Papal Claims Discussion Jay Dyer & Chris Plance

That was very cool of you. We're gonna have an open, free form discussion. But maybe before we get started, do you want to tell us anything about yourself, what kind of content you do, how long you've been Catholic, you know what moved you to kind of do the YouTube apologeticsphere?

and the politics of the world. And there's a story as to how I kind of got interested in all of those different categories. But I grew up Catholic and then sort of fell away from my faith. You know, the joke is, you go to Catholic school, you lose your Catholic faith. That whole thing. Went to go play baseball at a private college up north in California. Here, I grew up in LA and went to Westmont College in Santa Barbara, and I just fell in love with Jesus.

My friends. I was kind of an atheist at the time, like pushing back a little bit, but eventually, you know, gave my life to Christ and then through apologetic means having discussions with my Protestant friends, I eventually worked my back to my way into the Catholic Church again. So so over the years, I have just fallen in love with Scripture. I mean, that's really my love, which is the story of the Bible. You know, if I could spend most of the hours of my day doing one thing,

it would just be studying Scripture. You know, I love it. So that's sort of where my YouTube channel kind of comes in. I just kind of want to explore what it looks like when the story of the Bible sort of interacts with the politics of the world. And this

is actually why I think YouTube. I had known about you for a while because you debated or you you know, early on I was on the rules for retrogrades with Tim and Dave Gordon and then backed out of there for a variety of reasons, and Tim kind of went with the channel. And obviously you've had a debate with

Dave before, who's a good friend. And then Tim is still a really good friend of mine as well, and so you know, every now and then I'll peek my head over the fence and sort of see what's Jay saying. But because my interests lie in sort of the politics of the world and also the church and her mission and what she has said with regard to politics, I think YouTube just their algorithm is crazy accurate. I mean it just that video that you did popped up and I was like, why is it sending me this one

dogmatic contradiction video? So I was like, I'll check it out, And then of course I know why because you're talking about what I talk about a lot of times, which is the fact that, look, the Church has this teaching about the moral duty of the nations to recognize the Creator God, specifically the Creator God as revealed in the

person of Jesus Christ. So this is something that I've been trying to turn up the volume on a speaker that, as you rightly pointed out, has been turned down, and oftentimes you're right, it's almost like the whole thing is off. It's like this thing was the loudest speaker in the room for a thousand years and then all of a sudden,

it's like, where is it going? And I think that it's actually a service for Atholics to have you do what you did, which is to say, wait a second, you can't you have all of these documents in Mortali day coss Primus, I mean, everything you were bringing up. I'm like, oh, man, if if only Catholics knew about this. But of course, you know, part of part of my disagreement.

You know, early on I was I did a show or two with Taylor Marshall because Tim and Taylor were really close, and you know, Taylor has the same concerns that you have, but about the documents of Atticant two, and especially the contradiction what seems like a contradiction in Dignitatis Humane, I think you're being more consistent, perhaps not to say anything about those guys, but I do think that, you know, if there is a contradiction, you gotta end

up where Jay ends up. So I don't You're not surprised, obviously, but I don't see it that way. I I and I wasn't really into the whole trad stuff, and the trad debates that was going on wasn't coming from that world. I actually I actually arrived at this whole Jesus Christ has all earthly authority because of the way I'd been reading scripture. You know, there's this whole thing called empire

studies in New Testament scholarship. I know, I'm sure you know of it, and they're sort of pointing out not just like the Jesus's Lord stuff, where it's like, you know, the person in the first entry he used to say, I am Lord is Caesar. Caesar is Lord, and so

if Jesus is Lord, Caesar is not. I actually think it's a bit more complicated than that, because it doesn't mean that Caesar is not in charge, just means he needs to get baptized, right, So so you know, I started reading all these different passages, like the whole idea of you know, give to Caesar, what is Caesar's give to God? What is God? And the whole point of the image on the coin is that Caesar is made

in the image of God. And this is why all the pack passages in the New Testament say Jesus is the eternal image of God, and then it follows up with this is why he must rule, this is why he must reign, all that stuff. So I just kind of came at it from It's interesting because I studied under a guy named Tremper Longman. I don't know if you wrote this really book, this book in the nineteen ninety two that kicked off the Biblical theology movement, and.

