S S.
S S S S.
S s.
SS dire wave.
Our anthropology is not derived by human psychology or you know, apirical data from M I T or something like this. It's derived from the revealed aspect of what we see in pristology. And so there's no real way to diagnose man's problem and understand man and man's anthropology, as I said, without the right theology, n a.
Fuck instead of my hey, hey, you're live, so hold on.
Sorry. By the way, you might want to change.
It says your name to bust my your must hey, it says your name.
You don't want to change?
Excuse meet me repeat the can you hear me?
Yeah?
Sure, yeah, yeah, we can do it tonight. It's not a problem. Sorry for delaying, but yeah we still have to write that way before it's fall.
Where you go?
Sure, okay, all right, welcome to get another episode of Jay Analysis.
We've got our friend Snack in the house. How you doing, Snack.
Doing decently? Yeah, he's good, good.
Well, Snack did a great video the other day, a brief rundown of the shock waves and cyclical that's going through the world causing such tremendous mystical unity at the highest levels the Roman Catholic world has demonstrated its fantabulous mystical unity with the Office of the Papacy and in particular the latest in cyclical snack.
Yeah, yeah, it's pretty good. It's on the defense. It's a new channel, that's your discood, is creative, a lot of good stuff, very concise, and I'm going to do a few more videos. It's is great and yeah, Fertilituti has been sending shock waves, but in another way, just confirming a lot of stuff. So we could see it coming very far. Actually predicted most of what's in there j before.
Yeah you did you We we kind of saw this as the logical outworking of where Pacha Mama would go. Uh And so you know, we did a couple of streams last year around this time, covering as well as myself and Father Deacon. I'll have the link by the way to the channel where you covered the twenty minute analysis of the encyclical. But today maybe we'll get a little more in depth, put it into the bigger global context and see what we think is going on in
the big picture here. I got pretty deep into it today. There's a little bit towards the end that I'm not finished with, and then cyclical, but I mean I got the gist of it, so we can definitely get into it. You want to start off with, first of all, maybe recap if you would, Pacha Mama and the Amazon Synod and why you would say this might be a logical extension of that, and then we'll get into the details of it.
I mean, we should even understand how the Patcha Mamma seen it is an extension of Vatican too. So Vatican two took a step and open the door to say, you know, maybe maybe the Muslim maybe maybe the Pagans are the right in a sense, and Pata Mamma literally confirmed that, yes, the Pagans are right because, uh, you know, Earth Goddess is definitely the same typology as Mary God, which is a little bit of a stretch already.
Right, and pagan sacrifice the goddess.
Yeah, yeah, And this is just just went went away further and said, well, uh, we're all brothers in a sense that we we can pray to the same God. And so that's the end and the ending statements actually prayers, uh, and we're gon we're going to cover that, but prayers that basically open an idea of communion that is just general Christian Treatyarian communion and communion with other just generic theistic or even Muslim generic monotheistic religion.
Yeah, it begins with uh, Francis, and Francis obviously attached the significance to France France of ASSISI because of his name,
Pope Francis. And you know, I just did a very long three hour stream covering the Malcolm Lambert book, most of which actually covered the spiritual Franciscans, the Fraticelli and the different heresies that actually spawned from Francis's movement, even condemned by the Vatican for a long time in those medieval centuries, and they were very much influenced by Gnostic ideas. Now I'm not saying necessarily Francis himself was a Gnostic. I personally think that Francis was not a saint obviously
and had some very bizarre views. As an Orthodox person, we don't have that same reverence for Stigmata and these kind of this notion of that you have to become a little person who undergoes the sufferings of Christ to become a little Christ, right obviously, Yes, in orthodoxology, you have to be united to Christ and we do die with him to raise, to be raised with him, to
participate in theosis. But there's this notion beyond that in the Franciscan Stigmata tradition, where you actually have to suffer the wounds of Christ to help fulfill the ministry of Christ. Right, and this is where Francis's in cyclical kind of takes off by saying, Look, you know what's the great thing that Francis Cisi taught us. It's brotherhood. So he begins with this kind of generic attitude of well, because we
have kind of this generic father, we're all brothers. And this is shown by the fact that when Francis ASSISI went to the Sultan, he didn't try to debate, he didn't engage in an argument or a dispute. He was just friendly. Now, this is not exactly accurate. Even in Roman Catholic traditional theology. They don't have the attitude that Francis didn't try to convert Saracens. Actually he did. Now I'm not supporting Francis, I'm just saying that doesn't even
match up to the traditional Roman Catholic narrative. Now, it's been twisted to where, look, we're past the period of doing apologetics. We don't do debates anymore. We don't engage in arguments and disputes. Rather, we just have to establish friendship. And so we see at the beginning of this cyclical valid ideas like friendship or camaraderie or human dignity are turned into these humanistic models of what now the social
gospel is. I mean, the whole thing in the first ten pages reads like social gospel, which, as we will see, eventually kind of morphs into a not so subtle international quasi communism. So that's my initial take as he starts out with this story of how Francis did not engage in any disputes, apologetics or wars of words and doctrines, it's not even true in Roman Catho theology, and it's certainly not true in Orthodox theology.
Yeah, exactly, he's taking premises that's okay, and just making a step further. But what we can see today is it was one of my great points is that you know, many people who say it's actually tried, there's actually a lot of stuff that's that's pretty great. It's pretty traditional. Yeah, it's throwing a bone on one side, and it's making
a step on the other side. And what step does he make exactly what you know, what people were thinking Pachmahma was about, or what people were thinking were defending Pachamama saying, oh, it's not about this. So that what's very interesting, because this is about building a new model step by step and creating a precedent. So I think he quotes something from from from previous, previous, and cyclical in this cyclical and at the time this was just you know, he threw a bone the other side and
it just took this step. And now this step is the basis for the next step. So that's a you under a structure and you subvert it step by step, and and when when people will really want to defend it, just have to throw a bone the other way and the next and circle will be predicated on these being normative.
You know.
