You know, like the Gnostics or whatever. I just call him crazy. So you're you're you're a goober. You're an idiot, a goofball. That's about it. Jooshah Fat Julian Canadian two dollars. Sam Shamun apologized, okay on about what I mean. Josiah A leron twenty dollars, God bless you. The Calvioc turned Orthodox because of you and your examples. Santos humane is ten dollars. Sam apologized about five minutes ago. Okay, I mean, if we want to be on good terms, I'm open
to that. I hope this doesn't divide people. We all keep walking. Respect everything that you do. CAUCUSUS two pounds or two euros. I never thought Sam would do this. Lord of Mercy MKG Canadian five dollars and forget. I'm all for forgiveness, but what is a bipolar apology worth? Sam needs help? Well, I mean I'm fine with I have to think about what would be the wisest course here. So Joey says we're two dollars. We need Jay on
the Whatever podcast? Now guess what? So I did talk to Brian today from Whatever, it looks like what we're gonna do is We're gonna have a debate on whatever in about a month, and I think I'm going to debate not so Aerdite that debated Jim Bob and Jake Rattlesnake. There's also going to be a debate about the CI's relationship to ISIS and al Qaeda that I'll be debating a post a profit. But it looks like that'll have to be June because the first time we can do
it him and me is like June. So I think in June we're going to try to do that, and then I'll be going on to perhaps other large podcasts on the West Coast in the next month. So we're trying to make that happen. Tain't nothing ten dollars. Did you see Dave Smith versus Doug Murray on Joe Rogan Israel debate. I was actually gonna play this tomorrow, so you see that Rogan. I've got like fifty clips for tomorrow's stream that I thought would be funny to watch.
It was just going to be a chill string. Murray's entire argument was an appeal to thirty. He said, if you've not been to Israel, you can't speak that's what. That's what not so Aerdite's debate partner was saying in their debate right which they were debating patriarchy and feminism and all that guy, All that guy I wanted to say is that you can't talk about Israel. Haven't been there, Like, what does that have to do with patriarchy. Let's talk God.
Ten dollars. Dick Toddus, Pope number nine. All the princes of the world shall kiss the feet of the Pope number ten. His name alone will be spoken in the church is number eleven. This is the only name in the world. Greg was going crazy. Oh I'm a pope, Gregory. Yes, So again, if you're not aware of this, here is Dick Tatus, Pope number nine. All the princes of the world will kiss the feet of the Pope number ten. His name alone is that which can be spoken in
the churches, number eleven. It's the only name in the world. There is that. So we got a bunch of super chats here. I'm trying to get through these, and then we'll go to refuting allbrecks, low tier paper stuff, MKG two dollars. That's why anti Muslim conversions are suspicious no head to quest two dollars. The latest community post is apology. He says that you started if you're not innocent. Okay, I mean, I'm sorry that he took it as a feud, like for me to DM him. Okay, I didn't know
that causes him to be so mad. Okay. Most people, you know, they might be tempted to look at their phone if they're on an interview and their board or something, But most people like I, I've not looked at my phone this entire live stream. So how am I supposed to know that it triggers him when somebody messages him on him on his phone? Quest outset Eddie five bucks or all worldviews circular? You said it before in debates.
I think maybe because people hear the word circular and they think of the fallacy of circularity, it might be better, as FDA says, to refer to it as recursive or self referencing. Gilbert Valenzuela five dollars. My family and are being baptized a Saturday. The Orthodox Church says, probab, your hard work played a big part in my conversion from the Roman Catholic Church. Hey man, I appreciate that that's
great to hear. Bad ghosts Face five dollars. For what it's worth, Sam is taking out his post and he posted apology. All right, So Sam called you a coward, he didn't apologize, okay, I mean, I don't know what san Diego Sanchez five dollars, Sam the paranormal, paranoral ORB guy won't go Orb Novus Orbo Forever Notorious Knives five dollars. Look at Sam's latest YouTube post, Bad ghost Face two dollars. Never mind Sid two dollars. It's called samifesting. I condom
Matt three dollars. Solo Orbo Skima Bear five dollars. Hello, orb theory a colcavayable five dollars, should debate orthodox musclem Now, somebody asked me about this today, and I'm not familiar with who he is. He's calling you out on TikTok and has seventy thousand TikTok followers. I tried to build up my TikTok, but it's difficult. So I wonder if he has does he have like a YouTube or something, I mean, if we maybe we can set it up
outside of TikTok. It's just a hassle to try to do stuff like that on TikTok, So does he have a Twitter that'd be easier for me outset Eddy two dollars. How do you go to the bathroom with carnivore die without fiber? You don't actually need fiber, by the way, if you drink coffee, that works well at annual five dollars. I tried to listening for Bible explanations, but I stopped because it's impossible to follow the topic when he stops to bash somebody every two minutes. As funny as that
can be, but it's our five dollars. He's calling Jay out for a debate. Now, I look, just forget it man, one shot a seventeen twenty dollars what you said about Internet apologists not being qualified to teach theology. If you look at David Wood's recent debate with Alex, this came to mind. There were a few months that we had a team up where we had a Jay Dyer up there, and Alex would have gotten eviscerated. Yeah. I mean I've messaged at Alex O'Connor for a long time to try
to debate, so it just gets ignored. Chris Crimson Specter two dollars. Cat hairs are now meauricles. That's a good one as ghost. Two dollars, Jay, will you debate Harlot's on the whatever? Well, the way that show works is typically you debate anybody. I guess, but I'm gonna mainly be debating not so aradit, but I'm sure I'll also be debating the other people in there. Jbpelty a two dollars, Sam is going live in a few Okay, I mean I don't like I've laid out my critiques. So there
you go, dank naked five dollars. What is it? We're gonna get to the papsy stuff in a second. What is a good starting point to learn about Orthodox position? I'm not a Catholic. I want to learn more. Pamazansky's book is a great uh kanachisis text Orthodox Dogmatics by Palmazansky, So I would start there and then maybe moved to Lasky's Mystical Theology Eastern Church. Jay Rock seven to eleven. Who is Jeff Daherty?
Uh?
Well, he was some sort of evangelical ish pastor who then became a neo pagan and he debated Andrew So I haven't kept up with that guy. Accounts payable two dollars. I do not believe that Aposse Prophet is genuine in his conversion. You know time, I think will tell Joe five dollars. Sam didn't really apologize. He has a community post's apology for his audience. It says that you demonized him. I mean, where what's where's the demonizing? Where's the anything?
All I did was ask him to debate, and you've got like meltdown. He doesn't have any evidence of me ever saying anything negative to him or bad about him or anything. I've literally always been respectful to him, and even after the drama when I asked him, when I asked him to come and set up something where we can have time responses. This is what I got.