the time it was like, don't talk about this. And all of a sudden nine to eleven hit and then everyone's now interested in this divine warfare motif in the Old Testament. And Trumper I had been writing about this for a while. He wasn't too scared of it. You know, God is the divine warrior. You know, Israel calls God the divine warrior in the in the New Testament or sorry, in the Old Testament when they crossed through the Red Sea,

you know, the Song of Moses and all that. But what that led me to is exploring the divine warrior motif in the New Testament, picking up where Tremper Longman left off, and just discovering, Oh my goodness, because you know, like the Chosen Series. I tell my students this, The Chosen Series has in like one of their first episodes, they're like, you know, they have this little kid asking Jesus like a question. Well, you know, Rabbi so and so says that the that the Messiah is going to

be a warlike figure. He's gonna be this warrior right, and they have Jesus saying, you know, tell me, is there any passage in the Old Testament that says the Messiah will be like this warrior God will come back? And I'm thinking to myself, I was like, dude, like every passage in the Old Testament is about God? Is this that the Messiah will be this kind of divine light,

this this military political leader. But of course when you get to the New Testament, it is interesting that Jesus is doing it quite different, not what we would expect, not what you see with Simon Barcopa and the other revolutionaries that are launching this Messianic revolution. Jesus is doing something different, and I think the church fathers were right that basically, like what he's doing is a kind of Christus Victor thing, right, He's destroying the powers behind the powers.

And so I sort of started to track this, you know, in the New Testament, and then it kind of hit me like, wait, I think this is why Jesus says when he comes back from the dead, all authority on earth has been given to me, because whatever happened on the cross, what we do know is immediately when he comes back from the dead, he says, all authority on

earth is given to me. So it seems that whatever if Satan is the ruler of this world, right, the New Testament says that over twenty one times he's the king of this world, prince of this world, all earthly

kingdoms are sort of in his hand. Then when Jesus comes back and he says all earthly authority has been given to me, something must have transpired that really the Christus Victor motif God as this warrior, the arrival of the divine warrior, actually culminates in this sort of political revolution, if I can call it that, where all earthly authority has been given to him. Now as a Catholic, where I arrive, you know, slightly seeing that authority being placed

in his chief steward, which is Peter right. And I think, you know, my expertise is definitely not in the Church Fathers. You know, I try to get try to read through as much as I can, and I know that is you're well versed in all of this stuff, So I know that, and I know definitely you know the Church

Fathers really really really really really well. But what I see kind of coming out of that Christus Victor and then also coming out of you know, as you mentioned, the Gregorian reforms and the pope sort of having more this power. It's sort of wrestling with what I see in the New Testament. Is this what does it mean for the pope to have this binding and loosing authority along with the bishops that share and that with him,

you know, you know what implications are there? And then reading through all of these in cyclicals, these rich and cyclicals that you pointed out, I'm like, man, this is this is illuminating, not just like a side issue of the Gospel, but it seems like actually these things are touching on the Gospel itself. What does it mean for Jesus to have all authority? And how does how does that actually work? I actually do think and I haven't

brought this up a lot on my channel. I will get to it, but I do think there needs to be a bit more of a development in terms of still what that implies and what that means. I don't think. I don't think. I think the laity need to be brought in, you know, I like the ecclesiology of Vatican two, where it's more of an emphasis on the role of the laity as well as part of the church, you know, because in the in the in the Middle Age, it was more like clergy and laity rather than church and state.

But anyway, so that's kind of how I ended up sort of in these issues. I know, for a lot of trad Catholics, which I'm not necessary, I wouldn't be called the trad Catholic, although I don't even know what

that means anymore. But but uh, I sort of arrived at it like, oh, this is the Biblical story, and Jesus having all earthly authority is just another expression of him being the Creator God, him being what the entire Abrahamic promises were meant to, you know, the the the scepter that was promised to Judah, the nation, the union of the nations. In Genesis twelve, there was a reversal of Genesis eleven. It's all about Jesus having all the dividic.