Yeah, this is the papal bureaucratic two step that I've noticed for many years, which is the way that you keep the people in line is to throw both sides of the dialectical bone. Throw the trads a bone here and there, throw the liberals a bone here and there, and this is a very successful tactic really to keep things kind of you know, underneath one agis right. It's
another version of false dialectic. But the Vatican's very good at that, at gradually moving the goalpost over many decades while in the midst of the present moment throwing bones to both sides, and then they can you know, it's almost like a version of the Overton window phenomenon, if you've heard of that. But I just like that. It's just ironic that out the outset, it's essentially a dismissal of apologetics under the guise of something that is true,
humanitarian aid, this kind of stuff. God is love and you have to love people, not use words. Well, this is a false dialectic, right. Loving someone also entails telling them the truth. It also entails telling them, you know, faith comes by hearing, hearing by the word of God. They have to hear the message, they have to hear what Christ taught. It's not a We're not primarily in a gigantic social institution. That's not what the church is.
The Church is the mystical body. It's a miraculous institution. It's not primarily an entity invented by Jesus to solve world hunger and world poverty. In fact, Christ said the poor you will always have with you. So he didn't send the church out to be the communist warriors for
social justice and ending global poverty. And that's what the syncyclical Big begins with, is the social gospel message of we don't need to build watch towers, fortifications and defensive walls and engaging war and self defense for our peoples or whatever. Now, again, that is just outrageous from a traditional Catholic perspective, because I mean, we brought this up before Sinek, and I'll ask you what is the real Catholicism? I mean, is it medieval saints that are warrior kings,
warrior bishops. Is it Pope's calling Crusades? Is it Stigmata? Is it a giant palace in Avignon? Is it Francis walking around talking to animals and you know, sleeping in tattered rags and supposedly having stigmata. Which of these is it? John Paul the Second praying with all the world religions? Is it Mother Teresa saying that she's not interested in converting Buddhists, but rather to just you know, live a life of poverty. I mean, what is Catholicism really is
it all of those and none of those. And that's precisely why it has such a whole on people, is that it can be whatever you want it to be. That's the problem.
Ultimately, you can you can just pick and choose, and people will say, as long as you're following a certain theology, it's fine. But again, who already discussed a unit problem. It's absolutely not true. And people say, oh, as long as you're as you're in community with the purp, it's fine. And again that may be the one thing that all of this has in common because Francis of Assisi, if he had not submitted to the PERP before, if he just you know, was not in community for him, it
would have been considered one of these bigger orders. It just matches all of all of the categories that these people are an athematised the concept of Vienna follow So ultimately I will tell you it's about being in community with the perp. But here this is a real problem, real serious problem, because there's a clear evolution with morals of morals. Yes, this is a basis of morals. We'll see death penalty, the ability for us to engage in warfare.
Yep, yeah, this is where it really hits home is the explicit rejection of any sense of death penalty. Now go ahead, exactly.
So at the end of the day, which papercies this is a cruisade papacies the Francis there is no moral continuity. So people would just say, just about the office, we know theology and morals.
And we noticed too that the principle of self defense is clearly connected with the principle of the self defense in terms of warfare, and the principle of having one's own nation state. And you know, Francis makes it very clear as he moves on in cyclical no Borders, no Wall, the only thing he leaves out is no USA at all. Right,
so it's basically like half of an Antifa dictum. But before we get to that, he does, of course give a shout out to the Grand Imam Ahmad al Tayeb, where he met in Abu Dhabi, where they declared that God created all human beings to have equal rights, equal duties and dignity. That's not even actually true. Not all human beings have the exact same duties from birth. A husband, a wife, a child, and not all have the same duty.
So this doesn't even make any sense. But this is the classic kind of vague humanitarianism that you get from these ecumenical documents and statements that can be read in any sense that you want. And he says that we are called to all live together as brothers and sisters. Well yeah, but in Christ right, those outside of the
church are not our brothers per se. Now there is a sense in which, yes, all human beings have a common ance during Adam, although by the way, that's not even necessarily believed in the Vatican anymore, but given that they have for a long time adhere to a pretty open definition of evolutionary theory, especially amongst the Jesuits. But setting that aside the sense in which we are brothers
and sisters. It's very cleverly done here in where the way Francis will cite John's and cyclicals in Saint Paul. The context in which Paul says, for example, not to argue and dispute with one another is amongst those in the church. He's not saying to never have a disagreement or dispute with someone outside of the faith, and in fact if you look at the Book of Acts, how many times does Paul go and debate and do apologetics.
Of course he does, because Paul says that that is for those outside of the brotherhood, outside of the community of the church. But Francis tastes comments that Paul says to the church and says, oh, these are now the universally binding moral obligations upon all.
Right.
For example, you have a duty to support other people in the church who maybe don't have a sufficient income. Right, so there's an offering that's taken up in Paul's epistles. But you could say, oh, you see, you have a duty to all of the poor in the world. Now, in a general sense, people have duties to every human being. Yes, But the problem that you get from this sort of socialist internationalist mindset is what they will do is take the They will erase the notion of levels or degrees
of duty. I have a duty to my family and to those closest to me above other people across the globe. But this has always been the liberal and internationalist fallacy, which is to equate the duty that you have to your your those around you to the entire world. And then they actually end up erasing the duty to those around you. Oh, you don't actually even have a duty to family, because family is a social construct, you see. So you see how it moves from one to the
next to the next. Because Francis's attack and critique on the self defense of people groups and nations should logically be extended to the family. Shouldn't the family also therefore be no borders, no wall, no father at all. I mean, why would I stop that logic at nation states and
people groups and then allow it for families. So Francis is quite obviously from the outset a complete subverter, and in fact he is night and day even within cyclicals on the family on Christian Love and Duty written one hundred years ago, So it's night and day from Leo the thirteenth, or even in cyclicals written up into the twentieth century by A. Pie the eleven. So it's night and day. It's just it's mind blowing. Really, I'm sorry I went long there.
Go ahead, I know you said it all. It's it's perfect. Maybe we can go ahead and dissect as the main points.
What do you think about this this move of uh, well, Francis of ASSISI went and talked to the Sultan, so I did the same thing.
I mean, yeah, it's his story repeating itself as a as a farce, and it's subverting things that would be correct in traditional Catholicism.
But Francis, even Francis of Assisi's goal was to make converts. That's the irony here. I'm not supporting Francis of Assisi. I'm just saying that even Francis of Assisi wanted to convert the Muslims, and Francis post Francis doesn't. That's how it's ironic.
