How The Papacy & Vatican 1 Are A Contradiction - Jay Dyer (Flashback)

The logos is the icon of Father, and man is the icon of God. We are the image of God and dire wave three. Dire Wave three. The arts reflects the soul, the spirit of the architecture reflects the soul the spirit. Because therefore you can see the degeneracy. You can see the degradation and the loss of aesthetics, the loss of the idea of it being harmony order symmetry in esthetics. It's connected with the loss of a coherence, the loss of all. Right, welcome everybody, Hopefully you can hear me

good. I'll just going crazy today Part two. So we're gonna keep this one kind of tight. We want it to be brief. We want this one to be accessible, So we're not gonna go super deep into a whole bunch of documents. We'll hit on a few here. One of the things that I would point to is if you saw the set of a contism stream that I did a couple of years ago. We went really deep into that

and that was about a three hour stream. So if you want the fuller approach to the question of what exactly is the full on Vatican One document of the papacy in terms of all the constituent elements and parts. What's the necessary things that are there for the papacy to be this the papacy typically there's you know, like most people will think of the issue of infallibility, they'll think of the issue of oh, the pope is, you know, the successor

to Peter. But really the patrin office is essentially four components. There's the the Peter himself who lives in presies and judges and his successors. There's the universal premiacy doctrine that there's not any person that he submits to. He's above the councils, he's above even you could argue the tradition itself. And so the pope doesn't the don't judge the pope. The pope judges of the councils. The pope can unilaterally declared dogma, the pope can unilaterally excommunicate, and

that premiacy is immediate and divine. It's not mediated by the Church, it's not mediated by it's not given him by council. It's not given later on in time. And that's going to be key. If it's immediate and de divino from the divine, it's not de jure. In other words, it's not by custom, it's not by tradition, it doesn't come from a jury or body. It's not granted to him by human court. It is direct, immediate, and divine Matthew sixteen. Right. That's where it begins,

they say. The other two constituent elements are that it's the Roman See and it is the exercise of the Roman pontiffs. So all of those things go into the essential components of the office in person of the Pope. Right, So it's not merely a collection of docors. According to Vatican One, it's the person of Peter exercising, judging in his successors. It is the sea in Rome, so it's not another see. It's not three c's connected to Rome. It's the sea in Rome. And it's the person, the living

personal successor who is the occupant of that throne. And all of those go together. All of those function in a unity. And thus there's no invisible chair of Peter. There's no patrine office that you can ignore. I'll just have my church here. We don't care what goes on in Rome. None

of those work, given the Vatican one definitions of the papacy. So the other points that emerge from Vatican One are the ideas that the church can't lose in the Roman Catholic yew, the church could never lose the papacy, could never lose any of those constituent elements and fundamental parts, because if the Church were to lose those things, other doctrines would then be compromised, such as the indefectibility of the office of the papacy and thus the office of the church.

The unity of the Church would be lost and would be affected if the papacy was not there. And so we see then that it's not anything that could be squished into seta contism. It's not anything that could be divorced from what's going on in Rome, because you only in the Roman Catholic system have jurisdiction as a bishop or as a priest. In the Roman Catholic scheme, you only have the office of the keys when you're in communion with Rome.

And that's not an ethereal made up Rome. It's not the rom that you think is traditional. It's the one that's actually over in Rome, and it's actually connected to the living guy sitting in the chair. You would think Roman

Catholics know that. You would think, yeah, duh, right, No, I mean, as we see, we looked at some of the basic points that are made in the Abridged Doctrine of what Vatican One says, and we notice how many places, just within a few pages, Roman Catholics aren't consistent and they aren't faithful to typically speaking, the basic principles and points that are made in that brief document. So we will be reading the super chats

as I get through these canons. We're gonna jump to the cannons because I don't want to spend too long on this, and we're gonna look a little

bit, as I said at aught in a little bit at Denzinger. But the main point is that and that really for the Roman Catholic system after Vatican One, that's the hinge, right, that's the foundation stone of the church is Peter and his successors, and anyone who had read as you saw in yesterday's video, right that even the abridged version knows that you can't pick and

choose. So just to kind of pick up where we left off in yesterday's talk, we're gonna look at Denzinger, and this should be Denzinger's sixteen eighty threet. Me make sure we get the right ones here. Ok So we're gonna look at sixteen eighty three, seventeen ninety two, and sixteen ninety eight, so we know here in this one and again Denzinger is dogma. For those that don't know a lot of these very few of these Roman Catholics have

ever bought this book or read it literally read it. They've just referenced it if they've even heard of it. So if you don't know, it's the sources of Catholic dogma, Okay, it's I mean the Vatican cites this book. I mean it's used as a source of dogma. Even though that googler the Kurgan didn't know what it was. That doesn't matter, right. While in truth, now this is talking about people who this is at the time of Attican one. This is talking about people who think, well, I

can just affirm the Roman Catholic doctrines that I think are ex Cathedral. I don't have to listen to the other things we saw on THEEWT and abridged statement that that's not true. But we're going to see even more when we look here. While in truth, we lawed these men and do praise because they professed the truth which necessarily arises from their obligation to the Catholic faith. We wish to persuade ourselves that they do not wish to continue the obligation by which

Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound. Do you hear that theologians, SSPX, writers people out there we absolutely bound not only to the decrees which are set forth in the infallible judgment of the Church to be believed see also seventeen

twenty two. And we persuade ourselves also that they or not wish to declare that these perfect, that the perfect adhesion to reveal truths which they recognize is absolutely necessary to attend a true progress in the sciences into refute errors could be obtained if faith and obedience were given only to the dogmas expressly defined. This is the very position they say, I'm only bound by the expressly defined dogmas.

For even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an active mind faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical councils or their own pontiffs or the sea, but would have been extended. Also, the matters which are handed down is violy revealed by the ordinary teaching power

of the Church spread throughout the world. In other words, you are also bound to the ordinary teaching authority, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held to be calic theologians to belong to the faith. So, if you want to be a calacic theologian who belongs to the Catholic faith, you are bound by the ordinary teaching, both the universal ordinary and the ordinary that

can be fallible. The universal ordinary cannot err. The ordinary can err, but you're still bound to it. If you want to be a Catholic theologian. You could privately dissent if you think ordinary teaching is an ordinary, non infallible teaching is an error, but you cannot publicly fight against the hierarchs of

the Church without ceasing to be Catholic and becoming a schismatic. That's what this is saying clearly right there, condemnation of a gigantic portion of the trad approach, which you hear as a mantra on a daily basis, were only bound by what the Pope himself and the church dogmatically defines. That literally, condemns the position that you're only bound by specific dogmatic definitions. That's dog Do you understand it's not that hard. Sixteen ninety eight is the next one. Let's

go down to that. Nor do they liberal theologians blush to profess now this is liberalism in the eighteen hundreds, right openly in publicly the axiom and the principle of heretics which so many perverse opinions, errors and arise, where they repeatedly say the ecclesiastic power is not, by divine right distinct from an independent from the civil power, and that the distinction and independence of that sin could

not be preserved without the essential rights of the civil power being invaded and asserted by the Church, as so much church and state. And we cannot pass over in silence the boldness of those who not enduring sound doctrine contend that without sin, without sin, and with no loss of Catholic profession, one can withhold assent and obedience, assent and obedience to the judgments and decrees. Does it say just the ex cathedral doctrines? Does it say only ecumenical councils?

Does it say I only have to follow ex cathedrails, statements and dogmas, no judgments in decrees, and obedience to said judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the General God, to the Church and its rights and disciplines, rights and disciplines, provided it does not touch the dogmas of faith or morals. So that's the quote, I'm only

bound to give a cent and judgment to those things. There is no one who's not seen understand clearly how openly and opposed to Catholic teaching this is, and of the plenary power divinely bestowed on the Roman pontiff by Christ himself, So he does not get his power by the councils, by the Church, by anybody other than Christ himself. It's direct to feed, rule and govern

the universal Church. Again, the non Catholic theologians who think they're Catholic literally exactly what eighty ninety percent of the trads and the servant and novasortos think. You're not sinning and you don't lose your faith. Quote if you withhold this assent and obedience to judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, that you declare to be not correct. Right, if it doesn't touch on the dogmas of faith and morals, I don't have to follow it if I judge it to

be wrong. You could literally copy and paste this quote from the liberal theologies of the eighteen hundreds, and it would be the very copy paste phrase that ninety eighty ninety percent of conservative and traditional Catholics literally repeat. I'm only bound by the Pope's moral excuse me, dogmatic and dogmatic statements and infallible statements. I'm not bound to decrees, judgments, disciplines. Yes you are. And there's one more seventeen ninety two. Hopefully everybody can see this, right?

Is it legible? Can you read it? So? Again? The point here is not You may think, oh, this is just refuting set of a contest or SSPX. No. Do you understand that a gigantic portion of the Roman Catholic world now believes that they can disagree with Francis as they will. They don't have to accept the teaching of his ncyclicals, which is ordinary.

Teaching doesn't matter even if it's ordinary universal or ordinary non universal. It still comes from the Apostolic see with his teaching authority which is ordinary, which you still owe obedience to even if you disagree, but if an encyclical expresses the constant teaching of the Church, which is totally ambiguous, vague, right, I mean, part of the reason this works is because of the so called principles that you judge everything by are so vague that they presuppose a standard

in a category themselves, right, which they don't actually give. So this is what allows the Catholics to justify they're playing hard and fast with what they have to accept and what they don't have to accept. This is why every different Roman Catholic has a different list, and there is no list of what the actual dogmas are, because this isn't the whole list, This doesn't have canon law in it, and you have to follow canon law. Right.

The object of faith further by defining Catholic faith of all those saints which must be believed, which are contained in the written Word of God, tradition, and those proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her universal ordinary, in her ordinary and universal teaching power, are to be divinely revealed. And that was the quote from Vatican One that we saw earlier. So as we saw in octorum fide as we see in these at the time

of Vatican one, these three examples. You do not have the right, you don't have the authority, You don't have the ability to pick and choose amongst the various teachings, disciplines, decrees, rights, et cetera, which things you will accept, even with the delineation between No. I mean, so I'm not going to go into Albrecht. He's a waste of time. The guy is a clown. He doesn't what he does is and he's done

this multiple times. He just says, okay, we'll set up a debate, and then he yells at you for an hour, calls you a clown, a fraud, knowing that you're not going to want to interact with him. And then when he acts like that and you're like, all right, uninteracting with you, then he says you won't debate. I mean, I've shared the tweets multiple times from twenty eighteen twenty nineteen trying to get this guy to do it, and he just postpones. And he says, I've never

postponed. I never postponed. Yeah, okay, whatever, I don't even I don't have to waste my time on all bricked. That guy is not worth anybody's time, so he can debate other people whatever anyway. We see then that it's clear. The main point here is that again, even if you find within these documents and notice that the principles of ordinary and universal ordinary don't tell you, actually, when you're reading through all the documents what's what?

