Speaker 1: Of prerogatives that are growing, but prerogatives that are growing
doesn't necessarily get you Vatican one. And the fact that
an Orthodox historian or a Russian historian says, okay, you
could deduce this from Leo does not equate to Leo
taught this or had this. It's a logical deduction from Leo.
But you notice when Eric read the quote, he gave
the impression that the Orthodox are basically saying that Leo
thought that he had Vatican one powers. No, no, Vatican one
could be deduced from that. But I guarantee you, and
I'm not positive, but I don't know these obscure people
he's referencing. I guarantee you that they don't believe the
Vatican one position unless they're radical ecumenists and they want
some kind of reunion, which is possible. But if they're Orthodox,
they probably don't believe that. So Eric, stacking again with
quote minds from people who don't believe Vatican one.
Speaker 2: Well, that claim was accepted by Saint Cyril of Alexandria,
the entire council, and should be accepted by both Catholics
and Orthodox. Doctor George Demiccopolis, a Greek Orthodox scholar.
Speaker 1: By the way, this is all again still ambiguous, because
that Peter judges and his successors, or that Peter continues
to work through the Sea of Rome. None of that
equates to the outlandish claims of attican Ie about infallibility
and that it's this ex cathedral power. So again, the
quotes from the Orthodox people that are conceding that you
might find a basis for later deductions does not mean
that therefore the mind of the church at Chalcedon was
that Leo was ex cathedral teaching ex cathedra. You see,
you see how it's like it's a bunch of non
sequiturs that Eric is trying to construct a story or
a narrative to prove.
Speaker 2: Of The Patricians said that Leo held his tone to
be the quote measuring stick of Orthodoxy close quote Chalcedon
can measure up or do nothing at all. Father Richard Price,
the renowned Patristian scholar, states that Pope Leo understood his
tone to be quote totally authoritative. He did not believe
his teaching gained any authority by being approved by an
ecumenical council close quote.
Speaker 1: Ah, but wait a minute, Uh, it's a double edged
sword when these people quote Father Richard Price, because we
all remember the excellent clippable moment when Reason and Theology
interviewed Father Richard Price on this very topic. And what
did Father Richard Price say about the papacy at this time?
So remember, because Eric's not going to tell you this.
Who knows if they even kept this interview up. They
probably probably took it down, but thank god somebody clipped it.
Let's listen to Father Richard Price himself on their show
talking to them about how the church viewed the papacy
of this time.
Speaker 3: Why did the bishops in Calcidon feel they needed to
judge Theodore It if Leo had already reinstated.
Speaker 4: Him, Well.
Speaker 5: They didn't. They didn't recognize Roman jurisdiction in the Eastern provinces, So, uh,
there's reinstating for that was not decisive. The decision has
to be made in the east. The other exposition at
the council is any interesting one. Uh when the uh
why did.
Speaker 3: Why did the bishops in kings more time I feel
they needed to judge Theodore it if Leo had already
reinstated him.
Speaker 6: Well.
Speaker 5: They didn't. They didn't recognize Roman jurisdiction in the Eastern provinces.
Speaker 1: So now do you understand that's the guy Aburah is quoting,
who literally contradicts what Eric is saying about what the
bishops that Chalcedon understood about the Roman bishop.
Speaker 2: Not least expressing his supremacy in doctrine. Leo overturned the
sentences against Eastern bishops who were condemned at the Robert
Senate of Ephesus in four forty nine. This is followed
up by the Council of Calcedon, wherein the tone of
Leo was widely received by the right believing bishops of
both East and West as the authoritative voice of Peter.
This council from the very first session, except that the
Tome as part and parts of the Church's dogmatic confessions
of faith.
Speaker 4: Not everyone held that view, however.
Speaker 2: Unfortunately, resistance to the Tome and the papacy increased, and
new emperors devised an alternative plan to secure peace in
the Empire. The first strategy was to throw Leo's Tome
in Chalcedon to the periphery with the imperial edict known
as the Hinnaticon. Chalcedon became either a good option or
an obstacle. This was supported by Emperor Zeno and Acacius,
the patriarch of Constantinople. Pope Saint Felix the Third, on
the basis of his apostolic Acturitas, issued a universal commun
excommunication of Acacius and all who held communion with him.
This started the Accacion Schism in forty four to eight d.
This demonstrates a claim of immediate jurisdiction, since it was
a judgment decided by the pope and resting upon his
singular apostolic authority. In Saint Peter, Pope Saint Galicias defended
the singular right of the Roman pontiff to issue such
a condemnation on the grounds of his immediate commission from Christ.
Through Peter, the world renowned Greek Byzantinis Milton Anesauce summons
up the Roman view.
Speaker 1: The byzantinist is summing up the Roman view in the
thought of Okay, I'm gonna have to put this slow
motion man on like this is just taken forever. Let's
put him on a double speed because he talks in
freaking slow motion. Let's see, let's put him at point
seventy five. Would that make him normal speeds, believing, Oh, no, way,
I did point. I mean, I'm meant to do one
point seventy five. I will be here and told freaking
Christmas if I do that. With him talking, let's go
to one point seven five.
Speaker 2: That Christ has delegated to the See of Rome supreme
authority over the whole Church, with power to govern in
all questions concerning doctrine and discipline. Galazius hell says kin
of Stass, the Pope, on his own initiative could make
decisions binding upon the entire Church without recourse to a council.
For in his judgment, the See of Rome constituted the
highest tribunal in the Christian Church. Its decisions were irreversible,
and itself could not be judged by anyone close quote
Milton Kinastas PRETII.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but the idea that the First Sea can be
judged by no one ends up being a forgery, which
is still cited in It's a Samakian forgery, and it's
still cited in Roman Catholic canon law, so they're still
citing known forgeries. By the way, I just keep that
in mind.
Speaker 2: Chichty in history from Harvard University and was a prestige
of Professor Prestigius, professor of classics in Yzantine history. While
many Greeks in the East were questioning Calcidon at this time,
Rome held ferns to its classical narrative Pope Saint Simplicius vanity.
Speaker 1: By by the way, this is an interesting strategy because
everybody realizes that we could go and find many Roman
Catholic theologians and historians that disagree with Catholic dogma. Couldn't win,
couldn't we We could pile up James Martin's quotes, we
could pile up Hans Kum quote, we could pile up
Skilbec's quotes, and all of those quotes would give the
impression that Roman Catholic theologians universally recognized Orthodox arguments. That's
the flimsiness of this approach of Eric. He's literally just
stacking a bunch of quotes of Orthodox historians renowned Byzantinists
admitting this or that supposed Catholic argument, which again, admitting
that argument doesn't mean that they're admitting the Catholic positions.
They're just saying that you could perhaps find the seeds
or the traces of the papacy in Leo. But remember
Satis Cognatium and Postra Attornis of Vatican One do not
argue that you can find the seeds of it or
the logic of it is deducible from Leo. They argue
that from the earliest days, prior to Leo, all of
these Vatican One prerogatives were there and known by the Church.
So Eric again is moving it to papal minimalism, away
from what Satis Cognitium and Pastertonis actually say. And that's
the necessary strategy of what Rome has to do that
these pap apologists have to do. By the way, you've
you noticed no one of their whole school or their ilk,
none of them, not one of them except Chris Plants.
And I'll give Chris Plants, who has a very small channel,
I'll give him credit. He at least tried to address
my dogmatic contradiction argument from the temporal supremacy of the
Roman bishop. And then the post Vatican two teaching. Does
everybody remember that when I tried to debate with Abara,
he would not debate me on pre Vatican two and
post Vatican two teaching. Does everybody remember that.
Speaker 6: We can do that some other time, Jay, Right now,
I'm going to stack up papacy arguments for the next
seventy hours.
Speaker 1: No, he would not debate that, and he will never
debate it. When I originally wanted to debate Eric years
ago before I went on their stream, I want to
debate that topic pre impost Vatican two contradictions. The only
thing Eric will debate is these hyper precise quote mind
areas of fifth, sixth, seven, eighth century, because it's very effective,
as Father Degan and I pointed out, at duping people
into thinking that, oh, well, here's a bunch of quotes.
Look at all these historians, like I guess the Roman
positions streue. But wait a minute, are you sure you
want to go this route? Do you know what you're
buying into? I made these mistakes I bought into I
bought into quote minds, I bought into forge quotes in
my twenties, and in about five to ten years you realize,
as many of the Roman Catholics are starting to realize,
like Chris Plants, oh it turns out you got to
also defend all these other things, like when I'm signed them.
It's kind of like a cult where you realize, Oh
wait a minute, I actually have to defend you know,
I have to defend the theatons and you know all
the scientific It's like, would you learn the inner secrets
like scientific or Mormons? We just believe in Jesus and
then like five years later, I'm defending celestial space sex
and space babies. That's the real inner Mormon teachings. Right. Well,
guess what you don't get this minimalist position of Roman Catholicism.
If you're gonna be honest with history when ONEm signed
them dogmatizes the temporal supremaci, the rouma, you also got
to defend. That makes sense of that. That's why these
people become papal lawyers. Why do I keep wiping my
nose because I have allergies? Or you can choose to
believe that I'm just sitting here snorting coke all day.
Whatever you want to believe, go ahead, clip it and
expose me.
Speaker 2: Bro exposed pure Christian things, permit.
Speaker 6: I fundly got proof. The Jay's a bad person. He
admitted doone. He's stream that he's doing piles of cocaine
like Tony Montan.
Speaker 2: We pershaft in the Latin remains quote in the successes
of Peter, upon whom the Lord imposed the care of
the whole sheep fold, whom he promised he would not fail,
even to the end of the world.
Speaker 4: Close quote.
Speaker 2: To heal the Eastern Schism, a new pope, Hormiestas drew
up a formula like bells. The terms were, among other things,
vocable ascent to Leo's home and the removal of certain
names from the turgical commitment.
Speaker 1: I would like to add too that everyone, I'm sure
most of the audience is aware that Eric Ubara has himself,
since twenty eighteen, walked back many of his views on Francis,
and Eric has admitted many of the disastrous policies and
actions and teachings of Francis. So keep in mind Eric
is somebody who is claiming all this stuff about history,
but himself thinks Francis has made terrible, horrible mistakes. I
don't know if he thinks he's a heretic or whatever,
but Eric's hoole model has been in the last few
years to make concessions. There's all these concessions, right, we.
Speaker 6: Go to concede tudor Orthodox and debt and loose and debt.
Speaker 1: Well, that's all his methodology, and it's his own Vatican
that has made the concessions, like at the Alexandria document
where you have the admissions of most of the Orthodox arguments,
or at the Chieatei document. What is the Chieti document, which,
by the way, trump's the authority of Eric Obara in
the Roman Catholic world, because these are papally approved documents.
What does Chidi say the very thing I argued to
Ibarra in our debate. Remember when I made these points
in the debate with Ibarra and he dissed them like
that is not true. When I said, well, Sartaka was
not the only model of apple addriss you could appeal
to other patriarchates does not prove j What does it
say Sartika was received at Trollo. The Canons of Sartika
determined that a bishop who had been condemned could appeal
to the Bishop of Rome, and that the Bishop of Rome,
if he deemed it appropriate, could order what a retrial
not an exca theater's statement, to be conducted by bishops
in the province. Appeals regarding these matters were also made
to Constantinople. The very thing I said in the bar
debate that all the Romancllolics oars, making doars, making up crap.