We're gonna call you out. We're gonna get you. Don't worry about it now, girl, get.
Some more energies.
Maybe I'll help you. Like I said, thanks, I'm going to show them more round from way.
Down Jo David.
Like he's referring to my jokes about James White that it doesn't make sense. But account's payable two dollars. He has a YouTube channel called or Orthodox Muslim outset Eddie two dollars Jay, Do you say pop or soda? Nobody from Tennessee says pop. That's a Yankee thing. Let's see, I'm trying to keep up with all the super I think I've gotten. Let me see, there's probably some more super jets over here. Let's see we got two new members.
Shout out to the members with the members content is linked and I added a couple of things to the members content too, by the way, pretty recently. All right, so let's get to this in this one.
This is a fun topic. You know, we covered the americ of the conception. Another one that often comes up with Protestant circles and Orthodox circles especially is the papacy. So I wanted to talk about that now. In the last video you mentioned that for you, though there are other factors that came in to your conversion from Protestantism to Catholicism, the papacy was a big one. Tell me why.
Yeah, well, it really played a very big role, number one when I converted from Protestantism. But of course that's like considered that way Orthodox and Cathos then of course it becomes a whole different angle where you look at evidence for the papacy, and I began to look at the history of the papacy throughout the early Church, Pope Saint Clement of Rome very early on, and on and on, leading all the way up to and beyond Pope Saint Leo the Great, and I became ever more convinced of
the incredible role of the pope throughout history. Now, of course, I may be get too far ahead of myself before that. Of course, as we know very well, the clear foundation of the papacy is the Scripture. It truly is, so that laid the groundwork for me. Scripture of course.
Well, the first out here that I would say is that I went through all this same stuff too, right, So I had the same ideology as a Protestant who started reading The Catholic Apologist in two thousand and one. I went heavy into it. I read tons and tons of the secondary literature, and then I decided I to have to get the church Father's set right. So you see that set piece that's behind Lofton there where the untouched church Fathers are basically immaculate because he hasn't actually
read them. I actually started reading them a lot, and I was fortunate enough to have a job where I could read the Church Fathers for about ten years straight. So this put me in a position that a lot of people don't have. I was also doing university at the same time, and I had a very easy job for about ten years in my twenties, and so that Philip schaff Church Father's set was a lot of my
time at work. And I initially had a similar situation, probably to Albrech, where I thought, Okay, it's either Roman Catholic or it's Protestant, right, that's what it's got to be, right, And there weren't a whole lot of internet options back in about two thousand and one two three where you could look into, you know, like the Orthodox sphere or something like that. What you guys have today didn't exist
in two thousand and three. And probably maybe Albrecht was getting into this kind of stuff back then as well. I don't know what year he converted, but it might have been around the same time as my interest in church history and the Church Fathers and the question of
the canon, you know, back in early two thousands. But the problem is that it's very much it's a thing that's based on a lot of assumptions, and there's a lot of to use the Loftonian term, there's a lot of nuance and context that Roman Catholics leave out of their favorite quote minds. And when I first encountered the quote minds through you know Butler and Daalgren and Hess's book, Stephen Ray's work or Scott Hans books. I have all those.
I read all those guys. I was reading all that stuff in the early two t thousands, right, Jerrymattitics is stuff. I got to be personal friends with Jerrymattics. So I went from Bonson World to Roman Catholic Thomas World in two thousand and one two three. That's when I was really reading and converted. I was already believing the Roman Catholic stuff in two thousand and one, but I didn't have the I wasn't convinced enough to convert yet. So it took me till about two thousand and three before
I converted. And by the way, I took the name Augustine, which is funny. When I was received in the Kelly Church, and so you know, I've been there, done that. I know this whole process. I know the thinking, but what happens is that you're tempted, I think, to make the decision on bad reasons. In other words, you're when you get deeper and deeper into these papal things and you're
reading the objections and this and that. I remember one time in my twenties there was even like a week where I remember vividly, just non stop reading every day for a week about the papacy stuff, and I could not decide. I was reading William Webster's book, his trilogy about it. It's all these Protestant you know, quote minds
against the papacy. I was reading all these papal apologetics, and I felt like, you know, at a certain point, I'm just gonna go with papacy because it just seems like things like the canon, things like you know this, that it just doesn't work in the Protestant world. But what happens to people who are new to the world of Rome, which was me back then, is that you're not yet acquainted with the masses of papal documents and
texts that you will have to read. Right. So, just like we see with like the Hadiths, it's not just the Bible and the ex cathedral statements or the Bible and you know the Catechism of Trands or the Bible and Denzinger, right, I mean they don't even read Denzinger like I know Denzinger like the back of my hand. I could. I could demolish these guys going through Denzinger. But you don't know that yet, right. You think it's
just this Protestant or Catholic choice. And then when you go into the world of Rome, you're confronted with an entirely new set of problems. Now you have to understand the post pre and post Vatican Two teachings. And this confronts every Roman Catholic at a very fundamental parish level,
because many Roman Catholic parishes are pretty much Protestantized. You see, they have guitar masses, they have women that hand out the Eucharist, they have clown masses, they have all the most insane, wild liturgical abuses that you could think of. And then what happens is you try to make sense of this. You try to say, well, I don't have to I know already the cope, the wave of cope that you will go through. You will begin by saying I don't have to accept all of the Vatican two stuff.
I can read it and interpret it in a conservative way, but then you haven't really been presented with reading the pre Vatican two encyclicals like Lamentabiley, Patchindi, Dominici Gracias, like Humanum Janus, like Mauri Voss, like Quanticura, like Mesticiko Porus, like southeiast Cognitium. I can keep going. You don't know those things yet. You haven't read the pre Vatican two
papal doctrines extensively. Well, I started doing that right. I realized if I was going to understand Catholicism, I'd have to go to the Rock of Peter and his great successors in the last three centuries and their vast array of papal and cyclicals. So guess what I did. I read them all. I read thousands of pages of papal and cyclicals. I read all of the of the thirteenths and cyclicals. I read all the important Pisce to tenth and cyclicals. I read multiple maybe not all of them
because they're not all translated into English. But I've read Pias to twelfth extensively. I've read Piss the eleventh extensively, and I've even gone back into the Butler the Alberigo two volume set that the Jesuits put out some decades ago. It's like a two hundred dollars set of the Ecumenical Council's original translations from the Jesuit scholars and Tanner and ALBERTA. Goo,
I think, is it? And so I started reading the actually the Ecumenical Councils from the Roman Catholic vantage point, right, that's a very rare, unknown set. It's a two volume set. So I immersed myself in all this world. On top of the source documents, as well as getting Denzinger and reading it entirely all the way through, as well as having the Catechism of Trent as well as having the
documents Attican two. I also got the secondary literature. That means I went through all of the traditional Catholic apologies. And so what happens for a lot of people who go into this world, who get to this stage is you begin to confront do you want to be a trad cat or you're going to defend the novasorto. Each of them has their respective challenges. I went the route
of trad cat. I went to the SSPX, I attended to the Latin Mass for around eight to ten years, maybe nine years technically eight or nine years, and I was in that world very seriously, very intently. I even met with a guy about going into monastical life back in my twenties, so I was serious enough that I really wanted to think about monastic life. However, the thing that turned me off from monastic life was when I
went to the diocese spiritual director for that. He was skittles, like flaming Skittles, and then I read that most of the Dominicans in the Roman Catholic world are flaming Skittles. Bye bye, I'm out. I'm so glad I never went that route. But the problem is that if you go this route, this delusion that these people are into, this is what you're going to have to choose between. Do you want to be a crazy tradcat. Do you want
to be a Skittles novasorto? Do you want to be a do you want to go the route of the diocesan Latin Mass. Oh turns out Francis has been shutting those down, So good luck finding your way through the maze of this nightmare.
