular apologetic circles. Yeah, do
Speaker 4: you feel like some of the evidence that is put
Speaker 4: forward is not necessarily the best that we have off Yes?
Speaker 1: For once, I agree with Michael lofton probably ever right.
Speaker 6: I think that there is a tendency to grab papal
Speaker 6: sound bites, Peter sound bites where you will have a
Speaker 6: quote of Peters being the head of the cheech, or
Speaker 6: a Peter being the leader of the apostles, and we
Speaker 6: will utilize that as an evidence of the papacy. And
Speaker 6: as you know very well, Michael, a lot of those
Speaker 6: quotes the Orthodox can very well give an aim into
Speaker 6: and to add to that, Oriental Orthodox as well.
Speaker 1: So yeah, so actually from the outseter, I actually agree
Speaker 1: with this. So they've started off on surprisingly a pretty
Speaker 1: good foot here.
Speaker 6: What separates us when it comes to how we view
Speaker 6: the papacy? I think that we need to go beyond
Speaker 6: mirror quote bites. Sure, but here's another thing. I think
Speaker 6: that once we do go beyond that, and we look
Speaker 6: at the context, in my opinion scripturely and in the
Speaker 6: early Church, there really is no other other position.
Speaker 1: Now, okay, so I appreciate the admission that not all
Speaker 1: of the you know, catchphrases Roma spoken cases closed right.
Speaker 1: We hear this all the time. There's a great post
Speaker 1: from Luigi pointing out that you look at the context
Speaker 1: of let's see, I think I saved it. Let's let's
Speaker 1: pull up Luigi quote here. Yeah. So, as one example
Speaker 1: of this, right, we often hear the Romans spoken cases
Speaker 1: closed right, supposedly proving what exactly the final universal jurisdiction
Speaker 1: of the papacy. Well wait, wait a minute, Augustine in
Speaker 1: context says, let us suppose that the bishops who decided
Speaker 1: a case at Rome were not good judges. Wait a minute,
Speaker 1: how is that possible? If bat can one true, there
Speaker 1: still remains a plenary Council of the Universal Church in
Speaker 1: which these judges might be put on their defense, so
Speaker 1: that if they were convicted of mistake, their decisions would
Speaker 1: be reversed. That's Augustine Letter forty three, paragraph nineteen. So no,
Speaker 1: there's no When you take out of context statements like
Speaker 1: Rome is spoken cases closed, which would be Rome's decision
Speaker 1: a particular situation, it does not follow that Rome therefore
Speaker 1: had universal jurisdiction and everyone accepted it and it's therefore
Speaker 1: case closed. That's not what it meant. And he seems
Speaker 1: to be maybe conceding part of that. I don't know
Speaker 1: exactly which catchphrases he's talking about, but let's remember that
Speaker 1: Chi eighty, the Chi eighty document here, this is the
Speaker 1: pretty recent admission from the papacy about else the status
Speaker 1: of the canons of Sartica and in what way Rome
Speaker 1: was appealed to. This is the appellate structure. If you
Speaker 1: watch the debate between Ubi and Ibarra, right, some of
Speaker 1: the material came up. And actually when I first debated
Speaker 1: aborrow years ago, I actually referenced this, and everyone sort
Speaker 1: of laughed and poo pooed. What I said, but it's
Speaker 1: actually admitted right here in paragraph nineteen. Over the centuries,
Speaker 1: the number of appeals were made to the Bishop of Rome,
Speaker 1: also from the East, in disciplinary matters such as the
Speaker 1: deposition of a bishop. Now this sumption, because it notes
Speaker 1: that the appeals were disciplinary in nature, this doesn't say
Speaker 1: from the outset that the appeals are to settle theological
Speaker 1: doctrinal controversies. It says disciplinary matters such as the deposition
Speaker 1: of a bishop and attempts was made at the cans
Speaker 1: of Sartica in three forty three to establish the rules
Speaker 1: of procedure. So this is the appellate structure where you
Speaker 1: have kind of appeals court system. Right Artica was received
Speaker 1: at Trollo in six po ninety two, and the Canons
Speaker 1: of Sartica determined that a bishop who had been condemned
Speaker 1: could appeal to the Bishop of Rome, and that the latter,
Speaker 1: if he deemed it appropriate, could order a retrial. Now,
Speaker 1: does this say that the Bishop of Rome unilaterally makes
Speaker 1: the decision that shuts the door? It closed? Case closed?
Speaker 1: Does this say Rome is spoken cases closed? No, it
Speaker 1: says that the Biserrome can order a retrial to be
Speaker 1: conducted in the bishop's providence. It's not even conducted in Rome,
Speaker 1: It's conducted in the bishop in questions own province. Appeals
Speaker 1: regarding disciplinary matters were also made to constantin Up. Remember
Speaker 1: when I said this in the bar debate and they
Speaker 1: all acted like I made this up. Oh, here's your
Speaker 1: own papal page, your own papal approved acumenist document admitting
Speaker 1: my point. And to other seas. Yeah, of course. If
Speaker 1: I I was Maximus and I was disputing with the
Speaker 1: Monothelites and I wanted to get the bishops on my side,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna appeal to Rome and Constantinople and other seas,
Speaker 1: and Antioch and Jerusalem and everywhere. I want them all
Speaker 1: on my side. The fact that I appealed to Rome
Speaker 1: because it's the first see, it doesn't follow from that
Speaker 1: that Rome is the only one that I would appeal to.
Speaker 1: This is the silly argument of the Roman Catholics, especially
Speaker 1: a Barrow when I debated Borrow. Such appeals to the
Speaker 1: major seas were always treated in a unilateral way. Oh,
Speaker 1: it doesn't say that they were treated in a what
Speaker 1: way synodical way. In other words, the Bishop of Rome
Speaker 1: didn't out of hand autocratically determine the matter. It was
Speaker 1: referred to a synod synodole. Why is Francis holding a
Speaker 1: synod on sinidelity? Because they're admitting our positions. This means
Speaker 1: that Vatican one isn't true. Appeals to the Bishop of
Speaker 1: Rome from the East expressed the communion of the church,
Speaker 1: but the Bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority
Speaker 1: over the churches of the East. What does that tell
Speaker 1: you right there? How is Vatican one true? When we
Speaker 1: read that Vatican One, as you guys, I hope no,
Speaker 1: teaches that the Bishop of Rome has universal, unilateral jurisdiction
Speaker 1: over all of the world, and that he got that
Speaker 1: from Peter. Vatican one doesn't say that it evolved. It
Speaker 1: wasn't a development of doctrine. It's from Peter.
Speaker 4: It's most certainly one of those distinctive teachings that if
Speaker 4: you were to embrace it, it's like the only real
Speaker 4: option that you could go to is Catholicism. But you
Speaker 4: then mentioned there, okay, but there is a certain form
Speaker 4: of the papacy, if you will, that Orthodox can accept.
Speaker 4: How different do you think is maybe a high Orthodox
Speaker 4: version of the papacy is compared to the Captain version.
Speaker 6: I think it is different enough that would warrant one
Speaker 6: to convert to Catholicism. I truly do think it's that different.
Speaker 6: I think that we are living in a time where
Speaker 6: people are looking at the quotes of the papacy and
Speaker 6: people that are Orthodox, and they realize, well, this doesn't
Speaker 6: quite jibe with the way my view of the Church
Speaker 6: is today. So they begin to read into history kinds
Speaker 6: of words or teachings that they're they're kind of ripping
Speaker 6: out of the context. For example, one incredible example, I
Speaker 6: could think of the words of Pope Saint Leo the Great,
Speaker 6: the tone of Leo at Calcdon. It's amazingly evident that
Speaker 6: Pope Saint Leo the Great viewed his position as out
Speaker 6: of papal supremacy.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's funny because this has already been debloomked by
Speaker 1: the vast history that Ubi and Ibarra have already had.
Speaker 1: So this is, I guess, playing on the ignorance of
Speaker 1: the Catholic audience that Ubi and Ibarra have already been
Speaker 1: debating this for years, right, And this led to an
Speaker 1: entire series of exchanges actually over many years, where Ubi
Speaker 1: shows that the tone of Leo was not regarded as
Speaker 1: ex cathedral. And if I recall, this is like years
Speaker 1: of stuff going back. This was years ago, but he
Speaker 1: just made this public a few months ago. If I recall, eventually,
Speaker 1: I think Ibarra admitted that, Okay, maybe it's not an
Speaker 1: easy proof that the tone of Leo was ex cathedral.
Speaker 1: So Ibara, if I recall, walked this back, and here
Speaker 1: you go, right here, here's Ubi's refutation of point one that, no,
Speaker 1: the tone of Leo does not prove ex cathedral. In fact,
Speaker 1: Chalcedon if you read something like Denny's book Papalism, it
Speaker 1: notes that Calcedon spent two weeks invested. It's either a
Speaker 1: week or two weeks investigating the tone to see if
Speaker 1: it lined up with the teaching of Saint Cyril. Oh
Speaker 1: wait a minute, you thought Leo was the theologian part
Speaker 1: of excellence of Calceodon. No, actually, the tone was judged
Speaker 1: by the synod to be either in accord with or
Speaker 1: out of accord with the teaching of Saint Cyril. So
Speaker 1: Cyril was the measure of Calcedon. And you can read
Speaker 1: that in the Denny text. And no, there's no ex
Speaker 1: cathedra argument out of the tone of Leo.
Speaker 6: No way around that, right, the language is very clear,
Speaker 6: and to deny that to me is you're gonna be
Speaker 6: doing metal.
Speaker 1: So again, argument number one has already been extensively refuted
Speaker 1: in Ubi's refutation of Abara about Leo and Calcedon. Here
Speaker 1: again is the link. So argument number one was I
Speaker 1: guess lazy on the part of all brect because he's
Speaker 1: just repeating what probably what he read in Abara.
Speaker 4: Yeah, Leo most certainly held to what I would understand
Speaker 4: to be the view of Vatican one supremacy. I don't
Speaker 4: think that.
Speaker 1: That is okay. Did you hear that the Vatican one
Speaker 1: view of papal supremacy unilateral, declarative, ex cathedral definitive teaching
Speaker 1: right according to Vatican One, and that universality is directly
Speaker 1: from Peter. It is directly to the papacy, does not
Speaker 1: come from the Church. It comes directly from Peter to Rome.
Speaker 1: Why it's not Antioch and Alexandria, which also derived from Peter. Well,
Speaker 1: the Romancalloy Church just says because Peter died there. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's just because it is, it's tradition. It's just because
Speaker 1: although that we don't have any proof of that. I
Speaker 1: mean proof that because he died there therefore the Keroism
Speaker 1: extends to the Roman Church. We'll notice that, according to
Speaker 1: Lofton and Ulbricht, all of the permanent premissy existed from
Speaker 1: the earliest days up until now and it's unilateral. But
Speaker 1: wait a minute, what did Rome just admit in the
Speaker 1: Chi eighty document appeals to the Bishop of Rome from
Speaker 1: the east expressed the communion of the church, but the
Speaker 1: Bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the
Speaker 1: churches of the East. Oops disputable.
Speaker 4: What I guess my concern is whenever I see some
Speaker 4: Catholics pointing to the language at Calcedony where it says,
Speaker 4: you know, Peter has spoken through Leo right, immediately thinking
Speaker 4: that that automatically proved the Catholic view, or that the
Speaker 4: Calcedonian fathers the Catholic view of the papsy. I'm not
Speaker 4: saying that they didn't. But what I'm saying is, or
Speaker 4: I guess what I'm asking is, do you think that
Speaker 4: that alone is enough to really I don't.
Speaker 1: No, Yeah, and this is true, right, because you have
Speaker 1: statements from pre Calcedonian church fathers that all of the
Speaker 1: bishops are Peter, right, Peter is a All the bishops
Speaker 1: are images of little Peters. So this just the phrase
Speaker 1: Peter has spoken through Leo, doesn't prove Vatican ones claim
Speaker 1: that the Bishop of Rome is the singular, autocratic universal
Speaker 1: head of the entire church who can universally ex cathedra
Speaker 1: pronounce dogmas. It doesn't prove that. So I appreciate again
Speaker 1: that they're at least admitting a couple of things here
Speaker 1: about these catchphrase arguments. But these catchphrase arguments actually don't
Speaker 1: address number one, the contradictions right that we referenced earlier,
Speaker 1: the contradictions in what Roman Catholic dogma is in thirteen
Speaker 1: oh two, in when I'm sunk them right and when
Speaker 1: I'm signed to them in thirteen oh two. You have
Speaker 1: to believe in the temporal supremacy of the Roman bishop
Speaker 1: to be saved in Vatican two. In terms of religious
Speaker 1: liberty indignatatis humane. What's fundamental to the human being is
Speaker 1: religious freedom dignitatis humane. HM. That's interesting because I seem
Speaker 1: to remember a Roman Catholic document called the Syllabus of Errors.
Speaker 1: Now Pius the ninth is the pope of Vatican two,
Speaker 1: mean Vatican One where you have the definition of the
Speaker 1: universal supremacy of the Roman Bishop. And it's interesting because
Speaker 1: in this document he talks about errors can earning the
Speaker 1: temporal supremacy of the Church and the Pope. And what's
Speaker 1: funny about this is that as late as Vatican won,
Speaker 1: you had the papacy still defending the temporal supremacy of
Speaker 1: the Roman Bishop. So let's talk about number fifteen. Every
Speaker 1: man is free to embrace and profess the religion that
Speaker 1: he guided by the light of reason and considers true condemned.
