The the the the build the the built, the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the do all right, Welcome everybody. We'll be diving into the text, going through the highlights. I read it earlier today, pretty much I guess what I expected it to be. I also want to play some clips from Tim. I think Tim dealt with it in a very honest way. He gave a shout out to me as well, so I appreciate that.
I guess one good thing coming out of all the is that at least people who are a little more sane and able to control themselves, or at least better understanding the other side positions. So even though I know that Tim is not fully on board with us, we're at least getting I think, better understandings. I noticed that he seemed to understand that the first Millennium Church was
not governed in this sort of autocratic immediacy that Vatican One claims. So I'm just gonna play a few clips of him talking about it, and then we're going to dive into the documents. I thought This was an interesting point here where Tim says this, I, however, have long and this is more a JP two thing than a Francis thing. I have a long. We must, as a matter of being intellectually honest, see that there is a grossly, vastly different conception of papal authority. I don't even know if you
can call it. You can call it papal primacy in the first Christian millennium, then there was in the Second Christian millennium. And the proof of this is that the Eastern Orthodox did not go into schism until the beginning of the Second Christian millennium. And I mean, you can prove it a million other ways. That's that's the most ready and that's actually correct. And that's because
of the eleventh century or Groan Gregorian reforms. And as we know from the Mayandorf Papadacus book, as well as the other texts that have recently come out with Sharshchensky book, and also from Roman Catholic scholars as well the Kongar book.
After nine hundred years, the Dvornic book Phocin schism, we get a much better insight into the role of the forgeries, the role of the tatas Pape, the role of the notion of the temporal supremacy by the time of when I'm Sanctum of Boniface the eighth, and that there's clearly a pretty radical, almost you could say revolution in the West on the part of the papacy in terms of how it understands itself and how it relates to the rest of
the church. And so these are actually really great admissions. So I'm really happy to see the other side understanding that, you know, we're not just making these things up. This is actually in the literature, and it's not just this new document. Really, this document follows on a trail of documents which we've been talking about for a long time, because there's multiple purposes for
this document. Ultimately, this document, as Tim notes in his time, as I've been saying for many actually many years, there's a plan to push for a twenty twenty five reunion between the Patriarch of Constantinople and whoever decides to decide with him and the Roman bishop. In order to do that, we need the series of documents like the Chi eighty document here from twenty sixteen. There's others as well. There's a Ravina. There's various working groups that the
new Document references. These are all key texts, and I've read these. I haven't read a couple of the ones that the New Document sites that were older. But really the strongest of all these is the Alexandria Document. And
Alexandria admits pretty much most of our positions and our critiques. And I think you know what we called out when Alexandria came out last year, when we did multiple podcasts myself, Snack, David Arhun, We kind of called out the question logical step of the question, which would be, okay, well, if this is the case, then the hurdle will be Vatican One. And it's fascinating to me that the new document really kind of takes that up
as its focus. How can we revise, reword and reinterpret Vatican One? And that's a kids, you not, that's literally the proposal of the document. So on the one hand, I believe there's a geopolitical end goal here in this text. It is the reunion that we've been talking about for so many years. You can go back to the podcast I was doing six seven, eight years ago about this topic where I said they were going to try
to plan an Accuminus reunion. Next year, of course is the reunion of the Council, and I see up that's precisely why they want to do it. And there were some really good articles up on an Orthodox website from the last few years detailing this plan as well Orthodox Union Orthodox journalists. I think they got rated because they were based in Ukraine, so I'm not even sure if their site is up and available anymore, but they had multiple really well
written articles kind of detailing the geopolitical plans of the reunion. Separate from that website, I had heard this from some pretty high level sources and whispers of people that I know who we're talking about this, so I have kind of multiple confirmations as to why I thought this was coming, and of course here we are. So on the one hand, there's the geopolitical sort of subversion element of it. However, what's surprising is a lot of the honesty in
these documents. It's really kind of astounding the level to which they're conceding things. I would have never dreamed the concessions would be at this level. Now, when I say that, a lot of people didn't think I'm saying that Okay, now it's time to get reunion with Rome. No problem is that it's not ultimately about true theology. These are again ultimately, unfortunately motivated by
geopolitical reasons. And we know that that's because the West is really behind the power structure in the West, the power block of the Atlantis power Atlanti's power block. They have been behind a humanism from the get go at the turn of the last century, and it's a project that they put tremendous amounts of money and power and influence into to really turn these churches into forms of American soft power, and we saw the height of that at the Cold War.
Of course, the most important there's many books that deal with this from an academic standpoint, the most important which is of course the David Wimhoff book about Time Life magazine, and John Courtney Murray and Vatican Two, but even mainline intelligence books cover this as well. Anyway, that's not the topic today. That's just kind of vindicating the point that we've been saying. Tim actually gives us some props for that, because I told him this like a year and
a half ago. Now, what does this mean. Well, setting aside of the geopolitical stuff, even I'm kind of surprised at the amount of admissions here, and it's an I guess they felt like this was really the only way to do it, because if we're going to have all these admissions, then the next logical step, as we said, would be that we'd have to explain Vatican One, and that really becomes the locus of the debate of this of this paper. A large portion of the paper is devoted to again
a revisionist understanding a Vatican One of reinterpreting it. Now before we get into that, a lot of the Trads and a lot of the Roman Catholics are
clapping back as usual as we can always assume. Debating the status of this document, we don't care literally has nothing to do with the main point, which is that the concessions and the admissions in Alexandria Chi eighty and the new Document have nothing to do with whether the documents are considered magisterial or infallible, because if they're papally approved, and they are, then this is essentially Francis admitting to the historical contradiction, which is our key point with Vatican One.
In other words, Francis is essentially admitting via the approval of these documents and their admissions, because remember the new document reaffirms both Chiaty and Alexandria in many many places. Then essentially we're having another admission now fully from the Pope himself, that the Vatican One attitude, mindset, approach, et cetera wasn't what
was going on in the first thousand years. It's a development and as Tim notes here in a second to his credit, if it can develop in the second millennium, there's no reason why it can't develop in the third millennium. And that's precisely the route that they're taking, a new developmental papacy for the third millennium, developing into a situation where there's what they call reciprocity between the premissy of the Roman bishop for his sphere and the premacy of the rest of
the patriarchs and bishops in their sphere. So there's this reciprocity which is supposedly intended to quote balance out the claims of Vatican One. Well, that's another kind of walking back. So we have these admissions essentially that Vatican One claims things like direct universal jurisdiction from Jesus to Peter and the document actually says that you don't have to read it that way. Well, guess what, how does Vatican one read it? Let's read Vatican one, because I think we're
going to start with the most glaring of the problems. I think this one is one of the strongest that I saw in the document. There's many places that are pretty pretty wild, But let's read Vatican one first. On the institution of the absolute premacy in Peter, we teach and declare that, according to the gospel evidence, the primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church was immediate
and direct upon the apostle Peter by Jesus himself. It was made to him alone, to whom the Lord called Cephas, and based on his confession you were the Christis, son of God, he said to blessed are you,
Simon Barjona. Thus it was conferred. That's directly from Vatican one. What does the new document say, as this is one of the ecumenical statements has noted the direct divine jurisdiction need not be taken to imply that the universal premiscy as a permanent institution was directly founded by Jesus during his life on earth.