It was very clear extree me out of Protestantism. But then, of course, a lot of the claims that we can make for the papacy, we know very well the Orthodox will say, Okay, I can be on board with that. Yeah, but we know that that then changes when we go into history, and in my opinion, the evidence for the papacy on the Catholic side is much stronger.
Do you feel like on the Catholic side some of the evidence that has been put forward sometimes is reading too much into it. Not that there isn't strong evidence, but what I'm saying is impopular apologetic circles. Yeah, do you feel like some of the evidence that is put forward is not necessarily the best that we have off Yes?
For once, I agree with Michael lofton probably ever right.
I think that there is a tendency to grab papal sound bites, Peter sound bites where you will have a quote of Peters being the head of the cheech, or a Peter being the leader of the apostles, and we will utilize that as an evidence of the papacy. And as you know very well, Michael, a lot of those quotes the Orthodox can very well give an aim into and to add to that, Oriental Orthodox as well.
So yeah, so actually from the outseter, I actually agree with this. So they've started off on surprisingly a pretty good foot here.
What separates us when it comes to how we view the papacy? I think that we need to go beyond mirror quote bites. Sure, but here's another thing. I think that once we do go beyond that, and we look at the context, in my opinion scripturely and in the early Church, there really is no other other position.
Now, okay, so I appreciate the admission that not all of the you know, catchphrases Roma spoken cases closed right. We hear this all the time. There's a great post from Luigi pointing out that you look at the context of let's see, I think I saved it. Let's let's pull up Luigi quote here. Yeah. So, as one example of this, right, we often hear the Romans spoken cases closed right, supposedly proving what exactly the final universal jurisdiction
of the papacy. Well wait, wait a minute, Augustine in context says, let us suppose that the bishops who decided a case at Rome were not good judges. Wait a minute, how is that possible? If bat can one true, there still remains a plenary Council of the Universal Church in which these judges might be put on their defense, so that if they were convicted of mistake, their decisions would
be reversed. That's Augustine Letter forty three, paragraph nineteen. So no, there's no When you take out of context statements like Rome is spoken cases closed, which would be Rome's decision a particular situation, it does not follow that Rome therefore had universal jurisdiction and everyone accepted it and it's therefore case closed. That's not what it meant. And he seems
to be maybe conceding part of that. I don't know exactly which catchphrases he's talking about, but let's remember that Chi eighty, the Chi eighty document here, this is the pretty recent admission from the papacy about else the status of the canons of Sartica and in what way Rome was appealed to. This is the appellate structure. If you watch the debate between Ubi and Ibarra, right, some of
the material came up. And actually when I first debated aborrow years ago, I actually referenced this, and everyone sort of laughed and poo pooed. What I said, but it's actually admitted right here in paragraph nineteen. Over the centuries, the number of appeals were made to the Bishop of Rome, also from the East, in disciplinary matters such as the
deposition of a bishop. Now this sumption, because it notes that the appeals were disciplinary in nature, this doesn't say from the outset that the appeals are to settle theological doctrinal controversies. It says disciplinary matters such as the deposition of a bishop and attempts was made at the cans of Sartica in three forty three to establish the rules of procedure. So this is the appellate structure where you
have kind of appeals court system. Right Artica was received at Trollo in six po ninety two, and the Canons of Sartica determined that a bishop who had been condemned could appeal to the Bishop of Rome, and that the latter, if he deemed it appropriate, could order a retrial. Now, does this say that the Bishop of Rome unilaterally makes the decision that shuts the door? It closed? Case closed? Does this say Rome is spoken cases closed? No, it says that the Biserrome can order a retrial to be
conducted in the bishop's providence. It's not even conducted in Rome, It's conducted in the bishop in questions own province. Appeals regarding disciplinary matters were also made to constantin Up. Remember when I said this in the bar debate and they all acted like I made this up. Oh, here's your own papal page, your own papal approved acumenist document admitting
my point. And to other seas. Yeah, of course. If I I was Maximus and I was disputing with the Monothelites and I wanted to get the bishops on my side, I'm gonna appeal to Rome and Constantinople and other seas, and Antioch and Jerusalem and everywhere. I want them all on my side. The fact that I appealed to Rome because it's the first see, it doesn't follow from that that Rome is the only one that I would appeal to. This is the silly argument of the Roman Catholics, especially
a Barrow when I debated Borrow. Such appeals to the major seas were always treated in a unilateral way. Oh, it doesn't say that they were treated in a what way synodical way. In other words, the Bishop of Rome didn't out of hand autocratically determine the matter. It was referred to a synod synodole. Why is Francis holding a synod on sinidelity? Because they're admitting our positions. This means
that Vatican one isn't true. Appeals to the Bishop of Rome from the East expressed the communion of the church, but the Bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East. What does that tell you right there? How is Vatican one true? When we read that Vatican One, as you guys, I hope no, teaches that the Bishop of Rome has universal, unilateral jurisdiction over all of the world, and that he got that from Peter. Vatican one doesn't say that it evolved. It
wasn't a development of doctrine. It's from Peter.
It's most certainly one of those distinctive teachings that if you were to embrace it, it's like the only real option that you could go to is Catholicism. But you then mentioned there, okay, but there is a certain form of the papacy, if you will, that Orthodox can accept. How different do you think is maybe a high Orthodox version of the papacy is compared to the Captain version.
I think it is different enough that would warrant one to convert to Catholicism. I truly do think it's that different. I think that we are living in a time where people are looking at the quotes of the papacy and people that are Orthodox, and they realize, well, this doesn't quite jibe with the way my view of the Church is today. So they begin to read into history kinds of words or teachings that they're they're kind of ripping
out of the context. For example, one incredible example, I could think of the words of Pope Saint Leo the Great, the tone of Leo at Calcdon. It's amazingly evident that Pope Saint Leo the Great viewed his position as out of papal supremacy.