Did the off I said is in your own freaking documents.
Roman Catholics literally act like Muslims in debates and in
the especially in the chats, so there's no distinguishing Muslim
chatters and Roman Cology chatters and debates. Such appeals to
these major SE's were always treated in a what autocratic
papal weight, no, in a synodal way. So guys, look,
you don't have to get PhDs in history. The Roman
Vatican freaking websites are admitting the points, and you got
this gigantic goober trying to prop up this system which
has admitted everything that we've been talking about. So just
keep in mind the basics. Don't get lost in the
smoke in the mirrors of the thousands of quotes. The
basics are that eight he says that there was no
What does it say the Bishop of Rome did not
exercise conogical authority over the churches of the East. Can
you read this? Do you want me to read it
to you again? The Bishop of Rome did not exercise
canonical authority over the churches of the East. The Bishop
of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches
of the East. The Bishop of Rome did not exercise
canonical authority over the churches of the East. Roman Catholics,
hard headed goobers, Can you understand? Do you see what
that says your own documents?
Speaker 6: Goofballs?
Speaker 1: The Bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over
the churches of the East. Do you need to hear
it again? Oh, you hard headed goobers, Eric, take the
sinabon out of your ears. The Bishop of Rome did
not exercise canonical authority over the Church of the East.
What did Richard Price say in their interview on their channel?
They did not think that Leo had universal jurisdiction.
Speaker 6: But don't count because that's a document that is not infallible.
Speaker 4: It don't count, especially accacious.
Speaker 2: More importantly, in this formula, he echoes his predecessor simplicious.
He was profession in the formula that the Christian religion
always remains pure in Rome because of a permanent promise
made by Christ to build his church upon Peter. Consequently,
you see what the Romans he was indistinguished by the
way I.
Speaker 1: Ask any of them when they are they going to
deal with the temporal supremacy argument. None of them have
dealt with it, none of them except Chris Plants props
to him. If you want the basic argument, here is
the video I made. This one dogmatic contradiction ends Roman Catholicism.
Here you go right here. You want one easy matter.
There's many, by the way, This is just one easy one.
Here's one. You used to have to believe that the
pope was a world emperor to be saved, and you
had to accept that. Now you don't. Therefore, Roman Catholic
dogma contradicts and changes. Do you want? Is that not
easy enough for you? Is that not clear enough? Remember
Abara said that it could be one contradiction that shows
if I recall how he conceded.
Speaker 4: That community with the church.
Speaker 2: Commenting on the patrying contents of the formula, the orthoxdyologian
father Alexander Schaman said, quote, the whole essence of the
papal claims cannot be more clearly expressed than in this
like Bellish document which was imposed upon the Eastern bishops.
Close quote in Oxford Press, most recent monograph on Byzantine
history by Greek historian and classics professor Anthony Cayl Dellis.
He states the following quote. For the East to return
to communion with Rome, wall its bishops must have been
to the pope close quote. Speaking about the formula form
Mistess Cayle Deallis calls the formula a binding document that
a friends quote Rome's supremacy over the church close quote,
requiringques obedience to the supring pontiff and the universal close quote.
Speaker 1: This is interesting because this is literally all of the
stuff that Ubi and Ibara have been debating for many
years now. So it's odd to me that Eric went
just went with this, But I guess what else are
you gonna do, right, I mean, really to try to
try to demonstrate the papacy. You've really only got these
examples that Eric's using here, right, that's really your best case.
But it's odd because they've been going back and forth
about these very things for years. But I guess again,
perhaps that Borrow is just resting on people not going
and checking this. But here is Ubi's article from twenty
twenty two about the formula of hormisdas if you want
to watch this. But I'm sure Ubi's gonna mention this
when he gets to his I don't know. I don't
know what, because you never know exactly what your opponent's
gonna mention in their opening statement. But UBI probably thought
he would bring these up.
Speaker 2: Another Greek Orthodox Exanthantus Peter shall run it. He says,
quote acceptance of this formula ment of course, absolute submission
to the Pope close quote. Doctor Joseph Farrell, author of
the multi volume God History and Dialectic, writes that the
formula of hormisis quote demanded the complete submission of the
Eastern Church of the papacy close quote volper Men's medival.
Perhaps the formalist Count of Dony.
Speaker 1: Doesn't everybody recognize that this is already going on with
Pope Victor. I mean, Pope Victor threatened to excommunicate the
entire East over the court doesseminarian controversy. And nobody believes
that quote Pope Victor's argument or claim is true because
he said it. In fact, sat Aaronaeus rebuked Pope Victor,
the very guy that Roman Catholics quote mine to try
to say that he believed in the Vatican one people's
supremacy view. Because Aeronaus in against Heresies, uses Rome as
an example of aboupsol succession. They leave out the fact
that Irenaeus rebukes Pope Victor over this idea that he
could excommunicate all of the East. So again, the fact
that people do these things does not prove that they're correct.
Speaker 2: You see, it's today like Bellus begins with Matthew sixteen,
and I tell you you were Peter on this rock
will build my church. In other words, since Rome was
regarded as the See of Peter on Rome, the church
was built based on this ideological foundation that, like Bellus
claims not only the papacy too.
Speaker 1: But remember Rome is not just the see of Peter.
In fact, in Irenaeus himself, the greatness of Rome is
that it's doubly apostolic. It's the see of Peter and Paul. Likewise,
there are three patrine seas as late as Gregory the Great,
Gregory the Great admits in his letters that the patrin
sea is Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. Those three seas are
the patrin seas. So all this proves is an evolving
idea of Roman prerogative. It does not prove that Vatican
One is true or was always true in the Church.
It just proves that Rome gave themselves more and more
and more prerogatives, which is precisely the Orthodox.
Speaker 2: Position in lapisols eccections since the time of the Apostles,
but also to be instituted by Christ himself according to
the New Testament.
Speaker 4: Close quote.
Speaker 1: And by the way, if you doubt that that's correct,
that Rome gave itself more and more and more prerogatives.
That's why I keep bringing up the temporal supremacy argument,
because everybody recognizes that this comes to a head in
the eleventh century. Even the most famous or Roman Catholic
scholars and historians admit this. So I can play this
game too. The Vornik, Kongar Sishchensky, who used to be
Uniate and became Orthodox, they all admit that the eleventh century,
you're going reforms take the papacy to new unparalleled literal quisants.
Hoderok heights God in per status. What does that prove?
Why do I keep bringing that up because it proves
the point that we make that it's an evolving thing
of greater and greater prerogatives and power claims over many centuries,
propped up again by forgeries admitted by these people. That
proves the evolving claim. You see. And again, remember, these
people no longer believe that you have to accept the
temporal supremacy position to be saved. In other words, they
themselves concede and admit it's an evolving prerogatives claim. And
if that's admitted, and if that's the case, then everything
that Abara's argument here falls apart. It doesn't prove anything.
Man's that just proves what we already all know that
it evolved.
Speaker 2: The formula of Hormenistas quote required every bishop to accept
the papal view on the Christian Church past and faith
close quote.
Speaker 4: Doctor clear saw and all.
Speaker 2: The renowned Patristic scholar writes the following for the Cambridge
companion to the Age of Justinian quote for the Pope,
the union meant that the new emperor fully accepted Roman
authority in all ecclesiastical matters, disciplinary as well as doctrinal
close quote. In his Princeton monograph on Western Authority, the
Anglican priest scholar call If Morson states that the formula
equated Roman communion and communion with Christ as quote identical
close quote. And that's precisely the case.
Speaker 1: Again, I don't know why he's stacking this with Anglican quotes. Now,
like anybody gives a crap about what an Anglican historian
says about the Roman's Like, I mean, he's probably quoting
some ecumenists who wants to go back to Rome. So
this is a very subtle, kind of slimy tactic.
Speaker 2: By the way, Forrmeistas was not merely steement could pass,
but also to the future, requiring all the subscribers to
avoid the communion of anybody who would deviate from Rome,
even in the future. And yet it was accepted by
all Easterners who came into unity with Rome. Pope Pormisdas's
son who later became Pope Saint Silverius, wrote this in
the epithaph for his father quote, Greece defeated, So like.
Speaker 1: Half the people don't know what I'm talking about. The
quisat Hottarok is from Doune. It's the universe's super being.
It's the prophecy about when the super being comes, he
will be the god Emperor. Now everybody thinks it's Poultrdes.
It doesn't end up being Polytrdes. It ends up being
his worm son or grandson or whatever. But Quizas Hodak
is a doom reference at Dune. It's a it's a
joke from Doune, and I always use that to illustrate
the outlandish medieval claims of the papacy after the Grigorn Reforms,
which everyone admits went into the stratosphere, where he claims
that he is a world emperor.
Speaker 6: Do people not know this?
Speaker 5: Is this?
Speaker 1: No one knows church history. It's not even controversial. Does
anyone think that the pope and the first millennium had
world emperor powers? I don't know anybody who seriously thinks that.
There are a few trad cats who will actually try
to defend that ridiculous position, but like nine percent of everyone,
everyone in the world does not believe that or think that.
Even in the scholarly world and in the Roman Catholic
world and in the historians of the church, et cetera.
Nobody believes that anymore because it was propped up on
forgeries and it's obviously preposterous. But can you people not
understand that this was made dogma? To be saved, you
had to believe this. Do you not understand that? And
I've had a Roman cop I don't have to believe
when I'm saying them, you don't have to believe it.
I mean, he literally excommunicates people that wouldn't believe it.
There were monarchs and rulers of state that opposed him
who got excommunicated. I'm talking about the papacy in this
time period. Go read on him signed them.
Speaker 2: If you don't know what this is, by Holy power,
submitted herself unto you, happy and having regained her lost faith.
Close quote the nephew of pot Vigilius. The Roman decon
Usticus records that twenty five hundred Eastern clergy signed the
Formula of ormist Us. This shows that, no matter what
resistance there was to papal authority or Leo's tone in
the decades proceeding, the resolution to the schism in the
Formula Formistasis involve a triumph of the primitive Roman view
of the papacy. The net result is that the antique
theory of petrine supremacy upheld by Rome had become, at
least at this moment, externally received by both Calcedonian East
and Western five nineteen eight eight. Now the three chapters controversy.
Here we see em Burgerstaian seeking to circumvent the rules
of the Church in order to enforce his own edicts
to secure peace in the empire. However, despite his attempt
to use an ecumenical council without the Bishop of Rome,
he ended up concerned cornering himself into an admission that
the papacy is required for any doctrine of discipline to
be ratified on a universally binding level. Pope Vigilius, despite
his vacillations, ended up carving out another instance of papal
supremacy in the midst of Oriental Chao.
Speaker 1: Keep that in mind, because when Ub brings this up,
this is going to be a tough point for Eric Borro.
Speaker 2: The visiting story on Gagilius is one of sainthood and
divine supremacy. Lastly, during the midst of the Accacian Schism,
a local dispute in Rome showcases the emergence of the
claim that the pope can be judged by no one,
a principle accepted by many saints revered by the Orthodox Church.
The dispute involved a rivalry to the papal throne between
a certain Laurentius versus Pope Saint Simmachus, among other things.