To Peter. Nor does this term mean that the Universal Primate is the the source of the Church, as if the Church's salvation had to be channeled through him directly, the opposite of what Unum Sanctam says, where it says very clearly that to be saved you must be in communion with the Roman Bishop. Of course, Cantate Domino repeats that same idea at the Council of Florence. Rather, he is the sign of the visible quinnania communion that God wills for
the Church, and the instrument through which unity and diversity is realized. It is a universal Primate, thus envisaged within a collegiality of the bishops and the quinnanea of the whole church, that the qualification of divine the jure divino from divine law can be applied. Now that's quoting one of these ecumenical statements. So the Roman Catholics are going to say, well, that doesn't mean they
accept that they're just quoting the objection. While the nineteen ninety one Roman Catholic response to this expressed reservations about this understanding, the CDF Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, that's the successor to the Holy Office of the Inquisition, if you don't know, used similar formulation in nineteen ninety eight by saying the episcopacy and the premiscy are reciprocal to one another and related inseparably as a divine
or are of divine institution. So, in other words, the initial first statement that stuck out to me was that, because, as I noted here, the document explicitly says that the claim of Vatican one can be read in a way that thus contradicts Vatican One, the status of this document the new document is irrelevant because it means that the Pope is once again affirming a document that contradict what the actual text Aboutican One. Say that that's the contradiction,
not whether the document itself is dogmatic. So any Roman Catholic deflecting to the magisterial status of this document is distracting from the obvious Francis is contradicting his own church is teaching it Vatican one, not just by this text, but by allowing a revision and new reading and rewording. Those are the terminologies that are used in the new document. Keep in mind that Pious the tense pacindi dominici Grazias, the famous and cyclical of the last Sainted Pope Pius the tenth.
If you're a trad I know they think John Paul the seconds. So whatever it actually says that you cannot, in the light of new historical evidences revise and reinterpret dogma. Lamentabiley is another document that condemns many propositions. Also, Lamentabiley said the same thing as Pachndy, that you cannot use the modernist idea of new historical evolving revisions to alter the understanding of the dogmas contrary to the
way they were understood at the time. So the very approach of the document itself is a contradiction to Patchendy and to Lamentabili, because it condemns this modernist approach of we could just reread it, reword it, bro got a problem, reinterpreted the way that works for you. Man. This is the trick of ecumenism, making it all so ambiguous and dubious that it can be understood and reinterpreted however you want. That's helped bureaucracies and propaganda work. You put
out general statements. And the iron here is of course, that this whole system is supposed to not be general. The whole point of a dogma is to clarify it was unclear. But what happens in the Romancaloic system inevitably is that the dogmas then require another interpretation. We need Bishop Gasser's official interpretation of Vatican one. Wait a minute, I thought Vatican one was the official dogmatic
statement. Why do we need a fallible interpretation of the infallible? Oh, well, it turns out there's also another document that was received by pious as well about the German bishop's questions of Vatican one. In terms of this document brings us up. Oh, that's the official interpretation. I thought it was Gasser. No, it's Bishop Gasser and the fallible statement of a later pope
about Vatican one. Those are the official interpretations. So you see this as a never ending, recursive, recursive spiral of where the thing that was supposed to be the thing that settles it now gets reinterpreted and reworded and revised to eventually turn into whatever you need it to be. This is the old bureaucratic trick. This is what they've been doing forever. Vatican and the whole point of the document. Let's keep this in mind because somebody was saying, oh,
well, this is just like a collection of debate Bros arguments. So basically the Vatican just wanted to publish a collection of arguments. No, that's not with the purpose of the document. The purpose of this document is to analyze the critiques and figure out a new way to reword and reread Vatican One.
And it says that multiple times. So it's almost like, I want, like, do people not read the actual document, because the purpose of the document is not collecting debate bro arguments for just no reason at all. The whole purpose is acumenism. The last section of the document is new acuminous approaches to the papacy, which worked for all the other groups. That's the
whole point of Obviously, that's the point of the document. So we're dealing with a bunch of lawyers and a bunch of people who literally want to pretend that that's not the purpose of the document. And the document doesn't even count because hand wave, it's not infallible. You notice every time we ask these people for the infallible list of the infallible dogmas, they don't know there isn't
one. Oh okay, so who decides, Oh, well, you have these general generic criteria, and you must sift through the giant ten thousand pages of PayPal Ecumenical Council statements. Hopefully you put them in the right bins. Yeah, so exactly, so the system doesn't actually give you the thing that it promises. All right, So let's get into the document and well,
actually I want to read. Listen this one other quote from Tim here the hand means of demonstrating the point and if there can be an organic growth or whatever you whatever have you between papal primacy in the first Christian millennium, in the second, then conceivably in the beginning of the third, if you get change embracing popes like JP two, very change embracing, much more liberal than I think a lot of youth. Absolutely true, Absolutely, Francis or even
Benedict, Benedict even repeated. I mean, he's the one that, as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger signed unam seen. He's the one that signed the Justification Document with the Lutherans around the same time of the year, for those that don't
know. Around that time there was the Joint Statement between Catholics and the Lutherans about justification which is a notorious, scandalous, a humanist document because it essentially tries to make Luther's doctrine somehow acceptable, when, of course we all know that Pope Leo at the time totally condemned and excommunity excommunicated Martin Luther has a heretic So I mean, it's just just getting sorry. Scent is by the way, the John Paul the second and cyclical that has to do with the
role of the Bishop of Rome in terms of premacy. So this, this document is the anniversary of what I'm sent in the middle of late nineties. Then you then that was an if then statement dot dot dot. Then we have to take seriously that even though Pastora turns the Vatican One document, which I have luckily reread recently, is while dogmatic, it is in some way
mutable. How can it be perfectly it's not. Though, Again, if you read Pachindi and if you read Lamentabiley, you cannot revise and reward and interpret the documents differently than they were understood in their time and in their place and in their meaning. And for those that don't know, if you're in the trad world, you all know Pacindi, this is one of the most
famous and cyclicals of Pius the tenth. Again for trads, he's like the last you know sainted Pope, because most tradcats are not big fans of John Paul the Second. The whole point of this document is to point out that dogmas do not evolve, the meaning does not evolve. The condemnation of the modernists in this document is precisely the condemnation of the idea that we can have a evolving religious experience that allows us to go back and reinterpret the text and
the dogmas contrary to the way that they were understood at the time. And the whole document goes through the methods, the presuppositions of the modernists, their view of dogma being able to be revised and changed and to be mutable, even to the point of the Magisterium of the Church being revisable, immutable, changeable, and the whole document essentially condemns them as heretics. It's very famous.
Every trad knows this document. Now on top of that, there's also a lamentability and it's the same Pope, and it's called the Syllabus of Errors, which if I recall, is attached to Vatican One. So if you believe Vatican One, you also have to believe the syllabus of errors. It's about, you know, the ascent of faith rests on probabilities. You know, we can revise things based on new information. It's all kinds of stuff. I think towards the end it gets into more of what we're talking about.
Ever suspected Christ and trusted in the premacy of the Church upon Him, the very thing that that document says we can is a way to read Vatican one document. Dogmas, sacraments, and hierarchy, both their notion and their reality are only interpretations and evolutions of Christian intelligence which have increased and perfected by the external series of additions to a little germ latent in the Gospel. Look
at that the evolution of these things from a seed form is condemned. The organic constitution of the Church is not mutable, but like a human society, it's s susptible to evolution. Essentially, all of these ideas right, are things where it can evolve. Right, the Church must reconcile herself to modern scientific progress. Condemned scienteed, progress demands that the doctrines of God and Creation be readjusted condemned again. Pretty much all Roman Catholics post Novas Orto believe about
half of the things that are condemned in LAMENTABILEI. So you can go read this for yourself. Of course, they're never going to read it. They don't go they don't read this stuff. So those are key points to keep in mind for when the Roman Catholics say, well, the meaning and the
sense of these taxes and the wording can be revised. We're going to get to the actual text here in a second dogmatic, in a crystallized form, if it represented new dogmatic teaching on people primacy itself, that was not operative in the first Christian millennium when the tetrarchy was really the way. Now people will say tech trarchy was you know the fins he means pentarchy. I don't know where he's I don't know why he's calling it tetrarchy. He means pentarchy.