sense of undergoing evolutionary change. I just mean as the Church more and more states with clarity what the church's position is. Particularly in the first say eight centuries, you do absolutely see statements consistently made by many, many church fathers and even in the Ecumenical Councils on the role

of the state in regard to the Church. And what's interesting is a lot of what you said we would agree with, and we would say you do find in the seven Ecumenical Councils, and I'm only picking the first seven just as a time frame to kind of look at as an example, you begin to see, for example, Saint Ambrose says that the emperor has a duty to God. The emperor should have, you know, Christian principles undergirding the

theology of the empire. We start to see Christian laws themselves with Theodosius, and then by the time of Saint Justinian you have an explicitly Christian emperor, which, although not accepted as a saint in the West or exhuming the Latin Church or the Roman Church. He has seen as a saint in the Orthodox Church because his theology is what's essentially promulgated at the Fifth Ecumenical Council. So we see a very crucial role for the state to do what we think is sort of the manifestation of the

Byzantine double headed eagle. We see that double headed eagle as one body of the people, manifested with church and state. And of course, because there's two heads and they're kind of equal, we wouldn't we wouldn't say as Orthodox that the spiritual power is equal to or under the temporal power. Certainly, the ideal situation is that they govern their realms with their domains, and so certainly the spiritual is kind of

the ultimate authority. In the Orthodox tradition of for example, coronation, the state ruler is anointed. It's almost a semi kind of sacramental ritual for the king to receive anointing by the Church. However, this is where I think we would find the first point of departure, which is that in your model you would see that as something embodied, particularly in Peter and his successors as in some way kind of being a focal point perhaps of the temporal authority

as well. And this is precisely what I'd like to first discuss with you, maybe put a challenge forward, is I would argue that in the first seventh centuries, the model that we see really clarified, especially by the seventh Ecmmdical Council, is not one where the Bishop of Rome in any way has any temporal authority or power whatsoever.

But rather there is pretty clearly the Byzantine Symphony, a model that's outlined, for example in the statements of the council between the Pope and the Emperor, the way that the seven that Comminical Council caused the emperor the God ordained emperor, and so he has his sphere, which is the temporal sphere. But Chalcedon very clearly in Canon seven. And I understand that in your view and your system, you would not think that the papacy is necessarily bound

by the canons. You would say he's above the canons. But my argument would be that there's nothing in Chalcidon that in the canonical language in any way limits this stricture to everybody but the pope. In fact, the way the canon is worded, and I'll mention Canon seven because it says very clearly that those who have been enrolled in the clergy or have been made monks may not accept military or any secular dignity, and anyone who presumes

to do so shall be anathematized. Now, I understand in the Roman, in the sphere of Rome, with the collapse of the west with the Barbarians, and with the moving of the imperial capital to Byzantium, concept and noble, that there is this vacuum, and that the papal states arise out of that vacuum. I'm aware of all that. But my point is that pretty clearly the mindset of the church, and there's later canons that really back up what Calconon says. There's no place for the spiritual power coming in and

saying that we are also the supreme temporal power. And precisely by the time that you get to Dictatus Pope, and then a couple of centuries later, unum sanctum unam sanctum dogmatizes not just the idea that the temporal power is under God and under Christ, which we affirm but that the Bishop Rome uniquely is above and has all temporal power, and to be saved, you must accept that dogma as when I'm saying them says, that's specifically where I would pose a challenge and a point of departure.

doesn't even know when life begins right now. The temporal powers are they they're just not competent like at so many levels. And now I'm not talking about you know, it's interesting, and this is where I think the church needs oppressed a bit more. Is that the the it's not if grace does build on nature, and I don't know if this is the Eastern language, you'd agree with this. It builds on you know, like a Quinas says, like it purifies nature, it heals nature, perfects it and then

elevates it. And it's like, well, if the pope, if the pope has the authority that say, vadicate one says that it has, and that's a proper exegesis of Matthew sixteen and other passages, then the pope has an authority that's not just for elevating in terms of telling us about the Trinity, stuff that reason could not discover. But and this is something the East is really good at. But it actually gives us stuff that we could know by reason, but we couldn't figure it out because we're

we're corrupt, our minds are corrupt. So the church has this this church, the church has this moral authority as well.