Yeah, exactly. You might want to bring up the icons even made an icon. I think it's a Franciscan monastery that just use the icon of Saint pauland Saint Peter. You're giving the threaten lu kiss and they just rehashed it, and one of one of them is a Francis of Assisi and the second one as a sultant. Yeah, I think you can find it to.
Just isn't it funny because Francis Pope Francis early on cites Saint John in his Catholic and Cyclical or Catholic Epistles, First John about not loving your fellow men, but he, I guess forgot to read the fact that Saint John in First John and in Second John says that if any man does not confess Christ in the flesh, God in flesh, he is Antichrist and spirit of Antichrist. So
John says both things. He says, you have to love men, and you have to recognize that these world religions ours spirit of Antichrist precisely because they do not confess God
in the flesh. So he again, it's just sort of this cherry picking of the the nice verses that sort of leftists and social gospel proponents prefer, and then sort of sprinkling them throughout the encyclical as if the context isn't about unbelievers and isn't also balanced with the texts that tell people that they have to convert, have to repent. I mean, is there even anything in this is cyclical at all about repentance. I'm over halfway and i haven't seen anything yet.
Yeah, it's mostly about taking the Christian principle of broselhood and slowly extending it and using this gray area.
And again, you know.
This is encyclicals that just paved away for the Mexican cyclicals, which just will take a step through it, and that people would be mad, and people would just have to say, but look, just previous and cyclical, say, you know, lads of groundwick Foot, you can't refuse it. This is magisterium.
Let's mention that point. Let make sure that we aren't cut off. It doesn't show shows two different stats for concurrent viewers. Let's make sure our sound is good. Okay, So I guess that's okay. YouTube just glitched for a second. It said no viewers. Yes. So the next thing I noticed was he says, well, we are a human family.
This is right before he begins chapter one. He says, and since we are all fellow travelers that share the same flesh, we are all children of the same earth, which is our common home, regardless of anybody's beliefs and convictions. Now that's also not true, right, So he's setting the stage for his next section after chapter one, which will be no borders, no walls. And he sets the stage by the phrase fellow travelers. If you know the history
of Marxism, that's a Marxist phrase. I'm not saying that everyone used that phrase of Marxists. Obviously, it's entered into the common parlance, but fellow traveler is a phrase that Marxist would use to identify one another at times. And you also say, oh, you have all to have the same earth and the same common herod. No we don't. In fact, you know what does Christ say that the wicked will be removed from the earth and the meek will inherit the earth? So we do not all have
the same telos, the same end goal. But if you believe that Jesus was a social reformer and a social liberal of sorts, then you would think that we, you know, are all social socialists. Basically it's a form of kind of watered down Christian socialism, which is what I see here. And by the way, my goal here is not to promote monopoly capitalism, as you know, I don't buy into any of these modern systems. But the phraseology and the
argumentation of this encyclical is pretty striking. I mean, it went it went further than I expected.
What do you think, Yeah, yeah, it went further, but it still was a classical way. And you brought up something the idea of you know, equating us being brosens of flesh and being made all of humanity is made consubstantial by the incarnation, and that's why there will be a finite recapitulation. And equating this final recapitulation with us ending up in the same place, which is true to an extent, but is not in terms of salvation.
Correct. This is the mistake, right, The mistake of David Bentley Heart is to think that because we have a recapitulation in Christ, that every hypostasis will therefore be saved. No, the restoration of nature is universal. But how that
No.
nature will be experienced, The mode in which we'll experience the Esketon will depend upon our individual hypostatic mode of living in reality. So how we've lived in this life, whether we have recapitulated the virtues in ourselves, will determine our experience of the Esketon. Even though we all have the same in goal, of the same ascoton, it will definitely not be the same experience for all people.
Right.
That's why there's the wicked, and there's the righteous, there's the sheep, there's the goats. Obviously, so this you could see begin to see here why someone like Origin is very useful to these kind of generic theists perennialists, because it allows them to kind of muddy the water on these theological distinctions and kind of confused people who don't know a lot of the theological jargon with kind of this bland, generic phraseology of how we're all together in
one flesh, we're all together in Christ. Well, we are, but that doesn't mean that we're all participating in theosis, doesn't mean that we all are saved. Right, But I mean the Vatican has in fact flirted with different kind of forms of universal salvation and several of their theologians in the last fifty years, So it shouldn't be surprising that, you know, he would find this kind of phraseology useful.
The next point does lend to the socialist angle, which is where he says, in this way, in the modern world, political life becomes increasingly fragile in the face of international economic powers that operate under the principle of dividing conquer. Now, that's true, and in fact, this is probably the section Sneck where you were talking about people saying, oh, it's based, it's based. I mean, it's only based if you think
Marxism is based, right. I mean, Marxism is not wrong in everything that it says, right, So Marxist will critique international banking powers. They'll even critique usury at times. But so what that doesn't mean that, you know, because part of your critique is true, that your answer, your solution, your paradigm as a whole is true. And so this is not really that based of a statement unless you think all Marxists, Socialists and communists are in fact based. But I don't think that they are.
Again, he's as statement that you know, perfectly fine if you study people and simply call like like you know, most primi Catholic apology school studies, the church president is picking and choosing what they like. So of course when he says the global company should not dominate the world publicly, fine, look at the greater context, it really does sound so holistic.
And actually you had people in the Roman Catholic with picking up on that, and it should also be put into the greater context of what's happening currently in Catholicisms. It is China mm hm. Purpose accepted many you know, many bishops that were named by the Communist Party of China. That's very funny because we're the ones that are usually accused of having KGB bishops.
But KGB, so yes, which is Francis Francis recognizing the Chinese Catholic bishops, which are the ones appointed by the state.
Uh.
And then he didn't meet with but he did affirm the Chinese Communist Catholic bishops. So I mean, this is this is bizarre because of course the CIA worked for many, many years through this program with John Courtney Murray, as I've covered in David Wimoff's book. And now I guess Francis is, you know, not going to meet with Pompeo.
I don't know. I don't really care that much about the geopolitical stuff, although it is kind of I mean in regard to this in cyclical, although it is kind of relevant because this in cyclical does maybe signify that. I mean, you could even find sections of this in cyclical that are that are directed against Trump. It's like he's literally almost he won't use the name Trump, but he's obviously means Trump. He's like certain political figures will call out their opponents and make fun of them, and
he says this is hateful. He says, this is anger and hate, and we're all obsessed with this notion of fake news, and oh, that's all from obviously from from the Donald so and I'm not saying that Donald is right and everything that he says. I'm just pointing out the facts of this encyclical are about contrasting this quasi internationalist, socialist whatever it is, quote humanitarianism to international finance money.