Yeah, it's funny because this has already been debloomked by the vast history that Ubi and Ibarra have already had. So this is, I guess, playing on the ignorance of the Catholic audience that Ubi and Ibarra have already been debating this for years, right, And this led to an entire series of exchanges actually over many years, where Ubi shows that the tone of Leo was not regarded as ex cathedral. And if I recall, this is like years of stuff going back. This was years ago, but he
just made this public a few months ago. If I recall, eventually, I think Ibarra admitted that, Okay, maybe it's not an easy proof that the tone of Leo was ex cathedral. So Ibara, if I recall, walked this back, and here you go, right here, here's Ubi's refutation of point one that, no, the tone of Leo does not prove ex cathedral. In fact, Chalcedon if you read something like Denny's book Papalism, it
notes that Calcedon spent two weeks invested. It's either a week or two weeks investigating the tone to see if it lined up with the teaching of Saint Cyril. Oh wait a minute, you thought Leo was the theologian part of excellence of Calceodon. No, actually, the tone was judged by the synod to be either in accord with or out of accord with the teaching of Saint Cyril. So Cyril was the measure of Calcedon. And you can read
that in the Denny text. And no, there's no ex cathedra argument out of the tone of Leo.
No way around that, right, the language is very clear, and to deny that to me is you're gonna be doing metal.
So again, argument number one has already been extensively refuted in Ubi's refutation of Abara about Leo and Calcedon. Here again is the link. So argument number one was I guess lazy on the part of all brect because he's just repeating what probably what he read in Abara.
Yeah, Leo most certainly held to what I would understand to be the view of Vatican one supremacy. I don't think that.
That is okay. Did you hear that the Vatican one view of papal supremacy unilateral, declarative, ex cathedral definitive teaching right according to Vatican One, and that universality is directly from Peter. It is directly to the papacy, does not come from the Church. It comes directly from Peter to Rome. Why it's not Antioch and Alexandria, which also derived from Peter. Well, the Romancalloy Church just says because Peter died there. I mean,
it's just because it is, it's tradition. It's just because although that we don't have any proof of that. I mean proof that because he died there therefore the Keroism extends to the Roman Church. We'll notice that, according to Lofton and Ulbricht, all of the permanent premissy existed from
the earliest days up until now and it's unilateral. But wait a minute, what did Rome just admit in the Chi eighty document appeals to the Bishop of Rome from the east expressed the communion of the church, but the Bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East. Oops disputable.
What I guess my concern is whenever I see some Catholics pointing to the language at Calcedony where it says, you know, Peter has spoken through Leo right, immediately thinking that that automatically proved the Catholic view, or that the Calcedonian fathers the Catholic view of the papsy. I'm not saying that they didn't. But what I'm saying is, or I guess what I'm asking is, do you think that that alone is enough to really I don't.
No, Yeah, and this is true, right, because you have statements from pre Calcedonian church fathers that all of the bishops are Peter, right, Peter is a All the bishops are images of little Peters. So this just the phrase Peter has spoken through Leo, doesn't prove Vatican ones claim that the Bishop of Rome is the singular, autocratic universal head of the entire church who can universally ex cathedra
pronounce dogmas. It doesn't prove that. So I appreciate again that they're at least admitting a couple of things here about these catchphrase arguments. But these catchphrase arguments actually don't address number one, the contradictions right that we referenced earlier, the contradictions in what Roman Catholic dogma is in thirteen oh two, in when I'm sunk them right and when I'm signed to them in thirteen oh two. You have to believe in the temporal supremacy of the Roman bishop
to be saved in Vatican two. In terms of religious liberty indignatatis humane. What's fundamental to the human being is religious freedom dignitatis humane. HM. That's interesting because I seem to remember a Roman Catholic document called the Syllabus of Errors. Now Pius the ninth is the pope of Vatican two, mean Vatican One where you have the definition of the universal supremacy of the Roman Bishop. And it's interesting because in this document he talks about errors can earning the
temporal supremacy of the Church and the Pope. And what's funny about this is that as late as Vatican won, you had the papacy still defending the temporal supremacy of the Roman Bishop. So let's talk about number fifteen. Every man is free to embrace and profess the religion that he guided by the light of reason and considers true condemned. So this is the section of the Syllabus of Airs of Pius the ninth. And by the way, this was attached to Vatican one, this is condemned in paragraph fifteen.
Right the rights to freedom of religion, freedom of choice, man may and the observance of any religion whatsoever find salvation. Was what does no retaughtes say that Hindus find refuge in God in Hinduism, Men find refuge in God with love and trust. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatsoever, find eternal salvation condemned. So then we come down to errors concerning the Church and her rights. The
Syllabus of errors. This specifically says the Church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the Church is the calogy Church is the true religion. Condemned. So, in other words, not having Catholic states, the Church does not have temporal power. Condemned. The ministers of the Church and the Roman pontiff are
to be excluded from temporal dominion condemned. So US of Errors paragraphs nineteen to twenty seven uphold the classic medieval doctrine of dictatus Pope him sank them in the last paragraph. You have to believe in the temporal supremacy to be saved all the way up into the eighteen nineties, or excuse me, eighteen sixty four, it's reaffirmed a Vatican one. The same positions are condemned. And what does Dignatati Himani do. Oh, it turns out fundamental to humanity is religious liberty, and
we don't really teach that papal temporal supremacy anymore. You understand that, how could it be necessary for my salvation to believe in the temporal authority of the Roman bishop when religious liberty is true? Now, don't you see that those are incommensurable the right to religious liberty and freedom. The Protestant doctrines of religious liberty and freedom fundamental to
human liberty, something previously condemned. Where is it condemned? People in single called Marai Vos eighteen thirty two liberalism and religious indifferentism aka freedom of religion condemned. It is a heresy of the Enlightenment. Liberty of conscience, freedom of worship, freedom of the press. H oh condemned heresies? Uh oh oh oh? Were there there is? Mauri Vos condemned. Liberty of conscience, freedom of conscience, freedom of worshiped, freedom of press,
free speech condemned. What does voon can do? Say no, it's actually the fundamental element of human nature. Human dignity is fundamentally religious freedom. Murori Vos Liberty of conscience, liberty of worship, freedom of worship, indifferentism condemned.
Do you know why?
Because the papacy had mold and cyclicals against freemasonry, wherein they charge liberty, equality and fraternity as free Masonic doctrines. Vatican two accepts the liberalism condemned and Maururi boss yet another example.
I think that you must supplement it with much more. Number one, look at how was the tone of Leo accepted or received right and then supplement that with how.