That becomes something that you have to judge. Right, that becomes your judgment. But as a fallible lay person, how do I know that I'm correctly putting into what ben they go? Right? As I'm reading through an encyclical and I'm saying, oh, this section looks like this is something that the Church has always taught. Well, the Church has always taught That's ambiguous, right, And that assumes that you, as the individual Catholic reading the

document, knows that that's what the Church has always taught. So it doesn't really tell you anything these kinds of phrases. So essentially these are useless criteria because they don't tell you exactly or what is and isn't dogma. It then becomes your job reading through the piles of documents to put them into the right bin, And that begs the question because the whole purpose of this was I'm supposed to be exempted from relying on individual interpretation. Oh really, Catholics don't

do this kind of picking and choosing. Catholics don't rely on their own understanding of the text that they're reading the papal text. And that's why Albrick and Obara and these people don't know anything about pistemology. They can't answer basic epistemological questions. Even Trent Horn, who's about ten times better than Albrecht, was confused and couldn't answer these questions. Now we know Albrich doesn't know anything about

philosophy at all, doesn't know anything about epistemology. And so if Trent, who actually has had some classes in those things, can't answer those questions, do you think any of that clown trip can answer epistemological questions. No? And that's why Albreck thinks that Matt Slick won the debate with Father Deacon. I'm not joking. He tweets that Matt Slick, who says that I know that the scriptures are true because I cried when I read him, he thinks

that's an epistemic justification. So that's the tear of person that you're dealing with with Albrecht. And so no, I'm not gonna waste my time with somebody who with no philosophical training at all, totally incoherent ideas about what justification even means and is just a clown. If we're already debating Trent Horn and people at that level and caliber and Trent lost, why would I waste my time with a goober who has about one tenth the education of Trent honestly, come

on. So the point here is that, as is obvious from the criteria, which there are criteria for the different levels of dogma and Roman Catholicism, the criteria don't tell you actually, in fact, what the application to these massive piles of dogmas, of books, encyclicals and decrees actually is. So then it becomes you, the individual Catholic theologian, doing the best you can.

I've got piles, stacks and shelves over here the Roman Catholics, Okay, tons of papal, tons of Vatican two documents and decrees, the two volume ten around Alberigo set on the Ecumenical councils thousands of pages. Vatican two itself nine hundred pages, papal encyclicals itself, the set hundreds of pages, thousands of pages. Within all of those, you're going to find many, many things that qualify as not just ex cathedra, but also universal, ordinary

and ordinary teaching which you owe obedience to. Is that not clear from the documents that we've read? Now, the individual Catholic is in the same boat as an Orthodox person, and they're in the same boat as a Protestant person. We just have different books we're going through. But you're no better bout. You're in no epistemically privileged position because you have pope, because it doesn't actually tell you as you're reading to the documents which sections and teachings in the

documents go in which ben that's up to you. Hope you can figure it out, dude, good luck. Here is your role playing game quest map. Good luck, have fun. Hopefully you can figure it out. Here's your gigantic shelf full of books. Better get to work. So, being the spergatron i am, I spent a lot of years on this stupid role playing quest, LARPing role playing quest of traditional Roman Catholicism, of winding one's way through all of this nonsense, which was supposed to be ironically avoided and

solved the office of the papacy. Does it look like the office of the papacy solves just just take the section of Francis's papacy. Does that look like it's solving for anyone problems in the church? Or is Francis in fact splitting the church, running away all of the Latin Mass fans, all the traditional fans, all the most diehard Catholics, the Catholics that would be willing to die for Catholicism. He is pushing out of the church. So the very

guy who's supposed to be the foundation stone of the church. In terms of the living magisterium, yes, the living magisterium. Magisterium isn't just a list of doctrines. It's a living embodiment in the bishops in communion with the pope. The pope is the living magisterium par excellence, and thus, via the Vatican One view, he is the judge of tradition. You don't read through the books and tell him when he's not in accord with tradition. He determines

what is the correct interpretation of the tradition. And this is what Roman Catholics don't understand. And what none of the goober's over at reason that theology understand. And if they'd had a class or two in semiotics or philosophy of signs and symbols, they would know that texts require interpretations. They don't just mean what they say and say what they mean. That's a Protestant view. Protestants think, I just read the Bible and it means what it says, and

it says what it means. The Bible don't require interpretation. And what does the Roman Catholic do. He's no different than the Protestant because he thinks that I just read the papal decrees. Oh, I'll go to dudes, read the papal decrease. Jay, why can't you just read the papal decrease? That's my bar impression. Now, if I start doing in Barra impressions, this dream is going to be four hours because he will do Legit talks in point five speed, perhaps point one speed, I don't point two speed,

point three I don't know. So again, the practic they always because they always love to go to the practical point, right. The practical point is that the papacy solves all these practical problems of the Protestant world. But in fact, not only does it not do that, it actually compounds things because now instead of just reading the Book of the Bible, that's that's the one

book. So if I'm Protestant man, this is the thing I'm trying to decode right for my life, to give it meaning and to understand everything. So I've only got a few thousand pages here. Now, if I'm Papacy man, I got to start with just this, which is at least as big as the Bible. And to even understand Densinger, I'm gonna have to read a lot of other books. Right, I'm gonna have to know a lot about church history. Then i'n'na have to dig into Tanner and Alberta go

Go's two thousand page history documents of the Ecumenical Councils. You see, so I want to know the dogmas, let me let's show you these A lot people don't even know these exist. Okay, this is the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Okay, by Tanner and Alberta. Go This is the official sort of most scholarly Roman Catholic right, like two three hundred dollars set that

I bought many many years ago. This is volume one, Volume one, seven hundred pages volume one, okay, Volume two, Volume two of Tanner and Albera mean pages of that one one three and twenty nine okay, so there's two thousand pages for ecumenical councils. So now, good luck, better start to reading. But that's not all you got to read do because guess what, papal and cyclicals are a big deal, and they're up there on

the top. I'm not going to get those down. But if you just want to skip, maybe you want to skip past reading all the encyclicals, even though you can't do that because they also contain miles and miles and miles of documents worth of ordinary magisterium ordinary teaching, which you're also bound by. I mean, I can go get my Leo's and cyclicals down, right, I can go get the popes against the modern error in cyclicals, right,

But many of those are actually repeated in Densinger. So just to be nice to you, we could give you the shortcut through densing Er if you want so, right, there's three thousand pays. Let's just take that, right, So let's be nice to you and say, even though you do have to read the papal and cyclicals, if you really wanted to be consistent with the position of knowing all of the ordinary teaching, both universal and non universal, you'd have to read all those things. You have to read the acts

of the Apostolic see are you Are you reading it? You better get started Roman Catholics. If you want to do this consistently, you're going to operate on this principle, you better be reading through these books now. As you're reading through these mountains of books here this whole time, Let's say it takes you two years to read through I don't know, these thousands and thousands of pages. We'll say five thousand pages. And let's say it takes you,

I don't know, two three years. Are you sure as you read through these that you understand what you're reading? Don't you have to have kind of bit of a good bit of prior Roman Catholic theology and church history to even understand what's going on in these gigantic books. Well of course, okay, so actually you're gonna need a lot more time, right just to be able to grasp this. So and by the way, the same would extend to the Protestant too, right, Like I mean people that just pick up the

Bible, right, they can't understand. And by the way, you can read all these papal documents, don't you also have to read this one too? Because the papal documents in the church's teachings, what are those? Oh they're partially interpretations of this, aren't they. So this is the original source document, right, and here's your papal footnotes on that, right. But

don't you also kind of have to read some of the church fathers. Oh yeah, but that's another thirty eight volumes just in the chaft set, right, So you better get the reading, dude. But as the Catholic reads through these, are you seriously going to tell me that he's not interpreting these texts? I mean this is literally how they act with this. They act like, no, I'm not interpreting it, I'm just reading it, dude,

Are you really? I mean, they don't understand what their position entails, right, It's not just I just read a few councils and read a few papal dogmas and I've got it figured it out, right, It's all in the bag. The papal teaching is in the midst of all of these vast archives and troves of documents, and for you to know it, unless you magically have osmosis, you're gonna have to start reading it. Basically is going to require a THHD or a PhD to say, I understand Caloic theology.

But does Roman Catholicism teach that when you get a PhD or a THHD you're infallible? Oh no, you're an errant, fallible lay person still, even if you become a priest, even if you teach theology. So the irony of this is that they've completely missed the point and shot themselves in the foot by affirming the classical foundationalists epistemology, that is the Roman Catholic epistemology that I just look at the evidence. This is the approach of a barrow,

right, just look at the evidence. Just look at church history. What do we see as if there's not an interpretation of the events and the books and the documents and the liturgy. It's just so inane, it's childish and stupid. So with that in mind, we understand that this really does not do what it's supposed to do. The whole point of the papacy was the way to do rest all these issues, the way to not have the problem

of the individual has to reinvent the wheel. But when we come into the last seventy years of Rome Catholicism post Vatican Two, everything is in chaos. The Church is in decline, the Church is in a revolution from the top down, right, I had chili, got chili in my teeth. And so the point is just simply that the last sixty seventy years is the greatest testament that the world could ask for to see if this office actually achieves and

does what it's supposed to. And so literally every one of those objections of Lofton of a Bara about the Orthodox Church one hundredfold was back on their own head, because all they do is sit there and say Orthodox ain't got no way to resolve things. I mean, there was just a schism resolve two weeks ago in the news. So how did that occur? If there's no way to resolve things? How is it the case? As Ratzinger says that the Orthodox East has retained the faith for the last thousand years, Wait a

minute. If we've maintained the faith for the last thousand years without the pope and the office of the pope, then we don't need the pope. That's the point, you see. And their whole argument is that we must have the pope to maintain the faith, to have certainty, to have unity, to have the How can we how could the orthodoxies maintain the faith without the

cornerstone of the faith. It's just ridiculous. And what does satist Cognitum, which is of course one of the famous papal encyclicals about the office of the papacy, what does it say about departing from doctrines. Let's see what Leo the thirteenth says. The practice of the Church has always been the same as a shown in unanimous teaching of the fathers who were wont to, who were

wont to hold outside Catholic communion an alien to the Church. Whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative magistarian Epiphanius Augustin Theodore Dripp. Long list of heresies. So did you see that? And then it goes on to say, no one who merely disbelieves in all of these heresies can for that reason call himself a Catholic, or himself won for then maybe arisees some new heresy which is not in this work of ours.

And if he holds to one single one of these, he is not a Catholic. Accuoding Saint Augustine. Does that say that I can pick and choose amongst the papal teaching? Now? What did we just read in Denzinger? Denzinger says that you have to believe all of the teachings. What was it sixteen eighty nine it said that you can't be or was it eighty three?