And I'm sorry, but I just I can't take this seriously from any entity like the Vatican that has a gigantic usery based international money institution known as the Vatican Bank. Francis, if you're going to tell me about getting rid of international money lending operations while you have a gigantic money lending institution known as the Vatican Bank, and in fact the papers he has reversed his position on usery in the Middle Ages, as is well known, as Hoffman showed
in his book. I mean, let's just go to these classic cases, right Robert Okalvi David Yalov's book. I'll be covering these soon. By the way, this is just just rings hollow for someone like Francis, you know, to say this kind of stuff, you know, get on this sort of moral high horse about globalism and all this stuff, and then tell us that we don't and shouldn't have self defense when Francis rides around in a plexiglass bulletproof
golf cart with about thirty Secret Service agents around him. Really, so no walls, no borders, no self defense. You think these security guards don't have freaking guns strapped? Do you think they're not strapped? Give me a freaking break, dude, get out of here with that will that b s.
Yeah?
Again, you know.
The Swiss Guard historically wearing you know, peacemakers.
So well, by the way, this is not just a Swiss Guard, Like I know that the Swiss Guard had been there for a long time. But Francis he goes out, he literally has already Secret Service agent, security detail guys, not just the Swiss Guard, like I mean more than Trump.
Okay, And again that's perfectly fine, that's that's what pragmatically needs to be done. But at the same time, this person is I think he's been saying saying some tweets against private gun ownership. Really sure, people, people need to be able to defend themselves about was the whole Armenia is being attacked for being Christians. America is facing a lot of civil unrest and people need to protect themselves. Actually, guns have shown that, you know, a private ownership of
guns works in these extreme situations. I'm not going to comment on the politic side, but even pragmatically, this is perfectly fine where the purdues, but he's preaching something else and historically chose a change in malls. Yeah, banking is bad, yet the Vatican of the first national bank in the world. Yeah, war is bad, yet you know used excommunication stuff like this to make Cassis belly to invade places in Italy and yeah, yeah.
We uh you know, go watch that show that Borgias with Jeremy Irons and he's playing with Pope Alexander the fourth or whatever, and he's just like, I mean, it's a pretty it's a it's a good show. It's actually pretty historically relevant, at least they try to be. It's a little Hollywood, but he's just he's like, yeah, you know,
fight for me or you're actmmunicated. I mean to get from that to Francis, it's just kind of like, I mean, go look up Simon of Trent, okay, used to be Saint Simon of Trent no longer a saint somehow supposedly uh, And then that should be enough to tell you that that something is fishy here.
Yeah, exactly change change of morals. And that's a problem because the papers he had to adopt some specific morals that you know, were relative to and pertain to leading a state. And he led a state. But that's the first problems bishops and so should not should not lead state? I think it's in Matthew twenty. And historically the church has always operated alongside.
Or in the state.
And then you have donation of peppin the paper state. So the pope starts to include morals that a link to managing a state. And and then he got caught up in this and after after the Italians invaded and push a pope to a little hill in the middle of Rome, he had to to go with the political flow. So in that sense, the Roman entered the world and and tries to to make adom of God.
It is not an earthly kingdom exactly.
That is that is very earthly, and that's why it's it is susceptible to politics and the flow of politics. That's why it went from this very aggressive medieval institution to today's warkness.
Right.
Uh, there was a great article in Politico. I think it was political. Let me see if I had it pulled up on my phone here, which is relevant. I think I shared it on Twitter. But it's relevant to this angle here because and a lot of people are ignorant of this and they don't know the nuances. By the way, Uh, I'm not the only person who's been
talking about this angle and coming to these conclusions. Again, we've got the you know, we've got longtime trads like wim Hoff that talks about this, uh PayPal low crism, you could say, and Vigana right, all the trads are all He's the rage amongst the trade ads right now. Vigano just said the other day the deep State has now teamed up with the Deep Church to overthrow Trump and usher in a novus ordo seclorum. So there's Vigano telling you the types of things that you've heard me
say for a long time. By the way, this doesn't vindicate trautism just because he says that, because trautism, as you know, as we've argued for many, many years here, is pretty much a dead end. But this is excuse me, it's not Politico's mother Jones. I'll put this article in the chat. But there's a great article on John Paul the second and his relations with the CIA there will be done, and all of the sort of Cold War work that John Paul was doing, the connections with Bill Donovan, right,
all this kind of stuff. This is very it's worth, it's worth knowing this stuff because this stuff is relevant to again, where we see the Vatican going now. And that's yes, I am aware that Francis did and go meet with Pompeo. And that's relevant because, as Snack pointed out, the acceptance of the Chinese Communist bishops is part of the under lying the setting for this encyclical, and that's very very important to know and understand. And by the way, I'm not saying this makes oh the ci are and
know the good guys. No, no, it's not a good guy bad guy thing. It's just the realities of the geopolitical sphere undergirding this, which is why, as I mentioned, and all the tribes just didn't know this, They ignored this, they didn't know. I mean, he even says in the encyclical that he owes much to his meeting with the grandy mom right. And then I mentioned that this undergirds
this whole encyclical. In the trade. No it doesn't. It has nothing to do with unitarian prayers that are Muslim friendly.
No, it does, has.
Nothing to do that. Really, he says it in the first ten pages. Is meeting with the Grande mom underlies this incyclical. He's making a symbolic connection between Francis going and talking to the Sultan and him, as francisn't going and talking to the email obviously.
Exactly.
So you will have many, many different interpretations and people saying, oh, it's based, people minimizing it, right. And what's really great is that that's something I touched on the small video is that here this is so blatant that the defenses are contradictory. So you have several types of defenses against this incyclical, from the twad world, from the regular Catholic world. So the first one is just to say it's perfectly fine. So yeah, you're ready lost.
Much ado about it, I think, yeah, exactly. Yeah.
Then you have the people who will start to say, oh, actually it's not magisterial, it's not magisterial, don't worry, it's just a pope giving is private opinion to the whole church in an encyclical. So as the would say, actually, in encyclical doesn't mean that magisterium, it's just private thoughts.