Did let's talk? Godfight dollars? William Albert says Jay doesn't love Christ. That's all they have is this piety signaling right, That's what they have. Sam said Jay is racist and says the N word. What's he talking about? So that's all they have is like just personal at time. I mean, I'm just going to their arguments, that's all they have. Thomas mc el hern two Canadian. I'm Protestant, but your knowledge and videos are great. Thanks man. Terry seventy seven.
Can you suggest top five to ten books on the Papacy? Edward Ginny Papalism, Abgat's The Papacy, Michael Welton's Two Paths Papadacus Mayandorf Christian East in the Rise of the Papacy. I would start there. Demon cooked two dollars. Imagine being a cringey nerd crying about which church is the true church? Escape the matrix and get some money. So I guess we have a Tate fan Tristan five dollars. Andrew said,
hey will host the debate. I don't know. I mean sounds like they just want to play them and say that I'm racist, Like this is like the weakest shit imaginable. Like, so I'm actually going to their streams to refute their positions, and they're calling you racist. There will be no debate. Jay has made his point. Sam crashed out on his friend and then he blasphemed God and made fun of
the divine energies. I mean, it's just weird, dude. I don't know what the like, what the point of the energies thing is here.
We're gonna call you out. We're gonna get you. Don't worry about it now, girl, get some more energies.
Maybe will help you.
Go get more energies. Maybe they'll help you out. I mean, does he not realize it's the New Testament teaching?
I don't know.
You himself. And then if he viewed himself in this manner, where was the uproar on the side of those that accepted his tomb And the other thing, as well, as we know very well, is that Pope Saint Leo the greats Tone was essentially saying the same thing as Cyril was saying in as.
In his Yeah, but you're leaving out the point that they investigated the tone to see if it was what measured up to Cyril's teaching, so they didn't mention.
It christological position. So then when we see that, we realized that Pope Saint Leo the Great was in line with the great Christological teachings, and we realized how much the teachings that Calca impacted. Because let me be very clear with you, today you can listen to a Protestant individual talking about Christology.
Now let's point out the absurdity of William Albrecks, because I'm pretty sure William Albreck holds the position that, like Voice of Reason says, Ephesus was wrong in condemning Nestorius. Doesn't he say this? I think he does, right, But let me show you how stupid this position is right here. So I'll play your Voice of Reason saying this. And I don't know where they get this, like maybe they get it from Jimmy Aikin, because I know Akin says this.
But I'm gonna show you how dumb this is. Right here's a Voice of Reasons saying this.
Documents set up being used are uh seruitous. So the church isn't protected in matters of fact, The church is only protected only infallible and matters of morals, in the same way that when the Council of Emphasis condemned the stories is irritated. We don't know looking back that the council was actually in the correct It turns out that the story is wasn't in a story, but the council is still condemned the us as an Astorian documents up being used.
So notice he's made up an absurd distinction between councils getting the dogma's right and missing and airing in matters of fact. Let's see how that actually works with the anathemas of ephesis.
So it isn't protected matters fact. The church is only protected only infallible in morals in the same way that.
Is going to become. So does he think that the condemnation and the anathemas against Nestorias aren't faith in morals? That sounds stupid. This position is right because when I go to the anathemas, the twelve anathemas right here, like, does he think that this is not faith and morals they're just airing in fact? Does he not realize that all the anathemas are about the dual subject position of Nestorius, and they're all from Cyril and his theology right, because Cyril,
for example, argues from the Eucharist against uh Nesaurius. So that would mean all of these arguments weren't just matters of fact that we're wrong, they were also theologically wrong because Cyril didn't need to make Eucharistic arguments against Nastorias. That's how stupid this is. Right when it talks about the life giving flesh. Right, if anyone does not confess that the flesh of the Lord is life giving and belongs to the Word of God the Father, that's talking
about the Eucharist, right. If you read Cyril the two Letters to sicx senses, Cyril talks about the Eucharist giving us and being a life giving thing, and he also teaches the energies doctrine right explicitly, so he doesn't even understand that denying ephesis condemnation of Astorias doesn't just preserve the teaching of dogma and not fact in the council some arbitrary thing he made up. It actually undoes the entire argumentation of the anathemas because Cyril didn't then correctly
understand Nestorious position and all the anathemas. That's how stupid this is. And by the way, I'm pretty sure Albrecht holds that position that the Nestorians aren't really Nestorians all the way. I think Shamun does too, which is just idiotic. They don't even know what the anathemas are about. They're Cyril's theology against Nastorius's theology. So if it's wrong, then you deny Ephesus. And he just said Chalcedon lines up
with ephesis. Yeah, but you think emphasis made a mistake, dun't he look at the wide ranging.
Effect it's had. But then look at the claims Pope Saint Lee of the Great and made for himself. Yeah, he clearly viewed a lot of He viewed the power of those keys is being given to the successor Saint.
Peter, and he thought that he exercised them in a unique way. Not that he wouldn't say that other bishops, you know, aren't successors to Saint Peter. He I think he would, But that.
Isn't They are accusing you of calling Sam a bald inward. I've never done that. William has a fake account calling you racial slurs. I mean, that's bizarre. Sue them. These are just mentally ill people. Man, Me and Eugene five dollars. The Black delegation did not give Shamoun a pass as there's goes two dollars, you know, Father Damien Quilt, I do not everyone is going to the Lake of Lava. The moon landings are not are real or they are fake. I do not like takes. This is a matrix attack.
Oh that doesn't make any sense. So Samuel Joseph, imagine if you had joined Sam's petty little stream and just said nothing and said, man, I'm sweepy. I gotta go to sweet Sam and Willow are live right now. This is a debate for the boys. I will moderate Josh Jehoshah fat Z five dollars. I want to thank you for your content. I going to Orthodox Church for the first time. I have yet to find anything false about Orthodox.
He started off as a dispensationalist. Now I'm here make sure I'm hitting all the super juds.
Mean that he wouldn't claim a unique version of papal succession for the Bishop of.
Rome, and I think, Michael, that point is the number one the one we have to focus on, because what I hear very often in popular apologetics is oh, well, Peter is the only one that got the keys, so of course the pope has a special role. Then they failed to realize.
So uh, I think if I if I hop on there, they're amazable immediately gonna lose it, right, So I don't trust them to Like I'm thinking about it, I don't know. I understand what you're saying about a fake, fake account calling people the ND word that I don't. That doesn't make any sense. What does that mean? He's fighting a fake Jaydier account? Oh you mean they're like having a fake debate. So it's for them, it's just like a clown show. I don't understand. What's they're having a fake debate?
What are you talking about supporting Israel? Does he make any sense? I'm going to debate a post prophet? What does that mean?
So?
Where is their stream? Let's see on on Skype? Let me see if I can get on Skype. Let me find the profile here.
Let's see just one second the five games.