Oh, here's another one condemned proposition seventeen twenty two. The obligation of Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound, is restricted only to the matters proposed by the infallible judgment of the Church, believed by all the dogmas condemned. Do you understand that's a condemned proposition of the modernist I am only obliged and bound to what is dogmatic and infallible, condemned. This is this syllabus of

errors. Syllabus of errors is in Denzinger. Goobers. Now, if I'm not restricted to ex cathedra as a Roman Catholic and I have to believe everything that's proposed, including ordinary, including disciplinary matters, including the rights and judgments of the Church. Then am I a Roman Catholic? If I say, if I'm condemned by seventeen twenty two, as ninety percent of the Trads and conservative novs ortos are because they say they don't have to follow Francis's ordinary teaching?

Are they Catholics? What does Leo say the practice of the Church as shown by the animus teaching the fathers or want to hold as outside Catholic communion an alien to the Church. Whoever recedes in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by the magistarium and one point of dissent from doctrine makes you not a Catholic? Do you understand? I know some of Roman clitics a little slow. I have to repeat the arguments ten times sometimes for some of

you guys. I know Eric thinks and talks in slow motion. So if you affirm seventeen twenty two that you're only bound by what's infallible, as many Trads and Saytas do, then you're condemned because you deny dogma seventeen twenty two. If I deny Dogma seventeen twenty two in Denzinger, am I still in church? According to Southeast cognitum, No, it's called ipsel facto excommunication,

the same penalty for an abrashun if you know what I mean. In Roman cathout theology, I don't have to be condemned by an ecumenical council for procuring an abro a bromtion. And I'm speaking that way because of algorithms. So when this comes up, what do they all say? Well, even if the pope fell into here the uh or even if somebody is a Catholic that's a hero it it takes the ecumenical council to define it and to excommunicate them.

Yeah, does Vatican one say that a ecumenical council is above a pope, that a council can dethrone a pope. No, it condemns that position. It says that the pope is superior to all councils. In fact, there is no council without the ratification of the Pope. That's the teaching a Vatican One. Now there's another encyclical I'm gonna spare you. It makes the

exact same point as satist Cognitum mestichi corporus of Pius the twelfth. You can go read that if you're really bored, and it basically says the exact same thing that to cease to be Catholic does not require you to be condemned in writing by a bishop, or by the pope or by an ecumenical council.

To cease to be Catholic is to dissent from doctrines in any point. Even one dogma, according to Leo, is enough to remove you from the society of the Catholic Church, because all things divinely revealed and appointed must be believed, and you must submit to the rights, decisions, decrees, and disciplines of the Roman See, including excommunications. So literally, the SSPX are in schism by Vatican one's definition, and they lie to themselves and make up things

to say that they're not. They think they can judge the Pope. So with that, that's the part two, or that's the last part of what we wanted to talk about in regard to Vatican one and what am I actually bound by? What is the actual Vatican one doctrine in Rome Catholicism? Is it? What Ibarra thinks. Is it what Lafton thinks? And we see that the documents make it very clear. Is it what the set of a

contest think? Is it what the SSPX thinks. It doesn't matter. I'm all of these groups I'm talking about, All of these groups are wrong. Why because the system is wrong. Because the problem is Vatican won and the

Vatican One is actually an implementation into the Church of European humanism. And if you want to read more on that, you can read Saint Justin Popovitch's book Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ, where he has multiple chapters demonstrating, proving, arguing how it is the case that the papacy is not a protector of tradition, it is the essence of autonomous humanism in the Church. Now we want to come to the real meat of this here, and the point of

today. Tonight's dream was to do a run through in terms of what we saw yesterday and what we see now in Vatican and Vatican two, excuse me, Vatican one regarding the what exactly the teaching was right. So let's let's remind ourselves in the abridged statement here of what the claim was. You guys, can see that right right, For no one can be in doubt.

Indeed, that it was known in every age that the Most Holy blessed Peter Prince and had the apostles, pillar of faith and foundation of the church, receie the keys of the kingdon from the Lord the Savior, redeming human race, and that to this day he forever lives and presides and exercise the judgment, and his successors, the bishops of the Roman see which he found in consecrated with his blood. Therefore, so the next argument is premised on two.

Whoever succeeds to that chair is the head whole church and is the rock. Right, That's the next link in this chain. Now, what they did there was take a section of Ephesus and one of the statements by one of the priests at Ephesus, the Legate, and then they took a section out of something that Pope Saint Leo said, and they creatively pasted the two together. Not to imply that Rome has honor or that Rome was first in the seas. No, no, no, because no one disagrees with that.

This was creatively pasted together to give the impression that in the councils of Ephesus and Chalcidon. It was the universally known truth that the doctrines of Vatican One are the case. That's what this is implying, because it goes on to link this chain one, two, three, four of argumentation to the prior argumentation. So it's just sort of here's a quote from Ephesis and here's a quote from Leo. Let me stream them together, and look, here

we begin. We can read the Vatican one position here. Now, wait a minute. If Vatican one's view is the case in every age, that's what this is saying, and that Peter is the head of the church and this is known in all these ages, he's the rock et cetera, then we would expect to see that attitude consistent in the councils. Now, again, the point is not to debate, because I have to repeat that.

I'm apologize to the guys that are listening where I have to repeat this stuff because for the slow boys out of there, we gotta repeat it again because they won't don't listen, and they will say. The first thing they're going to say is Kenji councils aren't infamible. Did I say the canons the councils are infallible. No, did not make that argument. The argument is that the canons reflect the mind of the Church in each of these centuries, and

so the canons not just the dogmatic decrees of the councils. The canons are also important because those canons tell us the mindset of the Church on a host of issues in the church. And thus, because this document is arguing that the Vatican One mindset, attitude, and position was always known in the Church in every age, that's the line of argumentation it's making there. We should expect to see that when the Church expresses its mind collectively in ecumenical councils.

Do we see that? I'm not saying, I'm not asking do we see a place of canonical privilege and honor for the Roman Sea? That's not what I said. Do we see the Vatican One view in every ecumenical council? Because that's what that says we should that's the expectation. They have the burden a proof because of what they claim that that's the expectation in every age. Do we have that? Do we see that? Absolutely not? Every council has multiple canons which do not support that view, and in fact, directly

contradict that view. So has nothing to do with whether the canons are infallible. The canons simply show and demonstrate the mindset of the Church in each of these centuries, the Ecumenical Council's Canons, that essentially the entire Church in every one of these periods enacts things that contradict and go against the Vatican one. Do you do you understand Roman Catholics. I'm making this really clear as clear

as I can. And if you if you come at me and say that the canons aren't infallible, I'm just gonna block you because I don't know how many times I have to explain this. That's not the argument. The burden of proof was on you guys to demonstrate these hefty, hefty claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs and evidence. So then why is it in each council, in these canons that we're about to read all the way through. We're

gonna read them. Okay, strap yourselves in, because if we just have to do this, because these people are so lazy, most of them, they're never going to do this, So we're going to do it. You want to be lazy we'll read them for you. Why are we seeing canons in each of these councils reflecting the mind of the Church at that time, directly contrary, contradicting, and making absolutely no sense with the claim that this

is the case in all of these ages. And as we're going to see in a moment, many Roman Catholic theologians and scholars at the time of Vatican One, before and after we're well aware of this. So how do they deal with that? Well, as you're going to see from ludwigats, it is a doctrine that evolves and develops exactly Now, Wait a minute, Wait a minute, how does doctrinal development get us to the outlandish extreme claims of

Vatican One? When Vatican One says no one can be indeed being doubt that in every age these views of Vatican One were known to be the case. Again, logic, realman Catholics, are you familiar with this? These are mutually exclusive claims. It cannot be the case at the same time that it was universally known in every age that the Vatican One attitude and views are what they are. But it's also something that was unclear and developed on the basis

of a lot of implications. I think that's the word that ought uses, which we'll look at here in a minute. It's phrasing like that, right, okay, So those are mutually exclusive claims. And this is for so I said, while you listen to a borrow. He says, oh, well, the doctrine of icons is a development that wasn't in the early Church. You know, the principle of iconography is in the early Church. It is not a development, And in fact, the Seventh Council argues that it

was always the truth that the Church had forms of iconography. So he's confusing clarifying doctrines, which is the Apostolic faith with it, which is full, complete and entire handed down. So evolution, we don't need new doctrines. We don't need made up things. The faith is whole and complete, given by the Apostles. Is that not obvious? Of course it is. I mean, when the Church condemns an Astorianism, is it making up new doctrines.

No, it's just clarifying what was already handed down that the New Testament writers and the Apostles and their successors don't teach the Nestorianism. It's not a new evolving doctrine. But this is the nonsense that these people have to go to to prove papal supremacy. Now, the irony is that the concer it is supposedly who wanted to defend Ultramontanism and the strong you know, papal claims about it caan one. We're utilizing the very idea of development that the liberals

and modernists would flip on their head. They would be like, what it meant? You guys can use doctrinal development, why can't we modernists and liberals use it? I have some of the books of the late eighteen hundreds early nineteen hundreds Roman Catholic modernists, and their argument is that, so if doctrine

develops, then why can't it develop in the liberal way? And it doesn't work to do the circular argument that well, the papacy developed so that it could condemn the doctrine of development, like Pacendi and Lamentabiley and Murrarii vass. Wait a minute, So doctrine develops and that's where we get the papacy. But the papacy condemns the idea of doctrinal development in Maurrai Voss, Lamentabiley son and Pachndi Dominici grazes. What. By the way, if you would hit

like and share, be sure and use the stream labs link. I forgot to put it in this show, but you can leave a super chat via the soup the stream labs link, so as you see there Jethro put that. Thank you very much, jeth Throw He's always good, as well as our awesome mods there to include that link if you want to ask you a question. Uh so we'll get to those in a second. But now again the refresher, because a lot of people may not even watch yesterday's stream.

They may just see this one who knows. But this is what is the burden of proof. Now we're going to go to the canons. So let's go to specifically the canons in each council, which pose a problem for this hefty claim, this hefty burden which they have taken upon themselves by saying that this was true in every age, in every case, and we always knew this was so, and everybody knew it. But by the way, the Pope just didn't use this power that was there latent, which could have made

a lot of things really easy. Because everybody believed it and knew it. But you know, Leo submits his letter to Ephesus to be examined for five days to see if it matches up to Saint Cyril. But Ibara, who plagiarized and said that this was ex Cathedra and then reversed his position and deleted his stuff calling it ex Cathedra, was super quiet about that. Oops. And you wonder why he kind of faded into oblivion and won't talk to Ubi.

It is because Ubi humiliated him so many times, and that's why they won't debate Ubi. So they do the same thing where they scream as they stab you. They he cries out. The scamurai cries out as he stabs you, and you know, as he's in pain stabbing you. Yes, and I'm saying Loten with his samurai katana sword performance art or, I don't know what he's doing. Uh, he is the scamurai. That was a great name for him. So Nicea Canon four it is by all means desirable.

So this is of course the first Ecumenical Council, and the canons of Nicea are very important for just showing that the attitude obviously at the first Secumentical council certainly does not match up to Vatican one's claims. And remember, remember what's the contradictory claim here? It is that I lost my Vatican one thing.