So sometimes the stream glitches. I don't know what to tell you. So are we back? Hopefully we're back? So right? I mean the later councils, especially the south of that Ceminical Council mentioned that the church is governed by the Roman bishop in consultation and in senidality with the other patriarchs known as the pentarchy. So it's actually mentioned explicitly in the Seventh Ecumunical Council. So it's not a papal statement, as the documents admit. It's a statement
of conciliarity and sinidality, which is what we've always argued is orthodox. So Tim says tetrarchy, he means pentarchy in some way mutable. How can it be perfectly dogmatic in a crystallized form if it represented new dogmatic teaching on papal primacy itself, that was not operative. So Tim is wrestling with obviously here the things that we've been saying, These are the objections that we've been bringing forth, and now that we people are seeing it's not just us, this
is actually in the documents. The documents are wrestling with the very things we're talking about. And you know, Chi eighty was great in a lot of way, but the strongest statement really was just this that Sartica is not a final court of appeals, it is a retrial, and the Roman bishop doesn't conduct the retrial. Then we've got the statement that other major seeds were also appealed to and that the Bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the
churches of the East. This is restated in the new paper document. So we have a double affirmation of this point. Now, the Roman Catholics were coping last week with this one by saying, oh, well, you see he had that power for the first millennium, he just didn't exercise it. Well, he didn't exercise it. Wait a minute, so you can't roll out all your examples of him exercising it if he didn't exercise it. Okay, So Clement goes out the door. Formula for business goes out the door,
the misuse of the Kansas Artica goes out the door. Celestine An emphasis goes out the door. You understand, you can't have both of those things. You can't have a potential universal role that's never exercised and then turn around and say, here's all my examples of the pope operating with universal supreme jurisdiction. Obviously those things can't both be true. It's either one or the other.
And by the way, if he had it and never used it, how absurd is that that he's not doing the very duty for which supposedly he's created right. The Roman bishop has this authority, in this power to universally have jurisdiction and solve disputes, but he just sits back and doesn't do anything for a thousand years. Okay, So you see how stupid the argumentation of these people is. They can't even realize trying to make this goofy thing work
when they have actually contradicted themselves. Yea, when the tech tarchy was really the pentarchy. Pentarchy tech tarchy was, you know, the five ce's was mainly the first five or six hundred years, but it was operative until we didn't even have a college of cardinals until a little before the first Christian Millennium ended. Yeah, I think it's I just looked this up either day. The first cardinal is mentioned in the Papa Dooccus Mayendorff book Electing the Pope,
and I think ten or eleven hundred. I think it's around eleven hundred, like ten oh four, eleven oh four, I can't remember exactly, but it's in the Papadoccus Minor book. So these are all preliminary thoughts, and I'm just peppering you with I don't think this is straight up Francis foolishness. JP two's fingerprints are all over it also, and I don't trust him. Yeah, but it's not just foolishness of John Paul the Second and foolishness of
Francis. It's actual historical issues that way beyond just Francis and others have been admitted. Now again, it's not just the CHI eighty document with this great admission at the bottom here. Last year is amazing Alexandria document which deals with the second millennium. It deals with the barleyam It deals with the uncreated energies, basically admitting most of our positions, not everything, but many of our
positions, admits the usage of the forgeries. It admits all the stuff you always hear us complaining about, which, by the way, is essentially Rome kind of saying okay, yeah, you guys have a great point here. Now, with all of that in mind, the question then becomes, what about Vatican One. Well, that's the key point here, that's the big stumbling block here, And the approach of the new document is interesting that they take some odd routes here. One of the routes they take is to say
Vatican One was one sided, and when we get Vatican two. It's an attempt to sort of even out this one sidedness by bringing back the notion of collegiality and snidelity. And I mean again that that's a kind of, I guess, an understandable approach. But the problem is that this whole document is not even It's almost like it's an admission of the contradiction. And the approach is, let's figure out ways to revise and reword it. That's the problem.
And if we're at that point, then we're really just talking about a contradiction, you see. So let's look at first, I think paragraph five, which the first twenty nine pages is not it's pretty boring. It's about twenty nine pages in toward it actually starts getting into interesting stuff. Poupe Francis has reiterated several times the invitation of John Paul the Second to find a new way of expressing premiacy. Now, wait a minute, why do we need
a new to express it? If Vatican won is dogma, and why do we need a new way of expressing it? When Pious the Tenth condemns the idea of new ways to exercise and express these statements to make them palatable. John Paul of the Second noted that little progress had been made in that regard, calling for a pastoral conversion of the papacy and the central structures of the Catholic Church. He acknowledged the excess of centralization, rather than proving helpful,
complicates the church in her mission and our outreach. Now wait a minute. Vatican one's premise is that greater centralization will help the function of the church and ensure the ability of the Roman pontiff to guard and preserve the tradition that's tanned it down without blemish. Why would we need a conversion of the papacy, a pastoral conversion of the papacy, that's bizarre. He especially laments the insufficient
elaboration of episcopal conferences. Understanding this openness to dialogue with all believers in Christ, making sinidelity a key theme of his pontificate. Francis stress is the importance of sinidelity grounded in the sense of faith of the people and in the infallible in credendo fallible in faith. In other words, the whole church will not apostatize or will not air well. Okay, but that to me already smacks of bizarre wording and terminology given what we just saw in Vatican one. Vatican
one's pretty pretty brief, concise, and to the point. It doesn't mince words, lays it out right. Next, I want to look at this paragraph thirty eight. Catholics have rediscovered diversity of leadership in the New Testament. Catholics. Okay, Now, the Pope's blaaners and the Roman Catholic kopers are saying, this document doesn't mean anything. It's just a statement of the debate bros arguments against this. It doesn't mean no, no, this is a
statement about you. It's not just a document that collects debate bro arguments against Roman Catholics. It's a document that talks about a whole bunch of stuff. In many places, it's talking about the Catholic position, rediscovering, reforming, changing, rewording, revising. Catholics have rediscovered the diversity of leadership in the New Testament. So, in other words, Catholics are admitting the positions of
the Orthodox. In fact, in Matthew sixteen. Though this sounds like my argument that I always bring up, why the same thing said to Peter appears to the whole college in Matthew eighteen. Yeah, exactly. The same statements also appear to the other apostles in Ephesians two twenty. In fact, it's not just given to Peter alone, but the powers and the spirit, etc.
Are given to the entire body of the apostles. So this is really just kind of an admission here of collegiality and centinelity in the New Testament, which is something that the Orthodox are always arguing. Next, finally, Catholics have always been confronted with other views and the question of the trans transmissibility of petri ministry. In other words, admitting that Peter didn't just die and establish
a church at Rome. Peter founded the Church of Antioch and Alexandria. So this admits that, and it notes that the New Testament is not say anywhere that another church has taken off from that of Jerusalem. The premiacy of the Church of Peter and Paul, that is to say, of Rome, is a fact in the New Testament, and we don't have a problem with that.
So, in other words, the premiacy of Rome, it's fine to say that it derives from Peter. The problem is that there's nothing about Peter dying in Rome, or the Church of Rome being called doubly apostolic, which, by the way, this text admits that the Irenaeus statement calls it doubly apostolic because of Peter M. Paul. Vatican One actually says Southisk Pastor Returnas says that you cannot say that the premiacy of the roman Sea is because it's
doubly apostolic. You have to say this is because of Peter alone. And yet, as this document admits, the reason that it's Petrine that the roman Sea has sort of singled out is well, it's because Peter died there. But wait a minute, is not enough. Because he died there In the Latin Church, the martyrdom and burial Peter was the basis for the application of the Petrion text and it cites Tertullian. Okay, so what so this is
proven by Tortullian? Well, Urtullian says, all kinds of does citing Tertullian prove Montanism? Well he this was before he was a Montanous, So so what I mean, it's fine to talk about early attestations. And even if we can see that the martyrdom and burial Peter is the basis for the tradition of applying the Patrion text to the Bishop of Rome. It doesn't follow from that that everything that Peter had or that there's an infallibility because Peter died.