I'm calling it a skype.
No answer.
The easiest way to do this would be for them to answer on the phone, and then we can have this today that way. It's very simple. But I'm going to stick to the doctrines. So I don't know why he I mean, they want they want me to hop on. Let's do it. I'm not going to end my stream to go to their stream. We can both have this discussion right here. Oh wait a minute. It has to be on a neutral platform. I thought they told me to just come to their stream. I mean this is
a neutral platform. Okay, so come to my stream. I call in to his stream on his sky But now it's now it has to be on a neutral platform. I'm gonna call one more time. Let's do it. I'm calling in right now. Would be really easy. Let's do it. All he's got to do is have the discussion right now, so you won't answer. I'm not gonna I'm not leaving my stream to go to his stream when we could do it this way and it would be both of us having. He can continue streaming, I can continue streaming.
I can't continue streaming if I go to his stream yard. Or he can just send me a stream yardard link in. He can send me the stream yard link in Skype. Send me the link here here. I can continue streaming. Send me the link here. See, like I told you, the whole reason that he went on this collapse mode, it was because he doesn't want to actually have that debate.
He's always saying he wants to be teachable and corrected, and so I the whole thing is because I invited him and his handler to come discuss on my channel with time responses, and the solution would be send me the link and we can stream it at the same time. So all he's got to do is send me the Link'll y'all, let's do with this. I don't want to stop streaming. I'm not that way. He can have his stream, I can have my stream, and we can both talk on a device. You see. So you notice he won't
answer the phone. They told me to come to his stream. I'm doing it, and he won't answer the phone. He calls you a cult leader while he was looking at memes about you. Yeah, he won't debate the issues. So look here you have it. Everybody can see Sam Shimun doesn't want to actually debate the issues when that's what I'm bringing up, and he would rather play mean games and like make fun of people or whatever whatever with me.
So you can't defend these issues, like I'm sorry that you had a meltdown over me just simply asking you to come and have a conversation about it. He says, you're an ortho slut and you want join I'm trying to join his stream right here. I called three times, send me the link, and he's not answering because he knows he doesn't want to have this actual debate. If he wants to go on the Crucible, we can go have a debate on the Crucible right now. How's that
go to Crucible? Then it would be a neutral platform if we both streamed it from our phone. So if he wants to leave, he wants to boot me, he can do that. I'm still streaming. I don't have to go to his stream. He doesn't have to go to mine. Very simple, simple solution, or we'll go to the Crucible. I guarantee you he doesn't want to debate me on the Crucible right now. I guarantee you won't. He won't do it. They said you called in on stream yard. I didn't call on stream yard. I called right here.
They said you were sending message. I'm not on stream yard. They don't I don't have the stream yard link. There's me calling him three times on Skype that Skype send me the link here. I don't have the link inverted big toe Jay is one of percent Sigma Energy orb. They're acting like you went to the live chat and called him a bad word. That's not me, man, How am I doing that when I'm on here? Is he
that stupid? He falls for any profile that has like it's not me, dummy, I did en joined his live stream. Sam is saying that you posted in his back channel. I don't have his back channel. I am on Skype. That's not me, dummies. Do you know what Skype sounds like? And to mind two dollars, Protestants need to take a back seat. I'm watching a schism in real time. This is not a schism because there's only one church and it's not the made up Apostolic churches that he has
in his head. I don't like your Sam because you bass Protestants. However, Sam is acting like an old cringe vagina. He said that he won't answer because you only want to talk. Now that William left his stream, tell him and William to go onto the crucible. Let's do it right now. Bring William to the crucible. Now, bring William to the Crucible now, So every excuse he's making, I'm giving him a way out. He won't do it one to one on the freaking phone. He won't do it
one to one on the phone on stream yard. He won't do it one to one on the Crucible. Okay, bring William to the Crucible. I'll debate you both. I'm not at all worried about this issue. It's like Sam has resorted now to only calling you slurs. Well that's because he didn't want a debate to begin with. He never wanted a debate. He just wanted a spurgout because he can't actually defend these positions. So again, tell him and all brect they can debate me, me versus them
two on the crucible. So all he has is nasty talk. There you go, oh, like, this is the guy that you want to go with if you're a Roman Catholic And this is the fruits of Rome. Man, this is what you guys get with Roman Catholicism. Is this stuff I want to remind you, this is he He thinks the energies of God, the uncreated energies, are something that you just joke about. He doesn't even know that they're the basis for the Theophanies.
We're gonna call you out. We're gonna get you. Don't worry about it now, girl, get some more energies.
Maybe will help you you.
Like I said, thanks for the received queer bait.
I'm gonna show them who ran from William.
Damn gar.
Yeah, I'm running from William. I'm literally telling them to go to the crucible right now. All right, let's get back to this. Since this is they're not gonna He's not gonna do it.
That the language lends itself to the fact that we recognize that the keys were received by the other bishops as well by the other apostles, but Saint Peter, in a very special way received them. And how are they able to utilize those as well when they are in union with the pope, with Saint Peter, the successor of Saint Peter. I think that that's the one area where they get tripped up.
I think so, And I'm glad you brought up this point, because it is true that the other apostles received the case of kingdom as well. Sometimes I think we overseail our position by saying that only Peter received.
No.
Yeah, the rest of the apostles also received the case of the kingdom. But that does mean that we can't say that Peter received them in a unique way, no doubt, or that we could maybe speak about the apostles receiving the keys of the Kingdom through Peter.
They want to talk about the biblical case for the papacy. In the Bible, Jesus breathes on all the apostles. It doesn't come on Peter first and then to the apostles at Pentecost. The Holy Spirit comes down on all of them. It doesn't go to Peter and then Peter give the Holy Spirit to the rest of the apostles at Pentecost. I'll look at that he ran away, so he had the opportunity to come on to the crucible. Rachel says, for five dollars, the crucible is on standby, ready and waiting.
If Sam accepts. I sent him multiple calls and multiple opportunities. I called it. We could have had that. There's no reason not to have it multi streaming at the same time. Right, All he has to do is hop on and he thinks I'm over there like watching his stream, like, oh, I'm gonna wait until I'm gonna wait until William leaves, and then I'll call him. Dude, you and William can go on the Crucible and we'll do it right now.
Sam just ran away. Well, what did you expect? All he wanted to do was bitch and wine and lose it. None of them want to talk about the actual issues. That's it. That's all they want to do as well.
And I think that language there is probably the clearest if we emphasize that. But the other thing that people they get tripped up on Michael is the fact that they'll.
Say, Okay, wait, he brought William back and into the stream. I sat there calling him and asking him to do it. That's so ridiculous. I mean, do you have a bed time?
Like?
Did you have a coof you? Like, I'm awake. Let's go to the Crucible. I'll just fire up some more coffee, let's debate all night, let's do it.