Speaker 1: So this is the section of the Syllabus of Airs
Speaker 1: of Pius the ninth. And by the way, this was
Speaker 1: attached to Vatican one, this is condemned in paragraph fifteen.
Speaker 1: Right the rights to freedom of religion, freedom of choice,
Speaker 1: man may and the observance of any religion whatsoever find salvation.
Speaker 1: Was what does no retaughtes say that Hindus find refuge
Speaker 1: in God in Hinduism, Men find refuge in God with
Speaker 1: love and trust. Man may, in the observance of any
Speaker 1: religion whatsoever, find eternal salvation condemned. So then we come
Speaker 1: down to errors concerning the Church and her rights. The
Speaker 1: Syllabus of errors. This specifically says the Church has not
Speaker 1: the power of defining dogmatically that the Church is the
Speaker 1: calogy Church is the true religion. Condemned. So, in other words,
Speaker 1: not having Catholic states, the Church does not have temporal power. Condemned.
Speaker 1: The ministers of the Church and the Roman pontiff are
Speaker 1: to be excluded from temporal dominion condemned. So US of
Speaker 1: Errors paragraphs nineteen to twenty seven uphold the classic medieval
Speaker 1: doctrine of dictatus Pope him sank them in the last paragraph.
Speaker 1: You have to believe in the temporal supremacy to be
Speaker 1: saved all the way up into the eighteen nineties, or
Speaker 1: excuse me, eighteen sixty four, it's reaffirmed a Vatican one.
Speaker 1: The same positions are condemned. And what does Dignatati Himani do. Oh,
Speaker 1: it turns out fundamental to humanity is religious liberty, and
Speaker 1: we don't really teach that papal temporal supremacy anymore. You
Speaker 1: understand that, how could it be necessary for my salvation
Speaker 1: to believe in the temporal authority of the Roman bishop
Speaker 1: when religious liberty is true? Now, don't you see that
Speaker 1: those are incommensurable the right to religious liberty and freedom.
Speaker 1: The Protestant doctrines of religious liberty and freedom fundamental to
Speaker 1: human liberty, something previously condemned. Where is it condemned? People
Speaker 1: in single called Marai Vos eighteen thirty two liberalism and
Speaker 1: religious indifferentism aka freedom of religion condemned. It is a
Speaker 1: heresy of the Enlightenment. Liberty of conscience, freedom of worship,
Speaker 1: freedom of the press. H oh condemned heresies? Uh oh
Speaker 1: oh oh? Were there there is? Mauri Vos condemned. Liberty
Speaker 1: of conscience, freedom of conscience, freedom of worshiped, freedom of press,
Speaker 1: free speech condemned. What does voon can do? Say no,
Speaker 1: it's actually the fundamental element of human nature. Human dignity
Speaker 1: is fundamentally religious freedom. Murori Vos Liberty of conscience, liberty
Speaker 1: of worship, freedom of worship, indifferentism condemned.
Speaker 6: Do you know why?
Speaker 1: Because the papacy had mold and cyclicals against freemasonry, wherein
Speaker 1: they charge liberty, equality and fraternity as free Masonic doctrines.
Speaker 1: Vatican two accepts the liberalism condemned and Maururi boss yet
Speaker 1: another example.
Speaker 6: I think that you must supplement it with much more.
Speaker 6: Number one, look at how was the tone of Leo
Speaker 6: accepted or received right and then supplement that with how.
Speaker 1: Did let's talk? Godfight dollars? William Albert says Jay doesn't
Speaker 1: love Christ. That's all they have is this piety signaling right,
Speaker 1: That's what they have. Sam said Jay is racist and
Speaker 1: says the N word. What's he talking about? So that's
Speaker 1: all they have is like just personal at time. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm just going to their arguments, that's all they have.
Speaker 1: Thomas mc el hern two Canadian. I'm Protestant, but your
Speaker 1: knowledge and videos are great. Thanks man. Terry seventy seven.
Speaker 1: Can you suggest top five to ten books on the Papacy?
Speaker 1: Edward Ginny Papalism, Abgat's The Papacy, Michael Welton's Two Paths
Speaker 1: Papadacus Mayandorf Christian East in the Rise of the Papacy.
Speaker 1: I would start there. Demon cooked two dollars. Imagine being
Speaker 1: a cringey nerd crying about which church is the true church?
Speaker 1: Escape the matrix and get some money. So I guess
Speaker 1: we have a Tate fan Tristan five dollars. Andrew said,
Speaker 1: hey will host the debate. I don't know. I mean
Speaker 1: sounds like they just want to play them and say
Speaker 1: that I'm racist, Like this is like the weakest shit imaginable. Like,
Speaker 1: so I'm actually going to their streams to refute their positions,
Speaker 1: and they're calling you racist. There will be no debate.
Speaker 1: Jay has made his point. Sam crashed out on his
Speaker 1: friend and then he blasphemed God and made fun of
Speaker 1: the divine energies. I mean, it's just weird, dude. I
Speaker 1: don't know what the like, what the point of the
Speaker 1: energies thing is here.
Speaker 3: We're gonna call you out. We're gonna get you. Don't
Speaker 3: worry about it now, girl, get some more energies.
Speaker 5: Maybe will help you.
Speaker 1: Go get more energies. Maybe they'll help you out. I mean,
Speaker 1: does he not realize it's the New Testament teaching?
Speaker 5: I don't know.
Speaker 6: You himself. And then if he viewed himself in this manner,
Speaker 6: where was the uproar on the side of those that
Speaker 6: accepted his tomb And the other thing, as well, as
Speaker 6: we know very well, is that Pope Saint Leo the
Speaker 6: greats Tone was essentially saying the same thing as Cyril
Speaker 6: was saying in as.
Speaker 1: In his Yeah, but you're leaving out the point that
Speaker 1: they investigated the tone to see if it was what
Speaker 1: measured up to Cyril's teaching, so they didn't mention.
Speaker 6: It christological position. So then when we see that, we
Speaker 6: realized that Pope Saint Leo the Great was in line
Speaker 6: with the great Christological teachings, and we realized how much
Speaker 6: the teachings that Calca impacted. Because let me be very
Speaker 6: clear with you, today you can listen to a Protestant
Speaker 6: individual talking about Christology.
Speaker 1: Now let's point out the absurdity of William Albrecks, because
Speaker 1: I'm pretty sure William Albreck holds the position that, like
Speaker 1: Voice of Reason says, Ephesus was wrong in condemning Nestorius.
Speaker 1: Doesn't he say this? I think he does, right, But
Speaker 1: let me show you how stupid this position is right here.
Speaker 1: So I'll play your Voice of Reason saying this. And
Speaker 1: I don't know where they get this, like maybe they
Speaker 1: get it from Jimmy Aikin, because I know Akin says this.
Speaker 1: But I'm gonna show you how dumb this is. Right
Speaker 1: here's a Voice of Reasons saying this.
Speaker 7: Documents set up being used are uh seruitous. So the
Speaker 7: church isn't protected in matters of fact, The church is
Speaker 7: only protected only infallible and matters of morals, in the
Speaker 7: same way that when the Council of Emphasis condemned the
Speaker 7: stories is irritated. We don't know looking back that the
Speaker 7: council was actually in the correct It turns out that
Speaker 7: the story is wasn't in a story, but the council
Speaker 7: is still condemned the us as an Astorian documents up
Speaker 7: being used.
Speaker 1: So notice he's made up an absurd distinction between councils
Speaker 1: getting the dogma's right and missing and airing in matters
Speaker 1: of fact. Let's see how that actually works with the
Speaker 1: anathemas of ephesis.
Speaker 7: So it isn't protected matters fact. The church is only
Speaker 7: protected only infallible in morals in the same way that.
Speaker 1: Is going to become. So does he think that the
Speaker 1: condemnation and the anathemas against Nestorias aren't faith in morals?
Speaker 1: That sounds stupid. This position is right because when I
Speaker 1: go to the anathemas, the twelve anathemas right here, like,
Speaker 1: does he think that this is not faith and morals
Speaker 1: they're just airing in fact? Does he not realize that
Speaker 1: all the anathemas are about the dual subject position of Nestorius,
Speaker 1: and they're all from Cyril and his theology right, because Cyril,
Speaker 1: for example, argues from the Eucharist against uh Nesaurius. So
Speaker 1: that would mean all of these arguments weren't just matters
Speaker 1: of fact that we're wrong, they were also theologically wrong
Speaker 1: because Cyril didn't need to make Eucharistic arguments against Nastorias.
Speaker 1: That's how stupid this is. Right when it talks about
Speaker 1: the life giving flesh. Right, if anyone does not confess
Speaker 1: that the flesh of the Lord is life giving and
Speaker 1: belongs to the Word of God the Father, that's talking
Speaker 1: about the Eucharist, right. If you read Cyril the two
Speaker 1: Letters to sicx senses, Cyril talks about the Eucharist giving
Speaker 1: us and being a life giving thing, and he also
Speaker 1: teaches the energies doctrine right explicitly, so he doesn't even
Speaker 1: understand that denying ephesis condemnation of Astorias doesn't just preserve
Speaker 1: the teaching of dogma and not fact in the council
Speaker 1: some arbitrary thing he made up. It actually undoes the
Speaker 1: entire argumentation of the anathemas because Cyril didn't then correctly
Speaker 1: understand Nestorious position and all the anathemas. That's how stupid
Speaker 1: this is. And by the way, I'm pretty sure Albrecht
Speaker 1: holds that position that the Nestorians aren't really Nestorians all
Speaker 1: the way. I think Shamun does too, which is just idiotic.
Speaker 1: They don't even know what the anathemas are about. They're
Speaker 1: Cyril's theology against Nastorius's theology. So if it's wrong, then
Speaker 1: you deny Ephesus. And he just said Chalcedon lines up
Speaker 1: with ephesis. Yeah, but you think emphasis made a mistake,
Speaker 1: dun't he look at the wide ranging.
Speaker 6: Effect it's had. But then look at the claims Pope
Speaker 6: Saint Lee of the Great and made for himself. Yeah,
Speaker 6: he clearly viewed a lot of He viewed the power
Speaker 6: of those keys is being given to the successor Saint.
Speaker 4: Peter, and he thought that he exercised them in a
Speaker 4: unique way. Not that he wouldn't say that other bishops,
Speaker 4: you know, aren't successors to Saint Peter. He I think
Speaker 4: he would, But that.
Speaker 1: Isn't They are accusing you of calling Sam a bald inward.
Speaker 1: I've never done that. William has a fake account calling
Speaker 1: you racial slurs. I mean, that's bizarre. Sue them. These
Speaker 1: are just mentally ill people. Man, Me and Eugene five dollars.
Speaker 1: The Black delegation did not give Shamoun a pass as
Speaker 1: there's goes two dollars, you know, Father Damien Quilt, I
Speaker 1: do not everyone is going to the Lake of Lava.
Speaker 1: The moon landings are not are real or they are fake.
Speaker 1: I do not like takes. This is a matrix attack.
Speaker 1: Oh that doesn't make any sense. So Samuel Joseph, imagine
Speaker 1: if you had joined Sam's petty little stream and just
Speaker 1: said nothing and said, man, I'm sweepy. I gotta go
Speaker 1: to sweet Sam and Willow are live right now. This
Speaker 1: is a debate for the boys. I will moderate Josh
Speaker 1: Jehoshah fat Z five dollars. I want to thank you
Speaker 1: for your content. I going to Orthodox Church for the
Speaker 1: first time. I have yet to find anything false about Orthodox.
Speaker 1: He started off as a dispensationalist. Now I'm here make
Speaker 1: sure I'm hitting all the super juds.
Speaker 4: Mean that he wouldn't claim a unique version of papal
Speaker 4: succession for the Bishop of.
Speaker 6: Rome, and I think, Michael, that point is the number
Speaker 6: one the one we have to focus on, because what
Speaker 6: I hear very often in popular apologetics is oh, well,
Speaker 6: Peter is the only one that got the keys, so
Speaker 6: of course the pope has a special role. Then they
Speaker 6: failed to realize.
Speaker 1: So uh, I think if I if I hop on there,
Speaker 1: they're amazable immediately gonna lose it, right, So I don't
Speaker 1: trust them to Like I'm thinking about it, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I understand what you're saying about a fake, fake account
Speaker 1: calling people the ND word that I don't. That doesn't
Speaker 1: make any sense. What does that mean? He's fighting a
Speaker 1: fake Jaydier account? Oh you mean they're like having a
Speaker 1: fake debate. So it's for them, it's just like a
Speaker 1: clown show. I don't understand. What's they're having a fake debate?
Speaker 1: What are you talking about supporting Israel? Does he make
Speaker 1: any sense? I'm going to debate a post prophet? What
Speaker 1: does that mean?
Speaker 4: So?
Speaker 1: Where is their stream? Let's see on on Skype? Let
Speaker 1: me see if I can get on Skype. Let me
Speaker 1: find the profile here.