Where do you go? People knew this in every age and it was always the case, right, remember that canon, for it is by all means desirable that a bishop should be appointed by the bishops of the province. Uh oh, But if this is difficult because of some pressing necessity on the length of the journey involved, let at least three bishops come together and perform the ordination. Where does this say anything about the pope affirming and confirming all

the bishops in the world. Did you know? That's the Roman calou got right? In the second millennium that becomes the norm. So wait a minute, So it's not necessary. So nobody saw fit to mention a fundamental Second Millennium principle for Romantholicism in the midst of the first most important ecomenical council, which was called by the emperor and not by the pope. All the ecomitical councils are called by emperors, not by popes, which itself is a testament

to the fact that they did not have the Vatican One mindset. But each in the province, the right of the confirming and proceedings belongs to the metropolitan bishop in each province. Does it say, with the affirmation of the Bishop of Rome. No, did you realize? Do you realize that in the Orthodox Church it still operates this way. The Moscow patriarch it signs off on who's ordained in his jurisdiction. That's what Canon for is saying, still operating

in this way. The Roman Catholic Church innovated and does not do it this way. Bishops must be elected by as the Seraphim in the discord wrote a great note. The notes here are from our great apologist Seraphim. Bishops must be elected by other bishops of the region. No pope is involved. This is contrary the contary contemporary Romeancholic practice. Because put be responsible the election of

every bishop in the world. He signs it off. Now, I'm sure most of you have heard of Canon six, if you've heard of anything to do with this stuff. Of course, it is clearly the case that it is affirming. That is, the custom does not mention divine law. It mentions the custom of Egypt, Libya, and Pantapolis to be maintained according to which the Bishop of Alexandria has authority over these places. In a similar custom it exists with reference to the Bishop of Rome. Do you see that?

That is comparing the limited jurisdiction of Rome to the limited jurisdiction of Alexandria. Now, what's the Roman Catholic retort to this? Can you guess? Well, they're just assuming that he has the universal premacy. They just don't even see fit to mention it. What was Canon four? Canon four contradicted universal supremacy. So the Roman Catholic argument that Canon six presupposes universal supremacy is completely

destroyed by Canon four because clearly it does not affirm universal supremacy. The jurisdiction of each region is who is involved in the ordination of bishops in that region, and following with that tradition of limited jurisdiction. The traditions the customs, not divine law. The customs refer to the comparison of jurisdictions between Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. Seraphim says, a bishop has jurisdiction over territory.

The defining territories are a custom of the Church. The metropolitan the region must consent to the ordination. Nothing to do with Roman supremacy. Again, Roman Catholics just ignore Canon for and act like this exists in a vacuum, and then just assume and say it presupposes the universal supremacy. And then, by the way of barus On this said, but it also is a thing that develops, like he says, like icons developed. Wait a minute, Eric,

is it something that's known and presupposed in Canon six? That's what you said, But then you said it's a thing that evolves. Those are mutually exclusive claims. Let's go to the next ecumenical council Constpt Number one, which, as I pointed out many times, we all know this. Hapile admits that this council was convened out of community with Rome. Saint Melidius, who

presided at the council, was out of community with Rome. The council, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, defines, not pointless doctrines, the doctrine of the Trinity. Do you understand how important constptth number one is to the church. It is the council that confirms and ratifies Cappadocian theology of the

Trinity. Which also refutes Rome in terms of philioquay, because the cap Adotionans don't teach a philioquay, as Sashinski says, and that means that the ratification of Cappadocian theology at Constantinople One also precludes philioque because the council's creed, I believe in One God of the Father Almighty is the doctrine of the monarchia of the Father, which means that the monarchia of the Father as the sole cause is not shared by the son. That's what the Cappadocians say, the Father

is the sole cause. If the Father is the soul cause, the son is not also a soul cause. And so therefore Constantinople One in amazing providential irony. Here the council that confirms the doctrine of the Trinity basically for the next thousand years is not debated again significantly until you could say the eight hundreds

with Saint Photius, but really the Middle Ages with Lions in Florence. The council that dogmatizes the church's trinitarian theology, which is not Augustinian, it's Cappadocian, is called out of community with the Rome occurs out of community with Rome, closes out of commune with the realm. The saint who presides over it dies out of community with Rome, and Rome later says, we affirm this council and we accept Saint Melidios of Antioch as a saint. That is a

contradiction. That is a contradiction. They're always asking for a contradiction. There you go, there's one. Hefela admits, that's the case, the great Roman Catholic historian. Now let's look at the canons here, because they're interesting, and remember that most of the time, each ecumenical council will say,

we are holding this council in unison with the previous council or councils. So they will usually in the first canon refer back to the previous ecumenical councils and canons, in many cases reaffirming what was said before, which means that progressively, as the councils stack up, they are also adding on to their regiment of argumentation the arguments made in the previous councils. So, in other words, we agree with all those restating all the previous anti Vatican One canons.

That's the point I'm trying to make here. So not only is it, oh, the church in this century at this council believes this. We also affirm the canons in the previous councils, and those are the ones that also don't fit with Vatican one that doubles triples. The argument is the point costs

out of the Uple three eighty one. The bishops are not to go beyond their diocese to churches lying outside of their balands to bring confusion to the churches, but let the of Alexandria according to the Canons alone and administered his affairs the privileges of Antioch which are mentioned the Canons and Nicia to be preserved.

Now, remember Rome is not out this council. Rome is not here, So you wonder why, well, maybe didn't mention Rome because they knew Rome could do whatever we wanted to Dude, this council is not had in communion with Rome. So this mentions clearly again limitations of jurisdictions, which is exactly the principle of Canon's four and six of Nicia, not just Canon six. Canon four and six, by the way, to Canon six mentioned anything to

do with Peter, anything to do with extraordinary claims for Rome. No does this canon exclude any of the seas. Remember what was the claim in every age? No one can doubt in every age that everybody knew and had this view. Okay, what about so far? Two ecumenical councils, and the second one is the one that dogmatized the trinity. Dude. So it goes on to say that the providence the provinces are limited, and it says note

bishops are to stay within their own jurisdictions. According to Seraphim's note, less to be confusion amongst the laity the Reformation reaffirmation of the different regions of their hierarchy. As we said from Nicea, there's no special mention of Rome being exempted from this, which is contrary Vatican one. And that's because this council was had out of commune with Rome. Now Canon three is interesting because the council saw fit and believe that they had the power and the authority to enact

ay canon raising Constantinople to equal status with Old Rome. Old Rome is the see of Rome, Peter C. The doubly apostol Petrian Pauline C. It's not just Peter in our view, and so they said, let's make can Constantinople also having the prerogatives of honor next after Rome. Constantinoples is said to be new Rome here, which relates to the dispute over Canon twenty eight in Chalcedon. But notice that the attitude is a premissy in role of honor accorded

by the council. Okay, prerogative of honor, not unilateral authority incomparable too. Next to Rome, nobody denies that Old Rome is listed first, But again, the burden of proof was not. Is Rome listed first? Right, that's the Roman Catholic slide of hand. Look, Rome's listed first. Vatican one No, no, no, Vatican One's burden of proof was way heavier than that. Dude. It's the claims of Vatican one in the councils,

which we know that's not there. That's the point. But keep in mind Canon three there, because what's going to happen at Chalcedon is that in the Roman Catholics will take this out of context and they say, aha, Leo rejects Canon twenty eight of Chalcedon because he believes in Vatican one people supremacy. He has that mindset. No, that's another lie. Or a falsehood, or they're ignorant. Because Leo does not reject Canon twenty eight on the

basis of papal premacy. He rejects it on the basis of it not being consistent with his reading of Canon six. So he thinks that that would displace the customs that gave Alexandria the second position. Leo does not reject Canon twenty eight of Chalcidon because he just thinks, well, I'm the pope and I can do that, and guess what, several centuries later, Rome does accept it. That's the irony is that they do accept constantinople as number two.

And that's because these positions and patriarchates are movable positions, because they're accorded through canons anyway, They're not from God directly, like Dave divine Davine de divina. Their date, their customs de jure their church law. And thus, for example, if a patriarchate apostatizes, they're no longer in the pentarchy or the originally it was three, it was three. Uh patriarchts at nicea right

if one of them apostatizes, there would only be two. Or let's move to Ephesus kenon six if anyone anyway attempt to set aside the in each case made by the Holy Senator to ephesis, the Holy Synod decrease that if they be bishops or clergyman, they shall uh absolutely forfeit their office, and if laymen, they shall be excommunicated. The Holy Synod as accepted by the churches

that commenical has authority even over the faithful. There's no mention here of the canon of the exemption of the Bishop of Rome as someone who could not be excommunicated. Do you understand that if Vatican one is true, the Roman sea is indefectible and you cannot excommunicate a Roman pontiff because Vatican one says councils are not superior to the Pope. The Pope judges and is superior to the councils.

But this canon does not say, well, you can the councils and the synods can excommunicate anybody, but of course not the bit of Rome. Wink wink, right, And what's the Roman count. Oh, they just assumed it. It was argument from silence. Everybody knew it. Everybody knew it. But they're also enacting canon's contrary to it. Okay, whatever,

dude. Canon seven. When these things have been read, the Holy Sinai decreed that is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write or compose a different faith as what is laid down by the Fathers at the Holy Spirit, by the Holy Spirit at Nice. But those who shall dare to compose a different creed. And so this is the addition of the philioque as

professed in terms of the violation of this canon. Right, and this canon is it is correct, basically speaking, even though constant the Niceno constant Apolitan creed eventually also gets accepted. We're not saying that it's always wrong to do this per se, but it becomes wrong after this canon. That's the point, right, So after this canon is enacted, you can't add to the creed right, because they'll say, well, Constantinople, change the creed.

Canon eight. Our brother Bishop Regenus, Beloved of God has fellow Beloved of God. Bishops Zeno and Evagrius, the Province of Cyprus have reported to us an innovation which has been introduced countrary ecclesiastical canons and constitutions which the Holy Apostle, which touched on the liberty of the churches of all, wherefore some injuries affect and require more attention. And so I'm gonna skip down because this is a long one. This deals with Cyprus. Now. The reason Cyprus is

important because at Ephesus Cyprus is accepted as an autocephalist church. Okay, an autocephalist church means that it's not under the jurisdiction of another region that can impose anything upon it. The very idea of an autocephalist church is contrary to the entire Roman Catholic scheme. I'm not talking about uniates and having your own right. That's not what autocephalist does not mean your own right. It's not just

a liturgical practice. It's jurisdictional, jurisdictional and the and notice there's nothing about well, it's jurisdictional, it's autocephalus except at the bishop of see every time it's just well, but it's assumed that the pope has the authority over the autocephalist churches. Yeah, nobody talks about that, but it's assumed, you see. And what do they appeal to do they say the autocephalist churches are autocephalis because the pope allows them to be autocephalists. That would be the Batican

One view. That's how the Roman Catholics approach Unionism and the Byzantine Rite. No, it says, according to the canons, the ancient canons, the customs, the traditions, there's no mention of Rome in regards to this authority. When the Church enacted this autocephaly, the canon reaffirms the importance of succession of bishops and their authority over their own jurisdictions, again stressing the decentralized nature of the Church, the nodality of the church, the collegiality the church.