The driving force behind The resolution to this Roman schism
was that even if the Roman pontiff were guilty of
certain crimes, he cannot be judged by any earthly inferior,
ecclesiastical or secular, precisely because he occupies the authoritative position
that Jesus Christ gave to Saint Peter, the head of
the Universal Church. Multiple saints, including Pope Saint Macchus himself,
Pope Hormistas, who was a deacon notary at the councils
that formulated the principle that the first he is judged
by no one. Saint Inodius of Pavia, Saint Evotus of Malivus,
and Saint Laurentius of Milan all testified to this. A
century later, Pope Saint Gregory the Great, known by the
Greeks as the Dilogist, spoke in favor of Simmachus's side
of this dispute, showing his own belief in the principle
the first Sea is judged by none.
Speaker 4: In conclusion, we see.
Speaker 2: Councils, saints, and academic scholarship testify to the manifestation of
petrine authority over all Christians, its post apostolic perpetuity in
the Roman Sea and its divine protection by Christ's virtue
of his promise to Saint Peter the Apostle.
Speaker 4: Hobfert.
Speaker 1: Yes, all right, so we have essentially Eric picking out
what he thinks for the probably the three strongest examples,
and then we're going to move on to UBI. I've
not heard ubi's opening statement yet, so let's see where
UBI goes with this. I'm hoping that he'll probably go
into some of these articles that you've seen me post
that he wrote back in twenty nineteen. But let's see.
Speaker 4: All right, Thanks very much, Eric, I love body. You
have frimitus re opening statement. Whenever you begin to quick
the time.
Speaker 7: I'm I close enough, yep. And paper premacy is not
our issue, as we agree. The pope was first and
presided in love that he was an archbishop of the world,
and nor is paper supremacy issue. As we agree, the
pope was the highest most supreme bishop who, in fulfilling
the role as a sonodle head, was required to either
ratify or reject the decisions of the synods at which
he presided.
Speaker 1: And we keep in mind that as the pentarchy structure develops,
especially if you have the Sishensky work here, which I
highly recommends. A really good book, the recent publication of
Papa Seing the Orthodox by Edward Sashensky. The chapter on
all of this that they're debating today is really good.
So if you do, if you want kind of a
crash course in a lot of the obscure history and
what they talked about in this debate, I highly highly
recommend the Sashensky book. It's an Oxford publication, so it's
not some you know, random Orthodox publisher, it's it's from
Oxford University, and they go through, you know, pretty much
all of the stuff that is in this debate. In
that chapter, this is a it's called the Church of
Rome in the Patristic era is this chapter. But you'll
notice that by the time of the Council of Trello,
and then Trello is accepted by the sixth and ultimately
the Seventh Council, the patriarchal system was in place, and
as is noted in the pages seven. I say this
because later on in the debate, Ibara is just totally
off base when he says that the the claims about
the need of the patriarchs to sign off on something
to be ecumenical or whatever he says that's not true,
it is true. It's mentioned here on pages one, eighty
six and eighty seven, and this is where he says
that the patriarchal system developed, and eventually they saw that
as necessary for universality and for dogma. Even in the West,
the Pope did not have a problem agreeing with and
assenting to this patriarchal pentarchy type of system. And the
reason I say that, remember Eric tried to frame Vatican
One as if it works with collegiality. But if you remember,
Vatican One actually says that the pope absolutely does not
need the bishops. He can't operate autocratically. Remember that doesn't
fit with pable minimalism. But that's precisely the route Or
tried to take.
Speaker 7: Relationship to the patriarchs was mirrored in the relationship of
a patriarch to the archbishops, an archbishop to the metropolitans,
and a metropolitan to the bishops. Hence the offt us
address for the Pope in the first millennium Archbishop of
the World that was used repeatedly, specifically at Calcidon. In
the canonical literature, it is abundantly clear that the relationship
between each grade of episcopal authority is a mirror of
the relationship below it and.
Speaker 3: Or above it.
Speaker 7: We go over this for roughly forty five minutes in
our very first video responding to the arguments of Erkibara
from May twenty twenty.
Speaker 5: What we do.
Speaker 7: Object to is the Vatican One model of a dictator
who can speak infallibly as he pleases, with no recourse
to any council or any institution, whose whims can become
incontestable decrees, as we recently saw with the Latin Mass,
which sadly is once again been decimated. But that is
a position you must prove existed in the first millennium.
Is a position that even the Pope's hand picked scholars
do not believe existed then, as we've seen from the
revented document, also from Kieti, also from Alexandria. Further, you
bear the double burden of providing evidence that the Pope
could and did speak infallibly on matters of faith and
morals with the intent to bind the faithful, without the
cooperation of his fellow bishops. It is not enough for
you to show that, in his role as the head
of the Roman Synod, he issued excommunications and anathemas as
that is normal in the federation of churches, and that
is exactly what the first Millennium Church did. They were
a federation of churches, and many patriarchs and archbishops availed
themselves of such a privilege, cutting off from their sonodal
communion all those who refused to comply. A prime example
of this is a situation involving Saint John Chris System
and the patriarch of Alexandria, Saint Theophilis, which created a
schism of Rome was only healed under Saint Cyril.
Speaker 1: Now that already begins to refute some of the argumentation
of Eric. When Eric was trying to argue that well,
the pope saw himself as unilateral because he could excommunicate
or say somebody way far off was excommunicated. Yeah, but
other patriarchs did the exact same thing, so that itself
doesn't prove anything.
Speaker 7: But on the topic of infallibility, when the Council of
Calcidon critically examined the tone of Pope Saint Leo, they
used the councils of Nicea on Fsis as the standard.
Had the tone been understood as ex Cathedra. This type
of behavior would have been unthinkable, as it would have
already been considered dogma. When one reads the pages upon
pages of the bishop's critically examining it, one cannot help
but realize they had no concept of the tone as
being ex cathedra nord to Saint Leo for that matter,
because in letter one twenty he states the Council of
Calcedon unquote ratified his tone and that it has been
quote received by the judgment of the whole Christian I don't.
Speaker 1: Know why that started playing fast.
Speaker 4: I'm already heretics.
Speaker 7: So the Sea of Rome had not always been.
Speaker 1: This is acting all weird. So let me go back
to Ubi's.
Speaker 7: Orient pages of the bishops critically examining it, One cannot
help but real or any institutionships archbishops of the Metropolitans
do object to is the vat to one model of.
Speaker 8: Addicted Maybe I got Tolis, which created the schism of
Rome was only healed under Saint Cereal.
Speaker 5: But on the topic of.
Speaker 7: Infallibility, when the Council of Calciedm critically examined the tone
of Pope Saint Leo, they used the councils of Nicea
and ephesis as the standard. Had the tone been understood
as ex cathedra, this type of behavior would have been unthinkable,
as it would have already been considered dogma.
Speaker 4: But when one.
Speaker 1: Reads I noticed Eric's argument is literally that Leo perhaps
thought of his tone as ex cathedral, so therefore it's
a demonstration of ex cathedral first millennium. And Ubi's point
is that the Ecumenical Council did not receive it as
that it doesn't matter that Leo said this is an authoritative,
necessary document in the mind of the Council, it still
had to be investigated and compared against the previous teachings
and against the measure, which was Cyril. The measure of
Calcedon is Cyril's teaching, not Leo's. Leo had to match
up to what Cyrilton He's.
Speaker 7: The pages upon pages. As the bishops critically examining it,
one cannot help but realize they had no concept of
the tone as being ex cathedra, nor did Saint Leo
for that matter, because in letter one twenty he states
the Council of Chalcedon quote ratified his tone and that
it has been quote received by the judgment of the
whole Christian world.
Speaker 1: Now, remember Eric is trying to argue that because there
was this uh cooperation in discussion between the pope and
the council, that proves his position. But remember ex cathedra
is a much stronger claim than working together with other
people and other people agreeing with or quote ratifying. Ratification
means that we judge this to be the case. But
remember Erica just argued, no one judges the first c
so that the council ratifies means they make a judgment,
which refutes Eric's claim that it's ex cathedra because no
one judges the first Sea. He literally ended his opening
statement with no one judges the first s Yet Chalcedon
is ratifying or judging whether or not Leo taught orthodoxy,
and Eric actually concedes this when he admits that Honorius
taught heresy. I'm not joking. Eric literally says Honorius was
a heretic, and I concede that, which means that counsels
judge the popes. You see, and we're going to play
that clip in a moment.
Speaker 7: Furthermore, when Bishop Vincent Gasser at the behest of Pope
Pious ninth wrote the official interpretation of Pastor e Turnus,
known as the Ralatio Bishop Gasser. He did not include
the Tome and his examples when trying to prove papal
infallibility in the first millennium. Yes, Saint Flavian did say
that all it would take is a letter from Saint
Leo to cure the situation with Utukeys. That is, but
that is because Utichise himself says that is what will
make him change his mind, not any commitment on the
part of the Church of Constantinople. In other words, the
tremendously influential person that being Utikys was actually the godparent
of one of the chief eunuchs and very influential the
person who was causing all of the problems, announced they
would listen to whatever Leo told them. Of course, Utikys
only said that because he thought Leo would agree with him.
Speaker 4: When St.
Speaker 7: Leo didnot, Uzikis immediately went to the paytrick of Alexandria
di Oscars. It's with noting that Yusiki's actually appealed to
Alexandra and as well to.
Speaker 8: Other sees.
Speaker 7: But this is a revealing There's a revealing quotation from
Saint Leo's letter fourteen, Section twelve, in which he roots
the premacy is every episcopal level, to the distinction between
Saint Peter and the other apostles. He draws a parallel
between the role of a metropolitan among the bishops and.
Speaker 1: Real quick I want to add that we're going to
open it up to people who want to call in,
who have debate topics, or they want to they want
to have a debate when we finish with ubi's opening statement. Here,
I'm not going to play this whole debate. It's three hours.
We would be here for forever, So if you want
to watch the full debate, I'll put it in the
chat right there there it is. We'll play a couple
of clips after ubi's opening statement, and then we will
open it up for people who call in via Twitter.
The way that you call in is through my ex
link that's in the show description. It's also in the chat,
and you can make any argument you want. You can
ask me a question. You don't have to debate, but
we always give priority to people who want to come
on in debate.
Speaker 7: In just a moment, Bishop among the metropolitans and the
Pope among the archbishops. Quote and again, this is elect
of fourteen section twelve. And though they have a common dignity,
yet they did not have uniform rank, And as much
as even among the blessed apostles, notwithstanding the similarity of
their honorable state, there was a certain distinction of power.
And while the election of them all was equal, yet
it was given to one to take the lead of
the first, from which model has arisen a distinction among
bishops also, and by an important ordinance, it has been
provided that everyone should not claim everything for himself, but
that there should be in each province one whose opinions
should have the priority among the brethren. And again that
certain whose appointment is in the greater cities should undertake
a fuller responsibility, through whom the care of the universal
Church should converge towards Peter's one seat, and nothing anywhere
should be separated from its head letter fourteen twelve. We
know from canonical literature what the rights of bishops, metropolitans
and archbishops were, and Saint Leo is drawing a parallel
between those and the role of the papacy. So we
have a very good idea of what Saint Leo saw
us a pope's role, and it was not vatkan one,
but conciliary ecclesiology as an Orthodox Church teaches to this day.