Apostles receive the Well, then why do we need why do we need to Saint Peter? You need to see Peter because they were able to utilize them by being in union with the head of.
The Why do we need a Saint Peter? Let's hear this brilliant response again. Why do we need a Saint Peter?
Why do we need to Saint Peter. You need to see Peter because they were able to utilize them by being in union with the head.
They were able to utilize them by being in union with the head. You need a Saint Peter because they were able to utilize them by being in union with the head. So a pragmatic argument that doesn't tell me that Vatican One is in the text. It doesn't actually tell me in the text that Peter is the head. We in the Orthodox Church call him Corphaeus, the mouthpiece of the apostles, but the single unilateral head. Where was
that in anything that we've seen so far. We've seen a reference to Leo, we've seen a admission that you can't just use catchphrases. I've not yet heard an actual argument for the papacy yet. So let's see when we get that Sam got jay diarrhea. Wendy Torretz. The Muslims
are having a field day with Sam manifesting. I mean, all of this is ridiculous because I sent him one message at the beginning of the day when he was doing his stream asking him if him and William want to come and have a timed response on my channel, and he just lost it for he had a total meltdown over nothing and it's just crazy. And then he goes into like mocking the divine energies. It's just crazy, man, it's weird. Jay, here's two dollars. You did it for
the chat. You're a g makeing sure I didn't miss super chats. Let me let make it back anyway. So we're having a fun like again, let's get back to this. Because they're like, the way they're gonna do this, they're gonna play this is that they're gonna make all this smoke. They're gonna make all this drama. They're gonna whine and bitch. They're not gonna talk about the actual issues. And they're not gonna they do. That's the last thing they wanted to actually to be the issues, or else they would
just hop on the crucible. We can we can sell it right now. We can hop on the crucible. We can pound it out through the entire night what the issues are. But I don't know, maybe leather Daddy here has got to go pound it out some other way.
I don't know of the apostles of the band of the Apostles, that being Saint Peter. I think they tend to forget that, and the fact.
That, well, you know, the officers bishop, well continue, We're told directly next chapter one twenty when the office is desolate of the bishop, it uses the Greek.
Episcopos or episcopy. I forget the exact Greek word there, that will be fulfilled. He'll be filled. Yeah, Thus bishops continue, and we realize that that's very clear.
For Sam says that you have a lisp. I'm pretty sure his leather daddy buddy has them the lisp of all lisps, and more of a lisp than James White. I don't have a lisp, by the way, So, uh, Sam is copying my James White joke, which is funny. Come up with your own jokes, dude.
Saint Peter, those that would follow him, and I've noticed a tend to really, whether it be Evangelical or Orthodox, tend and not understand.
That, you know, for those that say, as you mentioned there, that okay, well, why do we need a Saint Peter, why do we need a head it? My thing is it's like saying why do you need a why do you need a head on the body?
Again, In the Orthodox view, Christ is the head and he directly governs the church through the power of the Holy Spirit. So we don't need an Old Testament high priest earthly head because the Old Testament high priest office in the New Testament is explicitly referenced and fulfilled in the person of Christ. So Christ is quite literally the living head of the Church, and every bishop underneath Christ
is another little head of the church, you see. But it doesn't follow from this analogy of head to body that there has to be an Old Testament high priest head. You see, when the high priest, as everyone knows via Hebrews Hebrew seven, is fulfilled in the person and the ascension of Christ. So the Roman Catholic position is actually a lack of faith in the power of the Holy
Spirit to govern in the church. Now, an easy way to refute this is it's Benedict the sixteenth that admitted that the Orthodox Church has maintained the faith for the last thousand years. It's a famous Benedict quote. Well, then we don't need the papacy to maintain the faith, you see. So the Orthodox confession that the Holy Spirit is the
governor and guiter of the Church. Thus we don't need the physical, literal, high, priestly judaic head of the church is proven by the admission of Benedict that the Orthodox Church has maintained the faith four thousand years about the pope.
Body can't exist without a hey, it cannot, yes.
But Christ is the head. So this false analogy does not prove that the Bishop of Rome is the vicar of Christ on earth, the earthly head. It's just that's the thing in question, and it's not been proved so far. They've only really made a pragmatic argument the pope will provide unity and he can be ahead. But these are not good arguments so far.
It seems like there does have to be that center of authority, the center of unity. Yet really even be able to identify a particular communion, you have to have that.
So it seems that I don't know how if a center head of authority and unity is needed to recognize the church or to recognize that unity. How did any Christians who converted in the first, second, and third century who didn't have access to Rome know the faith. Did they just go and say are you the church in commune with Rome, then you must be the true church. What if they didn't know anything about Rome? Like, do they actually think that all of the churches in the first, second,
third century were catechizing people like Vatican One? And if they weren't, then they didn't need to know about the bishop bishopic of if they were converting in Jerusalem or in Corinth or Ephesus or anywhere else. Do you see the point when you read the early catechetical lectures or when you read say, John Damascus is on the Orthodox faith?
Why does John Damascus, a doctor of the Catholic Church, write an entire systematic theology with no reference to the papist Here, Peter, he didn't recognize the obvious number one rock center of the faith of the church when he wrote an entire systematic theology or did he just simply not have in his mind the Vatican One mindset? Like these people do could.
Function without Ahead? Now, yeah, what people will say is, well, Jesus is the head. What do you say, respondse, yeah, so.
Without a doubt, we recognize Christ. It's ahead, We recognize Christ holds the key.
Nobody says, but yeah, the Holy Spirit doesn't really do that good in governing the church. So we need the the Questak. We need the ruler of all rulers. We need the king of kings.
The Pope.
You think when you're king of kings, you think it's Jesus. No, No, the Pope is the king of kings on earth. You see, he has all temporal dominion and authority, and all kings must submit and kiss his feet. The Pope alone, shall all the princes of the world kiss his feet? Is that what Jesus was setting up when he set up a church, which, by the way, they reference Chalcidon. The Canons of Chalcedon forbid any cleric from being a worldly
magistrate or a civil leader. No member of the clergy can be a prince or a magistrate of the state because the separation of powers dictatus pape is a rejection of Chalcedon. Let's see Orthodox for nisis five dollars. It is not freeful to speak with Sam. He was spitting, he was calling Orthodox dogs. He found old Theoria articles against Orthodox ethos. So now he's mad at Father. Hears just losing it Sam Jordan and five dollars. Sam is ending his stream. Now that the crucible people are offering
a platform that's neutral. Of course, Nicholas two dollars, I just joined the stream. What's going on? I'm refuting the Roman Catholic position of Sam and Albrick. Two dollars. Sam, he won't call you. You're desperate for reviews. Yeah, I'm desperate for views and them on two dollars. Protestants need to take a back seat. I already read that. Let's see Dre God the passport King ten dollars. This is a rare currence where Muslims and Protestants are not part of
an insane clown show. Where's the cloud show? Other than like I'm actually I'm responding to the actual arguments Gray stream Jay, this is dedicated to the papacy and it's long overdue. Well, I've actually done a whole bunch of papacy streams, oaklock something sks and d two dollars. Sam said nothing but foul discussing things about you and all the Orthodox there you go, all because of one DM that I'm asking him to come and have a friendly exchange.