There's no special mention of Rome having authority over any of the autocephalist jurisdictions. And which of these two churches, Orthodox or Roman Catholic continues this clear tradition in Ephesus and later councils of autocephaly. Can you guess which one? It's not their only accountatur So when we come to Chalcedon Canon one, we have a judge it right, the canons the Holy Fathers made in the previous canons

and sinatas until now should remain in force. So notice that it's also affirming these previous councils and canons which enacted Canon's contrary to the Vatican One idea and mindset. So Chalcedon is not a council just from the outset affirming the Vatican One view. The point here is that the mindset of the Church is collegial and sonodl and Roman Catholics have to then go back to Chalcedon and read into it the Vatican One view, and all they do is pick the little quotes

about universal archbishop. That's Vatican one. Did you know that other patriarchates referred to themselves as also universal patriarch. Oh wait, that's the title of the ecumenical patriarch. So if the argument is that the title alone means Vatican one, then Bartholomew is a pope by the title. I mean, this is literally the level of the arguments that they use. Peter has spoken through Leo. Yeah, but if you read Denny, he gives you dozens of quotes

where the church fathers say that Peter speaks in all the bishops. So Peter speaking through Leo just simply means that's the patrin see. Yeah, of course, but Peter also spoke through the other bishops, like at Antioch when they taught truth and when Rome teaches truth. Peter speaks through Rome. But the attitude even at Constantinople II, just like at Chalcedon, is to investigate the

letter of the pope that arrives for five days. When Leo's comes, they spend five days to see if it aligns with who who's the father of Calcildon. Oh you thought it was Leo? No, no, it's Cyril. The council spends five days to check Leo's tone to see if it matches up with Cyril's ephesis theology. That is not the attitude of Vatican One. That

is not the attitude of the pope judges and ratifies the council. That is the reverse view that the council judges and ratifies and decides if the pope's teaching is Orthodox. Two different views. You see that, and we know what the Vatican One view says, right? Do are we clear on this? The pope is not below the council. No council is above a pope.

Nope, no council can tell the pope what to do. So first off, with that in mind, remember, Calcedon reaffirms the previous canons of the previous councils that are Contrary to Vatican One's mindset, Canon five concerning bishops of clergymen who go about from city to city is the creed that the canons enacts about the Holy Fathers still remain in force. The previous canon, the ones that we've read about limited jurisdictions. Where is there anything about except for the

universal supremacy and jurisdiction of Rome, which everyone of course knows about. Again, they just assumed it. If they knew it and assumed it, then why would they be enacting canons in the previous Council's contrary to it? And number two, If they knew it and assumed it, then it can't be something that evolves from being unclear. They knew it and they assumed it. It's an argument from silence, but they didn't know and assume it because the

doctrine that devolves to become clear eighteen hundred years later. So remember the foundation doctrine of the church and the Roman Catholic system is not defined until eighteen hundred years later. Wouldn't that be the first thing defined? This is ridiculous. Why is there nothing to do with Peter and the Pope in the creed? Wouldn't that be in the creed. How does John Damascus, who's a doctor in the Roman Catholic Church, write an entire systematic theology about what the faith

is with nothing to do with Peter, nothing to do with Rome. Concern your bishops or clergyman. So that was the limitation of Juris Kenonine. If any clergyman has a matter against another clergyman, he will not forsake his bishopmen run to the secular course. Him may lay his matter before his bishop, or let the matter be submitted to a person whom both parties may, with the bitcious consent select. If he has a complaint against another bishop, let

it be decided in the sin out of the province. And if a bishop or clergyman has a different synod, have a difference with the metropolitan, he may have recourse to the exarc of the dioce. So this is getting into that model of appeal appleate structure. Appealing apple it matters live within local jurisdictions, working the way up the hierarchy until they reach the throne of Constantinople.

Right now, in the Roman districts you have the Sartikan canons right which do allow for appleate structure to Rome as well, But none of that proves Vatican one because the Sardikan canons actually contradict the claims of Vatican One. They do not claim that the privilege of the applet structure has anything to do with divine law or the prerogatives and principles of Christ. To Peter, it's the appeal of privilege and custom right de jurre, not devino. And you can read

Denny's chapter on Sartica on that if you want to. UBI has also dealt with all these, by the way, in more depth. But people want to go into the sarctica, which is just a local council anyway. If you think people want to go into those, you can go and look at ubi's material more in depth on that stuff. Canon ten, it shall not be lawful for a clergyman at the same time enrolled in the churches of two cities, that is, in one church which is first ordained, another which

it is greater and removed a lust of empty honor. Those who do shows shall be honored, should be returned to their own church in which they originally ordained, and there will only be there they only shall they administer. Let's just talking about just not going crazy and hopping jurisdictions. After this decree of the Ecumenical Synod, any who shall dare to do these things will be degraded from his rank. Now this is more enforcement of jurisdictional boundaries. There is

no mention again of any special exemption for Rome Canon twelve. It has come to our knowledge to a certain person's contraur The laws of Church, having recourse of the secular power again run to other situations. And then it says the cities which have already been honored by means of imperial letters with the name of the metropolis, and the bishops in charge of them shall take the bare title,

all metropolis rights being preserved to the true metropolis. In other words, no bishop is allowed to set up two metropolitans in one province, and any bishops who does so loses his rank. There is no exemption for the pope. And it might be added that in the Roman Catholic world there are three patriarchs of Antioch. Did you know? This direct violation of Canon twelve.

So all the more irony given the fact that they talk about the problems in the Orthodox ecclesial model, when they literally have three Patriarchs of Antioch violation of that canon. Wherefore, it has come to our attention that certain provinces canonical synods of bishops are not held an this account. In the eclesiastical matters which need reformation are neglected. Therefore, according to the canons the Holy Fathers.

Now, wouldn't it be the case, by the way, that if the Vatican One mindset was the case, wouldn't they just consistently say and use the language and the praxis of the Vatican One Church or the Roman Catholic system. I mean, wouldn't they just appeal to the Pope. Wouldn't they just say consistently, however, meet these matters could easily be resolved by an appeal to

Rome. Now remember, Roman Catholics make the argument that Clement in his letters is literally just deciding, you know, latterly the problems in the church. So they argue that the Vatican One view is in Clement of Rome because he's unilaterally just solving problems throughout the church everywhere, right hundreds of miles away.

But then Chalcedon clearly is not using that mindset. And so again notice the contradictory claims that On the one hand, it was always the case Clement is unilaterally just ex cathedral, you know, announcing what is the he's solving. He's is cathedral, but he's unilaterally solving problems in the church across the empire.

That's Vatican one proof got it. But then because there's all these canons, well, the church didn't have a clear idea for many centuries what the real role where the Bishop Barome was and Bishop barn could have all of these powers and not use them. What I'm not joking, that's literally what he says, and that's literally why this whole religion devolves into papal lawyering. It's just let me prove to you in these mountains of documents, something that pulled

I can pull out that says something close to Vatican One. I can't. But they read into the quotes about premiacy of honor, canonical privileges, vat. It can want if you running where I keep doing this because I have to have this light on the papers so I can read, and this light is super bright. That's why. That's that's why I keep doing this. Oh where my sunnglasses so I can't so I can refute the herrestes, I used to do it like that the Holy Synod decrease. Every bishopher is providence.

So this is talking about sonodal matters. And uh it says Seraph's note summarizes bishops of each individual metropolis is in charge of their own matters. This would have been the perfect time to mention the final decision Court of Rome, which Ibara claims everybody knew, right. Why isn't that Why wouldn't Calcedon have

been the greatest place to make all of these points? I mean they literally remember Abara what a year or two ago, was arguing two years ago that Leo's Tome is ex cathedral, which he then pulled down all of his comments saying that and never said he was wrong, because those people cannot admit that they were wrong. And that's the chief problem that they have. For inasmuch as the certain of the Metropolitans that we have heard neglect the flocks committed to

them. This is Kennon twenty five of Calcdon. They delayed the ordination of bishops in the police, and I decided that the ordination of bishops shall take place within three months. This is again just about the ordination of bishops. It talks about eclesiastical penalties. Note, the election of bishops is up to the Metropolitans. There's no mention of the Bishop of Rome signing off on all every bishop in the world being affirmed by the vision of Rome. And there

is no exemption of Rome from ecclesiastical penalties. Right now, again, remember Vatican one, no man judges the first See. A council cannot depose a pope. The Pope is the head of the church. He judges and ratifies councils. Is there any mention of well Rome is exempted from any and all ecclesiastical penalties. That's the view of Vatican One. The Holy See cannot defect.

The Holy See cannot teach error, indefectible, infallible. Does it sound like they think that about Rome Canon twenty eight From all things that decisions the Holy fathers acknowledging the canon, the canons which have just been read at the one hundred and fifty Bishops Beloved of God at Constantinople and New Rome in per

Theodosias, the church is new Rome. This is, of course the disputed canon we've already mentioned in this and of course Roman Catholics always claim, well, this is the canon that Leo rejects this canon because he knows that he's the pope. No, that is not why Leo rejects the canon. He rejects this canon because he disagrees with the ordering given in Canon six of Nicia.

But setting that aside, both Constantinople one and Chalcedon saw a fit because this is this This is hearkening back to Constantinople Canon three, right, So they are looking back to Constantinople Canon three, which says that Constantinople is new Rome. Canon twenty eight of Calcadon is reaffirming that canon of Constantinople one, saying that Constantinople is second. It has the role of honor and equal privileges.