For the Saint Leo states that the higher ups quote
their opinions, should have the priority among the brethren. Notice
its priority, not autocracy. His vision is essentially that of
Apsolic Canon thirty four on the universal level, which states
that the head of the synon the members, should do
everything in concert, not one alone.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I wanted to bring that up because this
is often overlooked in this discussion. Canon thirty four, which
are the ancient, you know, earliest versions of canon law
Church law. Canon thirty four is that the bishops of
every nation must acknowledge those that are first among them
and account them as their head. So notice that this
is a universal, diffused structure where each nation kind of
has a primate or an archbishop, where a what will
eventually perhaps be Metropolitans and then later on pentarchy. Right,
and they must do things in concert, in in accord. Right,
And you know, notice that it never says anything about
a super bishop, just like Canon six of Nicea doesn't
say anything about a super bishop. So what Ubi's arguing
is that the structure of the Synod and the bishop
and the primates, and they are bishop mirrors the Ecumenical Synod,
and that structure within the Ecumenical councils with Rome first,
you know, and then Alexandria, Antioch, et cetera. It's a
movable structure, by the way, because as you get Constantinople,
which Rome later concedes to the new structure with Constantinople
amongst the Pentarchy. If you read Canon six and Nicia,
Constantinople doesn't exist yet. It's not amongst that structure yet.
It's not a metropolitan yet. But Kennon six and Icia says, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria,
those are the three early seas, and those are by
the way, patrine seas. But this structure is clearly not
the Vatican One structure. And that's exactly why Chi eighty
and Alexandria admit this point, which is what Eric is
trying to go against, trying to prove that well, it
was still there even though it wasn't mentioned. It was
just so arguments from silence. Basically, the reason I argument
from silence is because it's not in these canons. I
understand argument. Eric's giving what he thinks are historical examples,
but the point is that the canons don't mention this
kind of stuff. The canonical arguments are like hardcore on
the Orthodox side, and Roman Catholics never talk about these
canons because they don't support the Roman Catholic position. That's
exactly why Eric has to go to papal claims about
the papacy itself to prove his position. You'll notice that,
and that and a bunch of later on supposed Byzantine
Russian historians. He's not going to the canons which expressed
the universal mind of the Church, and the synods, which
absolutely nowhere back up the Roman vatican Ie position. And
in fact, every ecumenical council includes canons which contradict the
Vatican One position.
Speaker 7: Which you brought up in your introduction. It is often
pointed out that Saint Felix ex excommunicated bless Us apologize.
It is often pointed out that Saint Felix excommunicated Blessed
Acacius of Constantinople.
Speaker 4: And that is true.
Speaker 7: That is true, but far from exercising some sort of
Vatican One prerogative as you would imagine, or as you
would argue, his success or Pope Saint Glacias states in
the letter ten four that Pope Felix did what any
bishop could do in choosing to excommunicate a bishop who
failed to uphold the Counsel of Calcedone quote. Does Eufemius
not realize that Akakius was condemned According to the formula
of the Synod of Calcedon, it is permissible not only
for an Apostolic leader, but for every pontiff to separate
from Catholic communion whomsoever they like and whatever place they like,
according to the rule of the very heresy that has
previously been condemned. Letter ten four of Saint Galacias and
letter twelve eight. Saint Galasius makes the same claim in
regard to the heretics Timothy, Peter and Peter of Antioch,
and again in letter twenty seven to three.
Speaker 2: TikTok keeps trying to tell me that I have secretly
Lady hair, I'm gonna prove him wrong.
Speaker 7: Oh my god, they're right.
Speaker 4: I started it easy.
Speaker 7: This is because the Great Saint Glasius, far from s
himself as an unlimited autocrat of Vatican One and understands
his role as a ratifier of proposed universal sonodal decisions.
In fact, in letter one to three, Saint Galacia shows
he believes the episcopacy is the highest office in the church,
meaning that any office presumed to be above it can
work only through the sonodal model and is not in
autocracy quote beyond the presbyterate, what is more important to
the governance of the church if not the episcopate. In
letters one, one, one, nine, ten four through five, ten nine,
and twenty seven four through five, we see Saint Galacius
stressing that because Rome is a sonodal head, those sonodal
decisions that have been ratified by his predecessors have been
made permanent and can only be undone via the sonodal process,
with Saint Galasias or his successors ratifying the decision. For
Saint Galacias as for the other popes, especially Saint Leo,
Rome's role was analogous to that of a keystone in
an arch. The keystone was put in as the crowning
and last piece once the rest of the arch had
been constructed. So while a keystone on it's own did
not make an arch. Without a keystone, no arch could exist.
It's just sonodal ecclesiology. Now in Letter's one dot thirty
eight through thirty nine, Saint Galacius even laments that he
might be judged by the Church for receiving heretics into communion.
And he stands in start contrast to the claims made
concerning Pope Saint Simachus, which we cover in our video
entitled Papal Forgeries. But Saints Avitus of Vienna and Anodius
of Pavia are stating that the Bishop of Rome cannot
be judged. But the context of those two quotations, as
well as a statements made by Pope Saint Gleasias and
much later by Pope Innocent the Third, as well as
the depositions of one of Simachus's successors, Silverius, and the
events surrounding the Fifth Ecumenical Council, it becomes clear that
Santa Vitus and Anodius Satinodius were speaking on moral failings,
not heresy, which in and of itself is suspect enough,
since Saint Simachus was on trial for supposedlyving affair with
then of Saint Peter, now with Saint Agapetus on the
topic of him, There's really nothing special about a pope
leading a Council on Constantinople that condemns not a patriarch,
but a patriarch who had resigned sometime previously. This is
merely a notable act, not the type of Vatican Wan
autocracy you need to prove. And Silverius was depposed in exile,
who is actually the posed an excellent But when Empers
Saint Justin he'd heard of this, he demanded Silverius be
sent back and be given a proper trial instead, though
he was handed over to Pope Vigilius, who exiled him
and allowed him to starve to death. Again, not a
people was heard that the pope couldn't be judged, and
even if we were to argue that Vigelius being the pope,
could judge, So it makes a question of how Vigilious
could be a valid pope if an invalidly the post
pope was still alive, meaning that Virgilius would still have
been a non pope. Judging of pope on the top
of Saint rmisas the jam.
Speaker 1: Note that because that will be brought up again that
point about Vigilius precisely later on, when Ubi really makes
it borrow collapse. So we're almost done with Ubi's opening statement,
then we're gonna look at the and that point on
Vigilius is one of the key points. Now, the description
of this used to say very explicitly I could I remember.
I thought that it was way more explicit that they
said the papacy of Vigilius and something else. I don't
see that written anywhere used to say that. But if
that's one of the premises of the debate, and Yubora
explicitly says I don't know and I have no answer
to that, then that to me is pretty clearly at
least in half of the debate, bar was saying that
he lost. And we'll play that clip and you can
see what what I'm what I mean. But it's it's
on that Vigilia's point right there.
Speaker 7: Any papapologetics quote mind, is going to be the lobalist
ormistos due to two lines of particular quote. And the
Apostolics see the Catholic religion has always be preserved without
blemish end quote end quote. And quote in which the
firmness of the Christian religion is hold true. It's rarely acknowledged.
And in your book you simply denied the other versions
of the labellus existed, and I found that claim to
be preposterous, as is well documented in the primary sources,
even by Saint Hormis Dawson's emissaries. Quote and this is
from this is a segastio, meaning a report written to
Saint Hormisdas from de Oscris.
Speaker 1: The Deacon.
Speaker 7: After much negotiation when they the archer mandrite a commandrites
two were won over by arguments They presented labelli by
all kinds and methods. Further, Saint Harmisdawsin's letter to the
ecumenical Patriarch Epiphoniness of Constantinope writes, quote, also let the
contents of the labelli which they have presented be included
in your report end quote. He later continues, and since
in your letter, your love has made mention of the
Jerusalemites whose recent profession was reported to us, we considered
it necessary either to review what was written or to
indicate what was agreeable. None of those three quotations above
make any sense if there was only one form of
the libellus, and the evidence indicates that the vast majority
of those who signed did not sign the labellus, but
rather a labellas they themselves composed independently. We even have
one from the bunch of monks from Lebanon. But what
follows the last quotation is a several paragraph long outline
written by Saint Jormisdos on what the libelli being offered
to him must be composed of, and it consists of
teachings on Trinity, a focus on Christology, and even some marriology,
but no mention of the supposed papal claims in the
initial lobellus. In fact, Saint Peter is not even mentioned
in the outline.
Speaker 4: That he gives. Assuming St.
Speaker 7: Harmissed Us had been insistent on papal claims in the
first labellus, why would he suddenly omit those as required
in future labelli unless he himself saw them as the
irrelevant rhetoric that they really were just chest pounding. The
issue is really that you guys latch onto the term always,
and you assume that always means every single time. But
when we look at quotations from other righteous from the
same period, we find absolute terms like always and never
in every way at all times when used to describe
historical events, are usually used in the same way it
is in English, and that means generally speaking, or tends to.
Speaker 1: I've been a board of points time for our absolute
biggest deal of the year on daily ware.
Speaker 4: Plus that is.
Speaker 7: Case in point. Most of the bishops presence at Chalcedon
had been involved in schism with Rome over Ephesus two
in four fourteen nine, that lasts until the summer prior
to Chalcedon in autumn four fifty one, and they wrote
to Saint Leo concerning canaon twenty eight This will show
also due regard for the pious emperors who have confirmed
us law the judgment of your sacredness, and the Sea
of Constantinople will receive its recompense for having always shown
you great ardor in the cause of piety, and for
having zealously allied itself with you for the sake of harmony.
Never mind that only months before they had been in community,
they had not been in communion with Rome. They had
always shown Saint Leo great ardor and the cause of piety.
How many heretics and corrupt men's had on the throne
of Alexandria prior to de oscris arians whatnot. But speaking
of descris Saint Leo states, the Church of Alexandria, which
has always been a house of.
Speaker 4: Prayer is not so.
Speaker 1: In other words, patristic usage of always, just like head,
does not mean what Rome oftentimes wants it to mean,
these exclusive literal statements. And you'll notice that later on
when UBI asked this of Eric about certain statements, Eric
admits that it doesn't always mean that literally, but Roman
Catholics want it to mean that when they need it
to mean that for their position. So it's a double standard.
Speaker 7: To be a down of robbers. I have numerous other
statements like this from the period under discussion that I
will be presenting during the cross examination. Regardless when all
of these men are taken into account, there are a
lot of always and a lot of never, a lot
of grand statements, and that style of retrach one encounters
predominantly in societies have not gone through an industrial revolution
yet even now, we rarely use always, and we rarely
use never to refer to a consistently positive or consistently
negative event. So, going back to the labellus of Hormisdos,
the question is was Pope Saint Hormisdos really unaware of
Pope's who had failed to keep the faith unsullied? Was
he really unaware of Pope Marcellinius Marsin Marcelenos, who had
sacrificed to idols during the persecution, or Pope Saint Liberius,
who signed an Aryan confession and condemned Saint Tathanasius. Was
he really unaware that Pope Felix the second had been
an aryan. Furthermore, even if he wasn't aware of those,
he would be proven wrong three decades later when Pope
Virgilius repeatedly flip flopped on the condemnation of the Three Chapters,
and the seventh century when Pope Honorius, writing an official
capacity to patriarch Surgeries of Constantinople, endorsed mono energism and
Monotheltism and was condemned by an ecumenical council for doing so.