Speaker 8: Let's see just one second the five games.
Speaker 1: I'm calling it a skype.
Speaker 6: No answer.
Speaker 1: The easiest way to do this would be for them
Speaker 1: to answer on the phone, and then we can have
Speaker 1: this today that way. It's very simple. But I'm going
Speaker 1: to stick to the doctrines. So I don't know why
Speaker 1: he I mean, they want they want me to hop on.
Speaker 1: Let's do it. I'm not going to end my stream
Speaker 1: to go to their stream. We can both have this
Speaker 1: discussion right here. Oh wait a minute. It has to
Speaker 1: be on a neutral platform. I thought they told me
Speaker 1: to just come to their stream. I mean this is
Speaker 1: a neutral platform. Okay, so come to my stream. I
Speaker 1: call in to his stream on his sky But now
Speaker 1: it's now it has to be on a neutral platform.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna call one more time. Let's do it. I'm
Speaker 1: calling in right now. Would be really easy. Let's do it.
Speaker 1: All he's got to do is have the discussion right now,
Speaker 1: so you won't answer. I'm not gonna I'm not leaving
Speaker 1: my stream to go to his stream when we could
Speaker 1: do it this way and it would be both of
Speaker 1: us having. He can continue streaming, I can continue streaming.
Speaker 1: I can't continue streaming if I go to his stream yard.
Speaker 1: Or he can just send me a stream yardard link in.
Speaker 1: He can send me the stream yard link in Skype.
Speaker 1: Send me the link here here. I can continue streaming.
Speaker 1: Send me the link here. See, like I told you,
Speaker 1: the whole reason that he went on this collapse mode,
Speaker 1: it was because he doesn't want to actually have that debate.
Speaker 1: He's always saying he wants to be teachable and corrected,
Speaker 1: and so I the whole thing is because I invited
Speaker 1: him and his handler to come discuss on my channel
Speaker 1: with time responses, and the solution would be send me
Speaker 1: the link and we can stream it at the same time.
Speaker 1: So all he's got to do is send me the
Speaker 1: Link'll y'all, let's do with this. I don't want to
Speaker 1: stop streaming. I'm not that way. He can have his stream,
Speaker 1: I can have my stream, and we can both talk
Speaker 1: on a device. You see. So you notice he won't
Speaker 1: answer the phone. They told me to come to his stream.
Speaker 1: I'm doing it, and he won't answer the phone. He
Speaker 1: calls you a cult leader while he was looking at
Speaker 1: memes about you. Yeah, he won't debate the issues. So
Speaker 1: look here you have it. Everybody can see Sam Shimun
Speaker 1: doesn't want to actually debate the issues when that's what
Speaker 1: I'm bringing up, and he would rather play mean games
Speaker 1: and like make fun of people or whatever whatever with me.
Speaker 1: So you can't defend these issues, like I'm sorry that
Speaker 1: you had a meltdown over me just simply asking you
Speaker 1: to come and have a conversation about it. He says,
Speaker 1: you're an ortho slut and you want join I'm trying
Speaker 1: to join his stream right here. I called three times,
Speaker 1: send me the link, and he's not answering because he
Speaker 1: knows he doesn't want to have this actual debate. If
Speaker 1: he wants to go on the Crucible, we can go
Speaker 1: have a debate on the Crucible right now. How's that
Speaker 1: go to Crucible? Then it would be a neutral platform
Speaker 1: if we both streamed it from our phone. So if
Speaker 1: he wants to leave, he wants to boot me, he
Speaker 1: can do that. I'm still streaming. I don't have to
Speaker 1: go to his stream. He doesn't have to go to mine.
Speaker 1: Very simple, simple solution, or we'll go to the Crucible.
Speaker 1: I guarantee you he doesn't want to debate me on
Speaker 1: the Crucible right now. I guarantee you won't. He won't
Speaker 1: do it. They said you called in on stream yard.
Speaker 1: I didn't call on stream yard. I called right here.
Speaker 1: They said you were sending message. I'm not on stream yard.
Speaker 1: They don't I don't have the stream yard link. There's
Speaker 1: me calling him three times on Skype that Skype send
Speaker 1: me the link here. I don't have the link inverted
Speaker 1: big toe Jay is one of percent Sigma Energy orb.
Speaker 1: They're acting like you went to the live chat and
Speaker 1: called him a bad word. That's not me, man, How
Speaker 1: am I doing that when I'm on here? Is he
Speaker 1: that stupid? He falls for any profile that has like
Speaker 1: it's not me, dummy, I did en joined his live stream.
Speaker 1: Sam is saying that you posted in his back channel.
Speaker 1: I don't have his back channel. I am on Skype.
Speaker 1: That's not me, dummies. Do you know what Skype sounds like?
Speaker 1: And to mind two dollars, Protestants need to take a
Speaker 1: back seat. I'm watching a schism in real time. This
Speaker 1: is not a schism because there's only one church and
Speaker 1: it's not the made up Apostolic churches that he has
Speaker 1: in his head. I don't like your Sam because you
Speaker 1: bass Protestants. However, Sam is acting like an old cringe vagina.
Speaker 1: He said that he won't answer because you only want
Speaker 1: to talk. Now that William left his stream, tell him
Speaker 1: and William to go onto the crucible. Let's do it
Speaker 1: right now. Bring William to the crucible. Now, bring William
Speaker 1: to the Crucible now, So every excuse he's making, I'm
Speaker 1: giving him a way out. He won't do it one
Speaker 1: to one on the freaking phone. He won't do it
Speaker 1: one to one on the phone on stream yard. He
Speaker 1: won't do it one to one on the Crucible. Okay,
Speaker 1: bring William to the Crucible. I'll debate you both. I'm
Speaker 1: not at all worried about this issue. It's like Sam
Speaker 1: has resorted now to only calling you slurs. Well that's
Speaker 1: because he didn't want a debate to begin with. He
Speaker 1: never wanted a debate. He just wanted a spurgout because
Speaker 1: he can't actually defend these positions. So again, tell him
Speaker 1: and all brect they can debate me, me versus them
Speaker 1: two on the crucible. So all he has is nasty talk.
Speaker 1: There you go, oh, like, this is the guy that
Speaker 1: you want to go with if you're a Roman Catholic
Speaker 1: And this is the fruits of Rome. Man, this is
Speaker 1: what you guys get with Roman Catholicism. Is this stuff
Speaker 1: I want to remind you, this is he He thinks
Speaker 1: the energies of God, the uncreated energies, are something that
Speaker 1: you just joke about. He doesn't even know that they're
Speaker 1: the basis for the Theophanies.
Speaker 3: We're gonna call you out. We're gonna get you. Don't
Speaker 3: worry about it now, girl, get some more energies.
Speaker 5: Maybe will help you you.
Speaker 3: Like I said, thanks for the received queer bait.
Speaker 5: I'm gonna show them who ran from William.
Speaker 6: Damn gar.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm running from William. I'm literally telling them to
Speaker 1: go to the crucible right now. All right, let's get
Speaker 1: back to this. Since this is they're not gonna He's
Speaker 1: not gonna do it.
Speaker 6: That the language lends itself to the fact that we
Speaker 6: recognize that the keys were received by the other bishops
Speaker 6: as well by the other apostles, but Saint Peter, in
Speaker 6: a very special way received them. And how are they
Speaker 6: able to utilize those as well when they are in
Speaker 6: union with the pope, with Saint Peter, the successor of
Speaker 6: Saint Peter. I think that that's the one area where
Speaker 6: they get tripped up.
Speaker 4: I think so, And I'm glad you brought up this point,
Speaker 4: because it is true that the other apostles received the
Speaker 4: case of kingdom as well. Sometimes I think we overseail
Speaker 4: our position by saying that only Peter received.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 4: Yeah, the rest of the apostles also received the case
Speaker 4: of the kingdom. But that does mean that we can't
Speaker 4: say that Peter received them in a unique way, no doubt,
Speaker 4: or that we could maybe speak about the apostles receiving
Speaker 4: the keys of the Kingdom through Peter.
Speaker 1: They want to talk about the biblical case for the papacy.
Speaker 1: In the Bible, Jesus breathes on all the apostles. It
Speaker 1: doesn't come on Peter first and then to the apostles
Speaker 1: at Pentecost. The Holy Spirit comes down on all of them.
Speaker 1: It doesn't go to Peter and then Peter give the
Speaker 1: Holy Spirit to the rest of the apostles at Pentecost.
Speaker 1: I'll look at that he ran away, so he had
Speaker 1: the opportunity to come on to the crucible. Rachel says,
Speaker 1: for five dollars, the crucible is on standby, ready and waiting.
Speaker 1: If Sam accepts. I sent him multiple calls and multiple opportunities.
Speaker 1: I called it. We could have had that. There's no
Speaker 1: reason not to have it multi streaming at the same time. Right,
Speaker 1: All he has to do is hop on and he
Speaker 1: thinks I'm over there like watching his stream, like, oh,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna wait until I'm gonna wait until William leaves,
Speaker 1: and then I'll call him. Dude, you and William can
Speaker 1: go on the Crucible and we'll do it right now.
Speaker 1: Sam just ran away. Well, what did you expect? All
Speaker 1: he wanted to do was bitch and wine and lose it.
Speaker 1: None of them want to talk about the actual issues.
Speaker 1: That's it. That's all they want to do as well.
Speaker 6: And I think that language there is probably the clearest
Speaker 6: if we emphasize that. But the other thing that people
Speaker 6: they get tripped up on Michael is the fact that they'll.
Speaker 1: Say, Okay, wait, he brought William back and into the stream.
Speaker 1: I sat there calling him and asking him to do it.
Speaker 1: That's so ridiculous. I mean, do you have a bed time?
Speaker 5: Like?
Speaker 1: Did you have a coof you? Like, I'm awake. Let's
Speaker 1: go to the Crucible. I'll just fire up some more coffee,
Speaker 1: let's debate all night, let's do it.
Speaker 6: Apostles receive the Well, then why do we need why
Speaker 6: do we need to Saint Peter? You need to see
Speaker 6: Peter because they were able to utilize them by being
Speaker 6: in union with the head of.
Speaker 1: The Why do we need a Saint Peter? Let's hear
Speaker 1: this brilliant response again. Why do we need a Saint Peter?
Speaker 6: Why do we need to Saint Peter. You need to
Speaker 6: see Peter because they were able to utilize them by
Speaker 6: being in union with the head.
Speaker 1: They were able to utilize them by being in union
Speaker 1: with the head. You need a Saint Peter because they
Speaker 1: were able to utilize them by being in union with
Speaker 1: the head. So a pragmatic argument that doesn't tell me
Speaker 1: that Vatican One is in the text. It doesn't actually
Speaker 1: tell me in the text that Peter is the head.
Speaker 1: We in the Orthodox Church call him Corphaeus, the mouthpiece
Speaker 1: of the apostles, but the single unilateral head. Where was
Speaker 1: that in anything that we've seen so far. We've seen
Speaker 1: a reference to Leo, we've seen a admission that you
Speaker 1: can't just use catchphrases. I've not yet heard an actual
Speaker 1: argument for the papacy yet. So let's see when we
Speaker 1: get that Sam got jay diarrhea. Wendy Torretz. The Muslims
Speaker 1: are having a field day with Sam manifesting. I mean,
Speaker 1: all of this is ridiculous because I sent him one
Speaker 1: message at the beginning of the day when he was
Speaker 1: doing his stream asking him if him and William want
Speaker 1: to come and have a timed response on my channel,
Speaker 1: and he just lost it for he had a total
Speaker 1: meltdown over nothing and it's just crazy. And then he
Speaker 1: goes into like mocking the divine energies. It's just crazy, man,
Speaker 1: it's weird. Jay, here's two dollars. You did it for
Speaker 1: the chat. You're a g makeing sure I didn't miss
Speaker 1: super chats. Let me let make it back anyway. So
Speaker 1: we're having a fun like again, let's get back to this.
Speaker 1: Because they're like, the way they're gonna do this, they're
Speaker 1: gonna play this is that they're gonna make all this smoke.
Speaker 1: They're gonna make all this drama. They're gonna whine and bitch.
Speaker 1: They're not gonna talk about the actual issues. And they're
Speaker 1: not gonna they do. That's the last thing they wanted
Speaker 1: to actually to be the issues, or else they would
Speaker 1: just hop on the crucible. We can we can sell
Speaker 1: it right now. We can hop on the crucible. We
Speaker 1: can pound it out through the entire night what the
Speaker 1: issues are. But I don't know, maybe leather Daddy here
Speaker 1: has got to go pound it out some other way.
Speaker 6: I don't know of the apostles of the band of
Speaker 6: the Apostles, that being Saint Peter. I think they tend
Speaker 6: to forget that, and the fact.
Speaker 9: That, well, you know, the officers bishop, well continue, We're
Speaker 9: told directly next chapter one twenty when the office is
Speaker 9: desolate of the bishop, it uses the Greek.
Speaker 6: Episcopos or episcopy. I forget the exact Greek word there,
Speaker 6: that will be fulfilled. He'll be filled. Yeah, Thus bishops continue,
Speaker 6: and we realize that that's very clear.