So it's like the state, it subject to the dark power, sort of loses this kind of it's not competent to make proper moral decisions, but it it kind of needs to be, and the church is competent in making infallible moral decisions, and therefore the church the state needs to sort of and when you look at the church, the church herself is going to identify the pope as that center of unity, the person who has this specific kerosm right along with the bishops in union with Him, has

this specific kerosm to teach infallibly on faith and morals. And so I see the temple authority that the pope has as being not just a spiritual authority but also temporal in the sense of the state is not always competent, even in matters of morality, and so so I see and I also see the two like going together. They're

not necessarily equal. Like I like the image that Leo the thirteenth uses of the soul in the body, which I know you're super familiar with, and that this the spiritual is meant to help heal and govern and direct properly the passions themselves. Right, the the temporal body of the state is moved should be moved by illuminated by the spiritual, the soul itself, which is that a spiritual

authority that the pope has. I see the temporal authority also, I should say this as being an authority that the pope has over the laity. And I think it gets tricky when you're in secular governments that don't recognize Christ, that don't recognize that he has this authority. And so it's like, what does the church do? Does the pope. The pope technically has, as the Church says, all authority on earth, as Jesus has all authority on earth, temporal

and spiritual. But what do you do when you when you have secular states that don't believe that he has temporal authority in the sense that he can you know, that he can define such things as what marriage is, you know, not just that he can give us, give us a proper definition of the trinity, or proper infallible definition of you know, whether females should well. So I think the nature is I think the Church and state

is sort of convoluted because the nature and grace debate. Sorry, I'm here in my echoes.

issue of Tomism. I mean again, I think we're not dis agreeing about the principle of whether the state has a duty to God, and ultimately we would hope in a predominantly Christian sphere it would be Christian. A Christian state is the ideal in the Orthodox view, when the majority of the people are Orthodox. At that point it's appropriate to have, you know, an Orthodox government and Orthodox laws. That's always been what's called the Symphonia model in the East.

But I'm asking a different question to you, which is, first of all, where do you get the idea that the temporal supremacy of the Roman bishop is even a thing? Is the first question, And I would ask for any Patristic era citation that there is such a thing in the first seven centuries, given the fact that Calcidon specifically forbade all clerics from having any civil governmental roles at the pain of excommunication, and there's no exemption for the

Roman bishop under this canon. So I'm curious where do you think that this. I understand you're going to say, well, it derives from the nature of the patrin office itself, in the supremacy of the of Peter and so forth. But I'm saying, where in the Church Fathers at all in the first seven centuries is anything akin to what dignity what Unum Sanctum and Dictatus Pope claim.

government or should the government be Christian. The contention is that Dictatus Pope and Unum Sanctum explicitly say that the pope is the emperor of emperors and king of kings, and above all emperors has the only right to use the imperial insignia, and that all emperors must kiss his feet. Where is that in any any patristic writing at all in the first seven of the seventh centuries, except for the feigned forgeries like the Donation of Constantine, which backed up this doctrine.

They're actually about the ascension. And that means that when he ascended, because he's now in our nature, what perhaps in a in a spiritual sense, might have been formerly the right or the temple, the temporary possession of Satan is now given to the God Man in our nature, and so his body, the Church actually possesses all reality.

All of the universe will be our inheritance. But in the concourse of the of Church history, the way that I believe Christ has outlined for that governance to occur is not for the Church to have temporal supremacy, but for the Church and the state to be under God. That's the difference in the In the papal model, there is a single headed eagle that is embodied in the

person of the pope, with temporal and spiritual supremacy. In the Byzantine double headed model, which is the entire history of Byzantium, it's church and state in their relative spheres. And that's why it was such a revolution for Dictatus, Pope and for Unham's sanctum to now positive that salvation requires submission to the temporal supremacy of the Roman bishop.

But for example, the ecumenical councils, they're all called by emperors. And so clearly, and now I'm not saying that's necessarily ideal, because eventually, when we have, you know, heterodox emperors, this becomes a difficulty because it comes a challenge. Now, the Church didn't even in the East, didn't totally succumb to heterodox emperors, or else we would all be iconoclass and

so forth. But the point I'm making is that the mere fact that all the Ecumenical councils are literally called by the emperors, and even the Fifth Council is essentially it's essentially Justinian telling Pope Vigilius what to do. He says, you will submit to the decision of the council. And Pope Vigilious doesn't say I'm above you, I have the

spiritual authority. You're out of here. He submits. Now, whether you think that's wrong or right, it at least shows that at that time operant in the Fifth Ecumenical Council, where by the way they teach pentharchy, the Fifth Ecumenical Council says there is a pentarchy. The Pope didn't have a problem at that time with pentarchy. The Pope submits

to the decision of the council and of Saint Justinian. Now, again, whether that's wrong or right, it shows that the mindset of the church at that time at least is not the mindset of dictatis pope and unam sanctum. That the temporal supremacy the Roman bishop is just obviously self evident, de facto and necessary for salvation.

reverse this decision that's on the books. I want you President Putin to do that, and does he have does he have that authority which I would see as as kind of a as a temporal authority. This is why I think we might be talking past each other with what do we mean by temporal authority? Right?

