All right, welcome everybody. It's another episode of Jays Analysis. And you may recall some years back, maybe four or five years ago, Snack and I had a great guy on named George, and George was working at that time on kind of a loose draft of a book that covered infamous papal forgeries and other forgeries related to the period of the Early Church, the first six, seven eighth centuries. George has continued that work. He's busted butt and he's back on the channel with me because there's a new
book out. It's an uncut Mountain Press and of course the links to this book are below, and we're gonna get deep into it. We're gonna get the low down on it. It's George who rejoins me. Let's get into this. George, first of all, tell us a little bit about what drew you to studying the forgeries. It seems like there's not a lot of good material just on this sort of topic, and does your book go beyond that into other theological topic.
Sure. Yeah, thanks Jay for having me on. And yeah, what interested me is is really reading about the differences between the Roman Catholics and Orthodox and trying to trace back what caused all this, and and you know, coming across the this was maybe ten twelve years ago when I first got interested in the controversy and coming across these traditionalist Roman Catholics, you know, making their strong claims
say no Orthodox are not in the church. And then you see, and I looked into a lot of the you know, these quotations that they would cite are a lot of times not reliable or historically we're not reliable documents. So there's some surprising you know things and history like Aquinas being so reliant upon forgeries and by the time of the Sism in ten fifty four, the forgeries then and then in the time of Saint Photius. So these stood out to me, so I wanted to compile them.
And it's not just forgeries, but also other differences and historical changes from the first millennium. So that's the scope of.
Yeah, I know that when we first talked about this, one of the subjects that came up was there were a couple of the ones that we discussed that were kind of iffy. We weren't sure whether they were forgeries that were used or you know, maybe something from cannons of Nicea. I think was one that came up that was a little we were a little iffy on do you want to give a little more insight on that, because I'm sure you've done a lot more research.
Yeah, and it is true I have. Yeah, so there's been like PDF copies floating around the internet of the book. But I did get some criticism from Roman Catholic academics. And yeah, some of the items I said were forgeries were maybe our only documents of doubtful authenticity, so they're may be not reliable, but those tended to be more of the rather less important items, so it's good to be kind of fair.
And yeah, they weren't the major major issues.
Yes, yeah, I think there's one where in Saint Ambrose there was there's basically a textual variant in the manuscript where some manuscripts say he who has not the the faith of Peter is not in the church. Another variant said he's not the see of Peter's not in the church. I forgot the exact quote, but that the gist of it is in Latin. It's only a single letter said them versus feed them, and it's with the long ass I guess two letters. Then it's they're very similar, and yeah,
there's just different manuscripts. So sometimes, yeah, it's not accurate to say it is a forgery. It's just maybe it's good to still point it out that Roman Catholic shouldn't use a quote like that in apologetics if it's uncertain.
Yeah. But yeah, well, let's get back to the big picture, because I think a lot of people you know, who listen regularly, they probably don't recall that stream. I'll go ahead link it below because it was a good conversation that we had. Let's rewind and do some of that material, because I know that a lot of people may not be familiar with this subject and why the papal forgeries and the other forgeries during this time period were so
or so crucial. For one for I would argue, I'm sure you would agree partly for the development of the papacy, So would you agree with that? Maybe you don't, Maybe you think that's not true. Seems to me like some of these claims, you know, the Samakian forgeries, things like this, obviously domination of Constantin probably the most famous one. It seems like they do they did contribute to the grandiosity of what the papacy developed into right.
And I know that's also a point of debate of how influential were the forgeries. I tried to focus simply on cataloging them, but yeah, I think it it is rather remarkable that you could say these three great moments in church history. You have three main forgeries. So to review the pseudo is adoring the Credles that came up right at the time of the dispute between Saint Photius and Pope Nicholas the First of Rome, that was in the eight hundreds. And I mean these pseudos adoring the Creidels,
they've been much written about. Roman Catholics say, oh, they didn't change anything, They just reflected how the early Church was. But they were a really impactful forgery. They've were cited for about I think about seven hundred years. They weren't
really rejected until the fifteen hundreds. And then secondly, yeah, the donation of Constantine that was quoted by Pope Leo the ninth to Patriarch Michael Cerularius right on the eve of the system in ten fifty four, and that's you know, it has you know, Emperor Constantine saying the pope is speaks very highly of the Pope. And then thirdly we have Thomas Aquinas in his against the Errors of the Greeks Contra Auroras gray Korum. He it's it's almost sad
how dependent he is on forgeries. It's it's like eighty percent plus just quotations of forgeries. I mean, he was misled. It's not he didn't do the forgeries himself, but it's his book was like the quote mind for about five hundred years from Yeah.
Exactly, that's why this matters. Was against airs of the Greeks. And do we know where those actually originated from? These ones that he was so you know that he was using so much.
Yes, yeah, that was traced recently too, from the latest scholarship. It was a certain bishop who had been a missionary in the East. I think, if I remember right, Nicholas of Katron. He wrote the Libellus, which he sent to the pope, and then that was Pope Urban the fourth. He sent it to a Quinas, and the Quinas used that work. So he this guy Nicholas of Cotrone was the said, is apparently the origin of the sources?
Okay, and then you said, so Pseudo isidor Indecruidles is a key one. And then we had a donation of Constantine. Tell us some about that the breakdown of that, although again, you know, I know you're this is old hat for you. But probably a lot of the people in the audience maybe they're Protestant, maybe they're Catholic, they're looking at the orthodoxy, they're not familiar even with this one.
Yeah, so I pulled it up here, we could quote that here. Yeah, the donation of Constantine, so it was forged. It seems to be around the year seven fifty to seven eighty. And then there's yeah, I couldn't quote some parts of it where it says, true, Blessed Peter is seen to have been constituted vicar of the Son of
God on earth. So the pontiffs, who are the representatives of that same chief of the Apostles, should obtain from us in our empire the power of a supremacy greater than the clemency of our earthly imperial serenity is seen to have needed to it. So that's Emperor Constantine allegedly giving a grant or donation to Peter and his successors
in Rome. And it says and we Ordain and decreed that he shall have the supremacy as well over the four principal seats Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople, as also over all the churches of God and the whole earth. And it keeps going on in these very strong claims for the papacy, and it was cited and referred to as valid by about ten popes.
And yeah, I was gonna say, when's the first time the papacy begins to cite this one to bolster their claims.
Yeah, what is surprising is and the Catholic Encyclopedia admits this. It's a rather startling fact that and I quote this here. Yeah, this is from the Catholic Encyclopedia. It says the first pope who used it in an official act and relied upon was Leo the ninth in a letter of ten fifty four to Michael Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople. He cites the nation to show that the Holy See possessed in
an earthly and heavenly imperium and so on. So it is almost amazing that, you know, they admit it was used for the first time with great effect at the right at that ten point fifty four, you know, crucial date and it and it was used by many later canonists. There's even an entire book actually just on artwork in Italy that shows depicts the donation happening from Emperor.