We are faced with three Athens, Saint Rmisdas was just incorrect.
Speaker 4: He didn't know.
Speaker 7: Two he was lying or bluffing, or three he used
the term always the way that we use it, and
he meant typically or tends to. I prefer the third option.
It was a wrong way to speak in general at sorry,
it was a wrongan way to speak in generalities. It
is not that always simply has a different meaning in
Latin and Greek than English, but rather that it carries
the same meaning, and that is a tendency towards or generally.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 7: In fact, we can look at how I've used it today,
or rather how I will. When I came in, I
told Matt that I've always enjoyed pints with a uinas.
There are some shows that I didn't, but almost all
of them I did. If the audience were to produce
our own usage of the word, they would find that
always almost never means every single instance. Okay, this is
why Christ says I'm with you always until the end
of time. He has to qualify always with until the
end of time. But let us pretend that the labellus
of Horman's loss does not have or does have acim
one presuppositions behind it. One would then expect that the
same bishops would supposedly so eagerly signed it, surely would
not disregard the voice of the Pope on faith and
morals in the future. But they did in the dispute
over Thelopostrite formula, in which Rome showed itself to be
unfavorable to theol Postrite formula and advocated against it, but
the Eastern bishops who are now coming with Rome insists
on using it anyway. One might point out that there
are currently many Catholic bishops are coming with Rome, yet
they hold to degenerate morality, degenerate morality and the German bishops.
But if that's a parallel that can be drawn, what
does that say about the bishops who in five nineteen
could supposedly be controlled into signing the libellus in the
first place. Finally, we come to the fact that Vigilius
was deposed from his office during the seventh session of
the Fifth Aemical Council five.
Speaker 4: Point fifty three quote.
Speaker 7: Since therefore he Vigilius has acted in this way, we've
pronounced that his name is alien to Christians, as not
to be read out in the Diptica. One may probably
point out that this was struck from the acts after
Vigilius accepted the condemnation of the three Chapters and was
received back into communion by the East. But by pointing
that out you inadvertently admit that he had to submit
to the judgment of his fellow bishops, something anathema to
vascon One. But Vigilius's condemnation is only compounded by the
people of the North African bishops had also in fact
excommunicated Vigilia's for as they saw that while you bringing
on Calcedon now you might argue that this was outside
of their rights.
Speaker 1: That's a key point too, for precisely the clips that
we're going to see in just a second.
Speaker 7: Of force to deal with the fact that there was,
to our knowledge, absolutely no repercussions or repentance required of
those bishops who had excommunicated him in the aftermath of
the council or for centuries or after, it was simply
accepted as a matter of fact that bishops could ended
excommunicate a pope, and when Vigilius then accepted the combination
of the three chapters, that the bishops could then admit
the pope back into communion.
Speaker 1: That's I felt like it was a really strong opening statement.
So we're going to move on over now. If you
want to watch the full debate, those are the opening statements.
We're gonna look at some more highlights. Then we're going
to open it up to you guys. Here's the full debate.
In the chat over on that Fry's channel and the
highlighted points that I thought were really good were this first,
We'll play my clip first, and then we'll play Luigi's clip.
So this, I thought was really where Eric faltered. And
the reason I say this is because oftentimes the debate
focuses on infallibility, and part and parcel with infallibility is indefectibility,
and the Vatican One position also argues for indefectibility. The
Roman see can never defect, can never teach Eric, can
never teach Charisee. And yet Eric admits that there were
heretical popes. How in the world do you maintain indefectibility
It basically it ends up being well, the papas is
indefectible until he defects, which is to say, a meaningless statement.
So here is where this is two clips combined where
I felt like it was really strong. And then we'll
play Luigi's clip clip.
Speaker 7: Who never departed from the traditions of the fathers and
directed the Church of God in ultra tranquility. Do you
think that's correct?
Speaker 4: Not literally?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Okay, oh wait a minute, So in this instant
when it hurts Eric's case, it's not universal always literal language.
You just heard of Eric admit that.
Speaker 7: By the mid fifth century, how many popes have had
like heretical views.
Speaker 4: Yeah, this is a hotly debated issue.
Speaker 2: So, I mean there's questions related to the pontificate of
like Birius and Felix.
Speaker 4: Uh, but you know there's there's both sides.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he says, yeah, there's been a few. Yeah. So
Eric is kind of conceding there have been heretical popes. Okay,
and Eric, by the way, as far as I'm aware,
does concede that Honorius washer a heretic and was extum
municated by the Six Council.
Speaker 7: They do you mention this letter? Yes, for that Holy
see speaking rom has precedents over all churches in the
world for many reasons, and above all for this that
is free from any tints of heresy, and that no
bishop of Heterodox's opinion has ever sat upon its throne,
but has kept the grace of the apostles undefiled. And
do you think he's correct?
Speaker 4: I mean, unless he elsewhere condemns another pope.
Speaker 7: So as you mentioned, maybe he didn't know. I mean,
he's out in the sounds, like he's out in the
boondogs when he riots. I can the constitutions of the
Church be destroyed.
Speaker 4: Constitution the Holy Spirit has done through the churches.
Speaker 7: Right, And these guys are talking about what the Holy
Spirit is done through the church as always, always, always.
Speaker 4: So I mean, okay, so in one case, remain thank you.
Speaker 7: So in this case, I mean, when taking too account
that there had been heretical popes, I mean, I don't
see how you can maintain that the always there should
be the exception.
Speaker 4: Yeah, we don't.
Speaker 2: I mean, look, I believe Honorius was a condemned heretic,
and I believe Vatican won.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so there you go. I believe contradictory positions. The
ecumenical councils can condemn popes excommunicate them, but the Roman
See never fails, never teaches error, and is never judged
by anyone. The Roman Sea is judged by no one.
And Eric just said that Honorrius was a heretic and
was excommunicated. So, in other words, the papacy is indefectible
until it defects, which is to say nothing, which is
to say that it's useless. Now, Luigi's clip is also
probably the best. I mean, this one is probably the
strongest point where Eric just gives up. Now, Remember this
is originally listed as one of the terms or the
propositions under debate, the papacy of Agilius. So this is
Eric conceding what was listed originally as one of the
premisses under debate.
Speaker 7: Do you think in the case of Saint Silverius, he
was deposed by Belsarius, he sent to Justinian, finds out
says you have to give a guy trial. He's handed
over to Virgilius Virgilious. He was a horrible person. I
don't know when sounds of it, He's horrible. I mean,
how does that work out? If Virgilius is the pope
but he's judging a former pope. That means that the
deposition of the former pope had to be valid if
Virgilius is a pope. If Rgilius, if the deposition is
not invalid and Virgilius is judging him, then you still
have the situation of a pope being judged by a
non pope.
Speaker 2: I'll be candid with you. This is something that I
have not really had a satisfactory answer to. So I'm
not really satisfied with my answer to that quote.
Speaker 1: Oh so, the very thing under debate, the papacy of Vigilius.
I'm gonna be honest with you. I don't know. Imagine
if an Orthodox person in a debate said that, literally
every realmancale would be going crazy. They would all be
clipping it non stop. We would be hearing about this endlessly.
Speaker 6: It's over.
Speaker 9: It's over, bro, or though, Bros, it's over. Pack it
up Tom to come home to Rome. Their top guy
literally says about the thing under debate, the papacy of Vigilius.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna be honest with you. I don't got an
answer to that, and I don't know. Let's play it
again for you, hard headed goofballs.
Speaker 7: The situation of a pope.
Speaker 4: I'll be candid with you.
Speaker 2: This is something that I have not really had a
satisfactory answer to. So I'm not really satisfied with my
answer to that question.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. And this is what we've been saying about
these people all along, and so that I think was
the key point where I think really it was over.
I mean, this was the kill shot, because it's not
just Vigilius. But you understand that Eric's whole premise, as
we said, was I don't really have to demonstrate the
Vatican one positions, except that maybe there's a few places
where you could deduce it. But Eric, you have a
position that is easily disproven by one dogmatic contradiction. Because
remember Eric argued earlier that no one judges the first C.
Now he's admitting that, yeah, you can judge the first C.
And the first C can be defect. It can defect.
You can have heretics in the first C. Ecumenical councils,
judge the first sea, excommunicate popes. He's admitted all this,
So it's over, Roman bros. It's over. Papal bros. It's
over for you, guys. And it's over right there. And
how many years has Eric been doing apologetics about the papacy.
Maybe ten years now, I'm gonna say around ten years.
So ten years and he's not got a good answer
to one of the key arguments about Virgilius. Guys, is
it time to maybe think about the fact that if
your own Vatican is admitting all these points, it's over.
It's over for you, guys. Let's hear this one more time.
Speaker 7: The situation of a pope judge fighting on pope.
Speaker 2: I'll be candid with you, this is something that I
have not really had a satisfactory answer to. So I'm
not really satisfied with my answer to that question.
Speaker 1: Oh but the papacy is still true and it's still
unfalsifiable because maybe there were some quotes that you could read. Now, guys,
we're going to open it up now to debate. It's
open for them for anybody wants to call in and
make an argument and make a case. You want to
call out this or that position. It's not about personal issues.
It's about the debates and issues that we're discussing today.
MKG says, for five dollars, we need three merch t shirts. Unmute,
Why are you giggling? And how do you know that?
Those are actually pretty good slogans for I actually agree
with that. Can I be candid with you? Can I
more like? Can I be candy with you? If it's
going to be Eric Candy Candy Ubara anonymous? Fight dollars?
If you go to Anton Wizbinski's channel, I have no
idea who Anton Wizbinski is.
Speaker 10: So uh.
Speaker 1: By the way, is the stream still working? My computer
is getting overheated with all of the By the way,
here's ubi's forgeries video. Give you that, give you guys
that as well? Uh is streamline is still streaming? I
can't tell. Can you guys still see me? I like
how Eric just kind of like gave up right there.
I'll be honest with you. I just don't really know.
But uh, you should still believe in the papercy though,
because I wrote a book about it and I don't
want to admit I'm roll and it would be humiliating.
Harry Sarpanos one dollar. Here's the full video. Thank you
for that west Huff debate. I appreciate that, m KG
five dollars. What do you think about wes Huff? I
don't know any think about him? So that that was
my first exposure to wes Huff. Is the is the
video still because my strength? Okay, good, we guess can
still see me? And then I'll just ignore that s
l I D five A F four six A E
B sixteen one dollar. The Billy Billy, Billy Corgan. I
keep wanting to say, Billy Corgan, the wild is a vampire,
the wild is a black peyramid. I'd rather have Billy Corgan.
How about we have Billy Corgan debate Billy corson.
Speaker 6: Yan secret destroyer.
Speaker 1: Y even no, no, I'm gonna have to work on
my Billy Corgan. I did a Billy Corgan impression to
Jamie other day. It was actually pretty good. But even though, no,
I have to work on it. But would you all
like to who would win in a a Billy Carson
Billy Corgan debate? They could Billy Carr, they could go
out smashing pumpkins together afterwards, Uh Billy Billy Billy uh
uh Corson could like he could like fly his pyramid
and squash a bunch of pumpkins with a giant we
was King's pyramid, and then Billy Billy Corgan could take
his guitar and smash pumpkins. That that sounds like a
party right there. Funk, go fanatic three dollars. Oh wait,
if you watch the first twenty minutes, that will be
Billy Carson's first last debate with any Christians. Yeah exactly, funk,
go fanatic three dollars. What's you're wrong about? Billy Corson?