That's actually not true. But I wish we should mention that that's actually not true. Uh, And encyclical actually does fall under the ordinary teaching office of the Pope. Now, it's true that there could be within the encyclical different areas that it touches on that are different levels of Catholic authorities so called. But it doesn't matter that there's those levels of authority even within the encyclical, because as a Catholic, you are still bound to submit to the
ordinary teaching authority. Even if it's not universal ordinary magisterium, it's still ordinary magisterium, and you're bound to submit with docility. Even if you have reservations about areas or parts of the doctrine, doesn't matter. You can you can have personal private disagreements all you want. You must submit with dorcil t. And this is what the trads have forgotten. Yeah.
Yeah, you have people will completely say that it's not other register. You will have people who say, oh, actually it's fine as long as nothing is a ex cathedra in there. But again, as we've demonstrated before, a lot of times. Ex Cathedra is in the eye of the beholder. There's no list. People will interpret it. People actually came out and say that the it's I think it's James Martin would say, oh, no, it's settled. It's the public lared.
Ex Cathedra is that that the death penalty is no more and say it's a moral teaching and addressed to the whole church, and it's something new, and in that sense it will be right. But then you have people say it cannot be Exca fiber because it will contradict a previous Exca theater statement. There's a ball which mentions the death penalty, and it also has a very strong claim for being es cathedral. And then your face with this problem, Yeah it is it infallibly contradicting.
Yeah, the irony about death penalty is that, I mean, when I was traditional Catholic, it was always my understanding from you know, traditional Catholic moral theologies that the retributive justice of the death penalty was classed under natural justice. So this is a derivative of natural law. Right, the eternal natural law derives from the eternal law, the natural law being based on the eternal law. Eternal law, being based on God's character cannot change. You can't alter natural law.
It's impossible. So there's no way that you could have an alteration, even by the Pope, of something that's natural law, moral law. I'd be like the pope saying he could he could alter and affirm something relating to I don't know, abortion, birth control.
Right.
No, no Catholic really believes that, at least any kind of traditional Catholic. I mean, I'm sure plenty of modern Catholics. Hans Kung probably believes that. But anybody who believes anything prior to the nineteen sixties doesn't think that there's any way that the pope could change moral law. And yet here we have a very clear example. And this is not new to Francis by the way. It was John Paul who championed anti death penalty teachings twenty years ago exactly.
So that's a good point that you should bring, you know, if you can change a moral teaching. And again you have contradicting bowles and encyclicals, and this is very affirmative. So again, people who always deny the Excasuto stuff.
The factory love the way you said it. You said it perfectly ex cathedral is in the eye of the beholder.
Yeah, it's pretty much a red herring. It's it's for people to say, oh, don't worry. You know, the book can say whatever it wants, but it's not excateruo. So it's fine. That is a change of fact that there's been a shift in mods about the definelty here it's clear.
Yeah, he's he makes notes about it. He says there's absolutely no usage or need for this principle anymore in the modern world.
Yeah. And the next thing is war. So here's has been a vague statement, you know, quoting the as a catechism saying or the Catechism says there can be some level of just war, and then doing a whole gymnastics and ending up saying no longer can we can we condone just war? So again, is this just war? It's bands of the Catechism says that self defense is a just war. So yeah, you have an invigorous statement. And the tribal takes the first part of the paragraph, the
moderns take the second part of the paragraph. Everybody will say it says this, and the text and cycle is gonna upload it is that exactly And.
Isn't as a beautiful example, Yeah, of the argument that you and I have been making for a long time, which is that I thought that the office of the papacy was supposed to solve all of these basic moral quandaries, and here we have, here, we have this cyclical that has completely divided the Roman Catholic world, probably right down the middle.
Exactly. So you've got you've got another position to fight this, It would be minimizing it in its context, just picking it apart that none of the positions that we've seen is coherent and consistent.
And this is this lends to that point about it's it's fine to say, oh, there are these you know, levels of dogma, right, if I pull out lud we got, I've got sententious surde defide, right, these different levels of different propositions. Oh, that that one fits into that. But the problem is that in the individual mind of the Catholic it's not clear when the encyclical is at what
level you see within the encyclical. Right, So for example, if the pote within encyclical is say, talking about the Trinity, well that's defide, even though it's in an encyclical which is ordinary teaching, it's still defide because he's talking about a doctrine that's da fide. But then he starts getting
into other topics. Now, the individual Catholic at a subjective level is in an existential problem, a quandary, because he's not in any better privileged position to know a priori as he's reading through this encyclical where the various paragraphs and by the way, this has over a hundred plus paragraphs, right, is this paragraph under DeFi day right? Or the lower levels?
Is it universal order? So it doesn't matter, it's it's in other words, just saying that we have the pope and these levels of dogma is not going to ensure that in any the actual instance of reading and interpreting the papal encyclical, that you're going to accurately classify the different sections and sentences and paragraphs and dogmas of the encyclical.
So it moves the problem back a step. That's what we've been saying for so long that obviously this whole thing, this office, this power, all this stuff doesn't do what it's supposed to do. Look at the whole Catholic world right now, and what do they always say to us you guys are divided. You guys are divided. No, no, no, we're way more united than you are. Do we have problems?
Yes?
Are there patriarchs that excommunicate one another, Yes, that's happened in every century of the Church almost, But that's not the same thing as throwing all of your eggs in the one basket, putting it all on a house of cards. Of what that guy does?
We follow that guy, Yeah, exactly. So we've seen patriar engaging in squabbling. Actually, that's a light motive for the truth for the centuries. We've never seen patriarch literally changing morals, right, because.
That's a great point.
Yeah, we haven't seen something of that level. I mean, there's really no precedent for this kind of stuff in the history of the Church. I think you will get a kick out of this. I just pulled up a headline that says, Steck, you're gonna love this. It says, Vatican Bay bank chief says latest scandals are true proof of reform. So the scandals of the Vatican Bank are
proof that it's being reformed. Right, So this kind of Orwellian, funny, sort of duplicitous headline reminds me of latest scandals in the church are proof that we're the true church, right, because we wouldn't have the pedo crisis if we weren't being persecuted by the devil. It's so clear.
Yeah, correct, So this is just displaying changes. And again the defenses are showing that there's no unity, and you have clergy arguing over written giving good arguments, but none of them came to can come to the syntheses, which is the changes moral pope doesn't need as properly.