It's like I want to say, Yeah, I want to say, when we were in Italy, we were somewhere and we saw a freeze or a relief or something that showed one of the versions of this.
I recalled up, Yeah, it is. It is startling I I'm pulling up Yeah. And this is from a dissertation by an art student. I said. The over arching argument of this dissertation is that in the early modern period, the papacy utilized the vision means both to defend and to reaffirm the authenticity of the donation. And Yeah, this dissertation you can find it for free online. It's just called Political Art of the Papacy and it's it just gives lots of pictures of those, yeah, of the donation.
One area I've been hitting on pretty hard in terms of apologetics is the fact of the papacy becoming more and more of a geopolitical world power, and that that contradicts earlier canons that were expected to be followed by all the clergy, including the Bishop of Rome. Did the donation of Constantine also contribute to this worldly geopolitical power of the papacy.
I think it did, And and there was, you know, some hesitation to receive the donation because it seemed to almost say that the power of the papacy was contingent upon the emperor's bequeathing of that power. So there had been some hesitation to use the donation, and it wasn't really rejected until the mid fourteen hundreds. Lorenzo Valla he famously wrote an argument against the donation, but it was still referenced after that. As for the power of the papacy,
I think it was. I mean it was cited for getting, I believe, for claiming the papal power in the British Isles, and yeah, so that it did give, yeah, an impetus to that.
So it was used in a even a geopolitical way. Now, so we've got the pseudo Isidaurian, we've got donation of Constantine. Which of these two was probably the most used or cited. You think that was since the second one was viewed with some suspicion due to it being so overly reliant on the emperor. What the Isidorian de cretles more useful to the papal claims?
Yes, I would I would say that definitely does. Yeah. Istorian decretals they are more influential, especially because they they pretend to quote popes from the first three centuries and those popes have no there's no writings available from those times, and it has things saying that the Yeah, basically with the more modern people claims. So it definitely was more influential, I would say than the donation the nation. Yeah. I found the reference. He a Bishop John of Salisbury in
the eleven hundreds. He does quote the donation of Constantine in support of Pope Hadrian the fourth conferring upon King Henry the second dominion over the island of Ireland.
So the papacy gives even temporal power.
Yes, and you know the the Catholics didn't like that later when the British throne tried to claim control over Oh.
Yeah, yeah, exactly. Okay, So what's the third of the of the of the key forgeries?
Yeah, the next major one would be that basically that quote mine. You could say that Thomas Aquinas used in against the errors of the Greeks, and the title of my book is a bit of a it is inspired by that, so errors of the Latins against that. But yes, Aquinas did. His works were cited for hundreds of years, and it has among the strongest claims. Like basically his quotations were more directly against the Orthodox development of the Council of Florence, so that it's main issues he addresses
were the filioque, the papacy, purgatory, and leavened bread. So those four issues were the topics discussed at that time. And it quotes like Saint Cyril with very strong claims for the papacy and uh. And for a long time Roman Catholics kept using them. It wasn't really until the well into the seventeen hundreds that they weren't used anymore. It was like five hundred years of continued use by Roman Catholics, so that I think might be the number one most like powerful. It was used even by yeah,
against Dostheus, the Bishop of Patriarch of Jerusalem. Roman Catholics did make a lot of quotations against it in controversy to say, hey, we have the Church fathers on our side, so that that is Yeah, that was a big.
And I want to say too, it seems like maybe even as late as the Council of Trent, I think in the Catechism of Trent, doesn't it still cite some of the forged documents, is the Simochian forgeries, that there's something that's still cited.
Yeah, yeah, I do have a chapter on that. In the Catechism of the Council of Trent. They do cite the pseudo is adoring is Adoring?
Okay, I know it was one of the two good.
Yeah, and a few other inauthentic documents, but it yeah, it is surprising. But they're not all for the papacy somewhere for.
Other reasons, yeah yeah, other.
Items like confirmation and other sacraments. But there is one where they have a pope cided for the papacy. But yeah, I think how many did I? I counted eleven different times they cited.
Oh in the category eleven times?
Yeah, oh nice, along with some other in authentic works, like in authentic clitations of Saint Augustine and of Saint Cyril.
So yeah, now here's a question. I hear this a lot from Roman Catholics when this subject comes up, and I'm curious what you would say to this. Not that I think this is a good argument, but it's something that they always bring up. Oh, but you Byzantines, They also at times cited forgeries. What would you say to that.
Yeah, and it is something that you hear. I don't think it's definitely to knowwhere near the degree as in the Latin East. I mean, from my understanding, there's I know, you often come across that in controversy saying, oh, the Greeks are prone to forge documents, and there's really very few examples. I never found something too significant. I mean
I came across a few in my readings. Sometimes it's as a result of being less misled by the Roman Catholics, Like sometimes the Orthox did quote the donation of Constantine. They thought it was an authentic document, but they said as that the pope was a hair ticket no longer applied to the pope. But yeah, I really haven't met with any serious examples of Orthodox using forgeries against the Roman Catholics.
What do you make of the argument that many of us have made for a long time, it's gone around. I want to know if you still think this holds up as a strong argument, which is, look, if the papacy has the goods, why do they need all these forged documents? Do you think that's still a good argument or do you think that being charitable and nuanced, maybe the papacy itself was duped into believing some of these
documents by some clever forger. But that also kind of begs the question of like, well, where was the Holy Spirit's discernment in guiding the papacy to not know these were.
Forty Yeah, now I do prefer taking a more charitable view of this. Maybe that's something in which I've more moderated my view since I first started the researching the controversy. It is tough yet to determine the good faith of
historical figures. It's it is tough because, yeah, with the pseudos during the credles, it's it's tough to say Saint, I mean Pope Nicholas of Rome, who is considered a saint by Roman Catholics, it's difficult to believe that he really thought these documents were authentic because the archives of Rome were I mean well known to have lots of ancient documents he should have known that these people pretending to sit in the throne of Saint Peter were not
actually real popes, and their records they're not authentic documents. But yeah, I would give a more charitable opinion a lot of times they were deceived. I know some have accused the Quinnas of doing the forgeries, some partisans did, but he, yeah, he wasn't. He was deceived.
And yeah, and one reason I think that you could argue that is that I remember when I bought a pretty expensive set years by, which was a Quinas commentary on the Gospels. I noticed as I was reading through it, I didn't read all four volumes or six volumes, that I read two or three volumes of it. I remember noticing how many times when he would cite Patricia quotations,
it was like pseudo crystalstom, pseudo athanacious. So whoever was editing the you know, Katina Aurea, you know, was basically pointing out that there's a significant, very significant usage of pseudo crystalstom by Aquinas, which means that I being malicious like it wouldn't There's not really a reason for him to maliciously use a whole bunch of Ford's quotes for just commentaries on the Gospel.