The Sinai Bibles say Jesus was at crucified and he
have a wife. Educate yourself exactly exactly. I need to
get back into that that I need I need that Zeitgest.
But the remix Billy Carson is basically a remix of
zeit Geist. He's the chopped and screwed version of zich
adam Anti's one dollar Yo. Jay, I'm rewatching your to
borrow debate from back in the day. For the third time.
I actually think you clapped his cheeks. Hum, what do
you recommend that I read to debunk the idea that
popes can be heretics. Well, I'm not going to recommend
you read anything that debunks the ideas that pope can
be heretics popes because I think they can and you
just heard Erica Borris say they can.
Speaker 10: So. Uh.
Speaker 1: Bradon Moore is five dollars a day. Tell slowboy, whiteboard.
I'm sorry. I promise I wasn't going to build a tower.
Thanks for all that you do. I'm attending Orthodox Church.
I want to become a Catechuman soon. God bless you
and Jamie. Keep singing your funko pop gospel. Thank you,
We'll do liturgical funko monk ten dollars. I really love
your content. Jay. Thank you for introducing me Orthodox and
getting away from the grasp.
Speaker 6: Of Matt de la monkey.
Speaker 1: You climbed up in that tree. Thank you the black Man.
Speaker 6: Ten dollars?
Speaker 1: Do you plan on watching billy exposed video coming out?
At seven? Oh? Am? I watching Billy's exposing video at seven?
Billy Carson? I don't know what you're talking about, Billy.
So is Billy Carson gonna expose west Huff Casper Van
Diem at seven? Where do we even follow Billy? He's
got a half a million subscribers on Instagram. That's crazy, dude. Oh,
he got six hundred and sixty six k over here
on YouTube. So you said he's about to drop an
exposed video. Where's he dropping his exposed video? I don't
I can't find this. Let's see, let's go to his website.
What's he got going on over here on his website?
I need a master course. I need a master course
and Forbidden Knowledge learning, Crypto experiences, Alien Ink. Look at
all this nonsense Alien encounters, Joe Rogan, PbD, I mean,
look look at all the people that have had this
goof us on Rogan, Sean Ryan Schultz.
Speaker 10: Like, what.
Speaker 1: Where's his exposed They're gonna He's gonna expose thembody. Who's
he gonna expose wes Huff.
Speaker 6: Where are you?
Speaker 1: I don't know what you're talking about, but it does
sound like fun to watch his video roll stake ten dollars.
Here's ten dollars for you to drop the hottest Matt
Frad track on this side of the hemisphere for twenty
twenty four. I might drop a Mad Frad track. Mad
Frad track, we'll see Elijah Yassi who is a conciliust
heretic and Drews induced a new distinction. This is kitty
cat fi dollars. Yassi says that number one, the pope
teaching on fourth faith and morals is one distinction versus
the Pope trying to bind the church on a teaching
of faith and morals. He thinks this gets out of
the Honorius problem. If the First c is judged by
no One, and then Ecumenical Council judges the first Sea,
he can make up all the distinctions he wants. Anonymous
three dollars. In your opinion, if you stack bitcoin, does
this undo the need for an ira? What about an
ira from Swan?
Speaker 6: I don't know.
Speaker 1: I've been thinking about that. I mean, there's probably gonna
be advantages and disadvantages to either route. But I mean,
you can do a bitcoin ira verrella the second three
dollars and your research if you across anything that suggests
that there's a connection between Vatican One and the Napoleonic
Court dot of eighteen oh one. I haven't found anything.
It's hinted at in the spy book that I'm reading, right,
it doesn't, but it doesn't. It doesn't mention Vatican One,
but it mentions Napoleon and the Vatican and their connection,
and you know, this kind of stuff going on. But
I don't know. It's a really interesting question. You would
probably need to ask a historian a Vatican one in Napoleon.
I'm not a historian on that topic. Really, Anonymous five dollars,
I've been struggling with the evidence of human existence for
hundreds of thousands of years. All you got to do
is watch Billy corson'd all. He will prove to you
our ancient alien god origins. How can you fit that
into the narrative of the of the Fall? If death
pre existed, Adam, I've never seen a rebuttal Yeah, well,
I don't believe in AONs of existence of billions of
years and all that stuff. That's just a myth and
narrative of the the Soy science man Dave one dollar
and six cent. So there's a difference between Orthodox churches.
It's called jurisdiction. Yes, I'm not being rude. I'm saying, yeah,
there's different jurisdictions. There's not a Russian church where I live.
Should I go to the Coptic Church? No, the Coptic
Church is not part of the Orthodox Church. They're a
schismatic group. Should I go to a different church or
a Russian Orthodox Church? Well, any of the Orthodox churches,
meaning the canonical Orthodox churches. Balou one dollar. What about
quantum authority? Maybe the pope possesses quantum authority and retroactively
he can give himself through retroactive causation ancient authority. That's
an argument that the I'm surprised though, I mean they
went with the Baysian spreadsheet argument for the papacy. They
went with all kinds of crazy stuff. Wait until we
have a quantum papacy apologist. I mean, Romancuyes believe anything.
They could. They could set up an AI that argues
for quantum papal apologetics and they'll believe it. I like
that in fact, I might create an AI and use PayPal.
Quantum Apologetics Anonymous three dollars. Considering the sinister doings of
big tech and the technic credit lead, what, in your
opinion should we as truth seekers do? Should we not
be using smartphones, et cetera. I mean, you can choose
to not use a smartphone. It's just gonna be difficult
to get around in the world. I don't know. I
mean maybe there is an argument to be made for that,
and maybe switching away from smartphones to you know, just
using your laptop and having a We've contemplated going back
to flip phones. I mean, I think you can still
get flip phones. So do all your buziness on your
laptop or whatever and then do your you know, just
don't have us. Maybe there's an argument you made for
not having a smartphone, something to consider. Harry Sapanos three dollars.
You nail all the track casts today. God bless you Jay.
Thank you for all this comedy too. Hey, thank you
Harry Sapanos, much appreciated. I don't remind you too that
before we open it up, you can head on over
to chalk dot com use a promo code. J forty
a life to get forty percent off all these great
products over at Chalk. This is the show's sponsor. They
are excellent when it comes to supplementation. I've been using
Chalk myself, literally ingesting it for years, and I can
tell you that it does help, it does work. It
is a great product, especially my favorite, the ton Kettlee
proven to boost test sauce rone in studies. And I
would say, you got to combine this with the gem.
Speaker 4: This is not some kind of like.
Speaker 1: Take this pill and you'll be an awesome maze chatman. No,
you got to combine it with the work son, get
to work, be sure and how to Over to Chalk
dot com Schoq dot com. I would recommend that performance
stack right there for the dudes. Hey, there's also stacks
for ladies. Ladies can benefit by going to the Female
Vitality Stack over here. Just use that promo code J
forty four life for a forty four percent discount. It
is recurring, but you can unsubscribe and can at any time.
So again J A y four four L I f E.
Billy Corson, My boy, Billy Corson over there with a
quant Maybe we should make Billy corson the quantum Pope,
and then he can elect Billy Corgan to be vice Pope.
Speaker 11: That sounds based and tried. The world is a vampire.
The pope is a vampire.
Speaker 6: Even though no I supposed.
Speaker 1: How's that that's better that Billy Corgan messing up my
vocal Corse Billy Corgan. Despite all my rage, I am
still just I couldn't think of anything trying to tie
it in to today's discussion. I know I can't think
of anything anyway. All right, we're gonna open it up.
That's enough clowning around. Enough clowning. By the way, I'm
almost at one hundred k y'all on Twitter obviously. If
you want to support help me out, follow me over
here on x there's the link right there. Help me
get up to one k. We're at eighty eight point six.
By the way, did y'all see my Lord Baldemore. I
thought it was a pretty good Lord Baltimore. I mean,
I don't know if I can judge myself over there,
but this was a pretty good Lord Baltimore. If y'all
didn't see you, go check it out. If you missed
my high profile interview with Jessica Reid Krauss. She's massive
over on Instagram, massive over on substack million on Instagram,
five hundred k on Subsat. We talked about her journey
out of the Left Death Cult. So you got prominent
people leaving. She calls it a left Death colt. Go
check out that interview with her. Oh here's a grip,
but flashback. Pope Francis twenty fourteen. Marxist and Christians have
a common mission to work together. I mean guys Roman
Catholics like bruh, Like what more do you need? Like
literally every day, this guy's trying to tell y'all to
become Orthodox. All right, where are we at? Ac ten dollars?
Speaker 6: Jay?
Speaker 1: Everything I made on hawk Tua. Oh, he'saing a hawk
Tua coin ten bucks. I made a joke. I said,
I'm I'm gonna buy I'm gonna dump all my bitcoin.
I'm gonna buy all the hawk Tua coins up while
they're on this dip, while they're on this ninety nine
percent dip. After that rug pool, then with when hawk
Tua goes back up, I'm gonna buy all the bitcoin
and then I'm a fire Mike Michael Saylor and people
were like, are you being serious?
Speaker 10: Bro?
Speaker 1: Just to go check yourself into the homeless encampment. There's
no hope for you. If you thought I was being serious,
just give up, man, Just go enter a monasterious It's
over for you. Give up, man, Just give I'm just joking.
But some people were like, you got to be careful.
People think you're being serious? Like, who couldn't see that
was a rug? Pot okay, if you're that stupid to
think that, I mean, I feel sorry for y'all. Catholic
becoming Orthodox Street dollars? Are most religions neoplatonic and all
naturalism leads to nietzsche But the orthodox essence scenery distinction
answers a lot of deep philosophical conflicts. I don't know
if all the religions are basically neoplatonic. I think a
lot of religions have a similar structure or are influenced
by Neoplatonism. But a lot of religions are older than
Neil platonistm So no, I wouldn't say that does naturalism
lead to Nietzscheanism. I mean, possibly it could easily logically
lead there, but I don't think that it necessarily leads
there it could lead to I don't know. It leads
you in a lot of different directions. I do think
the Asincenarty distinction answers a lot of philosophical dilemmas, but
maybe not all of them. Quantum coupmenter five dollars, Eric
Abar really missed the chance to expound quantum papal theory.
I can't wait for Francis to update or to drop
that update. Yeah, exactly how long until we see like
quantum papal theory. I mean this is like we're we're
in the domain of my skit, like the Pope in
the future. Does everybody remember my skit? I mean, we're
in this domain of Pope of the future, like it's
now coming to fruition. Remember this.
Speaker 12: As you strive to understand the words I speak to
you with your chemical soup primordial chemical soup brain.
Speaker 1: That's supposed to be a monkey, that's supposed to be
a monkey. Sound anyway, if you want to check out this,
I mean, they might as well just go into this
domain of it like I mean Francis, Like Francis took
us to the to the quantum cope of the future domain.