Speaker 1: For Sam says that you have a lisp. I'm pretty
Speaker 1: sure his leather daddy buddy has them the lisp of
Speaker 1: all lisps, and more of a lisp than James White.
Speaker 1: I don't have a lisp, by the way, So, uh,
Speaker 1: Sam is copying my James White joke, which is funny.
Speaker 1: Come up with your own jokes, dude.
Speaker 6: Saint Peter, those that would follow him, and I've noticed
Speaker 6: a tend to really, whether it be Evangelical or Orthodox,
Speaker 6: tend and not understand.
Speaker 4: That, you know, for those that say, as you mentioned there,
Speaker 4: that okay, well, why do we need a Saint Peter,
Speaker 4: why do we need a head it? My thing is
Speaker 4: it's like saying why do you need a why do
Speaker 4: you need a head on the body?
Speaker 1: Again, In the Orthodox view, Christ is the head and
Speaker 1: he directly governs the church through the power of the
Speaker 1: Holy Spirit. So we don't need an Old Testament high
Speaker 1: priest earthly head because the Old Testament high priest office
Speaker 1: in the New Testament is explicitly referenced and fulfilled in
Speaker 1: the person of Christ. So Christ is quite literally the
Speaker 1: living head of the Church, and every bishop underneath Christ
Speaker 1: is another little head of the church, you see. But
Speaker 1: it doesn't follow from this analogy of head to body
Speaker 1: that there has to be an Old Testament high priest head.
Speaker 1: You see, when the high priest, as everyone knows via
Speaker 1: Hebrews Hebrew seven, is fulfilled in the person and the
Speaker 1: ascension of Christ. So the Roman Catholic position is actually
Speaker 1: a lack of faith in the power of the Holy
Speaker 1: Spirit to govern in the church. Now, an easy way
Speaker 1: to refute this is it's Benedict the sixteenth that admitted
Speaker 1: that the Orthodox Church has maintained the faith for the
Speaker 1: last thousand years. It's a famous Benedict quote. Well, then
Speaker 1: we don't need the papacy to maintain the faith, you see.
Speaker 1: So the Orthodox confession that the Holy Spirit is the
Speaker 1: governor and guiter of the Church. Thus we don't need
Speaker 1: the physical, literal, high, priestly judaic head of the church
Speaker 1: is proven by the admission of Benedict that the Orthodox
Speaker 1: Church has maintained the faith four thousand years about the pope.
Speaker 4: Body can't exist without a hey, it cannot, yes.
Speaker 1: But Christ is the head. So this false analogy does
Speaker 1: not prove that the Bishop of Rome is the vicar
Speaker 1: of Christ on earth, the earthly head. It's just that's
Speaker 1: the thing in question, and it's not been proved so far.
Speaker 1: They've only really made a pragmatic argument the pope will
Speaker 1: provide unity and he can be ahead. But these are
Speaker 1: not good arguments so far.
Speaker 4: It seems like there does have to be that center
Speaker 4: of authority, the center of unity. Yet really even be
Speaker 4: able to identify a particular communion, you have to have that.
Speaker 1: So it seems that I don't know how if a
Speaker 1: center head of authority and unity is needed to recognize
Speaker 1: the church or to recognize that unity. How did any
Speaker 1: Christians who converted in the first, second, and third century
Speaker 1: who didn't have access to Rome know the faith. Did
Speaker 1: they just go and say are you the church in
Speaker 1: commune with Rome, then you must be the true church.
Speaker 1: What if they didn't know anything about Rome? Like, do
Speaker 1: they actually think that all of the churches in the first, second,
Speaker 1: third century were catechizing people like Vatican One? And if
Speaker 1: they weren't, then they didn't need to know about the
Speaker 1: bishop bishopic of if they were converting in Jerusalem or
Speaker 1: in Corinth or Ephesus or anywhere else. Do you see
Speaker 1: the point when you read the early catechetical lectures or
Speaker 1: when you read say, John Damascus is on the Orthodox faith?
Speaker 1: Why does John Damascus, a doctor of the Catholic Church,
Speaker 1: write an entire systematic theology with no reference to the
Speaker 1: papist Here, Peter, he didn't recognize the obvious number one
Speaker 1: rock center of the faith of the church when he
Speaker 1: wrote an entire systematic theology or did he just simply
Speaker 1: not have in his mind the Vatican One mindset? Like
Speaker 1: these people do could.
Speaker 4: Function without Ahead? Now, yeah, what people will say is, well,
Speaker 4: Jesus is the head. What do you say, respondse, yeah, so.
Speaker 6: Without a doubt, we recognize Christ. It's ahead, We recognize
Speaker 6: Christ holds the key.
Speaker 1: Nobody says, but yeah, the Holy Spirit doesn't really do
Speaker 1: that good in governing the church. So we need the
Speaker 1: the Questak. We need the ruler of all rulers. We
Speaker 1: need the king of kings.
Speaker 6: The Pope.
Speaker 1: You think when you're king of kings, you think it's Jesus. No, No,
Speaker 1: the Pope is the king of kings on earth. You see,
Speaker 1: he has all temporal dominion and authority, and all kings
Speaker 1: must submit and kiss his feet. The Pope alone, shall
Speaker 1: all the princes of the world kiss his feet? Is
Speaker 1: that what Jesus was setting up when he set up
Speaker 1: a church, which, by the way, they reference Chalcidon. The
Speaker 1: Canons of Chalcedon forbid any cleric from being a worldly
Speaker 1: magistrate or a civil leader. No member of the clergy
Speaker 1: can be a prince or a magistrate of the state
Speaker 1: because the separation of powers dictatus pape is a rejection
Speaker 1: of Chalcedon. Let's see Orthodox for nisis five dollars. It
Speaker 1: is not freeful to speak with Sam. He was spitting,
Speaker 1: he was calling Orthodox dogs. He found old Theoria articles
Speaker 1: against Orthodox ethos. So now he's mad at Father. Hears
Speaker 1: just losing it Sam Jordan and five dollars. Sam is
Speaker 1: ending his stream. Now that the crucible people are offering
Speaker 1: a platform that's neutral. Of course, Nicholas two dollars, I
Speaker 1: just joined the stream. What's going on? I'm refuting the
Speaker 1: Roman Catholic position of Sam and Albrick. Two dollars. Sam,
Speaker 1: he won't call you. You're desperate for reviews. Yeah, I'm desperate
Speaker 1: for views and them on two dollars. Protestants need to
Speaker 1: take a back seat. I already read that. Let's see
Speaker 1: Dre God the passport King ten dollars. This is a
Speaker 1: rare currence where Muslims and Protestants are not part of
Speaker 1: an insane clown show. Where's the cloud show? Other than
Speaker 1: like I'm actually I'm responding to the actual arguments Gray
Speaker 1: stream Jay, this is dedicated to the papacy and it's
Speaker 1: long overdue. Well, I've actually done a whole bunch of
Speaker 1: papacy streams, oaklock something sks and d two dollars. Sam
Speaker 1: said nothing but foul discussing things about you and all
Speaker 1: the Orthodox there you go, all because of one DM
Speaker 1: that I'm asking him to come and have a friendly exchange.
Speaker 1: That's it, that's it. That's what ignited all of this
Speaker 1: because I disagreed with his take on Protestant and Catholic
Speaker 1: models of the Trinity ISA eighty seven two dollars. Sam
Speaker 1: Chamun was indefensible tonight. What a shame. Yeah, retro reister
Speaker 1: gaming five a's Jay God bless you mate, love your
Speaker 1: channel shivalib get so and so on to debate with you.
Speaker 1: I don't think he wants to debate with me. This
Speaker 1: is not Tolsch Schamun. It's about somebody else. I don't
Speaker 1: think that guy's interested. But maybe we'll see Brent. Five dollars.
Speaker 1: If anyone is manifesting anything, it is Sam Shimun Roman Catholics.
Speaker 1: This is the fruit of your rotten church. This vindicates Orthodoxy. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: this is verty big too. Five dollars. Sam said that
Speaker 1: you are a pure scum, you are the son of Satan.
Speaker 6: You are.
Speaker 1: Gay. I mean I'm married, he's not, so I don't
Speaker 1: That doesn't make any sense. BLK and Sam and William
Speaker 1: fell for a fake account and they thought it was
Speaker 1: really you. This is one of the stupidest, our funniest
Speaker 1: clips of the year, arguing.
Speaker 5: That but.
Speaker 6: Peter, Saint Peter is the vicarious rock that has got
Speaker 6: to be recognized Number one that takes nothing away from Christ.
Speaker 6: But the fact of the matter is, Michael, is that
Speaker 6: Christ set up a visible church with a visible hierarchy
Speaker 6: and invisible head.
Speaker 1: And yeah, but none of that, that's a non sequitor.
Speaker 1: So the thing in question is whether Peter is the
Speaker 1: sole autocrat head of the church, and we haven't actually
Speaker 1: heard a proof of that or a specific argument other
Speaker 1: than practical appeals. Well, you need it for unity, but
Speaker 1: where's the evidence of that biblically, where's the evidence of
Speaker 1: that in the patristic sense, because we haven't had an
Speaker 1: actual argument for that. All we've had is well, Leo
Speaker 1: thought as Tom had authority, okay, but that's not ex cathedra,
Speaker 1: and it was investigated to see if it was in
Speaker 1: line with what Cyril taught. So we've not had much
Speaker 1: substance yet.
Speaker 6: When you kind of use that as a you know,
Speaker 6: fallback and say, well, you know, Price is a leader.
Speaker 6: We agree that the church has always agreed. But how
Speaker 6: is the visible hierarchy mentioned in scripture? And it's very
Speaker 6: clear how it is mentioned. We hearken in the Matthew
Speaker 6: chapter sixteen all the time, but there are other pastes
Speaker 6: Luke chapter twenty two, John.
Speaker 1: Twenty Let's look at Luke twenty two. And let's see
Speaker 1: if anywhere in Luke twenty two we find anything equivalent
Speaker 1: to Vatican one, because it ain't there. So remember this
Speaker 1: is proofs for the papacy from the premiere papists, leather
Speaker 1: Daddy Albrecht. Here, let's see where all Brett goes with.
Speaker 10: Us one Judge twenty one. And the language is very
Speaker 10: strong there. Saint Peter's were literally told in the Greek
Speaker 10: that he said, shepherd in a very special role.
Speaker 6: What kind of shepherd?
Speaker 1: All the apostles are called shepherds? Where is the special role? Right?
Speaker 1: That's attributed to Vatican one's level of this? All right,
Speaker 1: so let's see what do you say, John twenty one.
Speaker 1: So we have the the denials of Peter, right, and
Speaker 1: then Jesus is pointing out to Peter that even though
Speaker 1: you denied me those three times, I am forgiving you,
Speaker 1: and I am telling you and giving you this commission.
Speaker 1: Feed my lands, feed my tend my sheep, feed my sheep.
Speaker 1: Where in any of that which is a restitution, a
Speaker 1: kind of redemption for Peter's three denials? Where in any
Speaker 1: of that is the Vatican one claim that the Bishop
Speaker 1: of Rome exercises universal, temporal and spiritual power autocratically over
Speaker 1: the entire church. Where is that, Oh, because Jesus said,
Speaker 1: ten my sheep. So you begin to see that the
Speaker 1: entire presupposition of these people is to read into the
Speaker 1: texts these bizarre, outlandish interpretations that have nothing to do
Speaker 1: with what's in the text. That actually progresses too. Dictatus
Speaker 1: Pope in ten ninety. You understand they have to defend
Speaker 1: this because it's not just dictatas Pope. Unam simtem dogmatizes
Speaker 1: the same thing. A couple centuries later. The Roman Church
Speaker 1: is founded by God alone. The Roman pontiff alone is universal.
Speaker 1: He alone can depose and reinstate all bishops. Totally different ecclesiology.
Speaker 1: The first thousand years UH number nine. The pope alone,
Speaker 1: of all the princes in the world, shows his feet.
Speaker 1: The Pope's name is the only name in the world.
Speaker 1: The papacy is the only name that can be spoken
Speaker 1: in the churches the Roman Church. The papacy is judged
Speaker 1: by no one and may be judged by no one.
Speaker 1: So in ten ninety Dictatus Pape of Gregory the seventh
Speaker 1: becomes the seeds for developing into unam sanctam in thirteen
Speaker 1: oh two, which doesn't just say that you have to
Speaker 1: be in communion with the Bishop Rome to be saved.
Speaker 1: It says you must also believe in the full temper
Speaker 1: temporal power and supremacy the Roman bishop to be saved
Speaker 1: as well. And as we saw the Roman calogy church
Speaker 1: doesn't teach that. Now, this is what these people are
Speaker 1: defending from Jesus telling Peter, feed my sheep. You can't
Speaker 1: make this up. So Jesus saying feed my sheep literally
Speaker 1: is supposed to translate into a thousand years later. You
Speaker 1: are the king of all the kings in the world.
Speaker 1: You should have standing armies, as the Medici popes did.
Speaker 1: It's ludicrous.
Speaker 6: Over the flock. Yeah, So my comment would be that
Speaker 6: we have got that chep, we have that business as lead,
Speaker 6: and my hope would be that all of these other
Speaker 6: churches have that as well. But in order to have
Speaker 6: that they would have to become Catholic. Those people would
Speaker 6: have to become Catholic.