Right, So the very thing that the papacy was supposed to do, the whole entire and by the way, remember they always make the argument about the practical side. You know, the Orthodox Church is not practical because you don't have the easy one to punch solution of just the appeal.
And look and see what the Bishop Rome says. And here we have sixty plus years of total confusion and chaos, madness, dying numbers of the church in the West, plummeting numbers of seminarians, monasteries closing, convents, closing, Catholic schools, closing, being sued, going out of business, going bankrupt, and yet they're going to tell us that no, no, it's all just liberal media.
There's the liberal media attacking the church. Really, really, is it not the heads of the church Perhaps that pioneer and champion this liberalism. I mean, maybe that's part of the issue here, So let's move on. In the encyclical, he goes on to say, after he talks about the transnational banking power, he says, we have grown indifferent to human wastefulness, wasting of food, and this is deplorable. Now, yeah, okay, it's deplorable to waste food, but is what is why
is he bringing this? I mean, the problems in the world that we have, and he's he's worried about wasting food. Now, he's not talking about the problems of man's spirit. You remember when Jesus is walking around in John six and he talks about the Lord's Supper and he talks about body and blood and this kind of stuff, and the
crowd is just interested in a free meal. And it says that many of them walked away because the stuff he was saying was weird and hard to accept, and it says they were just kind of looking for a free meal ticket. Now, what does Francis to his incyclcal is the very opposite, which begins with all this humanitarian stuff and how we need to you know, basically erect this into poverty, erect this feeding of the global population.
And again I'm not saying that there's not a problem with those things, but that is not what Jesus told us to do. He did tell us to feed the poor, to give alms, absolutely, but that's in the context of the teaching of an expansion of the church. This is in the context of social gospel. Right, and then maybe down the road talk about you know, or maybe not, maybe not even talk about theology. I mean, the encyclical begins by saying, don't argue theology. You know, Francis of
ASISI didn't argue theology, he just did works. But you're gonna have both, right, There's no dialectic between teaching the truth or doing good works. It's both together, right, You're gonna have both.
Yeah, exactly. And that's the classic stuff about humanism or thing into into this Lukeum politics is just using principles that were supposed to be used for the Christian communities in the world as a whole, if God as a starting point, in God as an end, and just transpose it to the political. Oh, we need to stop global warming, we need to stop all wars, but for political reasons, and then that's just usurping the work of God. We
believe in in the regeneration of the world. We believe in, you know, the end of pollution and death and stuff like this, but not through medicine and you know, but through mystical means, through believing in God.
Then he moves on to talk about if you practice self defense, if you want borders, this is racist and we need an open borders policy which will allow inclusion. We need anthropological visions that do not work on profit profit based income models. Now I'm sorry, Francis, but you've got a Vatican Bank that deals in gigantic profits and you're gonna tell me that it's time to stop dealing in profit based economic models. I'm sorry, I just I can't stomach that. It's just ludicrous on the face of it.
Then he moves on to say that the organization of societies is far from reflecting clearly the denigration or a shoot me, the equality and dignity of women. Feminism comes in here. We get the world and its economic structures excludes women. Now I'm sorry, but feminism is not the main problem in the world. In fact, feminism, he should know,
is a weapon. Feminists hate him. They see him as the image of patriarchy, even though that's ironic because he's an ally of their but just in terms of him being a man in a position of authority, and here he is clearly throwing a bone to the feminists. And paragraph twenty three that so basically, this entire and cyclical is nothing but social justice. It's all about all the different ways that you should feel guilty. You should feel guilty for having a nation, you should feel guilty for
if you're a man, for you've mistreated women. You should feel guilty if you have possessions. Again coming from a guy in a giant damn palace, all right, literally a palace with you know, thirty security guard details and treasurer beyond anyone's imagination. I mean, who could put a value on the assisting chapel or any of these you know,
there's priceless, right, just that stuff. Probably the wealthiest institution in the world would be my guess if you were to you know, how could you tabulate the value of these cathedrals?
I mean?
Right, So here he is telling you that you should feel bad for having a nation state and wanting to have borders. It's just ludicrous. The Vatican has the Leonine Wall, right,
Pope Leo erected this gigantic wall around the Vatican. It's still there, right, not the entire wall, but the Leonine Wall is there's you know, you can see big gigantic it looks like it's fifty feet tall, right, Like, I mean, he's got Swiss guard, he's got thirty security Secret Service guys around him, and he's gonna tell us that we should feel bad for a quit. He calls a culture
of walls, building a culture of walls. And what he's done in this this whole thing here is take Francis of ASSISI and turn him into this model of like social justice. And that's not what France of a Cisi did. I don't even care about frances of a cc but it's not even true to Francis of ASISI. Like he he didn't go over there to tear down and cultural walls.
He went to convert Muslims. It's just ludicrous. I mean, here's the Leonine Wall around the Vatican, and this is the guy telling that you think you could scale that right as France is going to be letting migrants up in there to sleep on the floor.
I mean, come on, this is actually he's opened the migrant charity. But in Rome, that's gonna be our problem for the Italians.
In the Vatican City of course.
And again, you know, just before weak counterarguments come in, we believe it's fine for the church money. We believe it's fine for you know, church to be adorned, and that's part of the liturgy, even though we've been relaying less on gold and the patriarchal crown, you know, not filled with jewels anymore. But historically, when we've been faced with this, for example during the communist times or even more recently with what happening in Grease, you know, the
economic crisis, the church was forgiving debts. The Church was selling you know, the non essential saying or you know, selling all the the gold and the silver on the on the icons, just just keeping the essential. So and again you know, not not doing it for migrants, help the world overs that are been weaponized, but helping locally, and we have saying helped. We even have examples of
Saint had been migrants and stuff. But always in this idea of local spirit and not you know, international vertice signal exactly.