There you see the leaps that are made. The reference to scriptural text highlighting the role of Peter appears as early as the second secondary phenomena compared to the primary practice. So this is citing one of the ecumenical meetings with Leo. The correlation between the Bishop Rome and the Church and the image of Peter, which had already been implied by some of his predecessors, became explicit correct. But we don't see, as the document later admits, ex opery operato direct
universal autocracy. We just see Peter beginning to Leo, beginning to link the sea more and more to Peter himself. That's the point of this admission here, and that's fine. We wouldn't even having a problem with this as Orthodox. Some of this conviction is supported by the bishops of the Council of Chalcedon in their approval of Leo's tone to Flavian. However, uh oh, what
does it mean that Peter has spoken through Leo? Others observe that Leo's tone was accepted because it was consistent with the teachings the serial of Alexandria, the very thing we always argue to these people. The Council was careful to underline Leo's argument with zero cyril. Excuse me exactly all right? Next forty five?
Oh wait, I just read that one Orthodox International Orthodox cowth the International Dialogue describes this theological development in the West as the primacy of the Sea of Rome as it was under so, particularly from the fourth century onwards, in reference to Peter's role amongst the apostles. So notice nothing in this is as of yet at all claiming anything like Vatican won. So what we're noticing is an evolution of the idea, which is the very thing that we've always said
is Orthodox. Okay, the Orthodox position has not ever been saying that Peter has no role, or that Rome was never considered first, or anything like that. It's a question of what does it mean to say that Rome was first and that Rome had premiacy. Does that equate to the claims about it
can win. That's the whole issue. Noticed, this amazing admission the premiacy of the Bishop of Rome among the bishops was gradually interpreted as a prerogative that was his because of his successorship to Peter the First Apostles, This understanding was not adopted in the East, which had different interpretations. What did she ades say? The Bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of
the East. So this cancel out their attempts at using they're bad examples from the first five centuries and ephesis and all of that to prove the very thing that these documents are manting. Isn't there so Celestine pote Victor over a Quarterdesseminarian presides in love Clement, all of these are cancer that it's in other words, of say admitting that these don't prove that all right, Next is forty nine. This is a statement that I said earlier, is the power conferred
upon Peter direct from Christ. It's quoting one of the documenical documents saying that it need not be understood as directly from Christ, which is the contradictory contradiction with the statement in Vatican I. Even the writers of this realize that's a problem. That's why they say. The nineteen ninety one a Catholic response to this document said that there's reservations. Oh but the CDF says no, Actually,
it's kind of cool and it works. Next up thirty eight, one must further pose the question of whether and to what degree the Roman Catholic Church fundamentally sees the possibility of a form of communion for non Catholic churches with the pope. I mean, imagine saying this and not knowing about un I'm sunk. I mean, this is just like kind of crazy when I'm signing to them as the thirteen oh two definition of the One Holy Catholic Roman Catholic Apostolic
Church and what's necessary to be saved. Of course, this document doesn't just teach that quote. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we defined that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff, clear as they. I mean, at least the medieval papacy didn't mince words and engage in all this bureaucratic ambiguity. At least they were clear
in what they said. But now we're at the point where, in all of this historical revision crap, we can actually just say, let's find a way a new type of union that allows for people outside of the church explicitly, explicitly rejecting many of the doctrines of the Romancalloic Church to be in communion. How do we do that, Well, we figure out a way in which the essence of the petrime ministry is preserved, and we just kind of redefine it to where you can have like a fifty percent papacy, a forty
percent papacy awarding communion with eighty percent papacy. Over here in our church, Protestants, they are like thirty percent. Literally, that's what this So this document is intended explicitly to explore the many ways that they might find degrees of communion with the Pope to heal the wounds of the church. In other words, it is no longer a question of being inside or outside the church. Whereas in Vatican One, for example, you are excommunicated and damned if you
reject the Vatican One definitions of the papacy. Clear as day in the Council of Trent, if you rejected this teachings of the Council of Trent, and it's anathemas you are actu communicated and damned. But now that was a historical reality that could be revised to where there's degrees of communion that we can find in terms of new unions with the Roman See this is regarded, this is
ridiculous, and obviously the document is intended to do this. The whole purpose of the document is to find a new way to make Vatican One work. That's why the next gigantic chunk of the document is about figuring out how to understand reword Vatican One. But notice this is a pretty amazing admission here. We need to figure out a new way to find communion for non Catholics with Peter that are other than the canonical forms of the Middle Ages, in canonical
forms other than those in the Middle Ages. So they understand the embarrassment of the medieval papacy. They want to move away from that, and they understand it. The only way they're going to get all of these other people who don't accept this stuff to come into it is to reword it and revise it. Next is, since the Middle Ages, Catholic theologians have claimed the ministry of the pope is a direct divine law. It is directly a power and
authority given by God. These ideas can be traced prior to Vodican one. Then it goes into the Council of Florence, which again restates the notion that you have to be in union with the Roman bishop to be saved. Right, It reaffirms what when I'm Sanctum says. Then it admits that there was a phenomena of unionism where they began to allow the Roman or Orthodox to come back, but be Orthodox in terms of their theology and beliefs, just submit
to the pope. But pasta attornis, Vatican one created a new situation proclaiming these ideas. That's dogmas. They have proved to be a significant obstacle, You think, exactly, so, how do we find out a way to make it palatable? Well, Ratzinger says, there is with scripture a phenomena of relecture. I So likewise dogmas are not to be understood as isolated, but in a process of dogmatic historical relecture. This is development of doctrine within
the history of the faith. That is, this is the insight of like significance with Vatican One is obvious according to and then it cites Casper. According to the Calvary, is such a re reception revision in other words should put in does not put into question the validity of the definitions, but the interpretations. So we're not gonna get rid of Vatican One. We're going to reinterpret
Vatican One. What a bunch of scam scammery. Just reinterpret it. I mean this is essentially what this is the point of bringing up the units is like, just do what we did with the unions. How whatever theology you want, just submit to the Pope. Why would we want to do We don't want to do that. Why would we want to do that? I mean, does this whole does this thing look like it actually works? It looks like a giant mess, and you want us to join in on this
giant mess. Let's see No. Sixty one. Okay, the next paragraph is sixty one. The reason I highlighted this is because now they're proposing a bunch of historical revision based on historical factors. Oh well, you see, Vatican One had this going on because of the Franco Prussian War, and there was this concern about this and that historical event. And then there's a what's
your hermaeutical and principle? You see a hermineutics of dogma draws attention to the fact that you must be distinguished between the formula and the intention, between what is said and what is meant. The Council of Vatican one wanted to be understood according to the ancient and constant belief. Oh but that's ignoring the question of whether it just simply contradicts. And the whole document is essentially admitting that
and saying, so we got to figure out a new way. New historical investigations allow us to distinguish between the dogmas as they're stated in what was meant. That's called revision. We can arrive perhaps at a new assessment of the conciliar definitions. Now that's quoting these documenical statements, So the ramachealth's going to say, what doesn't mean to accept it. The whole point of the document is exploring the ways to make it work through revision and reinterpretation. This document
is an admission of the very critique that we've made all along. How is this doing anyone any good? When that we could just reinterpret the documents? And by the way, if there's Vatican three, I kid you not.