Speaker 4: Some people would say, but okay, you know, I understand
Speaker 4: what you're saying. But it seems like Vatican One and
Speaker 4: its language and claims about the pope, it just seems anachronistic,
Speaker 4: they would claim. They would say that, look, this speaks
Speaker 4: about an authority to the papacy that just did not
Speaker 4: exist in the first millennium. What would you say to
Speaker 4: those who would claim that this kind of authority doesn't
Speaker 4: exist in the first millennium?
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly, you mean the argument. You mean the argument
Speaker 1: that the papal document itself makes in eighty paragraph nineteen
Speaker 1: appeals to the Bishop Rome from the East expressed the
Speaker 1: community of the church, but the Bishop Rome did not
Speaker 1: exercise canonical authority of the Church of the East. You're
Speaker 1: talking about your papacies argument that this wasn't the case
Speaker 1: that it's admitted. Is that what you're talking about.
Speaker 6: One, even though it's very early on, you clearly have
Speaker 6: seeds of that in Pope Rome, without a doubt, where
Speaker 6: he's what he's talking when he's talking to the flock,
Speaker 6: he's doing it in the authoritative manner. He clearly views
Speaker 6: himself as that head of the church.
Speaker 1: But no Clement of Rome, by the way, is no
Speaker 1: longer even used by Roman Catholic apologists. And if you
Speaker 1: read the the Sashensky book that just came out, there's
Speaker 1: an entire chapter on Clement on this very point, and
Speaker 1: even the Roman Catholic world has ceased from trying to
Speaker 1: utilize Clement in that way. This is an older apologetic
Speaker 1: approach that was popular maybe one hundred years ago, but
Speaker 1: it's fallen out of use because it doesn't really prove
Speaker 1: what the Roman Catholics wanted to prove. Right, So, if
Speaker 1: Clement writes a letter and says to a church far
Speaker 1: away that because he presides in love and he has
Speaker 1: these recommendations, none of that has anything to do with
Speaker 1: just like John twenty one, with the claims of vatican Ie.
Speaker 1: And so this is just like the classic low tier.
Speaker 1: It's like Catherine answers level quote mining that even Roman
Speaker 1: Catholics don't use anymore. So again, Sashensky's chapter on Clement
Speaker 1: disproves this.
Speaker 6: We go beyond. It's very clear in the language of
Speaker 6: seeing her in as that there is a certain model
Speaker 6: that is set up in a certain way. So if
Speaker 6: we look in early church history and we look at
Speaker 6: the claims of some of these popes, for instance, I
Speaker 6: brought up Pope Saint Pope Saint Leo the Great, and
Speaker 6: we go onward. Even at classic example, read the language
Speaker 6: of the second Council in Nicia.
Speaker 4: There's no way, very strong, right, and that's added agumenical council.
Speaker 6: That's this is very very strong.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but it did they not realize that the Pentarchy
Speaker 1: had already been accepted at Nicia two, like prior even
Speaker 1: prior to Nicia too, the Pentarchy had already been accepted.
Speaker 1: And flowery language, as we saw in the debate between
Speaker 1: Ibara and Ubi, doesn't again doesn't get you anywhere because
Speaker 1: the same flowery language is used of the emperor and
Speaker 1: the empress. For example, the emperor is called the he
Speaker 1: whom the gates of Hell cannot prevail against. Oh, so
Speaker 1: does that mean that he's equivalent to Peter? So in
Speaker 1: other words, it's a double standard. Right, The same argument
Speaker 1: has brought forward when this was the point Luigi made
Speaker 1: to Voice of Reason. Right, So it's a double standard.
Speaker 1: So just because you see that flowery language like that,
Speaker 1: they'll pick and choose and they'll say, well, when it's
Speaker 1: used of the emperor, it doesn't count. But when it's
Speaker 1: used to the Bishop Rome, that's the only time it counts.
Speaker 1: That's a double standard.
Speaker 6: Incredibly strong. So if we have that kind of language,
Speaker 6: this is fort millennium. Uh, this is the first millennium.
Speaker 6: And if we have that kind of language there, the
Speaker 6: Church is agreeing upon that kind of language, then there
Speaker 6: is a foundation.
Speaker 1: Now it's a non sequitor. So because the first the
Speaker 1: flowery language is there in some of these examples, which
Speaker 1: is selectively chosen to ignore the flowery language that's said
Speaker 1: identically of the emperor. By the way, I understand, I'm
Speaker 1: not arguing that the emperor is the bastion of the
Speaker 1: gates of Hell, right, I'm not arguing that the emperor
Speaker 1: is what will keep the church from falling to the
Speaker 1: gates of Hell. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying
Speaker 1: the same phraseology is used of the Emperor, and the
Speaker 1: Roman Catholics ignore it because it doesn't fit their model
Speaker 1: and their usage, because they would then have to admit
Speaker 1: that there's flowery language that's used a lot in those centuries.
Speaker 1: Let me give you another example. If you read Basil's letters,
Speaker 1: when he talks about how Rome was useless in the
Speaker 1: Malitian Schism, when he refers to the Church of Antioch,
Speaker 1: Basil says, Antioch the head of the church, the head
Speaker 1: from which the body desires and seeks its knowledge and
Speaker 1: it's whatever all this flowery language, nobody believes the Church
Speaker 1: of Antioch is the head of the Church. You have
Speaker 1: the same language in Pope Saint Gregory the Great where
Speaker 1: he calls the See of Peter Rome, Alexandria and Antioch
Speaker 1: as late as Pope Saint Gregory the Great. So that
Speaker 1: doesn't fit their model though, you see, because they have
Speaker 1: a selective usage where they pull out the quote that
Speaker 1: fits the model, ignore the contrary evidence, not to mention
Speaker 1: the contradictions against the Vatican One idea of indefectibility, like
Speaker 1: popeias or a pope being deposed. They'll set that aside
Speaker 1: for a minute. That's ignored because what's useful is the selective,
Speaker 1: flowery language that fits the narrative of Vatican One being
Speaker 1: read retroactively into these passages.
Speaker 6: We love them and the orient Orthodoxy, and they're gonna say, hey, well,
Speaker 6: we weren't there at and I see it too, so
Speaker 6: what about us. So the way to answer that, in
Speaker 6: my opinion, is to look at beforehand. Sure, and if
Speaker 6: you look at beforehand, if you look at in the
Speaker 6: Syriac fathers, they have strong language when they talk about
Speaker 6: the papacy as well. And there's look, Michael, there's no
Speaker 6: way around the language of the Bible. Yeah, it's very
Speaker 6: clear the model that is laid out there, and that
Speaker 6: model is at very clear of the papacy the way
Speaker 6: the Captain Church points it up.
Speaker 1: Now, come on, So far we've heard Matthew sixteen, we've
Speaker 1: heard Luke twenty one about the Luke twenty two about
Speaker 1: the denials, and John twenty one about feed my flock.
Speaker 1: That's all we've heard. And he just says the papacy's clear.
Speaker 1: You haven't demonstrated anything from Vatican one in the Bible,
Speaker 1: nor have you demonstrated anything for Vatican one in the
Speaker 1: Patristic text yet. And by the way, you've not addressed
Speaker 1: any of the objections either.
Speaker 6: By the way, nobody I mean, I mean.
Speaker 1: Like Honorius, Virgilius, et cetera, which are classic problem texts
Speaker 1: for the papists. And let me remind you of Ybarra mmh.
Speaker 1: Let me see it definitely, So try to pull up.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure if I'm logged in, I could say
Speaker 1: what the hell was that? IM trying to find my clip.
Speaker 1: Let's see if it's on X. See if we can
Speaker 1: find it over here. You'll see why I'm pulling this up.
Speaker 1: There's a clip I uploaded where Abara doesn't have an
Speaker 1: answer and the freaking search on here is terrible.
Speaker 11: It's on my TikTok. Let me just play it this way.
Speaker 1: So we're gonna show from Ibarra, who's far better than
Speaker 1: Albrecht at this point, how bad the augmentation is here. Okay,
Speaker 1: here we go, who.
Speaker 2: Never departed from the traditions of the fathers and directed
Speaker 2: the Church of God in utter tranquility.
Speaker 1: Do you think that's correct? Not literally?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Oh so wait a minute. So we have a quote,
Speaker 1: a patristic quote that this certain situation, I can't remember
Speaker 1: if it's talking about the emperor or what, but it's
Speaker 1: saying that this bishopric or this in this situation, they
Speaker 1: always kept to the faith and never departed. Right. So
Speaker 1: this is the same language that's used in the ballet
Speaker 1: or Bagatho.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 1: So I understand that Ubi's making the argument to a
Speaker 1: borrow that flowery language, even in your view, doesn't prove
Speaker 1: the papacy, because you admit, when the flowery language of
Speaker 1: never departing from the faith is used of the emperor
Speaker 1: or of the other bishoprics, it doesn't count.
Speaker 2: You hear that who never departed from the traditions of
Speaker 2: the fathers and directed the Church of God in ultra tranquility.
Speaker 2: Do you think that's correct?
Speaker 1: Not literally? Oh, flower, language doesn't automatically prove it. Let's
Speaker 1: see where this goes. It's not literally correct, but when
Speaker 1: the papacy works for the Roman Catholic it's literally correct.
Speaker 2: By the mid fifth century, how many popes have had
Speaker 2: like heretical views.
Speaker 12: Yeah, this is a hotly debated issue. So, I mean,
Speaker 12: there's questions related to the pontificate of.
Speaker 1: Liberius and Felix.
Speaker 12: But you know there's there's both sides.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Theodora. Oh so wait a minute, the papacy has
Speaker 1: had heterodox people in its chair. What about that doctrine
Speaker 1: called indefectibility. I'm pretty sure there was a promise of indefectibility.
Speaker 1: That's part of the Vatican One mindset and ethos of
Speaker 1: what the papacy is. Well, you understand the pope is
Speaker 1: indefectible until he defects. That's literally the Romaicelli position. And
Speaker 1: you just heard admit that.
Speaker 2: Mention this letter. Yes, for that Holy see speaking rom
Speaker 2: has precedence over all churches in the world for many reasons,
Speaker 2: and above all for this that is free from any
Speaker 2: taint of heresy, and that no bishop of heterodox's opinion
Speaker 2: has ever sat upon its throne, but has kept the
Speaker 2: grace of the apostles undefiled. Do you think he's correct?
Speaker 1: I mean, so that's pretty strong, flowery language.
Speaker 12: Uh oh, unless he elsewhere condemns another pope.
Speaker 2: So, as you mentioned, maybe he didn't know. I mean,
Speaker 2: he's out in the sounds like he's out in the
Speaker 2: boondocks when he riots, I can the constitutions of the
Speaker 2: church be destroyed?
Speaker 12: Constitution, the police, You're just done through the churches, right?
Speaker 2: And these guys are talking about when the Holy spirits
Speaker 2: down through the church is always, always, always, so I mean, okay,
Speaker 2: so in one case remaining, oh thank you. So in
Speaker 2: this case, I mean, when taking too account that there
Speaker 2: had been heretical popes, I mean, I don't see how
Speaker 2: you can maintain that the always there should be the exception.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we don't know. So oh, always the papacy was
Speaker 1: always the rock and never taught error.
Speaker 2: Right, right, And these guys are talking about, with the
Speaker 2: Holy spirits down through the church is always, always, always.
Speaker 2: So I mean, okay, so in one case remaining, oh
Speaker 2: thank you. So in this case, I mean, when taking
Speaker 2: too account that there had been heretical popes, I mean,
Speaker 2: I don't see how you can maintain that they always
Speaker 2: there should be the exception.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we don't know.
Speaker 12: I mean, look, I believe Honorius was a condemned heretic.
Speaker 1: Oh so the papacy isn't indefectible. It's indefectible until it defects.
Speaker 1: So you understand that the bar right there denied the
Speaker 1: indefectibility of the Roman See do you.
Speaker 2: Think in the case of Saint Silverius, he was deposed
Speaker 2: by bel Sorrus, He's sent to Justinian, finds out says
Speaker 2: you have to give a guy trial. He's handed over
Speaker 2: to Virgilius. Virgilious he was a horrible person. I don't
Speaker 2: know when sounds of it, He's horrible. I mean, how
Speaker 2: does that work out? If Virgilius is the pope, but
Speaker 2: he's judging a former pope. That means that the deposition
Speaker 2: of the former pope had to be valid if Virgilius
Speaker 2: is a pope. If if the deposition is not invalid
Speaker 2: and Virgilius is judging him, then you still have the
Speaker 2: situation of a pope being judged by non pope.
Speaker 12: I'll be candid with you, this is something that I
Speaker 12: have not really had a satisfactory answer to.
Speaker 1: Oh so when we have the real hardcore problems the
Speaker 1: top apologist, I don't know, man, I don't have the answer.
Speaker 1: So there's Abara, who's way more advanced than this goofball
Speaker 1: doesn't know the answer.
Speaker 6: That the way the papacy looks at the time, they're
Speaker 6: not saying, well, the papacy has to look like this. Yeah,
Speaker 6: in the one hundreds, the church has been persecuted. You know,
Speaker 6: the church has developed, doctrine has developed.