And this is where he gets really hypocritical when he comes into the section about migrants and xenophobia. The problem is not that we can't recognize human dignity in other people. The problem is that the argument is fallacious. You are argument is that because other human beings share human nature that therefore there cannot and should not be walls. Well, as we said, that would lead to the conclusion that
my family is not really my family. The family is therefore a capitalist perhaps or some sort of social construct that lends to fascism. If you read the What's the Wilhelm Reich and the other critical theorist Marxist Frankfurt School critical theorists, they have whole books about how the family is really the origin of this idea of private property and passing on a heritage and lineage of tradition, and so therefore we really have to destroy the family, and
the way to do that is destroy the father. So, I mean, Francis is just completely on board with the presubpositions of the Frankfurt School Marxist here, which is just kind of I mean, to me, it's not mind blowing because of about a and has been doing this for
a long time. The Vatican has a millennia of innovating, so it's not surprising that they've just innovated to the point of basically being Frankfurt School Marxist critical theorists, pointing out that that to have a notion of illegal immigration, he says, he says, is dehumanizing. So does Francis realize that all of these other countries that he's allied with have really strict immigration. I mean, is he going to apply that to China? I mean, China has I've been
pretty sure pretty strict immigration policies. I mean, is Saudi Arabia also under this condemnation of France's for retaining and having Bard. I mean, it's just ludicrous, right, it's obviously only directed at like the West, perhaps America and I would do share a lot of these critiques of America, by the way, when it comes to international capitalism, but not on the acs that Francis has.
What do you think, I think it's a bittypocritical. We've seen historically, you know, papal decisions pertaining to expelling some some people, even not not migrants, you know, but for example, expelling Jews and so on from from the paper state.
Good point. And again.
The Church never denied the rights of the of the states to apply some policies. For example, you can look, for example, that's the death penalty.
Where was this in the last In fact, there are papal bulls about death penalty exactly for a certain sense.
Even there's a Roman empire, you know, we're saying that said, well, I think it's polycops saying, well, it got the right to kill me. Uh, and you've got the right to ex the death penalty on people. But you're just you're just wrong in killing me.
But well, I mean the post Treadentine period, there are post Treadentine about the death penalty for certain even for clerics, for certain serious sins. So this is just ludicrous on the face of it. But he goes on then to say that if you talk about fake news, quote unquote, you're spreading hate. Well we know who that's directed against. Right,
That one's not hard to figure out. But so we're going to have to make this a somewhat short stream today because we've got about halfway into this in cyclical let's come back and do the second half, because there's some really there's some zingers in the second half. But the most important one that I want to point out in the second half of the encyclical is towards the end, which is what all the trads were denying, which is clear as day. It's right there that it's a Unitarian,
anti Trinitarian friendly prayer. Now, we've never seen, to my knowledge, anything like this yet. I've never seen. I mean, I've looked at Vatican documents for a long time. We're not halfway're almost halfway, so I should say we've got a little ways to go to get halfway.
But the.
I've got a tutoring session that I got to do at five, But I would like to come back and cover the rest of this and sick if you can do it in the next few.
Days any time.
Yeah, Yeah, he's got right. So he's got here. Let's look at this. The first prayer quote unquote is a Unitarian, non Trinitarian, and I think it's Muslim friendly prayer if we think of the context of the meeting with the Grande mom to me, yeah, and well, but Muslims don't conceive of God as father. Well, there are Muslim articles I've found where they say that in a limited sense, you can use that phraseology just as long as you don't mean it in say, the Christian sense. So I'm
not even sure that that's never used. I mean, they don't have our reception obviously.
Actually e comenical dialogue. In comical the Muslim will have no because you know, the phase is the Bible and God being being used as a father. So there is part of the tradition that say, yeah, God is his father, to know one is not forgotten, he's a beget. But again, in dialogue and especially when engaging in in the Bible, they will often accept the idea of God as father.
And that's more recent. And I'm pretty sure that a you know, great Movit of Egypt would be would be fine if the formulation.
Is probably, I mean, he's he's probably who Francis had in mind when he can when he concocted this prayer, Lord, Father of human family of our you created human beings equal in dignity blah blah blahlah blah ah. And and and even if it's not a Muslim friendly prayer, it's an anti Trinitarian Unitarian friendly prayer, you see. So it doesn't really matter, right, because the principle still holds that. This is the first time we've seen encyclicals allowing for,
as you pointed out, the concentric notions of communion. Right. So, well, we've got the Roman Catholic Church maybe that's the higher level of communion, and then we've got the Orthodox that are close to us but maybe outside a little bit of the Roman sphere through not accepting the Pope. And then we got the Protestants kind of out in this outer sphere. And then we've got you know, the Muslims
and the other religions out here. So there's this scale of being of communion which is completely ludicrous, completely foreign to everything in the whole history of the Church, all the ecumenical councils, no notion of this concentric circles of communion. It's a totally ecumenical Vatican to invention. And that's why this encyclical moves from the Unitarian prayer to the next level, which which is the ecumenical prayer. You see that, you
see the move he did there. Now, I don't know why the Roman Catholics can't see that this is obviously what he's doing. It's obvious that this isn't ensyclical directed towards the people who are Unitarian first to pray with us, and the people who are perhaps Trinitarian but not Roman Catholic to pray with us. This is concentric circles and spheres of communion. It's obvious. And this is not orthodox,
it's heterodox. Obviously, we don't engage in public liturgical prayers and actions with those who are heterodox, are outside the church.
Excles this idea of yeah concentric. So yeah, room itself and you know a little bit separated the Apostolics, the prost and and everybody. And people will ponder out and say, oh, this is Prey's party. Fine, yes, yes, it is fine. You know, we believe that God is a creator and you're just bringing just approach to the Father is a praise that Christ gives. Again, we do not believe in
generic truth. Yeah, you know, it's been composed. Ever since we've clarified the dog Mans of Trinity has been tritarion, and even every every single present without you know, after the Gospel.
Yeah, I mean there's a section in there's a.
Section is specifically.
There's a section in Assuma where Thomas is discussing apostasy, and one of the examples that he gives is that if if any man were to go and pray at the tomb of Mohammed, he would buy that action be committing an action of apostasy and thereby forfeiting his Roman Catholic faith. So even the traditional Catholic notion of what constitutes apostasy has already been far surpassed by the Vatican Two papacy. The Vatican two popes have gone into the
moss and prayed towards Mecca. And I've shown this to trads and like, what's wrong with this? What's wrong with that? Right now, consistent trads, more consistent trads obviously realize that that's apostasy, it's any it's obviously, on the face of it apostasy. But the ones who try to cope it will say, well, he's just praying, doesn't matter. You can't engage in public acts right like that and not express
publicly the inner disposition of faith that you have. That's classic Catholic theology is that the public actions express the inner disposition. And if you're a cleric or a person of public authority. It's all the more meaningful and all the more symbolic and significant and dangerous when you do those actions. That's classic Catholic moral theology.