Church is far more decentralized than it is centralized. So even patriarchs are very limited by decisions of and the participation and the college. You could say, of the rest of the bishops in their synod, we would say that's

really just the ancient model of the church. But so ideally, again setting aside the possibility of the state, you know, influencing bishops or KGB bishops during the Cold War and this kind of stuff, ideally the position is that, yes, the Church has the authority to say any state ruler or king or president or whatever is excommunicated and is in error if he does something like that. Right, they have that authority.

They're still in their sphere. And because the Church, the spiritual authority, is superior to the temporal authority, it doesn't mean that the Church now becomes a civil authority, you see, because there's still those spheares. And that's precisely the canonical limitations that Calcidon is laying out. Chalcodon is saying that it makes no sense for clergy to be state rulers or to have jobs in the state, meaning, uh, cleric

shouldn't be going to war. They don't have standing armies, which the papacy eventually has, by the way, in the Alexander Pope Alexander. So all these violations revolve around the violations of the spheres. But having spheres doesn't mean that you can't speak to the state or tell the state it ought to be doing those things. In fact, that's what your duty is.

But it's going to look different when you have those in society that are either a society made up of the Catholic laity Christian laity, or a society that's not made up of the Christian laity, So why so the church winn't Okay, so hope isn't going in the first several centuries, the pope.

they are anathematized as Canon seven of Chalcedon. That's explicitly in a period where there is profuse Christianization of the Roman Empire, maybe not total, but very widespread, clearly canonical limitations on clergy being involved in state positions.

papal registry. And I'll read the dictates of Diktata's poppy in ten ninety. The Roman Church is founded by God alone. The Roman pontiff alone is called universal. The Roman pontiff alone can reinstate bishops in a council his league eate, even if a lower grade is above all bishops, and

can pass a sentence and deposition of any bishop. The Pope may depose those that are out that, among other things, we ought to remain in the same not ought not to remain in the same house with anyone excommunicated by the Pope. That it is alone alone lawful for according to the needs of the time, the Pope to make new laws and assemble congregations, to make new abbey's canonry and other operations, including the enriched new bishoprics, or unite the

poor bishoprics. He alone may use and wear the imperial insignia the Pope alone, of the Pope alone, shall all princes kiss his feet, that his name alone shall be spoken in all the churches. This is the only name in the world. It is permitted to the pope alone to depose emperors. It is permitted to the bope pope alone to transfer bishops if needed. The Pope alone has the power to ordain a cleric of any church as

he may wish. Now you understand that prior to this, it wasn't the papist, the papacy that ordained all bishops in the world. Right, Yeah, So now keep it. There's more, because it goes on to say, no one may judge the first sea, no one can be condemned to appeals to the apostolic chair. The Roman pontiff alone can make all of these decisions without any consent of a subordinate. The Roman pope alone can oppose and reinstate bishops without any synod. It goes on and on on. It's essentially

more and more of the same. But the point is that you have very clearly the first time. And by the way, this is not just my opinion. If you read de Vornik, if you read Kongar and nine hundred years together, or after nine hundred years, if you read Sashensky, who eventually was a Catholic solular that became Orthodox, they

will all. If you read Papacy in the Orthodox, all of these texts, including the Papadocus mind Orf History of the Church in Middle Ages, all of these texts from Uniate and Orthodox scholars of this period will admit that dictatus pope was the normative mindset of the Roman Catholic

Church in the eleventh century in the Gregorian reforms. So this is particularly the shift period where the church is moving out of a collegial sonodal model that you see even up into the seventhda Medical Council, where they still talk about pentarchy. Now it's becoming a sole a talk

autocratic model. And it's not accidental that at this time period is when you have these outrageous claims of temporal power and supremacy, which I would argue really come to a full fruition A couple centuries later in Unum signed them the thirteen oh two Bowl of Pope Bonifice the eight, which argues that all of those temporal claims that the pope has authority over all, emperors can depose it will. And this is precisely what leads Alexander and other Renaissance

popes to have standing armies. It's because of Unum signed them, and they based these things on Samachian forgeries donation of constant to things that were forgeries. So how at all can any of that be justified in the first eight centuries of Christian theology and churches.