Speaker 1: There's no argument about Oh so wait a minute, now,
Speaker 1: remember Vatican One Pastor attornis uh uh satist cognitium. They
Speaker 1: actually argue that the prerogatives and the powers of the
Speaker 1: Roman bishop were always there and always known and recognized
Speaker 1: by the rest of the church from the earliest days. Well,
Speaker 1: but it is persecuted, so it's not really there. You
Speaker 1: don't really see it. They're not able to do it,
Speaker 1: and it develops. So wait a minute, is it always
Speaker 1: there and clear from the earliest days? According to the
Speaker 1: Vatican one and Lee the thirteenth people teaching or was
Speaker 1: it not clear? And it developed over time into unum
Speaker 1: sanctum and the pope is the king of kings and
Speaker 1: has a bank run by the roth Charles the Battican Bank.
Speaker 1: Which one is it? Is it a development or was
Speaker 1: it always there? Those are mutual exclusive claims.
Speaker 6: You see doctrine developing. It is not the same thing
Speaker 6: as saying that doctrine has been created and there is
Speaker 6: no example of this his Oh really?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 1: What about the idea that the Roman bishop has full
Speaker 1: temporal authority over all kings and it is himself a
Speaker 1: king of kings. And if you don't believe that, your
Speaker 1: dannd where in the first thousand years is there a
Speaker 1: doctrine of that? You must believe in the temporal supremacy
Speaker 1: of the Roman Bishop to be saved. Oh, it doesn't exist.
Speaker 1: That refused the very thing he just said.
Speaker 4: You know, the unfolding of the doctrine in industry is
Speaker 4: another thing too. So it's a good point. You bring
Speaker 4: up the wordy in orthodox A. Yeah, well they do
Speaker 4: accept ephesisure. What's interesting there is you have at emphasis
Speaker 4: Phillip the leg at the representative of the Pope making
Speaker 4: some pretty serious claims in front of the Council fathers
Speaker 4: about the Bishop of Rome. That is really the seeds
Speaker 4: of Vatican Willing in my estimation, Yeah, no doubt he
Speaker 4: makes them openly.
Speaker 1: Oh so wait a minute, remember Vatican I and post
Speaker 1: returners in Scatheast Cognito teach that the powers and prerogatives
Speaker 1: of the Roman bishop were always there from the earliest days,
Speaker 1: recognized by all. But now we have at ephesis the
Speaker 1: seeds of the papacy. So understand that when you admit
Speaker 1: that these doctrines and these ecclesiology type structures evolve, you're
Speaker 1: admitting the evolution of doctrine, which allows for a position
Speaker 1: of in nineteen twenty eight condemning interfaith gatherings to nineteen
Speaker 1: sixty eight, sixty nine, seventy. Now it's the work of
Speaker 1: the Holy Spirit. If doctrine evolves, the Holy Spirit can
Speaker 1: contradict himself followers accepted.
Speaker 6: Yeah, yeah, there's no doubt about that. So you bring
Speaker 6: up a very good example there, because the church is
Speaker 6: not broken off at that time in emphasis. So to me,
Speaker 6: the best that they can do is try to claim
Speaker 6: that maybe later on that that wasn't accepted. It was
Speaker 6: accepted there though there was no doubt about it. There
Speaker 6: is no doubt that it was accepted there.
Speaker 1: So what do we But again, the flowery language or
Speaker 1: the strong language of legates at Ephesus, this comes up
Speaker 1: in the I think it was the Yeah, let's remind
Speaker 1: everybody of this classic. Right, So the the translator of
Speaker 1: these texts, right, they had him on reason and theology,
Speaker 1: Father Price, right, So let's remind these two people in
Speaker 1: terms of the source that they're going to Richard Price.
Speaker 1: What does Richard Price say about this argument of Chalcedon
Speaker 1: and Ephesus. Let's see what he says, because he doesn't
Speaker 1: say what they say, but he's who they rely on.
Speaker 1: What's this?
Speaker 4: Why did the bishops in Calcidon feel they needed to
Speaker 4: judge THEODOREA if Leo had already reinstated him.
Speaker 13: Oh, well they didn't. They didn't recognize Roman jurisdiction in
Speaker 13: the eastern provinces.
Speaker 1: Whoa you?
Speaker 13: So there's reinstating for them was not decisive. The decision
Speaker 13: has to be made in the east. The the Odora's
Speaker 13: position at the council is an interesting one. Uh when
Speaker 13: the uh.
Speaker 1: So you see why this was not what they wanted
Speaker 1: on this stream. They invited Richard Price On who translated
Speaker 1: the Ecumenical Council acts in the sessions and all that, right,
Speaker 1: and they got a question that didn't fit their made
Speaker 1: up narrative. Right. And Richard Price is admitting, because he's
Speaker 1: enough of a scholar and he's honest with the texts,
Speaker 1: that the East didn't care about Roman authority and the
Speaker 1: Roman bishop in some sort of unilateral way. It's the
Speaker 1: exact same thing that Rome's eighty document says right here
Speaker 1: in paragraph nineteen. The Bishop of Rome did not exercise
Speaker 1: canonical authority over the churches of the East. Let's hear
Speaker 1: Father Richard Price again, the very guy that these guys
Speaker 1: rely upon.
Speaker 4: You understand, the bishops and calcid On feel they needed
Speaker 4: to judge Theodora if Leo had already reinstated him.
Speaker 13: Well they didn't, for they didn't recognize Roman jurisdiction in
Speaker 13: the Eastern provinces.
Speaker 1: Oh oops, doesn't fit the narrative. Just ignore it.
Speaker 6: Talk about the orient Orthodox. That to me is a
Speaker 6: problem for them because they reject the papacy. But it
Speaker 6: becomes an even greater problem for the Eastern Orthodox because
Speaker 6: we have so many examples, especially at the Second Council
Speaker 6: of Nicea, and this is what I would.
Speaker 1: Ask Before he goes into this, I should point out
Speaker 1: that from the Orthodox perspective, the power and prerogatives of
Speaker 1: the Roman bishop are something that unfortunately evolved. So I'm
Speaker 1: not saying that actual theology develops. I'm saying that the
Speaker 1: power and prerogatives of the Roman bishop developed over time,
Speaker 1: and you do get stronger and stronger statements about the
Speaker 1: power and prerogatives of the Roman bishop. So even by
Speaker 1: the time of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, when they had
Speaker 1: already accepted pentarchy, you tell that to a Roman calogy,
Speaker 1: they think that you're making that up. They don't even
Speaker 1: realize that their own popes accepted the pentarchical structure by
Speaker 1: the time of the sixth and seventh Council. They're assuming
Speaker 1: that the statement from the Bishop of Rome necessarily makes it.
Speaker 3: So.
Speaker 1: Well, that would only be true if the Roman Catholic
Speaker 1: Vatican One position was true, which is the thing in question.
Speaker 1: So you notice, because these people are evidentialists and they're
Speaker 1: very sort of low tier, not very sophisticated when it
Speaker 1: comes to epistemology. They just assume that you just quote
Speaker 1: mine and pick out the evidences, and if you stack
Speaker 1: up enough evidences, then it ninety two percent proves maybe
Speaker 1: the papacy in its seed form. But that's misunderstanding the
Speaker 1: paradigm question here. From the Orthodox paradigm, just because the
Speaker 1: Roman bishop starts accruing to himself more and more power,
Speaker 1: which you clearly see in when I'm signed them and
Speaker 1: Dictatus Pope, it doesn't mean that it's good or necessarily so.
Speaker 1: From the Orthodox perspective, the Bishop of Rome is like
Speaker 1: any other bishop. He can be a heretic. You've heard
Speaker 1: Ibara admit that there were heretic popes. There's no special
Speaker 1: prerogative that makes that guy immune to these problems. So
Speaker 1: the fact that a pope, as we get into the seventh, eighth,
Speaker 1: and ninth century, makes more outlandish claims, makes more outlandish
Speaker 1: temporal power claims, doesn't prove anything other than that you're
Speaker 1: just presupposing the papal position. But they don't actually think
Speaker 1: that way, right. They think that if the pope has
Speaker 1: more and more outlandish claims, that proves the papacy. Well,
Speaker 1: only if the papacy in the Vatican One position is true.
Speaker 1: Is that the case, But that's the thing in question.
Speaker 6: Which church most resembles that church of the second Coast
Speaker 6: of nice in language?
Speaker 1: And oh, really, you're sure you want to go that route?
Speaker 1: Because the Second Council of Nicea is about icons, and
Speaker 1: the iconographic theology of that council lays down patterns and
Speaker 1: structures that are not allowable outside of the canons of
Speaker 1: what's appropriate for worship. In fact, there's a council that
Speaker 1: reaffirms Nicea two in eight forty three. It's called the
Speaker 1: Triumph of Orthodoxy in the East because it's the final
Speaker 1: victory of Nicea two over the Iconoclasts, and that produces
Speaker 1: a gigantic document called the Sonoticon, which condemns all kinds
Speaker 1: of things, including the outlandish violations of worship and errors
Speaker 1: in the Roman Catholic system. Eventually, this develops in a
Speaker 1: lower D sense of developed. I don't mean that the
Speaker 1: doctrine change, but I'm saying that canon law is the
Speaker 1: application of the principles at different times and in different ways.
Speaker 1: For us, canon law can be flexible. It has to
Speaker 1: be can't be immutable. There has to be changes and
Speaker 1: applications of canon law because cities go away. Times change.
Speaker 1: For example, you have canons that say that clergy can't
Speaker 1: ride on a horse, right, eventually clergy can ride horses
Speaker 1: because we don't have nobility anymore. So horse riding was
Speaker 1: something for the nobility, and priests weren't supposed to be
Speaker 1: engaging in the actions of a civil servant and the nobility.
Speaker 1: So that's why that canon was there. So canons are
Speaker 1: a tricky thing because they're not necessarily infallible or immutable
Speaker 1: or eternal. Their applications of the principles of divine revelation
Speaker 1: to the time and to the place. And I don't
Speaker 1: think anybody believes that unless they're sort of crazy, that
Speaker 1: all the canons are infallible and eternal. It's just not
Speaker 1: even a possible position. And that's different from the Creeds
Speaker 1: or the confessions or the dogmatic statements of an ecumenical council.
Speaker 1: And I would argue the anathemas are also. You can't
Speaker 1: deny the anathemos like voice of reason. And these guys
Speaker 1: do to try to make Mystorius into something acceptable in
Speaker 1: the Roman Calolic Church, but they actually do, they actually
Speaker 1: accept Nestorius in the Romancolic Church. It's crazy. But again
Speaker 1: you notice that it's all premised on the idea that
Speaker 1: the system can evolve, and what we have today in
Speaker 1: the modern Roman system is somehow identical to the seed
Speaker 1: forms of the Church in the first thousand years, when
Speaker 1: every ecumenical council has canons that refute the Vatican one mindset.
Speaker 1: Now wait a minute, Jay, I thought you said that
Speaker 1: the canons are flexible. That's correct. The argument is not
Speaker 1: that ecumenical canons are infallible and thus refute the premiacy
Speaker 1: of the Roman bishop. The point is that in every
Speaker 1: ecumenical council there are canons past that show that the
Speaker 1: council didn't have the mindset of Vatican one, because it
Speaker 1: contradicts the mindset of Vatican one in every acumenical council.
Speaker 1: But you notice the Roman Catholics have left out all
Speaker 1: of that evidence, and they've selectively chosen the things, and
Speaker 1: in this talk they haven't even done any that. They've
Speaker 1: done little to no argumentation. They've cited three Bible verses
Speaker 1: and two councils and they haven't addressed any objections. And
Speaker 1: I'll give you right here this essay that I did
Speaker 1: or excuse me that Seraphim, who's now a deacon. It
Speaker 1: might be a priest by now, but this was a
Speaker 1: buddy of ours from the discord, who is now a clergy.
Speaker 1: By the way, from twenty eighteen. I think he wrote
Speaker 1: this in twenty eighteen. I posted in twenty twenty, So
Speaker 1: my computers might be freezing here.
Speaker 6: It would be without a doubt.
Speaker 4: Yeah, you and I see it too, also argue no
Speaker 4: doubt I would even know Vigilious and the way he
Speaker 4: views himself with the Fifth Council.
Speaker 1: You just heard Ubi stomp Ibarra on Virgilia. So here's
Speaker 1: Loten appealing to Virgilius. And what did They're better? And
Speaker 1: Ibarra is way more advanced than either of these goofballs.
Speaker 1: What did he Borro say about Virgilius never departed from
Speaker 1: the traditions of the fathers and directed the Church of God?
Speaker 2: And do you think in the case of Saint Silverius,
Speaker 2: he was deposed by Bill Sorrius, he's sent to Justinian,
Speaker 2: finds out says you have to give the sky a trial.
Speaker 4: He's handed over.
Speaker 2: To Virgiliusius was a horrible person. I don't know from
Speaker 2: the sounds of it is horrible. I mean, how does
Speaker 2: that work out? If Virgilius is the pope, but he's
Speaker 2: judging a former pope. That means that the deposition of
Speaker 2: the former pope had to be valid if.
Speaker 4: Virgilius is a pope.