So again privileges law language, not divine right privileges, canonical privileges. So the claim was privileges because it was and well we'll read Serphum's note here. Old Rome had privileges because it was the royal city, and there's no mention of a particular terrorism of infallibility for Peter. Obviously, because Antioch is also the successor of Peter, these equal privileges were also given to Count Constantinople in this canon because it is the new city of the Imperium. There's no

mention of Peter or any divine grace given to the church in Rome. The Archbishop of Constantinople is a granted the special authority toward tain bishops in certain diocees outside of his own. This would have been the perfect place to mention despite the added to progatives granted to Constantinople. So remember their attitude is constant that Chalcedon believes in Vatican One, they used to say, because Leo's tome is

ex cathedral. Oh but Chalcedon also enacted a canon contradicting Vatican one type mindset as well, so that alone is an contradiction they have. There's no way they believed in papal supremacy and infallibility at the same time as enacting a Canon twenty eight that you guys say is contrary to papal supremacy. Let me just think how stupid this is. Right, But regardless, the rejection of the canon by Leo was not because of anything to do with papacy. It had

to do with him complaining that it was unfair to Constantinople. One, excuse me to Canon six of Nicia Canon six and Nicia right, which said that the ordering is Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and so it's not fair to Alexandria and Antioch to move Constantinople to number two. That was Leo's argument, not I'm the pope and I don't like the idea of Constantinople being next to

me and in honor and authority and privilege. And the canon itself shows that that they did not believe in papal supremacy according to the Vatican One mindset. Next we come to Trollo, and Trollo, of course is Quinisex Council, and it is later affirmed by the Seventh Ecumenical Council and Pope Adrian. So by the way, both Pope Hadrian it's reaffirmed, and and I see it

too. And then later popes say, no, wait a minute, we don't accept everything that's in Trollo. And that's admitted by many Roman Catholic historians at theologians. Some will dispute that, right, there's oh, we never accepted Trollo never. But the point here is that there are so many things in the in Trollo quintessex, which for Orthodox are part of the Seventh Council

and thus ecumenical. It's a gigantic council. There are so many things in it that are contrary to papal supremacy and universal jurisdiction that it's quite obvious why they eventually said, no, no, we can't accept them, right, get that council out of here. But at one time they did, and there are even Roman Catholic theologian scholars and historians who admit that Rome reversed its

view of this one. Now to the Orthodox, that's our view. Of course, they reversed because they innovated and changed, and they know that what's expressed in Trilo Quintisex, and as Trillo is affirmed at Nicea too, expresses the Orthodox ecclesiology, the Orthodox view of the sacraments, married clergy, all of these things that are just obvious and still maintaining the Orthodox Church. Trillo Quinisex is one of the best proofs of all of these things that we're saying.

And Trillo, in its first canon reaffirms all of these previous canons in these previous councils, and thus states that they are enacting things in accord with them, and expands and elucidates even further the limitations of jurisdictions. You see, in other words, there's there's so many canons that deal with there are so many canons so explicitly contrary to the Vatican One mindset. That is precisely why eventually as papalism evolves into papalism, that's one thing we agree with many

Roman Catholics. Soy, yes, oh, yes, we agree papalism is an evolving doctrine. Absolutely. Yeah, that's the really, really the only way you guys can argue for that, which, by the way, is self refuting. The idea that doctrines evolve is self refuting. They can't make a distinction between clarification and evolving. So, now, as you said,

Pope Adrian Seventh Council reaffirms these canons. Canon one. Here you'll notice it is the real information of the previous canons, which were all full of limitations of jurisdiction, nothing to do about exemptions for Rome or anything like that. This is kind of long, so I'm not going to read all of the statements of what they're reaffirming, But if you want to. You can just pull up Trollo Quintesssex's council and you'll we'll look down here at Seraphim's note.

According to this canon one of Trollo, the heretics were defeated by whatever Rome says, No, by theous unanimous acknowledgment of the faithful that was revealed to the Church, that was synotically anathematized. Did they just ask Rome? Was it just we appealed to the Roman See and whatever they anathematized was anathema? That would be the Vatican One attitude. No, none of that. All

of the fathers were God bearing who agreed on these teachings. The city of constantin Noble is called God Preserved. The Church states that the faith, the writings, and the teacher of the Church shall stand firm and remain unsolid until the end of the world. Notice that nothing in here is like the Vatican One statements about how the Roman Sea preserves the Church until the end of the

world. So this is again contrary to the attitude and dogma of Vatican One that the foundation stone of the Church is the Roman Sea, which preserves the Church and remains in her keeping her in unity and whatnot until the end of the world. It says there is no canon of the Church that had more opportunity to profess the ultramontanous position currently espoused by Rome than this one. This would have been the place to do it. Yet there's nothing like that here,

totally absent. Interestingly enough, the Pope has declared in a story as a heretic before the council what's called to judge it, and yet that is not mentioned. That's we're just referring back to a previous thing. Now my life goes out Canon two of Trolo, it has seemed good to the Holy Council eighty five canons received and ratify the Holy Blessed Fathers before us the Holy Glorious Apostles, and it mentions the previous secondmentical councils. We're going to scroll

down. Note that this reaffirms the teaching of the Fathers as a whole, being dogmatic. A large number of synods and Church fathers are listed as being accepted by the synod as authorities. However, there's no mention of Rome as the foundation stone of the Church or any of the Vatican Want teachings or having any special authority over the church or as being the reasons why these canons and holy teachers are accepted. There's no exemption for the Pope of Rome or for

his not being punished for transgressions or for heresies. In fact, at the next council, Pope Honorius will be condemned, and that condemnation will be reaffirmed of the Seventh Council and will be reaffirmed in the sonod Kon of Orthodoxy, which is a product of the Seventh Council. So when Roman Catholics try to say that the sixth Council didn't actually condemn Honorious, totally false. Total BS Canon six is the declared Apostolic canons that of those who are advance the clergy

that are unmarried, only lectures and cannoners are able to marry. Also, I'll maintain this to determine that henceforth it is not lawful for any subdeacon. Now, this is the one that just simply says it explicitly permits married men to become priests. And that's because East and West had married priests. And of course you can imagine why Rome simply decides this is no longer the case.

So Rome once again innovates, just like they get rid of Pato communion, they innovate, which again Pato communion was practiced in the East and the West. And then Rome says, no, We're not gonna do that anymore, because Rome innovates canonate. Since we desire that in the in every point which is teaching has been to decree by healthy fathers, we hear renew the cannon which orders the synods of the bishops of East Province be held every year,

in which the Bishop of the Metropolis shallot deem best. But since on account of these incursions of barbarians certain other incidental causes, those who present with the churches cannot hold sinots twice a year, it is right by all means that once a year, on account of the ecclesiastic questions which are likely to arise the Senate of the aren't mentioned for sid bishops should be holding in every

province between eastern October. This is all snodal, Okay. There's no mention of seeking Rome to answer and solve everybody's universal questions in the Church, which is the attitude of Vatican One, which is the attitude of the post first Millennium evolving Roman Church as it evolves into that, right, that would have been another place for this to all be mentioned. Yet nothing like that here.

Now, remember this is not just some random council. This is affirmed in the Seventh Council, and the Seventh Council for the Orthodox produces doctrines and theology about iconography that Rome does not hold because it says, we don't do the Lamb, we don't do icons of the Father. Yes, some Orthodox churches violate this, but there's a whole theology of the Seventh Council that Rome

does not adhere to. Two, which is the theology of Saint Theodore the Studite in Saint John Damascus, which is an explicit crystall logical iconographic theology. Rome gives verbal credence to the Seventh that Chemical Council, but it does not hold to the canons and the sonoticon of the Seventh Council, because if it did, they wouldn't have the Sistine Chapel. Okay, that's contrary to the

Seventh Council, all right. So, and by the way, by extension, that the entire Renaissance art tradition would not be in the churches because it's contrary to the Seventh a Chemical Council. And if you doubt me on that, read Ospensky and Lasky's book Theology the Icon Volume two, because there's entire chapters going through how the philosophy and theology of iconography from the Seventh Council is based on what will be Palamite theology. It's the same essence synergy doctrine.

The energy's doctrine is crucial to the argmentation of John Damascus and Saint Theodore, who are the theologians of the Seventh Council on icons. That theology of essen synergy in terms of iconography is repeated by Palamite theology because the halo above the

saints. Did you know icons teach theology? Did you know that in the Middle Ages, the Byzantine theologians would appeal to iconographic theology because icons are like visible pictures of the Bible, they're written, So appealing to canonical icons is like an appeal to the Bible. And the very idea of canonical and non canonical icons is foreign to the Roman Catholic Church. They don't even know what that is because they don't hold to the Seventh Council. Only in name.

That's the point. And again another way to show they don't hold this same council and they only hold to it in name, is that they don't accept Trolo because Trollo is accepted at seven the seventh Council. So anyway, Mary Clergy, Pedro, communion, all of these things are the norm. Roman innovates. The dispenses with all that, we're going to skip down again, So Kenon nineteen. Priests are meant to teach according to the tradition of the

universal teaching of the Fathers. There's no mention about Rome being the pillar and hinge of Orthodoxy in the Settler of all matters. Again, if the Vatican One view were the case, then the Church in the first millennium should have just operated on the principle of how the church, and the second millennium that's the papal Latin Church in the West operates. But they don't. The Church fathers wouldn't have been composing gigantic theological treatises. They would have just been footnoting

the popes. And that's why Dollinger was correct when he said that if Vatican One passes Roman Catholic theology from the time after Vatican One will be nothing but footnotes about debating Roman the Roman papacy. That's it. It will all be papal lawyering. That's what Dollinger said, and that's exactly what it is. What does Abora do, nothing but papal lawyer, and it's all he debates for him the whole and that because that is the religion. The religion is

just the pope. It is just arguing about to what degree and what documents and what boring ass papers from the dude in Rome I have to accept or I can reject. It's another version of sola scriptura. It's just more sophisticated with a bunch of more boring papers. At least solo scriptura, they're just

reading the Bible, which is actually interesting. But in the Roman Catholic system, it's thousands of more boring ass pages from the popes and from all of these documents that I have to weighe through as a faithful Roman Catholic, which nobody can do. That's the point. It's an exercise of utility to actually try to be a faithful Catholic theologian. Mainly because of the Vatican Two and where it goes and so Vatican one is not a traditional thing in contrast to

Vatican two. Vatican one is a humanist exercise just as much as Vatican two is the logical implication and next phase process of the humanism of Vatican one. That's the right position, that's the act, that's actually what's going on. But people like classical theist, Oh, he thinks Vatican one is traditional. Vatican two may be liberal. I don't know what is Viovatican two is. But you know, whatever he thinks of Vatican two, right, he's making

these arguments that papal supremacy is inherently traditional. No, it's actually inherently liberal. That's the point, because it's backed up by the evolution of doctrine, which is itself a liberal principle. Canon twenty. It is not lawful for a bishop to teach publicly in any city that does not belong to him, except for the exception of the Church of Rome, who teaches the entire church. He's the universal pastor, the infallible teacher of all Christians. No,

nothing like that here. Now, remember romany Catholics, they just hand way this whole council, even though it's accepted of the Southern Council, and even though Adrian accepted it, they just handled it ken In twenty one, there's no exemptions made for the punishment of the Bishop Rome to be exempted from the canonical penalties and privileges. Now, remember concept of noble six excommunicates and condemns

Pope honorias. Now Roman Catholics have zillions of mental gymnastics to tell you why he's not really condemned and he's not really a heretic, blah blah blah blah blah. But if we just set all of those endless, pointless, dumb arguments aside, listen to the point that I'm making. Whether you think he was or wasn't, the mere fact that the council believes that they have the authority to excommunicate and declare the Pope to be a heretic means that they did

not believe in the infallibility and indefectibility of the Roman see. So that's the very council that the will misinterpret the Letter of Agatho to try to be Vatican one letter. Pope Agosto is Vatican one view. Hahah. You mean the very council that condemns a pope as a heretic. That's councils above popes. Dude, Vatican One says the opposite popes are above councils. I'm not interested in disputing whether. It doesn't even matter for the sake of the argument whether

Honoius was or was not a heretic. The argument is that the attitude of the council is not Vatican One, and the locus of the burden of proof was on the Roman Catholic to prove that in every age it was known and held no one, no man can be in doubt in every age the petrine Vatican One views are the case. So here we are all the way up into very nuanced canon law and theology. We even have lists of church fathers to be appealed to, and we don't have anything about the exemptions of Rome.