I mean, next up, is they should meld Billy Carson
and Billy Corgan into an AI, and that should be
the Pope, Billy Corgson as the Pope of the future,
as an AI. That's the quantum Pope that I was
predicting in this prophetic sketch right here. Ac since twenty
bucks and says bro who cares if the pope said
that we should work with Marxists and has a gay pilgrimage.
He also one times, one time made fun of the skittles,
so he is a grype r obviously. Well, yeah, Francis
throws a bone to the trads every now and then
to just keep them on the hook. And it works.
It works perfectly so and it's funny because even Tim
Gordon says that he throws a bone to them and
they still eat it up. All right, let's open that up. Disagreements,
debates questions. We got five people on line. FDA is
with us, still, thank you to FDA. Let's say, first
up is average inquirer. What's up dude?
Speaker 6: Hello?
Speaker 5: Jay?
Speaker 13: Hey, So I've can I ask like a super short
question before, like my question on Roman Catholicism in one
of their arguments, Sure, would you ever consider doing a
collaboration with doctor Nathan Jacobs, because I really like his
orthodox philosophy and I'm curious if you'd ever be willing
to engage with him.
Speaker 1: Yeah, FDA is good friends with him, and I think
FDA just had him to speak at Montanica, So I'm
always open to that. Yeah, for sure.
Speaker 4: Oh awesome.
Speaker 13: Yeah, I've never heard his full take on epistemology and tag,
so I would love to hear a conversation about that.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 1: The thing is, with a lot of these people, I
never know whether they like me or not, because you know,
people think, oh, he's controversial. I don't even think I'm
that controversial. But you know, I never I never know
if this person you know, secretly hates me or I
don't have no reason to think that. I've never talked
to him, I don't know him.
Speaker 10: So but.
Speaker 1: Okay, cool, I'm not aposed to that at all.
Speaker 10: Yeah, that would be awesome.
Speaker 6: Okay.
Speaker 13: And then, so one thing I've seen a lot of
Roman Catholics commenting on about the whole debate thing is
that UBI has a sort of manufactured ecclesiology because they
claim that there's different sex with an orthodoxy, where you
have some who argue this form of pentarchy, and then
others who say that there's all these different normative means
means for understanding what is.
Speaker 10: A true counsel and what isn't. And they say, well,
we have.
Speaker 13: A principle that says that Jesus established a means by
determined to determine a true counsel, and orthodox don't have it,
and they have all these different opinions.
Speaker 10: So I'd like to know what your basic.
Speaker 6: Thought is on that.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, the Roman Catholic world is split as
to whether a Vatican two is acceptable dogmatic, is it
half dogmatic? Does it have documents that you can reject?
I mean, so how has that worked out with Vatican two?
And again they're confusing two different topics. The fact that
within the world of Orthodoxy people have theological debates and
disagreements doesn't mean that we don't have a means of certitude.
So they're confusing just like Protestants too, just like a
lot of people do individual certitude with the idea of
normative authority in history. So the fact that there's normative authority,
that Jesus gave the church a means by which people
could be bound to a certain interpretation, namely, for us,
the College of Bishops, the ecumenical councils, et cetera. For
the Roman Catholic it's the papacy. Like you're not in
any better position. It sounds on the surface like it
might be a better position because we just go with
what that guy says, But in actual fact, in history
and in the twentieth century especially, how has that it
doesn't actually work in practice. It's a thing in theory,
but in practice it doesn't get you in any better position.
Because let me give an example, why is there not
a dogmatic statement about what the dogmatic statements are?
Speaker 13: Yeah, I think I think I've heard you bring that
up before, whereas some people will like bring up Dnsing
or dogma, But there's it's not actually a dogmatized list
of popes or dogmatized.
Speaker 10: List of dogmatic students.
Speaker 1: No, no, it's and it's much more than Danzinger. There's
more than just Dnsinger that you're bound by, because Danzinger
just has papal affirmations, but there's also the ecimitical councils,
there's also encyclicals. None of that's in Dnzinger.
Speaker 10: Yeah, Okay, that's all. That's all a very good point.
Speaker 4: Thank you for that.
Speaker 13: And then I'm on, I just want to do a
quick aside on the topic of.
Speaker 10: Cell phones, which you just brought up.
Speaker 13: Luke Smith, who Kyle just interviewed, does a lot of
content about like disconnecting from technology, and he uses Graphinos.
I use it too, as a sort of dumb phone
with like a few simple apps, and I think you
might want to look into his content on disconnecting from
that stuff.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a good idea. We we'll definitely check that out.
Speaker 13: So he does a lot of content on like why
he thinks from an arrow is the future of cryptocurrency
rather than bitcoin, so I think you might also find
that interesting.
Speaker 1: Yeah. The problem with this is and I'm not against
hearing his case or his arguments, thank you for that,
average Ortho inquirer. But the problem is that bitcoin is
already way ahead of all of these other options. And
bitcoin is also already sort of been accepted by institutions. Now.
I know that that's a double edged sword because a
lot of us don't like the institutions and the government
of the state. But for anything to become the global standard,
it's going to have to overcome that hurdle, and the
problem with the extreme privacy option coins is that they're
never going to get over that hurdle which Bitcoin has
just gotten over. So the point is that realists, I
don't think there's any real case scenario where Monaro overtakes
Bitcoin or replaces Bitcoin. It's already way ahead, and to
get to the point where Bitcoin is, it's going to
be a huge, massive hurdle. And usually the people who
are arguing that Monaro will do this or could do this,
I think, in my opinion, are extremely idealistic. Maybe maybe
they have a case about extreme privacy coins, but I've
been saying people try to convince me a monarrow since
twenty seventeen when I got into this, and I've never
seen anybody give me a good reasonabley. I'm glad that
I didn't buy into their arguments. I would be way
worse off had I listened to all the Monarow people.
And the problem is that in the trilemma, anything you sacrifice,
there's going to be heavy price for any of those things.
For example, a lot of people tell you that, oh,
bitcoin is not going to be the future because the
of the it doesn't have the speed and the scalability,
but your sacrifice when you when you go in the
direction of speed, you're sacrificing the other things, right, You're
sacrificing you know, decentralization or perhaps security, uh and encryption.
So that's why everybody's always trying to find the best
option of the three, the three of the trilemma. I
think bitcoin is still the best option overall. And even
if everybody's already on board to the point of two
trillion dollars, like, it's going to be really hard for
anything to catch up to that. And I don't think
people who have bought into the promise of bitcoin and
the evangelization that Sailor has done, it's going to be
very difficult to convince all those people to switch into
something like Monaro. And if you look at the like
how has bitcoin performed against Monaro in the last ten years,
And had you listen to all those people, you would
be a lot poorer than the people that stuck to Bitcoin. Now,
I'm not saying that it's all about making bank and
all that, but I mean a big part of this
is how are we going to store our value and
our wealth over time? And so bitcoin went out in
that I think geocentric, pleb. What do you think of
Dostievsky's Crime and Punishment.
Speaker 2: I love it.
Speaker 1: It was one of the first, well actually not the first.
I mean Lord of the Rings had a big effect
on me. But I read Crime and Punishment in a
grid class and I sat and read it all in
a few nights in my rocking chair, and it was
moved by it. It was I felt affected by a novel.
I have not yet read the Totality of Brothers krim Matsov,
but I definitely like those from the Underground, so I
definitely intend to get eventually into more Docievsky. But I've
noticed that when I did uh, we did a whole
episode with Tristan and Mark Hackard on Dostievsky. I mean,
nobody reads books, so I don't know what to like.
Nobody watches the live streams when I cover books, and
even when I cover movies, it's more people in the books.
But it's like, I don't know, man, I mean, I
guess we're just it's just going to be a small
elite club of people that actually like good books. Gio
Cedric club again since the same comment again, Yeah, I
think you know Dosky has been one of my favorites
for a long time. Flannery Old Connor is great too.
We've talked about her a lot. I've done podcasts on
all these people, but nobody watches those Orthodox your death
three dollars? How do I debate my neoplatonic pagan friend
if I'm Orthodox? Are there any videos of yours that
I can look at to disprove neoplatonism? I do have
old videos on neoplatonism, so you could you could look
at those. I critique those. I forget what they're titled,
but yeah, you can find those in the archives. Days
the King, what's up? Sorry to get a headache, so
we're probably have to call us to close pretty soon.
We've been going for over three hours. What's up? Days? Days?
And confused? It's Dan spiking?
Speaker 6: But how you doing?
Speaker 5: Man?
Speaker 14: Wonderful?
Speaker 10: Thank you for taking my call.
Speaker 15: I have to just two quick questions for you, please,
if you don't mind, One on Christology and the other
one about the pope thing.
Speaker 10: But so I'm reading through Saint John and Damascus.
Speaker 15: Exact exposition of the Orthodox faith, and on book three,
chapter sixteen, the title is against those who say that
if man has two natures and operations, then it's necessary
to say that Christ has three natures and the same
number of operations. And I read through the chapter and
I I'm having a hard time grasping what he means
by this. So who would say that Christ has three natures?
If man has two natures and operations? Could you could
you break that down for me?
Speaker 6: Please?
Speaker 1: Let me go to it, you said, Book three sixteen.
So this is right after he'd talked about two wills
and two energies in Christ, which famously Book three, chapter fifteen.
It was I direct a lot of people here because
it's a great exposition of the Essen synergies stincture, particularly
in Christology. Now I'm going for memory most of the
time when this is coming up. If you have the
printed out version, the x fontust version I think they
have in the footnotes. Typically I think I'm going to
remember here things dealing with mono, the lights, and mono energists.
So let's see. He says individual man is composed of
two natures, soul and body. Since these natures are unchangeable
in him, it's spoken of as two natures. I mean,
he's just talking about how at that time some people
talked about the soul as a quote nature or a
thing or a substance, different from the substance or nature
of the body. So it's not actually nature in the
way that we speak of the divine nature or the
human nature. He's just talking. It's just using the word
nature to distinguish two different types of existing things. So
you might say that angels have an angelic nature. Right,
So I think he's talking about going for memory monophicites
and mono thelites and mono innergists. But is there a
specific section in this that you're asking about. Where is this?
I've got it pulled up.
Speaker 12: Yeah.
Speaker 15: I didn't really understand the old chapter, to be honest,
and it's fine.
Speaker 10: I can just work through it some more and just
try to see.
Speaker 1: Let me see. So let's look at the closing paragraph.
If by saying that man has two natures, we are
obliged obliged to hold that Christ has three. Oh, okay,
So he's saying that if you he thought that body
was a nature, soul was a nature, and then Christ
as divine as another nature, that would be three natures
in Christ. But he's pointing out against monothelites that the
soul and the body are are human nature. They're not
two different natures. Does that make sense?
Speaker 15: I think I got it. I was more so on
the way of thinking that he was referring to, like
if Christ had if the nature is combined into one,
it would make one separate nature nature or something like that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well that's also that's also a criticism of the monothelites.
And so but he's he is saying that he's not
saying a tertiam quid, although there is an argument about
ursham quid a third thing. He's saying that we must
not hold that Christ has three natures. Okay, awesome, And
by extension, Christ also does not have a third blended
tersham quid new thing or nature. He has two natures.
Human nature is body and soul together. That's the basic body, mind, soul, will.
That's human nature in its most basic form. And he's
saying that Christ has a divine nature, right and in
the incarnation, the divine the human come together. It's a
divine person with the divine nature assuming human nature, not
a human person. So he has two natures and he's
not three natures, and he's not a tertim quid. Blended.