Yeah, exactly. And the big problem is that you know, people who take these scuratures and creators that you know, more befitting of a muscle are freemason and say, oh, it's technically fine, therefore thing's all right. No, there is this mindset is familiar that you need to take into into consideration. In context, this means a lot. And that's the classical stuff that a lot of Catholic will say, like literally divorce the words from the people who watch
them and the context in which you were written. And again, you know, coming from the people that always declare having true tradition, having living tradition, this is a really weird way to literally divorce the life of your church from what exactly says.
Yeah, I'm going to add, by the way, SNAXT twenty minute analysis to the show description here in a little bit, but we'll read the super chat and then we'll conclude with the first I guess it's the first third of the encirclcle and then come back maybe to finish the rest of it, because there's a lot more gems in here. It's it's pretty wild. It's it's again I think I think it's next level beyond Vatican too. It's the logic
of Pacha Mama even further. So, you know, I don't know what if that kind of stuff doesn't convince a Roman Catholic, then nothing will.
Yeah, and again, remember what we're saying right now, the next one is going to use what you didn't like from this one, because that's what this one did the last one. So again, you know, this is predictions time. And I was I was writing some money. You know, I think on the discord I put, I put on the icon and says this is going to be, this is gonna be this, uh, this is cyclical, and it's gonna say this exists and it's gonna.
Oyeah, you called.
I was writing the money. That's why it works. That's so it works. And and and people are going to use a great area. People are going to use the bones that have been thrown. But that's not the ways the train's going, you know. So burns are just get to come down to chats and they're just jumping on it. And we're going to see that it's a second part. You know, there's one section that's great because they will quote one sentence to say it's based and the rest
is absolutely horrendous. But yeah, let's go into the super chats and we've definitely gone out a second talk with this.
Yeah, let's say that for part two. I gotta do tutoring here in a minute. But first super chat is Duke of Earl for ten dollars. She says, bless you both for having actually read this document. I've still got more to go, so I'm only about halfway reading wise, and we only got about a third of the way in. But thank you for that, Duke, much appreciate. Jordan, five dollars. What's the role of the Jesuit infiltration in the church and how do we refer to how is it relevant
to the Black Pope? I can't. I would over Malachai Martin's Jesuit book. Now, Malachai Martin's book on the Jesuits is relevant because it discusses the topics that you're bringing up. But Malachi Martin is not a reliable witness or character. He's fairly dubious. But it is relevant to if you take if you keep that in mind when you read his book Jesuits. But this book that I just covered is much better for this issue from a not from a crazy conspiracy perspective, but written by a lawyer who's
documenting this in like a thousand pages. So that's a much better approach than this sort of fantastical sensationalist, you know, goofy evangelical approach to Jesuits. Wimhoff's books far better, And I just did a whole two hours on that first. I don't know a third of that book the other day, so you can go watch that, but thank you for that, Jordan, and that. Keufer's focus five dollars. He says China and its relation here is interesting given the their global history,
they're also the king of syncretism one world religion. I don't know much about China's religious history. I mean, I know a little bit about Confucianism and that kind of stuff, obviously, but I don't know a whole lot about the different degrees of syncretism there. Obviously, there's emperor worship and that kind of stuff, and I'm sure that had syncretistic elements ancestor worship, but I don't think it would that wouldn't necessarily be the model for global religion. It's a little
too regionalized. I think they're probably just going to shoot for some kind of generic perennialism, right, I mean, that's usually where the attempts that one world religion goes is just whatever's the most generic, you know, kind of new ag blend them altogether type of thing. But who knows, we'll have to see. Sneck. What do you think about what are the what are the great contenders? Maybe Chris Lom, Maybe the the mixing of Christianity with Islam into some
kind of Chris Lom could be a great contender. I don't know.
Yeah, First, a small word for suggest with question actually GeTe as a great stufference is it's only in friendship skin through it a little bit. It explains that Jesuits come and their goal is to install themselves in positions of power and centralize it. And actually they've been instrumental and centralizing the forests of papacy and today people who are being papal extremists just with you know, James Martin for example, and it's probably one of the better representative
of Jesuits today. So they're instrumental in all this and obviously it goes their way and they've they've been working on this since the beginning, you know, there would not be a papacy. Has been understanding that the just with you know, people were acting as a direct militia for the perfect.
Yeah, they're kind of like a special ops for the papers that you can look at them as like papals back ops even being assassins.
At one point recovers the history in actually the first stream I deep if you just like Jesuits, go.
Back and watch that Jesuits dream that Snack and I did. I'm going to put his video at Orthodox defense just now into the show description on kind of the overview of for Telly two D if you want to go watch that, because he does touch on quite a few things that that we didn't touch on tonight that I rambled on. So anyway, that's all the super chests for
right now. Thank you guys for that, and we'll be back in a couple of days to cover the rest of this in cyclical and thank you Snack, and thank you everybody in the audience.
There was a super chat that was still maybe we can cover this, so it was still a super your close to the stream.
No, I haven't closed it, but I only see one, two, three super chests.
Okay, okay, but yeah, you talked about Chris Lam and I wanted to comment, and okay, ah, there is a plan for it, and I I think I've seen some some credits talk about this, and today as we speak that people who try to reproach you know, Christianity and Islam, namely around the MC conception. So there is our claims that the MC conception isn't the current, which first of all, Muslims don't have a Christianity standing of original sin, and second of all, the current doesn't say this. The current
says that she was purified, not conceived pure. But this exists, and people used to do it for ecologics. In today's they're doing it for approachment. You know, both of them talk about Mary a lot. So Chrislam is a possibility. I doubt that Confucianism is still relevant. You know, China doesn't work like this anymore, even though it's syncretistic and try to harmonize things. But I think it's basically going to be perennalism.
But left wing, Yeah, liberal, that's a good one. By the way, if you're wondering why we only did half of this in cyclical or the first third, it's really long. This is actually a small book, so it's not a you know, ten page in cyclical or something like that. It's a small book. It's really long, so that's why we're splitting it up anyway. But thank you everybody, and we'll come back in the next few days. Have a good night.