Yeah, yeah, I mean Roman Catholic scholars. Yeah, those editors do admit that they'll give the footnotes and they love them. Are very smart academics, and they've that's who I relied upon most of the time. Is there looking through and they're the ones saying, Okay, this is not found in the original writings, this is missing, or it's a corruption
of the original text. There's been hints that Roman Catholics have said that Aquinas realized that those against the heirs of the Greeks those quotations were not authentic, because he didn't use them too much later. But it's said that he was carrying that book on the way to the Council of Lyons when he died. He died carrying that book against the errors of the Greeks, so it seemed like he would be He was prepared to reduce them
in controversy against the Orthodox. So that's why I don't think he ever realized they were inauthentic, and his immediate successors used them as well.
Now one question, not to play devil's advocate, but just honest question, because I remember reading Hoffman's book Renaissance Occult Renaissance Church of Rome, which is a pretty good book. There's areas where I disagree, but he he has some not so positive things to say about Lorenzo Vola. Not that that really matters, because Lorenzo Balla could be a it could be a sust character and still be correct about,
you know, critiquing some of these documents. Is there any degree to which we have to be careful with these sort of Renaissance figures in this in this matter because I think, for example, Lorenzo Valla, isn't he one of the key characters arguing that Dionysius is not authentic? And I think as Orthodox we want to probably not say that it's all inauthentic with Dionysius.
Right, And that is the difficulty with forgeries in general. Is it's important, Yeah, to understand the whole context, like heyes, same with dealing with the question of other inauthentic writings. It is a challenge with all history, the authenticity of documents. And yeah, maybe it isn't too far to say why would they have invented these documents if there wasn't evidence beforehand?
I think it applies to some degree, but they yeah, because there are other challenges with those documents in the Yeah, I lost track of your question.
That I guess I was saying, is what do we think about somebody like Lorenzo Balla? Is it just that not? It doesn't fit in the good guy bad guy category, like you know, it's just a case by case basis of you know, it just depends.
Yeah, yeah, I don't know too much about him besides the fact that he's credited with being the first to prove the forgery with certainty of the donation of Constantine.
But the only reason I'm bringing up is I think he's also one of the first to challenge the dynasty and corpus.
Yes, yeah, that is a yeah, I know that might be one of the major like open questions in terms of like what, yeah, the authenticity of churchild I think he might be like the most like the one of which there's the most doubt, even among the more like conservative extra so, but there's been defenses of the originality of yeah.
Yeah, No, I'm not defending Valla. I'm just saying, like, you know, I'm anticipating Catholic objections and a Catholic being like, oh, well, you know, you guys like Dionysius areopagite and you think he's a saint and so, but you're gonna trust Lorenzo Valla when he says that. But but I think that really doesn't even matter about Lorenzovol anymore, because as far as I'm aware, I mean, the typical Vatican attitude and scholarship pretty much admits all this stuff nowadays anyway, right.
Yes, those are admitted for those three major forgeries, and you know many others. I mean, it is very obvious the donation of Constantine is not by Emperor Constantines from the first century. It mentions many things that just the Latin words of things that didn't exist at that time. They reflect later centuries. There's no evidence of it earlier.
So it's a very hard like clear proof. It's not like the the more you could say, like liberal academics putting doubt on let's say, certain books of the Bible. There's what they what those academics are doing are just really just casting doubt when there's uncertainty. So yeah, it is important to see like, yeah, what evidence there is for.
Yeah, this is different than they're being like, you know, not AUTOGRAPHA that Paul wrote, This is more like, no, we can definitively show that there's no way that Constantine, you know, wrote or used that language or spoke this way or what are some of the key indicators, for example, in the case of say the donation of Constantine, that are kind of like dead giveaways.
Yeah, one that says the mind though of the I know from a Koinas the when he quotes the delegation of crit to the Bulgarians from Saint John Chrisostom, it's that was rather anachronistic of Chris as talking is the Bulgarian delegation, because that that was not a kind of a political organization that existed in Chrissom's times. Yeah, that's one for the uh, it's for the donation itself.
So when Saint John Chrystosom wrote his letter to the US embassy, right, could we question it's authenticity?
Right? Yeah, for the donation, I think it's the there's the use of certain Latin words that reflected the later Roman administration. And off the top of my head, I'm trying to remember the other clear indications. It's really it's admitted though very clearly by Roman Catholics, it is authentic, inauthentic, and if they say it's like in disputed that it's false. And Dante famously mentions it where he says, there's a
famous quote from his Inferno. He says Constantine of how much ill was caused not by conversion, but those rich domains that the first wealthy pope received of thee. So Dante thought it was real and lamented it because he felt this was bad for.
The papers, corrupting the paper.
So that's right, yes, and many people looked on it that way. As for the Yeah, the exact reasons why it's anachronistic, I'm not sure off the top of my head.
That's okay. I mean, so we've got the big three here, there's others. How many, roughly do you include in the book? Because I know that when we first did this podcast, you and I and Snack, we talked about somewhere in the ballpark of twenty twenty something twenty three or so. Yes, does the book include all of those or around that same number? Do you focus at chapter on specific forgeries or how is the book structured? And what are some of the other key forgeries we need to think about?
Yeah, there are actually far more, and and some I've provided more context, like where it was simply a textual variant, not certain if it's a forgery. Some are disputed, like you know, the Saint Cyprian's words. There's some that are more pro petrine in his unity of the church, some aren't, So it's a disputed point whether he wrote that. So I try to discuss those items with fairness and balance. But overall, yeah, I can look at the chapters, how many I group it in several parts forgeries of the
greatest historic consequence. So that's where I mentioned the you know Ceo during the Creed big in there or is that the big three Greek contena? What else I add? I put the Samaki Simachian forgeries as the fourth I felt that was quite important as well, and as an early forgery, and that it contains a quote the Sea of Rome can be judged by no one.
Oh, that's that famous quote that pops up in Dictatus Pope. And then if I recall that's still in Roman Catholic canon law, I think.
Yeah, that did enter Roman Catholic canon law. I'm not sure if it's still there, but that was the most significant one let's see, so there's four there I can quickly. I think there's on the order of maybe around fifty or sixty. There's somewhere. I have a lot of collections of small manuscript corruptions, like regarding the Immaculate Conception on that I put together about let's say twenty eight.
Just to be clear, it is still in the Roman, the Roman canon law, even the modern nineteen eighty three canon law of John Paul. The second it's canon fourteen oh four. The first c is judged by No. One, which is a variation of this yeah. Yeah, and that comes from old originally the Simakian forgeries, correct.
I believe that's the origin of that. Now they could say that that principle follows well.
As far as we know, the phrase is yeah. I know they're going to say no, it goes back to Peter. But the phrase, as far as we know, patristically speaking, is derived you're arguing from the Samakian forgery.