In the last few weeks we've had Roman Celtics saying, well, why don't you just wait for Vatican three to clarify what's unclear and Vatican one and Vatican two, because the clarifications don't clarify, they're subject to the new revisions, you see, So we won't know Vatican three until we have Vatican four. How stupid this is. This is preposterous, and the whole thing contradicts lamentabili and pachindi dominici gragious, which says that you can't read dogmas as if they're
evolving in this way, because it makes all of them relativized. That means that Nicea no longer means what Nicia meant. And by the way, these idiots are consistent with that because they defend Ustorius. Now remember what a voice of reasons say, Well, the grabbilical cope EMPs emersis is done in venable. We know now that before no you think that, we don't think that no sour As was a hard thing. It's over you because you want everybody
to accept this nonsense to make this stupid system work. The results of new historical investigations might be the way that we can make Vatican two work, I mean Vatican one work. Next up, forty five, and so doing the theology of Vatican two developed the teachings of Vatican one. Well, so you didn't like what was in Vatican one, bro, just relaxed. There's gonna be a theological development and it'll all work out when we get the next council.
See, all you people confuse and want just wait for Vatican three, bro, Just let it dive and the solutions will come in Vatican three. Oh and then when we're all confused and we don't know what Vatican three means, bro, just wait for Vatican four. Dude, duh. Vatican four will solve everything that we didn't know, which was all the things that we wanted to know in Vatican three. But when I wait a minute, we get the Vatican four and we don't know anything, what do we do?
Bro? Duh? Vatican five? How dumb are you? This is so ridiculous. I mean, just on a philosophical level, can none of you people Roman Catholics out there in your cult understand this gibberish like that this is not getting you anywhere, Like all of these documents are admitting the things that
we've been saying. Even the very process of the praxis of trying to make this system work through dialogue and waiting for the next documentical council, it just kicks the can down the road, because then when we have all that and Vatican three, all these idiots you're gonna say, we just wait for Vedican four and do we give Vedican Ford, and then it will be Quel, and then everybody will be cel. It will be Quell and Cel. Do we you can drive? Do we give you fifty three? What's the next
doozy? The ecumenicity of the decisions of a council is recognized, their process of reception. Oh so reception is actually part of Catholic tradition too. Oh you mean the thing that Michael Laughton's always trying to attack. Oh well, here's your actual documents admitting that reception is part of your your church's tradition as well. Uh oh fifty seven. Fifty seven restates eighty. Between the fourth
and seventh centuries, the order of the taxes. The Pive five patriarchal seas came to be recognized based on its sanctioned by the acimunical councils, with the sea of realm occupy in the first place, exercising and infallible Vatican one jurisdiction. No, a premiacy of honor followed by concept of Alexandria anok Jerusalem accord to quote canonical tradition now eighty is an approved Roman Catholic document here citidelity and
premacy in the first millennium twenty sixteen. So that's a Roman Catholic document admission, that's not Loots site the Ortho Brews. No, that's your admission sixty six. The response for Unity saying recalls Ratzinger. As far as the doctrine of premacy is concerned, Rome must not require more of the East than was formulated and lived during the First millennium exactly, which is not Vatican one. And how long we've cited this text all the time. Half the time Roman
Catholics think we've made this up, like Ratzinger didn't actually say that. Right, Well, if all that's required is what was practiced in the first millennium, then Vatican one's not required. That's the logic of that. You don't see that, How silly are you, guys? Ninety three, As noted in the Sinality and Primacy in the First Millennium, Again, the Bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East exactly Oops sixty
eight. While the statements of Ignatius and Irenaeus relate to the Church of Rome, the implications of the personal authority of the bishop Rome were increasingly recognized in the West. In other words, it evolved, it was not immediate. There in the first, second, third century now Southeast Cognitum Vatican one, they teach that it was always there, it didn't evolve. So which is it evolving or always there? We? It was always do will he do? Didn't do we? Okay, well, if he didn't do it,
then the examples that you give aren't examples of it. He had the poe, but you don't do we ninety Yeah. Rome must be seen within different spheres of influence, which made effective decisions in articulated church tradition. Moreover, the bishop room significant role in the formation of doctrine such as Leo and Gregory, was not seen as competing with the authority of local and regional bishops in the Western Church and synods, but rather reinforcing it. Well, that's senidality,
and that's not Vatican one. Because Vatican one states very clearly that the Roman bishop does not have his authority by virtue of the Synati bishops. He does not need to consult them about dogmatic pronouncements. It's actually condemned if you believe that the authority of the Roman bishop is in any way contingent upon on the College of the bishops. That's condemned. This whole document is framed from the vantage point of trying to make Roman primacy be situated within collegiality. They
can't both be true. You can't, on the one hand, say that he has it's unilateral, but it's not unilateral. You see. That's the point. It's either unilateral or it's not. So this is admitting that their sentidelity even in the West in these centuries, and not an autocracy. In the East, the role of the bishops of Rome was clearly defined, less clearly defined, but grew in importance during the Great doctrinal Controversies. Yet the
premiacy was primarily conceived as a precedence. As such, Rome was constantly granted presidence to head of sea such as Antioch and Alexandria, but was not primarily viewed in the East as possessing a special form of authority in all matters. Thus the claim that the universal supremacy and jurisdiction of the Roman bishop being known from the earliest days of the church by all is not true. The apostolic
canons are brought up Canon thirty four. The bishops of the people of a province or region or an ethnos must recognize the one who is first amongst them, the protos, and consider him their head. They're kephala, and not do anything important without his consent. Each bishop may only do what concerns his own diocese and its dependent territories. This is jurisdiction limitations. And there's nothing in this that has anything to do with exempting the Roman beance. And these
types of canons are repeated to everyone the acumenical councils. So this is the canonical argument that we always make. Have we not always made this canonical argument, not just from this canon, but for many canons. Every actumenical council has canons that don't make sense about it. Can one this is this document admitting this argument. Let's see one O one. This is also on Sartica. Another admission from Sartica. The procedure of canonical appeals. The appellate structure
corresponds more to a final court. It's worth mentioning that this procedure corresponds more to a final court appeal to a court of cassation. Since the retrial is conducted not by Rome but by local bishops. Canon three of Sardica justifies the decision concerning the appeal procedure to the Sea of Rome on spiritual grounds. Thus, the document Court calls a common reception of the Phocian Council as a starting
point on ecumenical dialogue. In other words, yeah, we can begin this ecumenical dialogue about the Canons of Sartica because they weren't a de facto appeal to a final court in Rome. That's why Chi eighty says that appeals were also done to other patriarchates, so it's not the Vatican one pope. Appeals regarding
disciplinary matters were also made to Constant and upland other seas. Such appeals were always treated in a synotical way, reaffirming Chiadi referring to Sartica, and it repeats this position from chiad Rare. All of these appeals were done in a synotical way, and not a final court appeal to the Bishop of Rome. The final court of appeal is the court, not the Bishop of Rome.
CHI eighty references the criteria for the reception of a council as acumenical as described by the Seventh Ecumenical Council, namely, the symphonia of the heads plural of the churches and the cooperation of the Bishop of Rome and the agreement of the other patriarchs. That's snidelity. That is not the doctrine of Vatican I. That is what CHI eighty is admitting. That's symphonia and synodality. That's why
they're putting together these documents on what cynodality cynidality. For example, the Church of Alexandria and Rome had specific internal organizational principles different from the other churches. This is not necessarily a church dividing practice. Well, how come Vatican one damns anyone that doesn't except Vatican one. Then diversity is not only to be accepted, but be welcomed as healthy. Okay, But the trent to from
unham sicked them to trent to Vatican one. There's not much diversity there, as Vatican too says concerning the Eastern churches. Far from bringing an obstacle. A diversity of customs and observances adds to the splendor in this context. With reference to the subtitle of Chad, is it necessary or even desirable that we
have identical understandings? I mean, consider the Joint Lutheran Catholic Internal Dialogue International Dialogue on the Declaration of the Doctrine of Justification, which is another contradiction because luther is condemned in multiple places in Denzinger and by Pope Leo for his doctrine of justification. Trent explicitly condemns the Lutheran position on justification, but the Lutheran Catholic Dialogue approved by the Pope, by the way, does not do that.