and when secular rulers the laity. When when those secular rulers are the laity, they have authority over them, and so they can depose emperors and in that sense they have temporal authority, But the pope is not by deposing an emperor then becoming an emperor. So I see this is why I think that it can choose. Ecclesiology is helpful here because it puts it when we say that

the Church has secular has has spiritual and temporal authority. Yes, the pope has it, but in terms of temporal, earthly authority that is exercised through the Catholic lady and union with the pope.

the Renaissance era, you actually have like geopolitical world power operatives. Right, We've got spies, we've got assassins, We've got all this stuff going on in the Borgia period even up to today.

Now I know you've had You've had talks with your buddy Tim Flanders, and Tim has done interviews with David Wimhoff, who's five hundred page book I've lectured through and talked about for many years, John Courtney Murray, the CIA Time Life magazine, the relationship between the CIA and the Vatican, particularly a Vatican two, and part of the thesis of that book. I'm not saying it's true because Tim Flanders interviewed. I'm just saying that there is this is not outlandish.

Part of the thesis of that book is that at the time of Vatican Two, for example, there was such a tight relationship between the Council fathers, at least many of them and the CIA that is very difficult to divorce the decisions of the Second Acumenical Council, of the Psychomatican Council, and what the designs of the ci I were at that time. That to me, that's another example of Cicero Papism, or perhaps Papalo Csrism, because the CIA is really telling, you know, many of the popes at

that time and what to do. Now. I don't want to deflect off into Batican two, but let me give you another type of example to demonstrate this. And there's a great chapter on this. I know you might not agree with it, but Papadacus and Mayandorf of a great book called the Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy.

And the reason this book is so good is that it's treating precise to this period of ten seventy one to fourteen fifty three, which is where we really see the pivoting between East and West going in different directions.

We would argue the East goes in the continuation of what the mindset of the Church of the first millennium was, with so noidality, and we would argue that the Western Latin Church, the Latin Franco papal church goes in the direction of this sort of papal geopolitical power and monarchy. The end of this chapter discussing the gregoring reforms of the eleventh and twelfth century and on into even later popes who went even further than gravy the seventh did.

There was a rise of something very new called the fighting orders, the monastic fighting orders. And this is something very new, and what Papa Doocus and Mandorf argue is that post Dick Taught is pope. This allowed the papacies to essentially create, although not yet a full on standing army, monastic warrior monks who would be really the monk knight armies of the papacy. And so originally I'm not saying

that they are. Now, I know, we all know the history of the Templars, I think, but originally the Templars and their history and the knights hospital and so forth were actually to be agents knights and warrior monks of the papacy. Now, maybe you think that's cool or whatever. There's I mean, it's from a literary perspective, I guess it's kind of cool. But did you notice that at Chalcadon all monastics are forbidden from any kind of warfare

or anything like this. Now, whether you think it's right or wrong, does it not at least show a vast shift in the eleventh century to have warrior fighting monks that are the agents of the pope. Does that not show a big difference between the way the Church in the first thousand years viewed monasticism. Are you there? You're muted, so I don't know if you if something got muted, I can't hear you.

accept military charge nor any secular dignity. If they presume to do so, and do not repent in such a wise to turn again to what they had first chosen for the love of God, they shall be anathematized. And so this is we would say. And this, by the way, this canon and others are part of what forms the Byzantine model of the relationship of church and state. So maybe we're getting we were getting confused earlier about when you say the temporal power. Maybe you thought that meant

like anything relating to the temporal. What I meant was the state, the imperium. And so in the Byzantine model, the state ruler is seen to be a diaconos, a deacon of a sort, because Paul and roman Is thirteen says the Roman emperor is a diaconos, which is why in the Eastern tradition he can actually go behind the altar. He has a seat back there with the clergy. The

emperor does I like that. Yeah, yeah, and that's intended to show the businessing model is that the state ruler is an icon of God and should be an icon of the Church and of Christ as much as the people in the church and the members of the church and the clergy should be icons of God. That's the goal. The ideal doesn't mean it's gonna always happen, but that's what we're shooting for. However, that doesn't mean that the church becomes the state or the state becomes the church.