Right, yes, And I think that follows with that question of how impactful were the forgeries. Well before they could quote these very direct statements Saint cypri Or, I mean St. Cyril really forcefully in favor of papal supremacy, but with those being proven to be false, they they rely upon some like they make arguments that require a bit more sort of logical deduction then and our more open to interpretation. So they used to have a lot more stronger, clearer claims,
and that's what the forgeries helped support. So they kind of provided that context for interpretation.
Oh interesting, okay, So like in the case let me ask you this question. In the case of like some of the patristic quotation forgeries, like this quote out of Jerome or this quote out of you know, Cyril or whoever, were these typically just sort of out of context quote mind fake quotes or their actual like fake works of Saint Cyril. That's that's like there's a whole treatise of Saint Cyril that's fake.
Oh well, yeah, it was fake quotes. Yeah. In the case of Aquinas citing Cyril, they thought for a while Roman Catholics had hoped some document would come up showing this to be an authentic work, but nothing came to light from the latest research, and it's it's simply those are just that fake collections.
So now when you mentioned Cyril, Saint Cyril's on the unity. I've seeing Saint Cyprian's on the Unity of Christ in the Church. Was that an added quote to that classic work? Is that what we're saying.
For Cyprian? That's the one where there I hesitate for making a conclusion on that. I would just say there's textual variations, because there's some texts that have more Petraine, more like pro I've heard those content, and most scholars generally hold the view that Syprian was the author of both versions. That's what has thought. Now they don't know which version was first. Interesting some say he changed what he wrote in response to his interactions with Rome.
The Saint Stephen controversy.
Yes, yeah, that rebaptism controversy. So it's a difficult question. I think I believe they're not authentic works, but many people interpret them in a non like pro papacy way.
They're just yeah, they could just be yea Peter is all the bishops, et cetera. Okay, so we got the Samakian forgeries. Is there anything else in those that's really important other than the sort of the first he's judged by no one. Is there more in there that we need to talk about.
It that one does contain that does misrepresent the Council of Nicea and makes it appear as if the Pope Sylvester and some Roman bishops had approved the acts. And it does, yeah, lead to more misrepresentation.
So basically like a retroactive revision of history that Nicea wasn't Nicea until the Pope made it Nicia.
Yes, and okay, and I have a quote here, yeah, from James moynihan. He was a Roman Catholic bishop and scholar. He says, quote, Thus, it was that the doctrine of the pope's personal immunity from judgment spread rapidly throughout Western Europe. That's that's what he says in yeah book he published in nineteen sixty one. He that's that's in relation to the pope cannot be judged by any right. So he said that that caused it to be rapidly spread from those from those documents.
Right, So what is there more in some Ackian forgeres or what's the what's the number five on the top ten forgeries?
Let's see, I had I had included four as the top as the most soportant, but I could there are a lot more that are more incidental and.
What about the Galatian de credles is that's that's a well known one.
Galician decreas is that from Pope Gelasius Galatious.
However, how.
Oh, that's right, Okay, So I did review. There are and there's a challenge with all of the But that's what Roman Catholic told me in response when I mentioned these false documents of Pope Leo and Gelasius. They he said, oh, there's you know, the difficulty with a lot of the church fathers finding what's authentic what's not. And but it's pretty I consider it more significant when it affects documents from the bishops or popes, especially when they tend to
have more of the pro papacy content. So there are let's see my notes. Yeah, so I have the chapter on sparious works of Pope Leo the First and Jelasius. So Roman Catholic editors do mention that that there are several works from them that are not authentic, including yeah, a tractatus to a presentation of the primacy of the Holy See. It's not the work of Jelasius. That's a Roman Catholic Monseigneur Elysius Zeigler wrote that, So, yeah, I love of them, tend to have more of these mistakes,
and sometimes there's different versions of these letters. Let me see, Okay, So out of forty nine letters the cridles and tracts attribute to Glesius, nine are thought inauthentic. So that's what I have for my notes.
So basically there's a few dozen and nine are considered fake at this stage.
Yeah, and then for letters of Leo's collection, there's one hundred and seventy three letters in Popolio, the first collection. Out of these, thirteen are thought spurious and nine are considered suspect.
And I didn't even think about like papal letters. That's another whole layer of this.
Yeah, it's a challenge because these letter collections, I mean sometimes I wonder just how far, you know, the corruption went, because many times were reliant upon many scripts of later centuries and these collections, and sometimes the authors of those were not reliable and even have some Roman Catholic I mean, there's the whole idea of is it okay to make forgeries if it's in defense of the faith, that there's some kind of discussion if that was I mean, it's
almost an unsaid thing in the Middle Ages that seems to come up that certain people thought it was okay, And there's many there are many small forgeries like that a lot of times though, there's miscellaneous forgeries concerning different privileges of abbys and monasteries and different small things like that that were used to gain influence. There's forged indulgences and things like that. So there's yeah, it wasn't and say, oh yeah, same in England with the question over which
sea was supreme, was it Canterbury or York. So there were there's something called the Canterbury forgeries. Now it doesn't affect orthodoxy, but but there's a lot of rumors that spread around with different mistakes, and yeah, there's a lot of these. Yeah. Last time I mentioned the Nag's head fable. It Roman Catholics made this up saying that these Anglican bishops were ordained in the tavern with some rather maybe
indecent practices, but there's no evidence of that. But that still was used from the early sixteen hundreds to the early eighteen hundreds, so they used that against room. Catholics mentioned that against Anglicans, and it wasn't really abandoned till the maybe first quarter of the eighteen hundreds. A lot of things like that, so they yeah.
Is are there? Are there? I remember one thing that came up that Roman Catholics often mentioned is the Arabic canons I think of Is it not of Nicea? Is that the deck? Did you go into that?
Yes, I do have a chapter on that. I am rather surprised that that there's a recent book that almost seems to defend them, by John Kolorafi and someone else. But they are obviously anachronistic, and I mean the Roman Catholic scholar and Bishop Heffala. He says that it is certain that these Arabic cannons are not the work of the Council of Nicea. Their contents evidently prove a much more recent origin. That's that's Bishop Heffalo and he he
went in depth into these canons. There's no evidence that they existed. The only support is that sometimes there's different counts. Some people say there's a different number of canyons from Nicea, and different questions on Okay, there's some appendixes, appendices of these canons, and but they're obviously not original and there there they're centuries they come from centuries later. So it's yeah, they're highly of but they make very strong claims for the.
Yeah, well that's why they wanted to be authentic exactly, and that's why they're Yeah, they're they're a big, you know, hot button issue. So okay, what else? So we've got the big ones, You've got more chapters in the book. I'm sure beyond these big ones, what else is in there?