In fact that it says it can be rewarded and re understood. Why Because, as this document is proposing, there's a lot of different diversities of interpretations and understandings. Isn't that beautiful? Isn't it wonderful the way that we're so diverse. This document then moves on to talk about I'm gonna skip on to the final sections deal with the fact that the purpose of the document is
in fact ecumenism. It's past. Let's see son It talks about different types of senility at extra at intra fellowship with the other people who don't accept the papacy. How can we figure that? Then it says working and praying together, which is a rejection of more tellium animals, which says that it's apostasy to have liturgical celebrations with other Christians. Doesn't even imagine the papacy going and
praying and chanting with Buddhists. But it makes clear that the purpose of this document is acumenism, to find a way to rediscover brotherhood and as we saw, reword, revise and reinterpret through new approaches, particularly the petrin texts and the really stumbling block difficulty of Vatican one. It's very difficult to make clear the bishop of the Bishop of Rome established with his authority by divine law exactly.
That is difficult, and that's what Vatican one claims. But hermeneutical clarifications can give us a new perspective, a new interpretation to do what to reread and rerecept the council. You see how absurd this is. And when we get Vatican three, Vatican three can reread and recept, and the Vatican four can reread and recept everything else that came before. What's the purpose of all
this? A unified, reconciled church ecumenism, so clear as day. The whole purpose of the document is to allow a revised interpretation and a rewarded interpretation of the key stumbling block of Vatican One, which is what we're always harping on, because that's clearly the problem, and it's the clearest contradiction. And this document is just another admission of all the points that we've been making, and it's another affirmation of what's in Chiaty and the Alexandria Document, both of
which are damning. The most damning is Alexandria. And for those who have not read the Alexander Document, I highly recommend reading it and go and watch the podcast that we did on it not too long ago, more than Francis. But there's a philosophical natural law, natural reason, article of undeniability, a little pebble beneath all these mattresses that is undeniable authority has never been worked out in the Roman Catholic Church to the extent that we insinuate it has.
When we thumb our noses at Protestants and say, now, what an amazing admission from Tim that what's the underlying issue in all of this, we've never gotten a clear dogmatic statement in the Romancolic Church about authority. If that's true, then all of these selling points that we've heard from the pop apologists over the years are not good selling points because the very thing that's trying to profer
to offer to sell their admitting is not there. Oh well, you see again, Vatican three will define the notion of authority appropriate to what's missing in Vatican one and Vatican two. The purpose of Vatican one was, in fact to define the authority, the jurisdiction, the premissy, the power and the prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome. But as we can see, there's a lot of struggle with this and why is that? Well, what does Tim
say at the beginning? Suffice it to say this what Cardinal Couch said in an interview when asked by Vatican News, is it possible to envision for the future a shared form of exercise of the Petrine primacy over all Christians that is
separate from the Church's jurisdiction over the Latin Church. He responded, Indeed, some ecumenical dialogues suggest a clearer distinction between the different responsibilities of the Bishop of Rome, in particular what might be called the Pope's patriarchal ministry within the Western or Latin Church, and in his primacial service of unity in the communion of all the churches, both Western and Eastern, parish orphans and retrogrades. I
will read the most important part as far as I can ascertain it. Thus far of the study document to you, I've read part of the most important part. Will be reading further in that most important part than I've been yet live. So I would initially lay this thought on you. It's a preliminary
thought and I'm still working through it. Always tell you, look, I'm confident about X, I'm not sure at all about why, or I'm pretty confident about Z. Jay Dyer has long talked about for at least a year and a half a plan that has semi secretly been held harbored close between the Eastern Orthodox leaders and Roman Catholic leaders for a reunification in twenty twenty five, and even a document which attests to this. Today's Vatican Steady Document seems to
lend force to the notion that there is a planned reunification in view. Maybe even immediate view, if Die is right, and that religious doctrinal purity, whether from the RC side or the EO side, is not the primary impetus for the drafting of the document or of the conceiving of In the fourth century, Emperor Constantine ended persecutions against Christians and became a defender of the faith.
Barely a decade later, he summoned all bishops to Nicea in present day Turkey to clarify a controversial issue whether Jesus was equal to the Father and therefore eternal. It was the year three twenty five. This was the first ecumenical council
in history and where the Nicene creed was established. Twenty twenty five will mark seventeen hundred years since that event, and there is already an ecumenical event on the table that will include Pope Francis and Patriarch told you, of course, Folomew, the leader of the Orthodox Church Bartholemy, proposed to hold it in Nicea in present day Turkey. The ruins of the first Ecumenical Senate are there.
It is a significant event and preparations have already begun. Initiatives are underway, speeches are being prepared together Patriarch Bartholomew and Pope Francis have made multiple ecumenical gestures. In twenty fourteen, when Pope Francis visited the Holy Land to commemorate the meeting of his predecessors, the idea of a great event to celebrate Nicia began to take shape. All right, So there's a lot on this. Who can go just google it. There's a whole bunch on this. Now,
it doesn't necessarily mean that this will occur. It just means that they're floating this and pushing this. Right, So if they do continue to push this, really this will just cause a schism in the Orthodox Church to where I don't know, like a percentage of Libs who follow Bartholomew will run off to Francis. So maybe that'll happen. But they're gonna what they usually do with this kind of stuff is they float the ideas and then they look to
see how it tracks as to whether they'll continue to do it anyway. So, I mean that's the essence of the document. If you've not read the ones that I mentioned today, if you really want to be studied on the issue, I highly recommend going and reading on it. The New document is linked in the show description. It's called the previously the Roman Bishop. We
go back to the beginning of it. Good grief. There you go, Bishop of Rome, premacy and senidality in the ecumenical dialogues and in the responses to the encyclical um scent. I highly recommend reading the Alexandria document here, highly recommend reading the Chi eighty document and to really get a clear position of what the traditional Romancli view was. I highly recommend reading them. Reading not just Unum sunk Them, but Pachindi, Dominici, gragias, lement of Billy
San and Unam sunk them. Those are all very relevant. We have a super chat from Noah said, does the toll houses occur prior to death or after death? Toll houses refer to the soul after death and the return to God in terms of leaving the body. Again, you should read the sur from Rose book and it's really good. Eugenia five dollars, thank you so much. Appreciate that snagglebs five dollars, Jay leave them alone, they're already
dead. Well, I again appreciate Tim's honesty here can tell I think these guys are really really wrestling with what's admitted in the documents and the status of by the way, so pastor attorneys is not the only thing in Vatican Like, there's more to Vatican One than pastor returnis that's just a section that's about the pope, right, So there's also the statements in Southeast Cognitium about the role of the papacy as well, which are maybe not is equal to Vatican
One, but they're authoritative interpretations of the doctrine. So Saudi is Cognitium of Leo the thirteenth also matters quite a bit as well, and also read more talium animos, because it's one of the clearest contradictions that I can think of, where you have, essentially nineteen twenty eight the condemnation of inter quote Christian religious services, and how much worse would it be to have religious uh ceremonious with Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Buddhist like Francis did two weeks ago.
Ricky, Yeah, So I wanted to ask, where where does a Vatican once say that you can't say Rome is like as privacy because of both Peter and Paul, or is it just like not explicit just saying it's Peter. Uh. It explicitly condemns the position that if you say that the Roman pontiff derives his power and his authority from Peter Ample. That's an explicit statement. I think it's somewhere, let me see. It might be in Denzinger.