So there is we would argue again, two heads. The heads are not supposed to be melded into a big papal head. They're different spheres. And this is really the model that you see in the first thousand years. And that's why I keep pointing to that eleventh century period where even the Orthodox and Uniate scholars admit there's a huge shift. I mean, I.

martial elements of monasticism. Uh. Sorry one second, if I could get it where it's at. Uh whatever, But it's it talks about how Actually, let me see, I'll look up the book. Uh who is it by? What's her name? Bear with me here for a second.

a reader is not part of the priesthood. And in the Orthodox view, this has to do with who and what can do things, that can do things at the altar or behind the econostasis. Right, So readers they don't go and touch the Eucharist and this kind of stuff because they're not part of the priest in the Orthodox Church.

and so you have basically what she does. It's the subtitle is uh, I can't see the subtitle. It's just it's more in the making a monastic culture. There is no subtitle. And but she tracks it from the early centuries, early on, like right out of the Gates, first second century, and then she goes all the way through medieval monasticism. And she points out that a lot of these soldiers that are retiring from military active duty, they would go

and join the monastery. And so what it ended up because there were so many what it ended up doing is creating within monastic culture, like even Saint Benedict, right, a former soldier who is one of the founders of early monasticism, and his shield, you know, his his his emblem of you know what, get behind me, Satan. What you offer me is the evil drink, the poison yourself. You know, that's his in Latin, that's his, that's on his his what do you call it symbol, his crest.

And the whole idea is that you have within monasticism, just this idea of it's a battle against the dark powers. And what she draws out is all of the analogies between that they used in taking all of their military experience and then transferring it into the monastic spiritual fight.

So I'm not surprised that it could have been the case. Again, you know the history better than me that if the pope is going to call forth a military, if many of those guys are that know how to fight are in the in the monastery, he might have to pull them out of.

thirteenth century. That's the first time we see that. And it's not accidental that we see that in absolute concord with the time where the papacy begins to make these outrageous dictatus pap claims, because it is now becoming a worldly, geopolitical institution that has nothing to do with other Jesus has authority in the temporal sphere, which we all agree, but we would argue that Jesus established limitations for what's appropriate for the state to do and what's appropriate for

the Church to do. So for example, the church can't come in and tell the state, I want you to go attack all of my enemies. I'm the pope, and if you don't, I'll ex communicate you, which is what the Borgia posts did. Likewise, the state can't come in and say I mandate that you teach arianism because I'm

the emperor and you must do what I say. There's limitations to both of these spears, and anytime one overlaps or takes over the other one, you get this aberration, which is precisely what we would say that last thousand years of Rome is. And I don't know if you've read the Alexandria Document from the Vatican in regards to the Eastern churches, but the Alexandria Document admits many of these critiques that the East has had for so many years.

the the the laity, just from a Catholic perspective. I know you disagree with this, but this is just how

it's working out in my mind. Right. The laity are under the pope, and the pope and the bishops have this teaching authority that extends not just to supernatural revelation that we couldn't know on our own right, but natural revelation, not even the natural moral law, and so as the laity, the pope does have authority to define matters of morals that will impact how I govern and what kind of how I govern my particular state and the laws that

I'm going to implement. When the bishop, the USCCB, or the pope says something specific about some moral issue, it's it, and it's somewhat definitive. It's not just you know, a recommendation or something or some off the cuff mark. Then he does have some authority when they say that abortion is abortion is wrong, that that has some sort of authority, some sort of play in a when you have a

laity that is in charge. And so, like you said, what the church can do and what the state can do, And what I'm struggling with, Jay, is that what happens when the state is made up of the church. So I want to see the church as not just the pope, not just the pope. The church is not just the pope, and it's not just the bishops. It's the laity as well. And so when you say what the church can do and with the state can do, it's like, well, there are Catholics in the state, and so the Catholics are

making in a units society. Where you have a Christian society, the Catholics are the state. And so therefore because the Catholic laity are part of the Church and they make up the state, it gets very difficult to to kind of make the distinction or division that I feel like you kind of now.

these centuries. And we have this double headed Egle model for a reason because it's exactly the model that it's exactly the model that you see in the councils, particularly four, five, six, seven, and the way they speak of the relationship between the Church and the states. So it's not a mystery you have that as the normative guiding principle. The double headed Egle model, and then we get a radical alteration in the eleventh twelve thirteenth century in the West where they

go a different pathway. So the difference between what you just laid out, which a lot of it sounds good and you're saying, yeah, but the pope is just kind of speaking to Catholic laity, so by necessity there's going to kind of be you know, Catholic wars and Catholic rulers. No, no, that's not what's in question with dictatus pope and when I'm sanctum, this is the pope now going beyond that and saying, because of the donation of cons in the