Yeah? Yeah, I can review. Yeah, one issue we had also mentioned last time, but I think it's good to go over it again because it's it's still startles me, like why Peter Damien didn't know the Council and the Creed of Nicea that he let me see what I'm pulling up his exact Oh okay, so he had mentioned that, Okay, yes, in the letter he wrote in the Creed of the Council of Nicea. Moreover, it says, we also believe in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds properly from the Father and
goes on. So then he makes an argument from that word proceeds properly from the Father to say that the Holy Spirit can proceeds from the son as well. And this I was startling. I saw that he did not know that proper Creed of Nicea. And yes, and he makes some other inauthentic quotations as well.
So wait a minute, you're saying Peter Damien is even in his day, which is his years are for those who don't know, to one thousand seven to ten seventy two, that even in his day he was already utilizing an altered later creed that has the philioquy.
Well, he had aside the creed as saying the holy spirit proceeds properly from the Father. I don't I mean, the editors say this is from a pseudo Jerome, but although it's not that that's where the editors found.
So you're saying, we don't know exactly what was in Peter Damien's mind.
Yes, well, I mean he he thought the Creed of Nicea says the holy Spirit proceeds properly from the Father. But that added word properly, whereas the actual creed, uh, you know, the Nicene contentual Politan creed only says those spirit proceeds from the Father. So he uses that word proceeds properly.
For you, if you're saying that he thought it said properly, yes, Oh wow, Okay.
Yes, and he used that as an argument this word add the word properly to make a case that there's the filioque is true and from a mistake.
And this would have been you're saying, because he was quoting from something that pseudo jerome is that one.
We're not too sure what his sources are, which just seems to have been negligent in how he quoted. But yeah, he he does use a pseudo jerome, although there it's not said to be the Creed, it's I don't remember what it says there, but yeah, somehow that's the only reference that we know where he could have gotten that. So I yeah, that and there's some other ones as well, other in authentic documents such as or A lot of times I discussed different items. Sometimes it's outright forgeries. Sometimes
there's false claims by Roman Catholics. Sometimes they accused Orthodox of forgeries that were not true or of slander.
Yeah, they just made up so that we're lying and making up forgeries that don't exist.
Yeah. Some some even blame the donation of Constantine on the Orthodox, which.
Oh, interesting, so like a psyop going on in false flag forgeries.
I don't I don't know what their intention was with that. And yeah, but there's some blamed Saint Focus for the that fraudulent claim of a pope paypests. Uh Joan, you know that story.
Yeah, Pope Jones, Yeah, woman pope.
It is strange. It was one of those fables that circulated in the Middle Ages, but there was no female pope, right, yeah, always fascinating, it's the fascinatings. And then Roman Catholics claim that Saint Potius invented that.
So we've got fake patristic quotes, false flag forgeries. It's a big book. And what else is in there that you got to have to there's more in there.
Right yeah, and yeah, it's not just about forgeries. So there's it's printed in two volumes, so the second volume mainly goes over the forgeries and the first volume goes over all these different changes and traditional differences between the East and West. Now, some are not critical items, and I've tried to take a balanced approach because there are some issues that were debated in the past that are
maybe you know, they're not critical now. But the main audience is to defend Orthodox against the traditionalist Roman Catholics who are out there who make these strong claims that the Orthodox are not in the church. So yeah, I go over each of the sacraments and show innovations as well as different theological innovations. I could give a very high level view of that if you if you want.
Yeah, sure, go ahead, go ahead and argue whatever you'd like to target.
Yes, So for the sacraments. On baptism, the main issue I talked about is triple immersion. That that is the that is the traditional and the proper standard mode of baptism. Sure, and of course there are always exceptions. And from the beginning, everyone like I saw room Tafolks mentioning the dida K recently, Well, yes, that's said to be the option if as not the standard mode.
Yeah, if you have a hard time finding a big body of water, then this is yeah. And then but what people always want to make the exception the norm, which is just weird.
Exactly. You're right, there are standards and those should be upheld. Really, and I even quote Thomas Aquinas making quite a strong statement where he says trying immersion is universally used in baptism, and consequently anyone baptizing otherwise would sin gravely so he says that in the mid twelve hundreds, and it Yeah,
it's rather one of the more stronger claims. But of course there's always understood that, Yeah, there's exceptions if you're martyr, baptized in prison or under confinement, extreme cold weather, or in the desert, or in danger of death or weakness or other urgent causes. That's the exceptions and everything. So I basically the idea with this chapter. I just found every one in the first six centuries who mentions triple immersion in baptism, and just it's it is a big
quote mine the book. I try to, but I try to provide useful and valuable quotes well.
So it says the work is divided into five books, Innovations, Papacy, Forgeries, Independencies, and reading. I recommend reading this section here on innovations. Is this mainly like sacramental or is it all the papal theological innovations.
I went over as many of the historical innovations as I could, Yeah, starting with sacraments, and then yeah, theological changes and then some of Sometimes I just talk more neutral about other questions such as you know, Bishop.
Well you talk about infants and communion. That's important.
Yes, those, that's maybe one of the most critical differences. I think that that alone is maybe the most important.
Right. Yeah, it's a really easy indicator of difference.
Right, It's sometimes forgotten in the debates between No.
It shouldn't be forgotten because it's really important.
I am so, yeah, very high level. Yeah, infants forgiven communion in the ancient Church, and I quote quote Pious Attenth admitting this, but later the Roman Catholics change that to only those who have reached you know, quote the of reason R. Shafe interpreted with big discrepancies on the what age that is, only those should receive communion, but the early Church gave them to nursing infants, and it's it should yeah, it should continue. And yeah, the Council
of Trent actually makes a misleading claim. I think it's one of the evidences that the Council of Trent's not inspired by the Holy Spirit because it does let me see you. And same with the Trents Catechism. It says it basically tries to misrepresent the historical prevalence of this practice. I could go more in depth in that, but yeah. Other items are the question of the eleventh bread in the eucharse that that was a big issue in Yeah, definitely ten fifty four.
Let me ask you. Let me ask you a question about wafers, because I've never known this, because it says here on section three, page one O four use of wafers. He says, connection of wafers with coins. Why in the world did they use wafers. I've always wondered that, Yeah.
And that was the excuse was given. I mean, related to the leavened bread, was that it just wouldn't crumble as easily. I think that was one of them in the leven bread debates. For wafers, that was something a little more strange, And that was something I came up across later, of this connection with coins, and I think
maybe there's some thread. I don't really connect them, but you can find this issue of like coins and currency and the kind of banking idea behind a lot of these medieval theological innovations like the indulgences, like the treasury of merit. Oh.
Interesting, so like you're getting paid the coin wage of your salvation or something.
I mean, maybe I don't know quite the interpretation, but there's a strange connection with with coins I mean.
What do you are argue in this section of connection of coins with wafers?