Third thing awesome, And I do want to say this
real quick man.
Speaker 15: I know you have to go, but that series that
you're doing on the on the Orientals, that was great.
It was really really long and I listened to every
hour of it. I can't wait till you guys to
the next one. And this is my last thing I
want to say to you before you before we go.
Could you expound more on the argument that Ubi was
saying about the about Pope Popa's name villages, Oh, virgilias Virgilius.
Speaker 10: What was that argument again and that he couldn't answer?
Could you respond to us more?
Speaker 1: And thank you? Good question. Yeah, So basically the Vigilia's
case is a little bit convoluted, it's a little bit challenging,
but essentially, if you have the Skazhynsky book, his section
on Vigilius is really good. Here and let me see
if I can find what he says, because he sums
it up really well. So basically, Vigilius bends to the
Emperor and the church and the West rejects him and
ends up schissming and so it's not papal and so
I'll read what he says. Despite these compliments and expressions
of humility, Emperor Justinian made it clear that the power
of the Roman bishop must ultimately be subservient to the
imperial will. The Emperor threatened to banish Pope Agopatis for
his refusal to commune with Anthemus of Constantinople. During the
reconquest of Italy, General Belisarius deposed Pope the exiled Pope Silverius,
and Silverius's successor, Pope Vigilius, fared no better when he
refused to accept Justinian's alive branch to the non Calcedonians
the condemnation of the Three Chapters. Pope Vigilius journeyed to Constantinople,
fully aware that the majority of the Western bishops were
opposed to justinian scheme, but the Emperor required the Pope's
approval for legitimacy, and he was determined to get it.
Over the next several months, Pope Vigilius was bullied, browbeaten,
and placed under house arrest. At one point he was
drag kicking and streaming from the altar in an effort
to make him comply. When the Second Council Constantinople met
in five point fifty three, Virgilius refused to attend, despite
pleading the pleading of the other patriarchs, and so the
Emperor demanded that he be removed from the diptychs for
his unwillingness to bend to the judgment of the Church.
When the Pope finally accepted the council's decision, the bishops
of Eastria, Milan, and Achuala moved to excommunicate Virgilius, precipitating
a schism in the way that would last for many decades.
The message was clear, the Western bishops no longer believed
that the Roman bishop or the Roman position was correct,
simply because the Roman bishops said it and proclaimed it.
Virgilius's lack of vigilance had been and had indeed been
a costly situation. So the Vigilius case is basically just
a classic, excellent demonstration that nobody at this time really
actually had the Vatican One mindset, and in fact they
operated against the Vatican One mindset. So the point is
not that Justinian was spotless angel in this whole situation.
I mean, he's still a saint Orthodox Church, and we're
not saying he did everything right. But the point is
that this whole story, this whole instance refutes papal supremacy,
that it was known.
Speaker 10: Throughout the East and West.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, and now they operated against this the very idea
because Virgilia submits to the council.
Speaker 10: I see, I see, I appreciate.
Speaker 1: And why would he say if they had the mindset
of Vatican one, then why does he submit to the council.
He should have been telling the council what to do.
But thank you, Carrot, Uh Tim, in the chat, you
have the ability to call in Otherwise you're just wasting
your time spamming all your Protestant stuff. Nobody here cares
about all that. So you can call in here or
you can just move on. Go ahead, Carrot, I'm mute, hey.
Speaker 16: Thanks for having me, sir, curious about your thoughts on
the hard problem with consciousness and also the general what
the general Orthodox approach would be to that problem, if
it had.
Speaker 1: Any at all, The what problem of consciounce the hard.
Speaker 16: Problem with consciousness?
Speaker 1: If you're familiar with it, this sounds like something from
like Philosophy of Mind. I haven't had a Philosophy of
mind class in like fifteen years, So okay.
Speaker 10: Okay, if you're not familiar with it. That's okay.
Speaker 16: I would be curious if you had time to look
into it what your thoughts would be. But other than that,
that's all I have.
Speaker 1: I would say ask FDA. I don't know if he's
still here. Actually FDA's here, so he'll be a much
better person. Let's say, if he's available, a FDI, are
you there because he just taught a pistemology class on
his channel if you guys want to follow him over
at Patristic Faith, you just did a whole class on
a pistemology.
Speaker 10: Awesome, Yeah, philosophy might So what was the question of
the hard problem?
Speaker 6: Yeah?
Speaker 17: And what the general Orthodox approach would be to it
if it had any So the hard problem, so if I,
if I could just tell the audience the easy problem
is how could have something physical.
Speaker 14: Remember and uh uh act intelligently or whatever. The hard
problem is consciousness. So what that means is the reason
why it's such a hard problem is that it's categorically
it seems impossible.
Speaker 10: To bridge the gap. And the Orthodox would agree with that.
Speaker 14: That consciousness is defined as a first persons subjective. It's
the what it's like experience that you the person in
your mind has and various mental states, and brain.
Speaker 10: And body are defined in opposite.
Speaker 14: Categories a third person, objective, quantitative, extended through space, et cetera.
So it's not a hard problem for us Orthodox, it's
a heart problem for the materialists with the cancer same
to answer. So you would say, of course, yeah, mine's
distinct from and conscious one of the properties of mind
being consciousness, the qualitative first person subjective awareness.
Speaker 10: Is of course it's different and distinct from the body.
So that would be the Orthodox.
Speaker 14: So it really is a hard problem, and I would
say impossible problem for physicalist.
Speaker 10: Or materialists to answer, but not for us.
Speaker 4: It's like it's just.
Speaker 10: It shows the Orthodox position is correct.
Speaker 1: Father digging, did you are you doing a whole course
on epistemology on your class or just a couple of
lectures on your change.
Speaker 10: I have a whole course I could actually build if
you guys want me to. So I build these.
Speaker 14: Courses, right, there's sixteen week college courses with lectures and
assignments if you want me to.
Speaker 10: I could build a philosophy of mind one.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 10: I would love that.
Speaker 14: Yeah, because I did my PhD in philosophy of mind
and philosophy science. It's just I haven't built one out yet.
I just didn't know if that many people were interested
in that. And philosophy minds difficult. That's another reason why
I dificult. It requires kind of.
Speaker 10: A at least uh cursory kind of introduction into a
lot of topics.
Speaker 14: So like, let's say it's like prerequisites, you'd have to
have logic, philosophy of language, analytic philosophy, philosophy of science,
epistemology just to name a few before you could actually
probably qualifies to go into philosophy of mind.
Speaker 10: Because it's pulling from all those areas.
Speaker 14: So when you're reading the literature, if you're not introduced
to I've taken some of those courses.
Speaker 10: You're not going to know what you're reading. It's going
to be extreme.
Speaker 14: And that's what makes philosophy of mind extremely difficult, is
there's probably no other topic that pulls from so many
different areas.
Speaker 1: All right, cool, thank you for that. Yeah, hopefully that
was helpful there. Kerrett. Appreciate your question comment. I know
we got several more people. I'm getting kind of tired
of getting kind of a headache. Know, if I got
much more energy, Hopefully you guys had fun tonight. I
want to remind you too that thank you shout out
to FTA for being here. I'm gonna i'll give him
some of these super chats and uh you guys. Also,
if you are looking for good, wacky, wild Christmas gifts,
I think my Esseldrek Hollywood books are kind of out there.
If you've got family members that you'd like to like movies,
they would like my books. You can also get Jamie's
books in the shop at Jasonilsons dot com. Otherwise, thank
you guys so much. It's been a lot of fun tonight. Well,
I'm sure we're gonna be doing a lot more streams
in the next few days, so look up look for
me and Jamie next to do a movie stream We're
gonna do wife bots. We might do that tomorrow, and
then next we are going to do vampire movies. We've
never done vampire movies, I'm not sure.
Speaker 14: Remind me what was the one that we watched about
the Dream Clinic for Comina, And that would be a
good one for you to review too.
Speaker 1: That's the reason why bring up.
Speaker 10: But what was the name of the one we watched
in Florida? Uh?
Speaker 1: Come true?
Speaker 10: Does it come true where she goes to the like, yeah, that's.
Speaker 1: Called that's called come true. Now, yeah, we I did
that with the Sip of Cinema guys. Okay, but don't
say that that's a vampire movie because you just builed it.
Speaker 5: That's what you did it.
Speaker 10: I say it was a good Actually I wanted to
show my wife that. That's why I was asking.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's it's it's actually not an unexpected vampire. Yeah,
it's called come true. C I met r you. It's
just an independent horror movie that we did that with
the Sip of Cinema guys last year. But uh, Jamie
and are going to do Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula, which
I believe it or not. When we watched that, uh
it was way more esoteric and occultic than I even remembered.
So there was a lot more going on than I expected.
We're gonna do Blade Underworld, a couple more vampire movie.
I forgot what we've gone. We may do two podcasts
because actually there's so many vampire movies, but actually not
many vampire movies are good. There's only like a handful
that are actually okay, most of them are pretty much
garbage or are kind of goofy. I have done Lost
Boys because it's an eighties classic, so we've done that
like two or three times. No, I will not be
doing Twilight. In fact, we're gonna be making fun of Twilight.
It's terrible. We're gonna do the ones that are at
least halfway decent. There's actually some pretty well.
Speaker 10: Is there another one called Let this one in or
don't Let this one?
Speaker 6: Yeah?
Speaker 1: I don't really. I didn't really like that one.
Speaker 10: I don't remember it. I just remember that was a vampirement.
Speaker 1: It is a vampire movie. There's another one with Sorcier
Ronin called Byzantium, which has nothing to do with Byzantium.
It's a vampire move. It's like like those really slow
independent vampire movies that are kind of boring to me. Also,
we're not gonna do Anne Rice because it's super gay
and I never realized that until I was an adult
and you watch Interview the Vampires, like this is all
straight up skittles do gross, right, So I'm not doing
Ann Rice's vampire crap. Actually, that Van Helsing has Cabala
in it. That was that Surprises we watched van Helsing.
We watched Underworld We're doing Blade now, and then we
watched Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula. It's the best, I think
so far. I can't think of a better vampire movie
than the Francis Ford Coppola one.
Speaker 14: It's it's probably well most people don't know, you should
do this one is Arnold Schwarzneiger's Commando was actually a
vampire movie.
Speaker 1: I actually like Commando. It's it's so preposterous.
Speaker 10: I'm gonna watch it, like we should you.
Speaker 1: You're gonna have fun because the like the body count
is like Arnold's killing somebody like every five seconds. There's
like five hundred body count in that movie. It's just
it's just so off, like off the charts eighties action movie.
It's a lot of fun.
Speaker 14: And doesn't he got like a Matt frat guy Like
this isn't the final boss like Austria, dude.
Speaker 1: I don't even remember who the last guy is. I think,
but his daughter is like Shnnon Doherty or somebody like
or No, it's Alyssa Milano is Arnold's don Yeah, somebody
said I should play Witcher. Uh yeah. People have been
recommending that The thing is when I when I do,
the game streams like people like the first couple ones,
but then they don't like it after that, so nobody
tuned into the part three of Silent Hill. But anyway,
dust Till don uh I mean Dustill Done is nineties
and all that, but it doesn't really have much as
a