We don't have anything about know these canons apply to everybody except the Bishop of Rome, of course. And they will argue, yeah, because it was all just presupposed and known. If it was presupposed unknown, the same people wouldn't be enacting canons where you argue it was not presupposed and known yet it was unclear, but it was also presupposed to know again mutually exclusive claims. Canon twenty five mentions problems relating to provincial synods. Where is the appeal

to Rome as the final arbiter. Canon thirty two Holy Fathers at Carthage about in the mixing of the water and the wine. This canon is about the water and the wine. The Eucharus reinforces teating of the church mist for the sacrament in the Maner handed down by the Fathers, bread and water mixed with wine, bread mixed with wine and water, which is supposed to signify by

the way grace and Theosis in our theology. Of course, Rome screws up on Theosis in terms of their theology, and so no wonder why they don't have the correct administration of the Eucharist, and no wonder why they stopped giving children the euchros. Canon thirty six reaffirms Calceinon and reaffirms that Constant and Nobilize equal privileges to Rome Again. Canon twenty eight they say, is itself anti

papal supremacy, and yet this is reaffirmed. I mean Canon twenty eight of Nicia, which means that Trollo is anti papal supremacy, which means that the Seventh Council is anti papal supremacy because it reaffirms Trollo Canon fifty five City of the Romans. I'm gonna skip down to his summaries. You can go read all these. You can read it right there on the screen. The Council condems a practice that have developed a Roman Church against the apsolt Cans, that

councils have authority over anyone bishop. So again it's a nodality. Canon eighty two has to do with icons that there's no you can't do the lamb. The lamb is canonically forbidden. Of course Roman Catholics do this all the time. They don't care because again demonstrating they don't care about the Seventh Council, because that canon is particularly relevant to the Icon Council. In seven eighty seven, because again Trollo is reaffirmed in Icia two, kneeling is not permitted on

Sunday because the Resurrection. Every Roman Catholic does kneelers can it's two and I see it. Two seventy seven. We have the reaffirmation of the previous councils. The faith is completely and eternally unchangeable. Now notice remember Abara says that iconography is an evolved, developed doctrine that wasn't in the early Church, and

it's ratified and explained in the Seventh Council because it wasn't there before. The very thing the first Canon says is that the tradition of the Church is unchangeable and does not evolve. The very opposite of what Ibarra says. The fullness of the faith was given to the apostles, thus it does not develop or evolve. Now you understand that anybody in the first century had the fullness of the faith, and on the Roman Catholic system, that's not possible because they

did. Did they have Vatican One in the first century? Did they have Vatican One in the fourth century? Oh? Wait, actually the Roman Catholics say yes they did. Oh, but also the no, they didn't because it evolved the confirmation of what was in the action and the bushess must be chosen by bishops. Nothing to do with the Bishop of Rome. And Canon three affirming all the bishop in the world. That's another innovation. Next canon

is ten summary. Another canon explained the bishops are meant to stay in their own jurisdictions without a blessing. The cannon states the permission must be given by the bishoc content novel for a bishops serving another area, not the Bishop of Rome, showing that authority the bishop Roman bishop is limited to the West exactly. Now, remember, we're gonna look at what Roman Catholic theologists today on the basis of the Chi eighty document. What do they say? Oh?

Uh oh, how are we to reconcile that the dogmatic formation of Vatican's universal Vatican One's universalizing claim with the now public admitted historical fact of the regional limitations of the authority the Bishop of Rome in the first millennium. Let's make this bigger. That's just one God's opinion. Yeah, but it's his opinion on the basis of the joint statement of the Chi eighty statement kiati whatever however you say it, sinidality and premacy during the first millenniu of the Church is a

common understanding of the unity of the Church. And the way the argument this guy makes is that the revolutionary statement in this document is that quote, the Bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East. Do you see that Wow. Right, that's paragraph nineteen of the of the papally approved Doctrine, I mean a document on sinidality, the chi eighty document,

a recent document. And even this guy who is trying to explain and give an account of how maybe we could reconcile these things, he says, yes, this is pretty hard to reconcile with. Pastor attornis right, I mean, yeah, exactly. The Chiady document says the Bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East. In other words,

what I'm telling you about the canons is what's admitted here. This Roman Sea approved document is admitting the limitations of the jurisdictions in all these canons that we've been talking about for the last two hours. And this rando Roman Catholic theologian

is saying, hey, how do we reconcile? I mean, how does pastor atturn us Vatican one reconcile with the publicly admitted fact In other words, Vatican one and Papalism are contrary to facts he says, namely paragraph nineteen of the Chiady document, which says the Bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the Tree of the East. And if you think that's heretical to say that, then you've just said that the pope is a heretic because that's a

papally approved ecumenical document. So now the pope has dissented from a doctrine. And what did did I already exit out? Yeah? What what did Leo say? That if you dissent in one doctrine you're no longer Catholic canon? Eleven? The ecumenae ought to be in the episcopal palaces and in the monasteries. And I'm going to summarize that privileges that Rome has are granted to the

pope were historically those also the patriarch Count Santinople in this attitude. The note in the chef set says, among the officials of the Constantopolitan Church, Cadinas is named first as the grand Ecumenical, the grand universal Ecumenus, who says holds his all the faculties of the church and all their returns, and is the dispenser of this matter as well as a patriarch or the church. Now that language is that language, would you conclude that that means papal supremacy?

Of course it doesn't. Nobody believes that it's an example of flowery grand language that all of these people used in this time period. Multiple patriarch hats spoke this way. I mean this literally reads like a quote papal quote mine,

but it's for Constantinople. The point is that it's a perfect example of the language that nobody would believe refers to Vatican one type ideas used by the patriarch Constantinople, who nobody believes has Vatican one powers, except that Bartholomew is starting to think that he does, apparently, But yet that phrase there reads just like a papal quote mine, And so it's an example of how they spoke and use language at this time that does not prove Vatican One, you see.

So anyway, if you want to yourself go through this, here's this at my site. You can just go look up all these canons. They're well known. I mean, these are the very things that the Kiati document talks about as being the reason why Catholic World Report admits doctor Adam Deville that how are we going to reconcile the limitation of jurisdictions in the first thousand years with the claims of Vatican One and the document admits ram did not have canonical

authority over the Church of the East. Okay, then Vatican one is not true. I mean it's not rocket science here because Vatican one literally clearly says that the Church has universal canonical authority in jurisdiction and anybody who wants to challenge that is just a ridiculous person and not worth your time. So with that, I will give you here again. Did I get that I put the link in there or not? I can't remember if I did. So here's the link to the canons, and we will do super jets. I gotta

go back and make sure I see everybody super chat from yesterday too. Okay, so if the lone ass asked yesterday, ten dollars, I have a longtime super chatter. Thank you very much. And this is a first time viewer. How did you super chat if you didn't view that's confusing, dude, that's that's like, that's like papal logic there. But whatever, I'll accept it. I'll be I'll be a papist for a moment and accept crazy things that I don't understand. It don't make sense. Trad culture preservation.

Five dollars. Thank you for being such a light in my life. Your workplace studying cultural anthropology helped me to see through the closed minded attitude of most super Western culture that prevailed and Catholicism of my birth stay based friend. Thank you very much. Of course, every Roman, Catholic and Convert in our discord are all soft puppets. They're all fake. So all Brekt has pointed out there is no discord that has seven thou five hundred people. It's just

bots. It's literally all fake. That's that's what he said. So thank you bought number two five three, five, six nine two for pretending to be a convert Alex three dollars. Hey, Jay, you recently mentioned that in the natural world points to Christ. Would you mind sharing any books or resources on the matter. Yeah, just read Saint Maximus, right, the doctrine of the logie. That's the whole point of the Doctor of the Well. It's one of the points, not the whole point. But the creative

world is made on the basis of the logi. Who are the logos? The mini logi are the one logos, and the one logos is present in the mini logi. So just read Ambigum seven at Saint Maximus is a good place to start with that, Clint ten dollars, I appreciate your work.

Happy New Year, Thank you well. Emmannual ten dollars. It seems that most SuDS are quick to agree with the eclectic vision of the religions that are all the same view, right, so they have like a seoge usually, Yeah, the other religions are one man and they share some ancient symbolism, Okay, but sharing some symbolisms and things does not mean that they're all the

same. Right. That's the quantifier shift fallacy. That's the what was it from the Garibie paper, the non transferable, the non transferability of predicates and

epistemic and intentional contexts. And that's what it is that you just because there's the same word used in different contexts in intentional settings, doesn't mean that everything is being referred to as the same and so just and by extension, the fact that there's commonalities amongst many world religions does not prove that there's one world religion or that they all had the same perennialus type structure or origin. Pano for three dollars was pano? He says, Happy New Year's Jay in Greece.

There's a saying that thank God for the Turks, they protected us from the Latins. Catholicism is a slow boy factory. These papal lawyers have atrophied minds due to absolute divine simplicity, or you could say absolute efficiency syndrome. It's another that's another way to do adios, completely leveling everything onto logically exactly into orthodoxy five dollars. Do you know of a historical connection between the imposition

of papal infallibility and the rise of fascism? I mean there's these you know, there were these accords that were had between who's the player, somebody a saint who killed a bunch of Orthodox people that it's a it begins with a you guy. The name escapes me, but somebody in the chat will remember that. So uh yeah, Actually there is some some connection on that that I don't know a lot about that though that's not really my my history.