I simply quote a So there's a medieval room. Catholic theologian William durandis from the twelve hundreds. He gives a symbolic interpretation with the Eucharist as quote formed in the matter of a denarius. But that's not that's foreign to the first millennium church. Sure, so recent scholars have said from the eleventh century, I think it could be connected to Yeah, so a Norwegian numismatist some studies coins, and he was saying from the eleventh century wafers were made
in the image of coins. They were round, flat, white, and two sided. Like coins. They were mass produced by means of an iron host press, sometimes carved or engraved with religious imagery or liturgical phrases. The timing is significant. The emergence of coin like wafers corresponds with the rise of monetary offerings and coin, suggesting a notion of the quote minting of the Eucharist.
So oh that's fast.
Yeah, wow, you maybe some connection with minting.
Now you've also got elevation of the host epiclesis terminology transit association in scolasticism community. Both kinds give us a summation of of kind of what's going on.
Here, Yeah, very high level, you know, the aim of these chapters sometimes are really short, just to show that Roman Catholic scholars admit that there was a liturgical practice done a certain way in the first millennium, but they no longer follow that or they change it later. So the elevation of the host, that's a liturgical right. That's
the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia. It says it's a right of comparatively recent introduction, so it's it's not known to be exist, to have existed earlier than the close of the twelfth century, and they date that to yeah, maybe the very end of eleven hundred or early twelve hundreds. And yeah, Epiclesis that was mentioned as well, love times. I cite the Orthodox encyclicals of eighteen forty eight and eighteen ninety five because they list several issues of.
Yeah, innovations that are still there. I mean, I remember, as a trad cat when I first heard of this issue, I didn't even know that the ancient liturgies had the epiclesis and that this was But now I understand being Orthodox for a while now, Like I understand why this is an issue.
Yeah, and for that, I mean, I simply just a lot of that chapter is just me quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia. I mean quote it says the epiclesis it occurs in all Eastern liturgies and originally in Western liturgies. Also, oh wow, because it's certain that all the old liturgies contained such a prayer. But it's no longer the case now, you know, they've omitted this ancient tradition.
Do we know why? Is it just because in the Middle Ages they came up this idea of defining what the essence of the sacrament was to be matter form and intention, and so somehow that led to the trimming down of the liturgy to not have the epiceasis.
Yeah, that could be it. To be honest, I don't know what's the reason of that. I mean, I simply just document the fact that they're no longer doing that. But it seems to be Yeah, as a result of scholastic disputations that where they discuss what's.
What's essential to have the sacrament?
Right right? I love that is maybe just just less careful following the traditions.
By the way, what you're arguing here too, is also a good refutation of some of the people that are trying to push a lot of these latin trad cat ideas in the Orthodox world as well, not just amongst Western Rites, but also even outside of that, people trying to convince catechumens and converts that oh, we actually need all of these you know, Carolinian and and uh, you know,
medieval scholastic traditions and ideas. And I think, and I haven't read your book yet because it's new, but looking at the subject matter here, it looks to me like this would also be kind of a good refutation of the Latinizing ideas of some new Orthodox people.
Yeah, I mean, I I try to avoid making any criticism of Orthodox people. I know, there's yet the Western right question. I mean, maybe some of the notes here and some of the chapters could help provide more context, but.
Well, not even Western Right itself. I'm some about the people who want to bring in, like some of these medieval ideas, like oh, we actually need to have the sacred heart. Not that you not that your book's dealing with medieval Romanolic devotions, but this idea that we need all this stuff.
Yes, I do even have a short chapter on the Sacred Heart Sacred Hearts of Jesus and of Mary. And again I mean that chapter is simply a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia where they admit that there's no evidence for this. I mean, the first time it existed is in the eleven hundreds for both the Sacred Hearts of
Jesus and Mary. If I remember that, I think that century of the eleven hundreds, And yes, so I don't think those should be introduced into Orthodoxy because it's not a tradition of the first millennium Church.
Well, you also have the legalistic view of original sin listed here, which I think is another element of why the position is wrong, you know what I mean, the latinizing position, right.
I think my book is stronger on the more historical questions, and because I tried to focus on those, because those are a lot more clear and are harder to really ignore. Like it's just okay, this tradition, this as a tradition of the first millennium. It is no longer or here's a clear proof of a new invention or innovation. I prefer to document those, but yeah, there are some discussions of theology, which is maybe not my strong suit. I'm just a I got you.
Yeah, And so you move on to talk about some of these other key areas that really should be brought forward. Purgatory, the treasury of merits, indulgences. I mean I try to when I have extended remanclic discussion, especially with trad cats, I do often bring up issues with indulgences, the treasure of merits, because I think these are also really strong things to critique that get forgotten when, for one, I think Roman Catholics typically always want to focus the debate
on the papacy. That's really the only thing they want a debate, and then we're not getting into some of the other nitty gritty issues like well, now wait a minute, this issue of the treasure of merits, this is another pretty big defeater. I think it's as strong as like, if you really get into it, it's a strong critique as you know, papal geopolitical power being in contradiction to
the first you know, thousand years of Christianity. So you mentioned Essen Senter distinction in here, You've got even all the way up to modernism and the Second Vatican Council. So the reason I'm asking is, do let's say, papal Treasury of Merit and indulgences, do these also rely on perhaps forgeries or not really?
For the Treasure Merit, I did not come across any forgeries on that, although maybe you could say there were a lot of an authentic documents that maybe misled the medieval authors, such as those of Saint Augustine. But for the Treasure Merit, you can almost date the decade when it originated. And I quote a Roman Catholic professor, Robert Schaffern.
He specializes in medieval indulgences and wrote a book. I mean he basically indicates that this tradition dates to the twelve thirties, and then just a century later, in thirteen forty three, it was formally defined by the pope. So it barely had a century of antiquity to its name. The Treasury of Merit, so from the twelve thirties it was brought up by the theater.
Yeah, I just like, I don't see how you can't see this as an innovation. I mean, I know all the arguments about it. You know, it used to be a trad cat used to try to defend it. But I mean, now you mentioned here mercantile doctrine, what would you what are you arguing there?
It So it does seem like it's a very transactional mercantild like a bank account. So it does.
The Pope has access to the Saints infinite bitcoin account and he can just sort of send you this spiritual cryptocurrency to your wallet, your soul wallet.
It is a little strange and some I mean the language of the Pope and defining it rather, it's it's quite strange where he says, you know that, okay, only one drop of Christ's blood was necessary for the salvation of all humanity. So all this otherwise excess or maybe superfluous. Maybe you can think about what the intention of that word means. All the extra superfluous blood was it can be used by the Pope to dispense.
Oh wow, I didn't even know. He argued that that's a crazy line of argument.
Yeah, it's yes, all these can be dispens same with the merits of the blessed Virgin Mary and the other saints. I mean that's the Yeah, these superabundance of the virtues of the Saints and it. Yeah, it is a little strange. I mean maybe realman Catholics might interpret it a little differently, but basically, gist of it as I see it, it's just one drop of Christ's blood would have been enough for our starvations. So all the extra the pope can use.