I haven't looked at this in a while, but it does condemn the idea that it's a power that comes that's shared and you have to say it's only for repeater when you said it might it might be Insaide's cognitiom. I'm not sure. I haven't looked at it a long time. Yeah. Another one of the good quotes from the fourth Laddering Council. It says that, wishing therefore to remove such a great scandal from God's Church, we strict the order
on the advice of this sacred Council. Uh, that henceforth they do not presume to do such things, but rather conform themselves like obedient sons to the Holy Roman Church their mother. So that's all. Also another contradiction as to what Frances is saying, because he's now doing like this brotherly thing, when in the past it was the mentality that they had to, you know, submit like like sons to the supreme authority of right. So I just wanted
to point that out. And another question that you did touch on about you know that these are just like the the arguments that are being presented. So the main thing would be that, I mean, in the new document that just came out, the main thing would be that, you know, this simply isn't like the Vatican one church mindset anymore, Right, That's basically the whole argument. Yeah, okay, Now, there's also anathemas that are part of Vatican One, and if you have the Little Ten Books version, it
has them. So sometimes these things are hard to find because they're not always immediately accessible online. But like I know that the The Ten Books version of Vatican One has the Vatican one anathemas. I don't see the anathemas on the Papal Encyclicals website. So let me let me look for a second here. Yeah, I got pastor atturnis does it have the anathemas in it? I
can't remember. They have some of them, not like outlined, put in the paragraphs, and they don't have it in English in their website, so you just have to translate it from the Latin really, Yeah, and so one of the last things that it says, it says, these definitions of the Roman pontiff are immute in themselves and not by the consent of the Church. Yeah, yes, exactly. That was the text that I was saying that that's the one that condemns the idea that the pope in any way requires
reciprocity from the College of Bishops. Yeah. And so I was reading Statis cognita and yesterday, and it says that he has authority over each individual bishop, but not when you know, all the bishops collectively oppose the pope. And so I was kind of wondering how that would actually work, and and if it's a contradiction. So that's also another question. So what do you
think about that? By the way, I think this is the text that I'm remembering that has it's this book from Tan Dogmatic Canons and decrees of the Council of Trent and Vatican one, plus the decree in the Maculate Conception and the errors of errors it might be in even in the Syllabus of errors.
Let me see that one, because that one, I think mentions Peter and Paul, what was your question again, I'm sorry that Sati's Cognitium says that the pope has authority over each bishop individually, but not like if the bishops collectively decide to go against the pope. So I don't know exactly how they square that, since it's the pope who decides, you know what, you can actually disagree with. So that's a good point. I don't know.
Yeah, So, so I guess that was kind of like making a bit of a you know, historical reference to something like Vigilius maybe, But yeah, that's just something that seems impossible for it to happen, even though they say it can. I forgot about the syllabus of errors. This is a whole other document with a whole host of condemned propositions too. Are you linking linking those? I'm looking at them right now. Okay, all right,
that's fine, appreciate your time. Yeah, I would like to find that that one text though, where it says that you cannot say that the premiacy of Rome is in any way contingent upon Peter and Paul, which is ironic because it's the very argument that Irenas makes. So they try to use that Arnas text where Arnaus uses Rome as an example of absolute succession. But Ieronaas says that it's great because of Peter and Paul. But it's either Sati's cognitium
or it's one of the Vatican one statements. And you specifically cannot say that I think it's a condemned statement in the anathemas, because actually Vatican one has anathemas. Let's see it says, you can download the pdf. Let's see if this works. Do we have any nerds in the chat that can recall that tel of her head? Let's see dogmatic decrease. Let's see. Here we go decrees the Vatican Council, pages two eleven to two fifty seven.
That's way too big. Okay, here's the beginning of Vatican One. Jesus promised to Peter directly by divine institution, that he had full plenary power over the entire church. It is what is proven by like three classic passages. And then here we go, here's the canons. If anyone therefore, I'll say that Peter was not appointed prince the apostles let him be anathema. Okay, that's what the new document says. So does you know what does the
Papal and Cyclicals version does even have the anathemas. I didn't even see the anathemas on that one. Let's see I don't. So this is laid out totally different from this one. Okay, so let's see if we can find it. Whoever succeeds Peter has the exact same powers as Peter. If anyone shall say that it is not by the institution of Christ, by divine right, that the perpetual successor to Peter have that universal premiacy, let him be
anathema. So you notice that you don't see these anathemas in a lot of these translations. If anyone shall say the Roman Pontiff has the office merely of inspection and not full supreme power of jurisdiction over every pastor of the church, let him be anathema. Next section infallibility. Finally, it restates the Council of Florence, the Roman Pontif is the vicar of Christ. Let's see, Holy Spirit has promised this to Peter. The gift then of never failing faith
was conferred upon Peter and his successors. That's indefectibility. That means that they cannot teach error. That's the point we always make there. It is directly in the older translation Novatican one. Here we go. Here's what that guy was just saying. The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks to Ex Cathedra, is the discharging the office of pastorn teacher of all Christians by supreme authority. He possesses that infalliability from Christ. And therefore the definitions of the Roman Pontiff
are irreformable. Excuse me, not irreformable. On faith and morals are themselves from the Roman Pontiff infallible and not by the consent of the Church, and are irreformable. So there's that. If anyone presumed to contradict this, he is anathema. That is, you're out of the church. I know there's a statement that he doesn't derive it from Peter and Paul, and that you can't say that it's from Peter M. Paul. So I don't know if I missed it or what. But Luigi will remember that reference if he's in
here. Luigi, are you in here? If you're in here, you can remind you where that is. Let's see. Here's more anathemas. Let's see, because those are canons about the creation and reason. That's not it. Maybe it's actually a pastor returns. Let's see, Kah. I don't want the abridged version. It's just Latin. They don't make it very easy to find their documents, you know what I mean. It's like, why why wouldn't this be easy to find? If you know this is? Maybe
they were embarrassed to that someone. They don't want people looking it up. Christian, what's up? I'm mute, dude. You got to unmutement right there. I can't hear you or you dropped off, so it's open for him if anybody else wants to call ink? Is it cutting out the live stream? Innocent condemned, the innocent, the tenth condemned. The proposition is that what it is? I know it's in Danzinger. I don't have Danzinger with me, so I can't look it up. It's at the other house.
Luigi's in the chat. Do you know that reference Luigi where it's at? Off the top of my head, I'm not sure. Yes, I am looking at the chat. Did it cut out? I can't tell if you guys can see you or not. Maybe I should have looked up Denzinger. That's it. Yeah, it's Denzinger. Okay, Innocent that the tenth condemned. Saint Peter and Paul are the two princes of the Church who amount to one or that highest to tenth in the letter X quote No, No,
Denzinger, nineteen ninety nine. This isn't a renewal of an error condemned a long time ago by Innocent the tent that Paul is to be considered the brother the equal of Peter. There we go, thank you so, Denzinger, nineteen ninety nine. Denzinger three five five five. These are considered to be heretical propositions. It's also restated though somewhere in the later So it is
Holy Office condemnation in Denzinger by Innocent the tenth. But it's also restated somewhere else in relationship too, because it re emerges as a question at the time Aboutican one. Here's somebody writing an article on it. Okay, okay, So the statement in Trent that says it was to Peter alone that Jesus after his resurrection said feed my sheep. That's stating that it's not Peter and Paul. And then session four directly to Peter Session four four directly to Peter Denzinger
ten ninety one and Denzinger ten ninety one again. Anyway, so there's the thank you to whoever put that out of the chat. I appreciate that I don't have Denzinger here. I mean, I guess I could try to look it up online, but my Dnzinger is in Tennessee. So I wanta have it with me. Uh trollo mechicano five dollars. Let god arise, let us mendv scattered, Let those the agent flee before his face exactly. I don't say any more questions anybody that I have any other disputes issues. Reminder
that we do have an amazing sponsor. You guys please support the show by heading over to chalk dot com. I'm gonna put you on something crazy real quick. Most of these zoomer Jimbros are consuming macro guzzling synthetic dies and synthetic sweetness on the daily. They don't even know it. Goofy af. There's nothing great about that. Do not listen any further unless you are an alpha or Sigma male. This is important and there could be consequences. There's a
new certified Sigma Male pre workout powder for Sigmas only. It is guaranteed to empower you to dominate your co workers, fire your boss, aggressively, gamble, or invade a small village. I'm not trying to be like a post planner, bro, I'm not a RECOMMENCD. I'm not worried. I'm not afraid of or worried about any objections. So you can make whatever objection you
want, for sure, for sure. Yeah. No, I was we were kind of like going back and forth a little bit, like because I'm looking at section nine, page eight of the document and it just seemed like I'm some of my Roman Catholic bros. Are basically saying like a like, hold on, hold on, can you tell me the paragraph where that one is? Yeah? Yeah, for sure, yeah, section nine, page eight of the document from the like Christian Unity Document. I don't know if
there's like different page numbers on different sites. Hold on, hold on, I'm going to it, Okay, I got you go ahead. Yeah. Yeah. So they're basically saying, like, what this the purpose of this
document is this synthesis between other Christian communions. It's like kind of like I was, like I was saying like if are the example that I used or the analogy, like if I was the head of some company or something that wanted to get a summation of all of like the alphabet people's incoherent like position, and then it's like, oh, okay, hey, well we want to dialogue with those You want to say, those people get them baptized.