Speaker 2: If if the deposition is not invalid and Virgilius is
Speaker 2: judging him, then you still have the situation of a
Speaker 2: pope being judged by non pope.
Speaker 6: I'll be candid with you.
Speaker 12: This is something that I have not really had a
Speaker 12: satisfactory answer to.
Speaker 1: So the best top papacy apologist can't explain the very
Speaker 1: thing that Lofton just said is the best argument for
Speaker 1: the papacy? Are you serious or one of the best.
Speaker 4: Fourth council Leo? He most certainly thought his son was
Speaker 4: a definitive prior to an ecumenical council.
Speaker 1: Nobody didn't, though, And the quote that we just saw
Speaker 1: from Richard Price refutes that. You see, And I wonder
Speaker 1: if they still have the Price thing up. They might
Speaker 1: have taken it down just because it doesn't fit with
Speaker 1: Lofton's narrative. Right, So you hear you heard what Lofton said, Right?
Speaker 1: We know it's so obvious that Chalcedon Chalcedon thought Leo
Speaker 1: was authoritative and he had full temporal power and supremacy.
Speaker 1: Let's hear it once more.
Speaker 4: Why did the bishops in Chalcedon feel they needed to
Speaker 4: judge Theodora if Leo had already reinstated him.
Speaker 1: So why are the bishops of Chalcedon separately judging this
Speaker 1: individual called Theodora? It's over the Nestorian question, even though
Speaker 1: they knew that Leo had already pronounced a condemnation. If
Speaker 1: Leo had ex cathedra papal power and authority, they would
Speaker 1: not rejudge something that Rome has spoken cases closed, right,
Speaker 1: And what does their scholar that they're relying on here
Speaker 1: with all of these translations of the council.
Speaker 13: Said, Well, they didn't they didn't recognize Roman jurisdiction in
Speaker 13: the Eastern Prophnce.
Speaker 1: Oh oh, oops, I guess it's not Vatican One at
Speaker 1: the time of Calcedon.
Speaker 4: Is it ruling on the matter? And what's even more interesting,
Speaker 4: he is he overturns a canon of the Council of Calcedon.
Speaker 1: Oops. Oops, it's not what he does.
Speaker 4: By the authority of Saint Peter a council.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this is the Roman Catholic revisionist story of what
Speaker 1: Canon twenty eight of Calceildon is about. When you actually
Speaker 1: look at what Leo says, Leo does not say, I
Speaker 1: reject this because I'm the pope. I rejected because of Rome.
Speaker 1: Canon twenty eight of Calceldon that Constantinople one had already
Speaker 1: enacted by the way out of Connunia with Rome made
Speaker 1: Constantinople second after Rome. So it placed new Rome second
Speaker 1: after old Rome. All right, so here it is, and
Speaker 1: why did Leo reject this? It had nothing to do
Speaker 1: with Vatican one papal prerogatives. The real reason why, if
Speaker 1: you actually read into the subject matter, is that Leo believed,
Speaker 1: somewhat correctly, you could argue that Canon twenty eight of Calclodon,
Speaker 1: which is actually a canon from Constantinople one, at this
Speaker 1: time Rome had not yet accepted Constantinople one. Keep that
Speaker 1: in mind. Leo believed that it violated the rights and
Speaker 1: the privileges of Canon six of Nicia. So if you
Speaker 1: go back to Nicia, Canon six says, let the ancient
Speaker 1: customs in Egypt, Libya and Libya and Patapolis prevail. The
Speaker 1: Bishop Alexandria has jurisdiction in all these since his like
Speaker 1: is customary for the bishop of Rome and likewise Antioch.
Speaker 1: So notice the jurisdiction of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria is
Speaker 1: all likened to be similar. By the way, there's nothing
Speaker 1: about universal autocratic, unilateral jurisdiction here. And when you bring
Speaker 1: it up to the Roman Catholics, well, it's an argument
Speaker 1: from solnce because they just all knew it. It's not there,
Speaker 1: but they knew it. So again they ignore the country
Speaker 1: evidence and just assume it and say that it's an
Speaker 1: argument from silence, which is what it borrow says. Now,
Speaker 1: Leo thought that to say that Constantinople now was the
Speaker 1: second to see after Rome in this listing of canonical
Speaker 1: privileges would be to violate Canon six of Nicea. So
Speaker 1: it had nothing to do with the authority of the
Speaker 1: Roman bishop. It's rather that this canon, that is Canon
Speaker 1: twentia of Calcildon, was a restatement of a canon from
Speaker 1: Constantinople one. Constantinople one tried to make for the East.
Speaker 1: In the East saw this as a ecumenical council. They
Speaker 1: tried to make the UH the place of Constantinople second right.
Speaker 1: And if you go to UH Nicia. It's different in
Speaker 1: terms of the canonical structure. Right, so it differs from
Speaker 1: Nicea in the canonical structure. So here you see, here's
Speaker 1: here's Constantinople one. Right, here's Canon three. Because it is
Speaker 1: new Rome. Let the Bishop of Constantinople enjoy the privileges
Speaker 1: of honor after the Bishop of Rome. Does this say
Speaker 1: anything about papal prerogatives unilateral jurisdiction. No? No, it says
Speaker 1: the privileges of honor right after the Bishop of Rome,
Speaker 1: and let the patriarchal Constantinople be number two. See so
Speaker 1: Leo says that's not fair to the canonical structure listed
Speaker 1: at Chalcedon. That's why Leo rejects it. Right, has nothing
Speaker 1: to do with Vatican one papal powers. He just doesn't
Speaker 1: accept it because the papacy did not accept Constantinople one
Speaker 1: at this time. Constant Noble one is the Trinity Council.
Speaker 1: It's the council that was held out of communion with Rome,
Speaker 1: which dogmatize the Cappadocian doctrine of the Trinity. The decree
Speaker 1: of that council says you must follow the two of
Speaker 1: Saint Gregory of Nissa to be orthodox in your trinitarian theology.
Speaker 1: And by the way, the Roman Church does not follow that.
Speaker 1: So constantinople One is not accepted as an ecumenical council
Speaker 1: until centuries after Leo by the West. Do you hear me?
Speaker 1: The papacy later accepts constantinople One even though it was
Speaker 1: called out of commune with Rome. It's presiding St. St.
Speaker 1: Meldio's died out of commune with Rome.
Speaker 6: Oh, it just.
Speaker 1: Happens to magically retroactively be an ecumenical council once Rome
Speaker 1: accepts it, and it dogmatizes the Trinity. So you understand
Speaker 1: that what they're talking about, they actually understood this. It
Speaker 1: actually destroys the Vatican One via the Papacy because it's
Speaker 1: admitting that this original controversial canon comes from a council
Speaker 1: that defines and dogmatizes the Trinity outside of communion with Rome.
Speaker 6: Yeah, no doubt, which, if you think about it, the
Speaker 6: proceeding has been set at the Council of Jerusalem in
Speaker 6: X chapter fifteen. Now, nobody's going to doubt or argue
Speaker 6: that the head of the church in Jerusalem.
Speaker 4: Was James Nobody, of course, But who is the one
Speaker 4: that makes the.
Speaker 6: Decision and James of course after James. Of course, James agrees,
Speaker 6: But it is Saint Peter who does it. And that's
Speaker 6: a big, big factor because you look at the commentary
Speaker 6: in X fifteen by Saint Jerome and he's noting the
Speaker 6: very same thing, calling Peter Saint Peter the prime mover
Speaker 6: of the Council.
Speaker 1: So well, first of all, the fact that Jerome says
Speaker 1: that that also doesn't translate into Vatican Ones claims and
Speaker 1: there's nothing in this that tells us that because so
Speaker 1: hold on. So they're admitting that it's presided over by James.
Speaker 1: But they're saying, but Peter makes all the decisions. What
Speaker 1: does it actually say at the decree here it pleads
Speaker 1: the apostles and the elders with the whole church to
Speaker 1: send this out. Does it say anything about papal decree?
Speaker 1: There is no papal decree model here. In fact, it's
Speaker 1: so bad for them they actually have to say that, well,
Speaker 1: Peter spoke at the beginning, and Jerome thinks that he
Speaker 1: was important at the council. But they just admitted that
Speaker 1: it was presided over right by James. Now let's see
Speaker 1: what their argument is. The apostles and the elders came
Speaker 1: together to consider this matter. There's a dispute. Peter spoke
Speaker 1: and said, men of God, you know that God chose
Speaker 1: me to be the mouth of the gentiles. God knows
Speaker 1: the heart and acknowledge them by giving them the Holy Spirit.
Speaker 1: Just seated us, so we should receive them without much fuss.
Speaker 1: Then all the multitude kept silent, and Barnabas and Paul
Speaker 1: declared the wonders that they had done. So Peter speaks,
Speaker 1: Barnabas and Paul speak, Everyone's silent, and then after everyone
Speaker 1: was silent, James answers. So the focal point of this section,
Speaker 1: just because Peter begins talking, that doesn't prove anything. How
Speaker 1: does that prove Vatican won? In fact, if I'm going
Speaker 1: to argue from the reverence, it's everyone becoming silent when
Speaker 1: James speaks. James has the final say, not Peter. They didn't.
Speaker 1: He just admit that James was presiding. Why would James
Speaker 1: preside when Peter has the superiority. It should be Peter's presiding.
Speaker 1: So James has the final say so right here, and
Speaker 1: then we get the Jerusalem Decree, where in the Jerusalem
Speaker 1: Decree do you see anything like the unilateral papal decrees
Speaker 1: that you see in the later eras of the church.
Speaker 1: Why didn't the letter just say Peter spoken cases closed?
Speaker 1: Remember they argue Peter has spoken through Leo Rome has
Speaker 1: spoken cases closed. Why didn't they just say Peter has
Speaker 1: spoken cases closed? What's even the need for a synod? Anyway?
Speaker 6: We're not infected with Peterson when we begin to quote
Speaker 6: passages from the Bible and then quote commentary on the
Speaker 6: way the fathers viewed those passages.
Speaker 1: And yeah, but if you read Denny's book Papalism, he
Speaker 1: has an entire chapter pointing out that the majority interpretation
Speaker 1: of Matthew sixteen is not that it's Peter. So once again,
Speaker 1: the majority, the consensus, which is largely I think there's
Speaker 1: like sixteen or so that think that it's Peter himself.
Speaker 1: The majority is no, it's Peter's confession or it's something else, right,
Speaker 1: Peter's faith in that case, Well, we don't care about
Speaker 1: the majority. You see, so selectively quote mining again and
Speaker 1: ignoring the contrary or the majority is precisely what they do.
Speaker 6: It's important because we see a kernel of how that
Speaker 6: leadership was.
Speaker 1: Oh so you see it's not actually Vatican One, which
Speaker 1: was supposed to be there from the outset, believed by all.
Speaker 1: It's now the seeds and the kernels once again. So
Speaker 1: when there's not evidence, it's the seeds. But at the
Speaker 1: same time they say it was always there. It was
Speaker 1: clear Henry twenty eight seventeen. Side note, new monastic lore dropped.
Speaker 1: I don't know what that means. Harry Supponis went o.
Speaker 1: The philly Oquay downs downgrades the Holy Spirit, and it
Speaker 1: encourages all these papal heresies. Yes, not an accident that
Speaker 1: once the Phillioquay becomes more and more accepted in the West.
Speaker 1: It's it's the same thing with the rise of the papacy, right,
Speaker 1: the papacy coming to power is exactly when they begin
Speaker 1: their rejection of the Father as the sole archae in
Speaker 1: the Godhead. Papal supremacy is a demonic usurping of the
Speaker 1: world of spirit. Yeah, exactly, Charard's book on that. That's
Speaker 1: really good church papacy schism. That's pretty much the whole
Speaker 1: argument for the most part. Let's talk God, please search
Speaker 1: up and I'm gonna I'm not gonna play those clips.
Speaker 1: Joshua Ward five dollars. William wants to debate the ingredients
Speaker 1: of your male enhancement pills. They say that you sell
Speaker 1: fake pills. They're not male enhancement pills. They're pills that
Speaker 1: relate to adaptogens and workouts, so it has nothing to
Speaker 1: do with mail enhancement. They're not fake pills. You can
Speaker 1: go get them and see for yourself. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: a multimillion dollar company. How would it be fake pills.
Speaker 1: John Milner thirteen ninety nine, Canadian Christ is God Jordaan
Speaker 1: five dollars. Brother Sam said, God is my witness Jay.
Speaker 1: He is calling me a bald inward in my studio.
Speaker 1: The clips are all over Twitty's that's fake, man. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm sitting in here livestream with you. That's all fake.
Speaker 1: Sisiphost Canadian ten dollars. Set up a debate on a
Speaker 1: neutral platform. I'll try to get him to come to
Speaker 1: a neutral platform tonight. You're betting on all Brick not
Speaker 1: being available. Yeah sure, yeah, I'm scared, even though I
Speaker 1: showed you at the beginning of the stream five years
Speaker 1: ago where I tried to set up debates with William
Speaker 1: Albreck and he would just postpone it for six months.