You know, I didn't even I didn't even realize it was that wacky. Even I was trying to defend that, I didn't even know that's a line of argument I didn't know about using. But okay, so we've got changes to calendar fasting changes, so you actually go into pretty significant like this isn't this isn't just a book about the forgeries. This is kind of going into a much broader, much more in depth discussion of really the whole ethos of the difference between the Papal Church and the orthodox Y.
Yeah. I think originally the scope was, hey, look at these forgery Look how come you know cited in ten fifty four that's originally had a blog article back in the mid twenty tens. I don't know, it's been over twelve years. I've been I kind of started researching this and putting together notes. It's been a long I think it's for the best, because yeah, I had some made some mistakes and made law corrections along the way, and of course it's still maybe won't be perfect. But sorry, wow you get all.
You even get into papal dispensations and cyclicals, the cardinals, jubilees interdicts. Yeah, so this is getting This is super indubt.
Some are yes, really high level, like I could go over in just a few sentences, like trend substantiation. I mean, the main maybe Orthodox believe the doctrine, but the terminology and the real intricate mythology is just it's invented in the late ten hundreds. It's not before this ism. Although
we're okay with the word. And then for some other items, some are simply terminologies, oh okay, and then oh yeah, to go back to the Eucharist or liturgy, communion under both kinds where and again some of these have changed since Vatican Two, But traditionally the Church gave both the Christ's body and blood under the forms of bread and wine and the euchars, but the Roman Catholics changed it to just give communion under the form of bread only
and would reserve the wine or Christ's blood for the priests, but of course, you know, they'd say, well, Christ's whole body and blood is contained in his body of the bread, so they'll make these distinctions. But traditionally that was not the case. They just argue from certain exceptions in the past. But sometimes infants were just given only the Christ's blood as wine, so they argue from those exceptional cases. Yeah, the same with confirmation, where the early Church confirmed children
right after baptism. But then that's another item like infant communion, where the Latins say this is not expedient before the use of reason, even though they admit the early Church did that with baptism and communion. Yeah. I spent a lot of time going into some rather intricate items.
Sometimes this is great, this is a this is well, actually a way more thorough Not that I didn't think you were capable. I just thought this will be a book about the forgeries that he's finally publishing. But it's a lot more thorough than that. You even get into these pretty lengthy discussions later on about well it's not that lengthy, but there's a lot of discussion about you know, Canon twenty a of Chalcedon. I mean, it gets really we don't have time to go through all of these.
No, Yeah, yeah, I would say the parts I researched the most would be the question of Pope Penoris's condemnation. I just put together everything I could find, very thorough. Yeah, that I tried to be. I think it might be the most thorough collection of just all the evidence on him, both in favor of him and in defense. I think it's maybe the most comprehensive ever collected. I mean, by
the way, I didn't use any AI at all. I somewhat regret a bit of terminology I used in the beginning of the intro where I said, like, I think like technological innovation. That's just simply referring to digitized books because that helped yea CIEs Co email because this wasn't would have been really hard.
Yeah, you can't go find all these yeah, I like Indiana Jones or something trying to find all this stuff.
So yeah, maybe the most thoroughly research is Yeah, Honorius, I mean spoiler he is a heretic, and the technologists such and then Kennon twenty eight of Calcdon followed by the Council of Truela. Those are really important. I think it takes too much time to get into. But and
then baptism by triple immersion. Those are the three UH topics I studied the most in terms of like those early differences, I mean other things I looked into, I mean the idea of of marriage and a Roman Catholics talk about divorce a lot, but there's there's some other issues they they have, such as allowing marriage within prohibited degrees, such as a marriage between UH an uncle and niece
or nephew and aunt. I mean the pope has allowed that even though that's prohibited in Leviticus, and the early Church held those prohibitions to still be in force. So it's some of that is rather disturbing, you know, led to the Habsburg Charles the second he had an inbreeding issue could have been responsible for some disabilities. And there's even a pope who said a brother sister marriage could
be allowed by papal dispensation. So some of this is a little yeah, it was not the early Church did not think that was appropriate, right, And so I go in depth into all of those items and related Yeah, clerical celibacy. I think that's that's another important one to just talk about because many Roman Catholics criticized the Orthodox for having married priests. But you know the Gospel show
say Peter was married, and I mentioned that. Saint Patrick of Ireland, if if you Reaca has confession in the very beginning, he says, I Patrick, the sinner, am the most illiterate and least of all the faithful, and contemptible in the eyes of very many. My father was Calpurnius, a deacon, one of the sons of po Titus, a
presidter who belonged to a village. And then I was taken captive, so he mentions, Yeah, his father was a deacon, his grandfather was a priest, and then the later source adds that his great grandfather was a deacon as well. So we can trace like married clergy. And you know, if any of these priests had been celibate, we wouldn't have had, uh, Saint Patrick if the.
Yeah, you know, and what about the the that's a great point. What about the trollo? Did do you argue and show that trollo was accepted?
Yes? Uh, yeah, trello is something I really go in depth into. I would say, in the very high level view, you can prove it accepted by the Seventh Documental Council clearly accepting Trelo's canons. I go into that council at in extreme length. I tried to collect basically everything that could be said but for and against it. But I'll say it's just simply settled by the fact the Seventh Documental Council endorset.
Is there any evidence that the papacy did not or had a problem with Trello at the Seventh Council?
Oh, at the Seventh Council, I know, it doesn't seem that they didn't make any objections then, even though the yeah, the room Catholic legates were there. But sometimes Roman Catholics make rather strange claims about that the ecumenical councils are I guess they might not fully love them, are reluctant to accept the full.
Yeah, it's like they don't. The only thing that matters from them is what the Pope says matters.
Basically, Yeah, it's really on traditional view. Yeah, for Trilo. There are some cases of apparently some popes not liking what it said, but that just simply shows that the church did not it was not swayed by that, and it did not affect what.
What What's the do you recall the first sort of evidence or mention from the popes not liking Trollo or something at Nicia too?
Yeah, let me, I'll have to check my notes. I'm trying to think.
If it's not a big deal. Just this was curious.
I know, the Liber pontific caulis that book of popes. It does mention, uh some, it does not like it doesn't like the council at all. And there's there's also.
A trollo or which one trollo?
Uh yeah, that that council. I mean I see too. It's yeah, it's fully accepted.
Although yeah, well people's but even that I'm curious about because when Roman Callolics say they fully accept it, I mean I'm not. I'm not even sure they really do, like because there's things that you know are canonical some somewhat in the Canons of Nicia two that I don't think Roman Cloics would agree with, like images of the Father and this kind of stuff. And you know the Sonoticon which comes out of the eight forty three reaffirmation
of Nicia two. Romancalox suresack don't follow that, so I don't even I mean, now I think you can even I think the way it seems like they give like name verbal credence to Nicia too, but they don't really follow it.