Let me let's summarize all of their arguments in an effort to I don't know,
somehow reunified down the road. But that doesn't necessarily mean that me, as the head of this organization that summarized or synthesized all of their here in arguments are in agreement with their arguments or exactly what they're saying, So that that's what I'm hearing from like the from like the Catholic side, So that I mean, like, what do you think specifically about like section nine here and exactly like as far as like the purpose of this document, yeah,
I mean, and to be fair, it does say that this is a quote harvesting of their fruits of the recent ecumenical dialogues, but harvesting of their fruits, the whole purpose of ecumenical dialogue is reunion. The very end of the document says that, So the document saying that the purpose of this document is to find ways to reinterpret Vatican One, because that's the chief problem.
I mean, if it wasn't about that, then why does the document since spend so much time on Vatican One, right, Because that's the chief problem. And then the document ends with talking about new ways to try to find new types of communion with non Catholics. So, I mean, it's fine to say that this is a dogma and we're not saying that this is the
official position of the Roman Callot Church. But it doesn't really matter because, like I was pointing out, really if Francis is affirming this, and it's not just this document, this is restating what's in Chiad and the Alexandria document. So it's like this is the third time that we've had a statement. I mean, do you agree that Chiady and Alexandria are statements of the Roman Calolic Church or not? Yeah? No, absolutely, absolutely, I have
no I have no disagreement about about those two documents. I think they can see quite a bit. But it just it seems like even if like what this, it seems like in like I don't know, some Lutheran could have like basically pull different quotes from what the Pope is saying and different things, and and and and then the Vatican comes and puts all this together. So it doesn't and I can't. I sound like really a lot like a post leiner, but like it just it I can see how you can read this
in such a way, whereas it's like this it to be helpful. The Vatican is going to summarize this in a way and put it together to be used in the future. And I yeah, but the summer it's not just a summary. It's also a bunch of admissions. I mean, if it was just it's not just a summary of the debate bro arguments, right, like I might say, I'm going to go and collect all the quote minds of the Protestants against the Orthodox. Okay, yeah, I mean, I
mean that's not what this document. It's not that's this document is not only that. It's partly that, but it's not only that. It's also saying what are the ways that we can reword Vatican want? But from the perspective of home though, like because I can I can see what they're from the perspective of of no one in Roman Catholic theology can't reword Vatican one. How is that even? In other words, the fact that that's even being discussed
isn't even possible. If you're rolling, I don't disagree with you at all, but like it's still like from from which perspective are we saying we the only way we can reunify is every we word Vatican one. It's it may it's not necessarily the Vatican. Like did you not did you read the document? I haven't read every single page. Okay, so it quotes ratsing or saying we must we mustn't require of the Orthodox anything more than what was the norm in the first thousand years. Yep, yeah, I don't Yeah,
yeah, I have no no, no argument. I mean, look, there's a lot of different things in this document. So it does have a lot of citations of the ecumenical dialogues, and I understand that citing those arguments does not mean the Vatican is saying that that's true. But there's more than just sighting the arguments. There are many admissions in the document where they do say that we can grant this, we can agree to that. Chad was
right here, Alexander document was right here. Those are admissions. So regardless of the status of this document, if Francis signs off on this, we just read in the decrees the Vatican I that the Roman bishop cannot approve error and he's indefectible, So how could he approve things like Chiady and Alexandria that
clearly deny Vatican One. I mean, let's take the statement that the document said, for example, that it is possible to read Vatican one in a way such that Jesus did not grant directly to Peter universal jurisdiction by divine right. I mean, that was the one that I put on on Twitter to you, and it says it says this was our working group, the Working group Ecumenical Working Group's view in nineteen ninety one. The Vatican said this is a little too far, but then the CDF said it is possible to read
it that way. I mean, is that not a concession to the fact that it's admitting that that's a contradiction with Vatican one? Yeah? Yeah, I Like I feel like if like twenty twenty five they come out and start like quoting this document until that happens. Okay, but don't you think there's a I mean, look, there's a purpose upon each of these documents. Right, so you've got you've got all of these documents in sequence, and
they're all being cited in this master document. And I mean you could even if you want to take that route, then okay, Look, I'll just say that Alexandria and Chiadi are strong. Let's just throw out this document. It's basically restating what's in those So is the Alexandria document not basically emitting our point? It seems to be the case. Yeah, so you can do Okay, even if you read this as just a restatement of those two documents,
like to me, it's still it still makes the point. Sure, sure, Well, I appreciate your time, man, And yeah, I mean, and I appreciate the objection. I like that you you know, had had a reasonable non angry objection. But I mean, yeah, I mean the purpose of these sequential synodal statements is precisely where they want to go. Now, that doesn't mean they're going to do this in twenty twenty five.
I mean I think that they're going to test the waters to see if they think, you know, people will go along with this, or will be like a you know, large scale reaction against it. But I appreciate those objections. I think they're you know, that's a fair, fair objection, Christian. I mean it's like that statement that tim right from Cardinal Coke,
right when Cardinal Coke was explaining what this document's about. He says, yeah, it's a way to find an ecumenical settlement for Orthodox and non Catholics to accept the papacy and still remain Orthodox and non Catholic. I mean, Cardinal coch says, that's what this document's about. Well, he doesn't count. Blah blah blah. Go ahead, man, you got it. I'm mute, Christian, I'm you. Hey, Jay, it's Christian. I
think I appreciate you. I just want to send you my love. Also, I want to you know, capitalize on the fact that I you know, sometimes after you know, I think it's some products, some green products.
Uh, you know, I'd get like a little bit into watching The Simpsons, and I just want to say that the like the Springfield isotopes thing, the symbol of the whole city is like the little the Springfield isotope thing, right, So it's like a Jewish symbol of you of you, well, the whole Like it's like an did you know that by giving to our campaign earlier? We're talking about I'm not trying to be mean to you, but what are you talking about? Man? We're talking about the document from
the papacy. We're not talking about the symbols and the Simpsons. So let's go back to remember, how does the Cardinal Coke tell us that the purpose of this document, what's the purpose of it? Is it possible to envision for the future a shared form of exercise of the petrine primacy over all Christendom that is separate from the Church's jurisdiction over the Latin Church. That's the purpose responded indeed, so there you go. Cardinal Coke is telling you the purpose
of the document. It's the very thing that we're saying. No, I don't kill it mean that anyway. I don't see anybody else popping on for the topic. You can't. I don't care about