Speaker 1: Every time I do it, Cosmicgoulo five dollars. I realized
Speaker 1: that William was not very good when he did a
Speaker 1: video on Purgatory and Palomas and Descythius. He tried to
Speaker 1: say the Orthodox don't teach what Palamas says. Okay, whatever,
Speaker 1: that's crazy, glitchy two dollars. I just got here chat
Speaker 1: yes or no. I don't know what that means. Common
Speaker 1: sense ten dollars. Jane Ever said that we need to
Speaker 1: debate right now. Yeah, it just says. I'll show you
Speaker 1: what it says. I sent him two different messages. I'll
Speaker 1: show you what I sent him on here. So here's
Speaker 1: this meltdown material here, what's this? This is two different
Speaker 1: messages here. One says, how are Protestants going to be
Speaker 1: better off defenders of the Trinity than the Orthodox? So
Speaker 1: that's the initial thing that I took issue with. Then
Speaker 1: I said, how about you and Albert come debate me
Speaker 1: on the energies and the triad okay? And then I
Speaker 1: sent him a letter to thirty four Basil and then
Speaker 1: I said we can have a friendly exchange. Whoa, Oh
Speaker 1: my gosh, I'm unreal. And I sent the exact same
Speaker 1: thing on Twitter, except for maybe a couple words different.
Speaker 1: So that's what called That's what caused today's flip up.
Speaker 1: When he called in, they played dumb William ran and
Speaker 1: accused Jay of calling only because he left. Try to
Speaker 1: keep up. I holify, I heal a five five dollars,
Speaker 1: Eric five dollars. This is what happens when Sham Chamun
Speaker 1: lets the hul comania run wild himself. Brother mL hated
Speaker 1: Kummunism three dollars. At forty nine minutes of his stream,
Speaker 1: you can see the real reason why he's mad. Go
Speaker 1: watch it before he deletes it. I don't know. I'm
Speaker 1: not gonna I don't I don't even follow or keep
Speaker 1: up with this stuff like these people are they think
Speaker 1: that I'm like following and watching all their stuff, Like
Speaker 1: I watched Sam Schmun here and there, mainly clips. I
Speaker 1: don't follow his live streams. I was interested in today's
Speaker 1: live stream because he was talking about Protestant and Catholic
Speaker 1: doctrine views of the Trinity. Models of the Trinity. Roland
Speaker 1: William is ready to debate. Are you ready? I mean
Speaker 1: I thought we're gonna do it tonight. Forty two attack
Speaker 1: three dollars. Favorite part of tonight. All of us Catholics
Speaker 1: in the chrispal chat want Andrew to moderate. I thought
Speaker 1: we were going to do it. Beny Canadian two dollars
Speaker 1: time stamp. He is live. This must be old. Look
Speaker 1: you miond go love your cell p oh dollars? Am
Speaker 1: I am? I own opinion. The only thing that the
Speaker 1: ORB could be is an uncreated energy. It's from God. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm sure that's what it is. If at Jay versus
Speaker 1: All Break debate happens, it must be blood sports. Well
Speaker 1: I don't. That guy is the worst. And I say
Speaker 1: the reason I say is the worst first of all
Speaker 1: is that you see the tear of the apologetics we
Speaker 1: get here right. It's just literal, low tier quote minding.
Speaker 1: That's about all it is. And the reason he's such
Speaker 1: a nasty individual is that years ago on a live stream,
Speaker 1: he started saying this stuff like he was going to
Speaker 1: fight me in real life, and I clipped it. I
Speaker 1: have the screenshots. And then he says, I never said that.
Speaker 1: I never said that. I mean he was saying it
Speaker 1: in the chat. He's like he wants to fight in
Speaker 1: real life, which is so ridiculous because we were talking
Speaker 1: about doing a debate, because again in twenty nineteen and
Speaker 1: twenty twenty, I tried to schedule debates with him and
Speaker 1: he would just postpone it for six months every time.
Speaker 1: So here we are five years later, six years later,
Speaker 1: and he's claiming that I'm scared to debate him. It's
Speaker 1: the same point that UBI made, is that UBI also
Speaker 1: tried to work out with All Bricked, and you just
Speaker 1: get this, you know, tap dancing play that like it's
Speaker 1: like I don't have time to run through this game
Speaker 1: with you, like we've already tried to do this. If
Speaker 1: you go back to the beginning of the stream, the
Speaker 1: first thing I talked about, I showed you his old
Speaker 1: messages where he would say, oh, I need six months,
Speaker 1: so give me another six months, give me another six months,
Speaker 1: and it just got old. I just finally moved on.
Speaker 1: And then I called Albert one day because I had
Speaker 1: I used to have his phone number, and he went
Speaker 1: melted down at all. He lost it on me and
Speaker 1: said that there is no discord. This is like twenty
Speaker 1: twenty somewhere in there in twenty twenty one, so that
Speaker 1: I don't have a discord. It's all made up I
Speaker 1: paid bots to go in there. There is no no
Speaker 1: one is converting to Orthodoxy. This literally, this is what
Speaker 1: he said. And then he gave my phone number to Lofton,
Speaker 1: and then Lofton sent me a fake lawsuit threat. So
Speaker 1: this is what we're dealing with. This is the people
Speaker 1: that were talking about here. Juliana Talant five dollars, sir,
Speaker 1: thank you for all that you've done with your lectures,
Speaker 1: presentations and debates. When I ask you some questions about
Speaker 1: they're troubling me. PS. Great victory for the devil for
Speaker 1: the trash of Sam Shamun. It's so sad. Common sense
Speaker 1: one hundred dollars. You handled this very well. You're often
Speaker 1: accused of being mean, but I've lost respect for Shamun.
Speaker 1: These are all bogus accusations. Fwintes admits that his debate
Speaker 1: with you is the worst, but seeing this, he did
Speaker 1: the most with what he had. Stay strong, be humble,
Speaker 1: God bless you and your family. Well, thank you for
Speaker 1: that generous super chat. I appreciate that. SS twenty one
Speaker 1: five dollars. See what John Christism says about Acts fifteen.
Speaker 1: Ibarra has a paper on it that basically refutes himself.
Speaker 1: That's interesting. Everybody should look up chrystalstom on Acts fifteen.
Speaker 1: I don't have my church father's set here at this house,
Speaker 1: so I can't look it up. But if you if
Speaker 1: there's a link on new admit you guys can send
Speaker 1: it to me. Store ninety six five dollars. Shout out
Speaker 1: to my dog block Party Vintage who is now forts
Speaker 1: certified Carrie s MW nine three dollars if possible, not
Speaker 1: too much. Could you summarize your position on what we're
Speaker 1: we're critiquing the papers position all night tonight v N
Speaker 1: two dollars. You are a genius, big fan. Keep it up,
Speaker 1: thanks man, I appreciate that.
Speaker 6: And of course it becomes much more fleshed out through
Speaker 6: church history. And you bring up a great example there
Speaker 6: with the striking down of the canon. Yeah, that is
Speaker 6: a tough one to overcome there, because somebody that did
Speaker 6: not believe they had that authority vested in them from
Speaker 6: Christ would not have even had the audacity.
Speaker 1: It was such a thing. But the do it, well,
Speaker 1: that's a false equivalence because that's asking me a non sequitor.
Speaker 1: Because you just heard Richard Price say that the Eastern
Speaker 1: Bishops didn't accept everything that the Roman bishops did because
Speaker 1: they didn't recognize Roman jurisdiction in the East. So the
Speaker 1: fact that someone doesn't accept something that doesn't prove that
Speaker 1: they have papal supremacy. I mean, if the Eastern bishops
Speaker 1: are rejecting something that the West is doing, does that
Speaker 1: mean the Eastern bishops have papal supremacy? Does rejecting something
Speaker 1: prove papal supremacy? It just means that Calcidon that Leo
Speaker 1: didn't accept Constantinople one. But guess what the East did.
Speaker 1: So at the time of Leo, you have differing numbers
Speaker 1: and views of what the councils have been. Right. If
Speaker 1: you're in the East, you believe that there's nicea constantinople
Speaker 1: I ephesis and now Chalcedon. If you're Leo, you believe
Speaker 1: in Nicea ephesis Calcedon. So they don't even accept the
Speaker 1: same councils. Now, guess what who in up being right
Speaker 1: in this situation. Rome a few centuries after Leo accepts
Speaker 1: constant the number one, So the East was right the
Speaker 1: entire time. This all refuses what they're saying. Let's move
Speaker 1: on to their coverage of Francis. Let's see what they
Speaker 1: say about frank.
Speaker 4: It just seems like that there, you know, there's a
Speaker 4: point of disconnect there now. So in other words, they're
Speaker 4: their hang up is that? Okay? I can see this historically,
Speaker 4: but I just don't know about Paul Francis.
Speaker 6: The number one thing I would say is I have
Speaker 6: never been the biggest fan of Pulp Francis ever, But
Speaker 6: he is the Vicar of Christ. Sure, here's a valid pope.
Speaker 6: Here's the pope. And in his defense, Michael, I think
Speaker 6: he gets ripped out of context so much. I really
Speaker 6: really do.
Speaker 1: Fifteen sixty eight gay priests are punished with death in
Speaker 1: this document. Now you can bless couples of the same
Speaker 1: sex in the Roman Catholic Church. This is the Vatican,
Speaker 1: this is Francis's fiducia. Supplicans and the Romancalolics say, well,
Speaker 1: but up at the top it says that you can't
Speaker 1: bless the gay marriage and the bubble. It doesn't matter
Speaker 1: what it says up at the top. All that means
Speaker 1: is that the document contradicts. There you go, So what
Speaker 1: was the point. I'm starting to get tired because it's
Speaker 1: late at night, right, So what was the point of this, Francis,
Speaker 1: I'm showing you another contradiction that disproves them.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 1: Francis says, the Gospel is contrary to death penalty. Right,
Speaker 1: I'm showing you how crazy and contradictor of the Roman
Speaker 1: Catholic system is. Pope Francis Vatican News. The death penalty
Speaker 1: is inadmissible. It is contrary to the Gospel. Here he says,
Speaker 1: it's contrary to nature. Right. The CDC Congregation of the
Speaker 1: Douction fe has made changes to the death penalty. It
Speaker 1: is no longer admissible. But wait a minute. In fifteen
Speaker 1: sixty eight under Paya, that's the fifth you were punished
Speaker 1: with death if you were a Skittles priest. Do you
Speaker 1: see that punishable by death in fifteen sixty eight. Now
Speaker 1: fast forward to Fiducia supplicons of Francis two years ago.
Speaker 1: The blessings of the same sex couples is now within
Speaker 1: the horizon of the Roman Catholic Church. I'm not talking
Speaker 1: about marriage, but you know what it says here as couples,
Speaker 1: they can be blessed. It's just not marriage. Skittle's priest
Speaker 1: put the death fifteen sixty eight. Now the death monality
Speaker 1: is the country of the Gospel and skittles. Couples can
Speaker 1: be blessed. So here's what Sam Chamoun and William Albreck
Speaker 1: want to convert you to. There you go, I'm mute, dude,
Speaker 1: Thank you, Jay, You're muted, Eric Vigilant Data Loss and
Speaker 1: Jordan Johnson it's because I'm getting tired, so I'm getting
Speaker 1: a little sleepy here, Noel, I'm Mirandez two dollars. God
Speaker 1: wants I'm muted, Logos Logic three dollars. Is this your
Speaker 1: first time on the internet? Si two dollars. I'm mute.
Speaker 1: See maybe I should just unmute because you guys send
Speaker 1: super chats when I'm muted. Ultra violence two dollars. I
Speaker 1: always thought Shimun had a weird, unwarranted level of confidence,
Speaker 1: but I couldn't put my finger on it. Clearly has issues.
Speaker 1: He can meet you like some Dawa Nube bizarre behavior,
Speaker 1: Windy Torrents, I'm mute. Jordan Johnson five dollars. I will
Speaker 1: fight Albrick. He reminds me of a father in law.
Speaker 1: I'm six four, two forty. There's no need to fight
Speaker 1: anybody who just had to refute these stupid positions.
Speaker 10: Now on the other side to be gives.
Speaker 1: So I want to keep I want to remind you guys,
Speaker 1: who's the person who asked to debate the theological subject matter?
Speaker 5: Me?
Speaker 1: Who's the person that did a stream about the theological
Speaker 1: subject matter?
Speaker 3: Me?
Speaker 1: Did anyone else do that? Or did they just lose
Speaker 1: their minds and melt down?
Speaker 6: Do I think he can be more precise? Sometimes I do,
Speaker 6: I truly do. But I don't think Pope France this
Speaker 6: is heretical. I think I know he's the pulp. He's
Speaker 6: about successor Saint Peter uh, and I think that there's
Speaker 6: a lot of good he does.
Speaker 1: Okay, so a lot of platitudes. Where was any actual
Speaker 1: defense of any controversial statements or explanations? So he this
Speaker 1: is presuming questions for Catholics. Right, So every one of
Speaker 1: these little sections is what about that? I can one?
Speaker 1: What about the head of the church? Right, it's all
Speaker 1: sort of questions. What about Pope Francis? Does he have
Speaker 1: an a? He just states his own psychological belief, his
Speaker 1: own self reporting that he believes Francis is the pope. Okay,
Speaker 1: well that's great, but how is that an argument?
Speaker 6: See? I truly do. I really do think first off,
Speaker 6: we villainize him