Who is it? So it's mentioned in Metropolitan Sera Seraphima Pereus's little letter slash book to Pote Francis the it's on the tip of my tongue. What's his name? Roman Catholic prelate or dude that killed and persecuted. He was one of the fascists that killed a bunch of Orthodox and then I think Rome sainted him. What's the name? It's on the top of my tongue. Stars with you. No, I can't remember what it is. Anyway, somebody in the chat will know. I'll look back in a minute. Uh,

I just went blank on this this this thing. Stepanic, that's it. Thank you, Patrick Stephani. I don't know where I got Utrecht. That's weird. Uh. Yes, And didn't he relate to that? I think that's right. Yeah. Now maybe you meant the doctrine of infallibility and not the paper, the people, not the poet, but the doctrine. There probably is some connection. I'd have to think about that more. I don't know. Ustashi, that's it. That's what I was thinking of. Thank

you. I went blame for the Uh orthodoxychlor Queen, excellent work. Here's a question to ask trad Catholics. Did the gates of Hell prevail against the doctrinal and liturgical reforms about it? Continue? Yeah? Exactly what does doctorum fide say you cannot reject rights and disciplines liturgical rights? In that case? And disciplines that the Roman Sea gives because the Jansenists did, and the Janseness

were condemned for doing that. So literally, the Trads are making Jansonius arguments that were condemned to the noctorum fy day, regardless of whether they say yes or no. The whole of Catholic papal centric paradigms is thus disproven. Yeah, because it's really hard to argue with the practical facts. Let's see, I'm trying to think, how would a Roman Catholic mentally gymnasticized their way around that one? Did the Gates of Hell prevail against the liturgical reforms of atticant

too. The documents themselves are not a problem, it's the liberals that are enacting it. You mean the liberals like the pope. The pope who does puppet masses. Yes, Burgolio did giant puppet masses, played that many times ten dollars. Are there any other pagan philosophers aside from played in Aristotle who were discussed or reference to the Church fathers? Yeah, I mean tons of them, Stoics, Neoplatonists, Porphyry, I mean Plotinus, I mean all

kinds of philosophers are mentioned. In various ways and in various places, and a good book on that. I would say read Pelican's book on Metamorphosis of natural Theology in the Cappadocians. So Yarislav Pelicon's book is a great book showing how the Hellenic view of natural theology gets transformed by the Cappa Docians. Again, why there's not natural theology? If anybody read that Pelicon book or had read may end or if they would know the arguments I was going to make.

But Jpoppy twenty dollars, thank you for another great stream. I coached jiu jitsu. If you ever or in the Dallas area, you want to learn how to choke out one of these non chads, well I already know, just from taking chalk, how to do a chop choke. So if you want to support this show, you want to get based buff and be a badass, then you want some chop now you know, you guys know I'm playing around right because I'm not really a I'm a lover, not a

fighter. No, really, I do actually want to I've been taking thinking about taking some Brazilian jiu jitsu classes what not because of like I'm actually gonna be in the octagon or something, but because there's some some things that I might try to do. So basically that there's this thing about a movie role. I don't know if it's true or not. I can't really tell if the guy's being serious, but he had mentioned, well, if you do think you want to try to be in a film, he said, you

might want to take a jiu jitsu class. Because it's like, I don't know something to do with the role anyway, So maybe I mean, I mean, I'm not gonna go to Dallas to take jiu jitsu, but I have been to Dallas, so but then I also might enter the octagon to

fight Sam Hide and Butterbean at once. Who knows. Right, But if you want to avoid the GMO, you want to avoid Big Soy, you want to avoid the pharma, you want to Lloyd pheno estrogens, you want to get away from the chemicals and the toxins that are basically in everything, then what you want to do is go over to chalk dot com and you want to use the promo code J sixty j A Y six zero and that will give you sixty percent off. We're talking about becoming clear minded, right,

So maybe you want to think better. SHEI legit she La is great for that. Os Ganda if you have. Maybe you want to balance out your mood. You got mood probably swinging up and down in moods. Right, you're on your man period. You want to end your man period. You want ashwa Ganda. That's a good thing for that. Maybe you are a sleepy boy, you're not a slow boy. Maybe you think fast, but you want to be a fast boy. You need action two point zero.

That's going to give you action energy. Maybe you want to increase that mojo. We all know what we want for the mojo, and that's the tongue cat. And again, these are literally really sourced directly from the rainforest. I'm not joking, by the way. He I know the chalk dudes. They're good dudes. They're good bros. He's super strict about his organic policies, and so literally everything is directly sourced from literally from the rainforest.

They are a great company that's interested in the info war in the in the sense of like getting the truth out there, promoting healthy diet, lifestyle, promoting good content creators. Right. I mean they reached out to me to uh beautiful Tristana right, divas e divas, so they knew what they were doing. So go over there to chalk dot com. You can get in it. They even have the stacks now and they cleverly put it with a Q. By the way, I'm a chalk jock, I decided today,

not a shock jock. I'm a chalk jock. Maybe you got jock itch and maybe you want to get rid of that. Well, I can't promise that. I'm just joking. Doesn't meaning to do with the jocket ish. Don't rub the supplements on your itchy jock. It's not gonna do anything.

But if you are looking to bouch your testosterone that kind of stuff, then you definitely want to get over to chut dot com Jay sixty and put in that promo code and you're gonna get sixty percent off still, right, So he keeps extending this discount for me and Tristana, and that's good for him to do. I mean, sixty percent off, that's crazy, dude. You can also set up for kring buys as well. So but thank you

for the ju jitsu. Appreciate that. Jmail thirty dollars due. Catholics have the tradition of fronema as in the Orthodox No, I mean fronima means the mindset, so I guess just in a general sense of attaining the Catholic mindset, they would use that terminology. But for example, one thing antithetical to

the Orthodox tradition would be the usage of imagination in prayer. And many of the Roman Catholic Historyonic women quote saints are all about using your imagination and coming up with all these crazy scenarios, right like Alfonda Lagloria has all these sermons where he tells you to picture yourself in the midst of all the terrible torments

of Hell all the time. So orthodoxeology does not promote the usage of imagination in prayer, and that would be one example of completely different fronema mindsets. So they don't mean what we mean. Hickory Dickory eighty six ten dollars.

You mentioned that earlier the schism had been healed. I just if you go to my Twitter, I tweeted Snacks, retweeted snack in it was like two weeks ago maybe, so I don't remember what exactly what day that was, but it was one of those local jurisdictional problems that had been solved somewhere I think in Eastern Europe. But yeah, yeah, go look that up.

So, and we were making the point on Twitter that, you know, the the Ruman Catholic starts like they can never solve their their ecclesial jurisdictional problems, even though we just had one solved. So raw stakes five dollars. Is there any church Father's saints? I talk about the martyrs outside the or the Orthodox Church, for example, martyrs that were in non Calcedonian churches.

No, not to my knowledge, because you know, by definition, a martyr would most likely be seen as a saint, and a saint is somebody who is joined in some way, even if extraordinary, extraordinarily via God, to the body of the Orthodox Church. That's the only way to be saved for anybody. And if God has extraordinary means by which you can do that, that's possible for God to do that. But I don't know of any that are saints. I mean, I mean, in other words, that

would be an exception and we wouldn't know. We wouldn't know that about them until maybe the ascanton or something, right, But saints are people that have the Orthodox faith, So I would say kind of by definition. No, Frankie D five dollars. Thanks for all the work that you do. I continue to read Papacy and Orthodox by Shasinsky, really good info so far. I'm so worrying about Peter as a historical man. What do you think about

the different confessions? What do you think about different confessions and petri mission of each gospel. I'm not sure what you mean. You mean, like the way Peter is treated in the Gospels, I'm not sure. I'm not sure what that means. Why did the Roman Church have the same reason, Brad, I'm sorry, Brad. Ten dollars? Why did the Roman Church have the same reason that it fell into relative disuse? To explain fasting practices and

the use of the Rosary? Understand, Like, so, I mean the Roman if I remember the Romancchaalolic story is that the Rosary is delivered to dominic right by Mary. So it wouldn't have fallen out of disuse because it was miraculously supposedly revealed from Mary to Dominick. What is it have different fasting practices? Probably because asceticism became something that the Roman Church said was just from monastics. So you know, the Orthodox Church had the tradition, the older tradition

that no, it's Fascinus for everybody. So but I think that's what you're getting at in that question. So hopefully that's a sufficient answer. But all right, thank you guys, if you would please hit like and share. Hopefully this was a useful Part two. I mean, hopefully we conveyed the point that Vatican one it has a tall a tall order, right, that's a big order, that's claims, right, and given those big claims, we would expect to see not a few quote minds, but consistent, constant,

conciliar evidence. Do we see that. No, what we see is consistent, concilier evidence to the contrary, which Roman callout. Theology nowadays has admitted, as I showed you in you can go read the Chi eighty kiat document itself. Right. Sometimes that link doesn't work, so you might have to do a little digging to find the actual statements. But it's actually just paragraph nineteen, which says that the Roman bishop didn't have canonical authority over the

churches of the East in the first millennium. Okay, thank you. So now you've admitted that the Orthodox position is true, and Rome admits that Rome has approved that document, so thank you for admitting that we were right. Cringe, Emo boomer five dollars. Do you know where I can find the go arch document that speaks about not evangelizing? Yes, that is in what is that book called? I've got it in the other room, and if I go trying to look for it, it'll take me forever to find it.

It is the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese manual, and I think it has a bunch of different chapters by different authors. Here's how you can find that page if you go to Twitter. Now, go to Google and search jade ire Comma Twitter Comma Greek Ortho Archdiocese says don't proselytize, and maybe my tweet of that book showing what it says will pop up. But if you want to buy the book, let me look real quick. Maybe I can. Maybe that book's for sale. Maybe it's out of print. I don't know,

but let me see if I can find it. Hyeah uh, Maybe I should I look on should look on Amazon. It would be the place to find that. Let's try Amazon to see if it comes up. No, no, so mhmm, that's probably out of print. M I know, how can find it. Let's see, maybe this will work. Oh, I found it. There we go, all right, amazing. I can't believe on that. So it actually did come up under what I said to search. So it says dealing with other Christians the experience and they make it

bigger. I can't even read this because on my screen it's really the obs is tiny. The experience of being subject to massive proselytizing efforts has caused the formulation of a multifaceted policy. First, it is meant that Orthodoxy has sought to influence other churches, primarily through the Ecumenical movement, to renounce systematic proselytizing

programs. First, it has meant that Orthodoxy has sought to influence other churches, primarily through the Ecumenical movement quote, to renounce systematic proselytizing programs generally accepted in the Ecumenical movement. They are not and they are not widely practiced. So in other words, it's saying orthodox were proselytized on and this has caused the formulation of a multifaceted policy, so that supposedly the Orthodox Church has different

policies. First, we have sought to influence other churches through acumenism to not proselytize. Second, the Orthodox do not themselves proselytize. So it's saying that first when we adopted a humanism, which we don't adopt a humanism. That's false first of all. Then it goes on to say we do not practice proselytism in the sense that we do not actively seek to cause the defection of others from non orthodox faiths. Are you serious? I mean total nonsense.

Yes, we do. Every church father iled heterodoxy to bring Orthodox back to the faith, and this would be the promotion of indifferentism. So there it is. I pointed this out for years. I don't know, people think I make this up. No, I don't make it up. I bought that book in two thousand and seven, and that kind of stuff was one of the reasons that back in the day I didn't convert because I saw stuff like that. I was like, well, I mean, are you serious.

Do you think the church fathers don't convert people out of heresy? Just leave them in their heresy? Yeah, you just stay in your Ariyan church, bro, because we don't proselytize it. It's just ridiculous, right, anybody knows anything would There's no way you could accept that. I mean, it's just ridiculous. But that is the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese manual, which is not in print, apparently because I didn't see it on Amazon. Greek Orthodox Archdiocese Manuals