Yeah, I think that is the case. I mean some of them are very disparaging to the Fathers, like right on, like Beller mean when he criticizes the Seventh Ecumental Council Fathers for endorsing the condemnation of Honorius Robert Beller mean in Roman Catholic saying he says the father simply followed what they saw in the any scripts they were basically just implies they were misled. They don't. Many rom Katacs have not been respectful to the Church Fathers in that degree.
So I yeah, because the Seventh Council does also reiterate.
Yeah, it reiterates Honri's's condination exactly.
As for the images of God the Father, I used to have a chapter on that, but I got rid of that basically, not just some notes. If someone really wants they could always reach out to me, because I I think it's just one of those points on which there's differences within.
Yeah. I know, it's a nuanced issue and we have the you know, the ancient days, and my point was not to be hyper precise about the canon. I'm just saying that the theology of icons, which clearly is the ethos of the Seventh Council, is not followed by Rome. So I mean, in their minds, it's just yeah, you can have artistic religious images, It's like, but that's not what I anography and iconographic theology really is.
Yes, yes, same with the statues as well. I know that's disputed. I mean I would say Roman Catholics exceeded the bounds of propriety. Oh and even on images, there's some rather strange things with the Renaissance art work.
Oh absolutely, So that's that's that's essentially what the Well, the Los Gawspensky book is really good kind of critiquing some of that.
Later on, there's some rather disturbing things. I mean, in the Sistine Chapel that Michaelangelo depicts the Blessed Virgin Mary in a rather sensual pose.
Well, it's a lot more than that. I mean, there's a lot of weird hermetic stuff going on. And that's that's I mentioned earlier that book a cult Renaissance Church of Rome, and even as a trad cat Hoffman wrote that critiquing a lot of the Renaissance art of the Roman, of the Vatican, the Roman Church.
So yeah, yeah, it's disturbing sometimes how they depict Blessed Virgin Mary similar to the so called Goddess of Desire of Venus. They imitate those ancient exact statues. It's like, that's not appropriate. Same with some strange ideas of people receiving milk from the breast of the Virgin Mary.
Yes, this is a Taylor Marshall the favorite.
Oh yes, I have seen that.
But that's I mean, that's kind of a joke. But it's also not a joke because this is actually really important to a lot of Roman Catholic devotional life. In fact, the church down the road from us is Our Lady of La Leche, which is a giant Roman Catholic shrine, because the Franciscans did one of the first masses in America. There might be the first mass even in North America, and it's Our Lady of the Milk. This is actually a really important thing in Roman calog mysticism.
Yeah, it's strange, and you can document it. There's no evidence of anyone you same with the stigma, no evidence of this in the first millennium, no evidence of someone receiving milk from Mary's breast. It's a rather strange thing, but there's no evidence of that in the first millennium. It's starting now.
I'm assuming I know that it comes up. It's in paintings of Bernard and that when I was a tried cap, I used to love Bernard of Clervau and I'd read his stuff all the time. And you have a little section on that. What was your conclusion on that.
Yeah, I've seen it in the Proudu Museum in Spain, in Madrid, they have the artwork. It's rather strange. I mean they say it's supposed to be. Sometimes they say it was in a miracle or a vision, not in real life.
Of who of was it?
I think it, Yeah, it was Bernard of Clervaux. I think there's been different interpretations of how this event happened. But again I would say, you know, we had many you know, all the thousands of tens of thousands, millions of Christians in the first millennium, no one had the stigma that no one had this. It's it's just it. I focus just on the historical discontinuity. You know, maybe
the same with the stigmata. They defend it from Saint Paul's words where he says I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus, and the word marks in Latin is stigmata. But the church fathers don't see that as.
Yeah, it's not literally the marks.
Yeah, no, it's not. Yeah, and yeah. I quote John Crazostom giving it a different interpretation, saying it's his trials, his dangers, his stripes, the perils which attended his conversion. But they say there's been three hundred, at least three hundred and twenty one stigmatics since twelve twenty four. I mean, right,
it's how is that it's not statistically possible? If uh, it's just strange that you know, Saint Francis, the Roman Catholic, Saint Francis of ASSISI was the first to have received the stigmata.
So yeah, did you know I've found in Uh. I was reading a book, The Oxford Companion to Western Mysticism, and this whole chapter on medieval Roman Catholic male and female mystic and I didn't know that Francis claimed to have a vision of seeing a crucified seraphim. Did you know that I know I did really really weird stuff, which you know is orthodox would be like that's out there. Rum Mcallich's love it. They think this is like a there's a sign. You know, he's clearly saying he saw
a crucified seraphim. I mean the angels weren't crucified. It doesn't make any sense. But okay, so we've gone for a little you know, hour and fifteen. That's a pretty good, I think overview of this text. Again, I highly recommend everybody get this. As I look at the chapter section titles here, this is way more extensive than I expected. In fact, I'm not that I wasn't interested in the forgeries book. This is this is way more than that. So I think, guys, you really need to get airs
of the Latins Volume one and two. I've got it linked below from Uncut Mountain Press, and it is now available, so it is ready to ship. It just went to the printer couple days ago. So what else, George, anything else that we need to know about the book before we get it.
I think that's basically it. Yeah, there's these different topics. I tried my best to be as fair as I could, and I put a love effort into the research.
It's well many years. This isn't This isn't like a you know, throw it together thing. You've been working on us for a long time.
Yeah, it's a lot of time. I mean it's meant to be more of a reference work. You don't have to read from beginning to end. It's meant to I have a lot of recommendations for additional reading so that someone could turn to those if they want to get more details. And yeah, it's meant to be more Yeah, reference work. You don't have to read all the pages. I know it's a lot of text, but I think
it helps to just document. That's my main name, to just have these quotations and cite things fairly and try and consider aspect of the question.
It looks like a really well done scholarly work. I'm really proud of you. I think it's awesome. It's amazing. May God bless this venture. Guys. Remember to head on over to chalk dot com. That is a show sponsor, and they do have the best and supplements. If you're ready to get in the gym, you're ready to change your physical appearance. Of course, spiritual stuff is what matters. The most, but also our body does matter, so let's not abuse our bodies. Let's not be unhealthy. Get in
the gym, get your diet right. Head on over to chalk dot com. Use promo code J forty JYF or zero get forty percent off of all those great products as well as the recurring subscription J forty four Life. This is Jay four four l I f E, as well as supporting George and other Orthodox content creators and writers. George, thank you so much for coming on. Great discussion.
Thank you very much, Jay, absolutely.
And we're going to have this up very soon, probably tonight, and yeah, we'll see what the reactions are and we'll probably get you back on. We'll get into some more of these subjects. It's so extensive, like there's stuff going on here with the papacy and medieval stuff. Nobody talks about weird medieval mysticism, I think, but this needs to be talked about more. So maybe we'll come back and talk about some of that. But thank you so much, George.
Sure, any time,