Samakian forgeries, I now am the emperor of emperors. That's different than saying that the Church can speak to the state and tell them that they're wrong about you know, gay marriage or whatever. This is the pope saying I am the emperor of emperors. I'm not just the head of the Church. I am the emperor of emperors. You

don't see that. That's like vastly different than the model of bishops or even the papacy earlier in the sixth seventh century speaking to and telling emperors that they're heretics, and that they're excommunicated. It's a step further to say that I am also the king of kings and emperor of emperors, and I can call armies and do what I list.

say I am the emperor of all Russia. Is that some.

any temporal power whatever. So notice the argument is that because the spiritual is above the temporal, therefore the spiritual has any temporal power whatsoever, since spiritual things surpassed the temporal. This we see very clearly also by the payment benediction and consecration of the tithes, but the acceptance of power itself by the government even of things. For with truth as our witness, it belongs to the spiritual power to establish the earthly power and to pass judgment on it

if it has not been good. Thus is accomplished by the prophecy of Jeremiah concerning the Church and the Church power. Behold today, I have placed you over kingdoms, nations and kingdoms and the rest. So notice the prophecy of the Church and the prediction of Christ there is applied now to the pope the Jeremiah passage, as if that's telling the pope that he has the ability to be a geopolitical world power and emperor. Right, that would argue that's

totally out of context, not at all. What what No, it is not arguing that. It is arguing that Jeremiah is telling the church and predicting the church to have temporal power. Thus the next but that's not what that Jeremiah passage is about. And it's not saying that the pope can be a global world emperor. None of these passages say that. That's the false conclusion. Now let me

I'll finish this this a little bit more. Therefore, if the terrection, no, it's talking about the papacy having these power, that's where it goes next.

If the highest power of all errors the pope, it can only be judged by God and not by man. According to the testimony of the Apostle, the spiritual man judges all things, although he himself is judged by no man First Corinthians two fifteen. This authority, however, though it has been given to man and is exercised by man, is not human, but it is divine, and it is granted to Peter by a divine word reaffirmed to him Peter and his successors, by whom Jesus said, whatever you

bind on earth, that would beyond in heaven Matthew sixteen nineteen. Therefore, whoever resists this power, which is ordained by God, resists the power and ordinance of God. Romans thirteen two. Even though Romans thirteen is about the temporal state power, the papacy is here saying that the state the papacy has that state power unless he invent, like Manichius two eternal beginnings, which is a false and heretical thing judged by us.

According to the testimony of Moses, it is not the beginnings, but in the beginning that God created the heaven and the earth Genesis one. Therefore we declare it, and we proclaim and we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman pontiff. That means you have to accept this document's teaching of temporal supremacy to be saved.

the passions, or are separate from the passions. And I think what the Pope is saying here is that the spiritual power, the soul, the intellect, and the will rule and govern the passions the lower the body is No.

not run from. So what I'll do is what I would what I would say is send me what you have specifically about the kind of claims the papacy is making. Right, I'll look more into it, and then either I'll come back on first stream or I might even do a video you know response.

in the show description there. Specifically, I would say that a couple of books that I think really treat this issue very well would be not the whole book, but maybe the first one hundred pages of Christian East in the Rise of the Papacy by Mayandorphan Papadoccus, and then Papacy and Orthodox by Sushensky. Really just the first half of this book, so you wouldn't have to read this entire thing, just the first I don't know, hundred and

ninety pages would be good. So those are probably two of the best that I could think of right away. Like I said, there's others that would be good to de Vornick's Foshen Schism book is good.

something like, you know, we do have this authority. But again, as far as I'm aware, when that does come up, it's usually referencing, you know, things that are forgeries. So if there's something that's a non forgery evidence, I would be very interested in that.

I think those also spill over into this question of uh, you know, Vatican two Dignititadas Humane and even the Decree on Religious on a Humanism and other things. I think they go really far in the other direction of religious liberty that in my view, does contradict the things that are said in those papal documents around the time of Vatican One. Now maybe you would disagree, but maybe next time we can get into more of the Vatican two type stuff. If you want to come back.