That's it, that's it. That's what ignited all of this because I disagreed with his take on Protestant and Catholic models of the Trinity ISA eighty seven two dollars. Sam Chamun was indefensible tonight. What a shame. Yeah, retro reister gaming five a's Jay God bless you mate, love your channel shivalib get so and so on to debate with you. I don't think he wants to debate with me. This is not Tolsch Schamun. It's about somebody else. I don't
think that guy's interested. But maybe we'll see Brent. Five dollars. If anyone is manifesting anything, it is Sam Shimun Roman Catholics. This is the fruit of your rotten church. This vindicates Orthodoxy. Unfortunately, this is verty big too. Five dollars. Sam said that you are a pure scum, you are the son of Satan.
You are.
Gay. I mean I'm married, he's not, so I don't That doesn't make any sense. BLK and Sam and William fell for a fake account and they thought it was really you. This is one of the stupidest, our funniest clips of the year, arguing.
That but.
Peter, Saint Peter is the vicarious rock that has got to be recognized Number one that takes nothing away from Christ. But the fact of the matter is, Michael, is that Christ set up a visible church with a visible hierarchy and invisible head.
And yeah, but none of that, that's a non sequitor. So the thing in question is whether Peter is the sole autocrat head of the church, and we haven't actually heard a proof of that or a specific argument other than practical appeals. Well, you need it for unity, but where's the evidence of that biblically, where's the evidence of that in the patristic sense, because we haven't had an
actual argument for that. All we've had is well, Leo thought as Tom had authority, okay, but that's not ex cathedra, and it was investigated to see if it was in line with what Cyril taught. So we've not had much substance yet.
When you kind of use that as a you know, fallback and say, well, you know, Price is a leader. We agree that the church has always agreed. But how is the visible hierarchy mentioned in scripture? And it's very clear how it is mentioned. We hearken in the Matthew chapter sixteen all the time, but there are other pastes Luke chapter twenty two, John.
Twenty Let's look at Luke twenty two. And let's see if anywhere in Luke twenty two we find anything equivalent to Vatican one, because it ain't there. So remember this is proofs for the papacy from the premiere papists, leather Daddy Albrecht. Here, let's see where all Brett goes with.
Us one Judge twenty one. And the language is very strong there. Saint Peter's were literally told in the Greek that he said, shepherd in a very special role.
What kind of shepherd?
All the apostles are called shepherds? Where is the special role? Right? That's attributed to Vatican one's level of this? All right, so let's see what do you say, John twenty one. So we have the the denials of Peter, right, and then Jesus is pointing out to Peter that even though you denied me those three times, I am forgiving you, and I am telling you and giving you this commission. Feed my lands, feed my tend my sheep, feed my sheep. Where in any of that which is a restitution, a
kind of redemption for Peter's three denials? Where in any of that is the Vatican one claim that the Bishop of Rome exercises universal, temporal and spiritual power autocratically over the entire church. Where is that, Oh, because Jesus said, ten my sheep. So you begin to see that the entire presupposition of these people is to read into the texts these bizarre, outlandish interpretations that have nothing to do with what's in the text. That actually progresses too. Dictatus
Pope in ten ninety. You understand they have to defend this because it's not just dictatas Pope. Unam simtem dogmatizes the same thing. A couple centuries later. The Roman Church is founded by God alone. The Roman pontiff alone is universal. He alone can depose and reinstate all bishops. Totally different ecclesiology. The first thousand years UH number nine. The pope alone, of all the princes in the world, shows his feet. The Pope's name is the only name in the world.
The papacy is the only name that can be spoken in the churches the Roman Church. The papacy is judged by no one and may be judged by no one. So in ten ninety Dictatus Pape of Gregory the seventh becomes the seeds for developing into unam sanctam in thirteen oh two, which doesn't just say that you have to be in communion with the Bishop Rome to be saved. It says you must also believe in the full temper temporal power and supremacy the Roman bishop to be saved
as well. And as we saw the Roman calogy church doesn't teach that. Now, this is what these people are defending from Jesus telling Peter, feed my sheep. You can't make this up. So Jesus saying feed my sheep literally is supposed to translate into a thousand years later. You are the king of all the kings in the world. You should have standing armies, as the Medici popes did. It's ludicrous.
Over the flock. Yeah, So my comment would be that we have got that chep, we have that business as lead, and my hope would be that all of these other churches have that as well. But in order to have that they would have to become Catholic. Those people would have to become Catholic.
Some people would say, but okay, you know, I understand what you're saying. But it seems like Vatican One and its language and claims about the pope, it just seems anachronistic, they would claim. They would say that, look, this speaks about an authority to the papacy that just did not exist in the first millennium. What would you say to those who would claim that this kind of authority doesn't exist in the first millennium?
Yeah, exactly, you mean the argument. You mean the argument that the papal document itself makes in eighty paragraph nineteen appeals to the Bishop Rome from the East expressed the community of the church, but the Bishop Rome did not exercise canonical authority of the Church of the East. You're talking about your papacies argument that this wasn't the case that it's admitted. Is that what you're talking about.
One, even though it's very early on, you clearly have seeds of that in Pope Rome, without a doubt, where he's what he's talking when he's talking to the flock, he's doing it in the authoritative manner. He clearly views himself as that head of the church.
But no Clement of Rome, by the way, is no longer even used by Roman Catholic apologists. And if you read the the Sashensky book that just came out, there's an entire chapter on Clement on this very point, and even the Roman Catholic world has ceased from trying to utilize Clement in that way. This is an older apologetic approach that was popular maybe one hundred years ago, but it's fallen out of use because it doesn't really prove
what the Roman Catholics wanted to prove. Right, So, if Clement writes a letter and says to a church far away that because he presides in love and he has these recommendations, none of that has anything to do with just like John twenty one, with the claims of vatican Ie. And so this is just like the classic low tier. It's like Catherine answers level quote mining that even Roman Catholics don't use anymore. So again, Sashensky's chapter on Clement disproves this.
We go beyond. It's very clear in the language of seeing her in as that there is a certain model that is set up in a certain way. So if we look in early church history and we look at the claims of some of these popes, for instance, I brought up Pope Saint Pope Saint Leo the Great, and we go onward. Even at classic example, read the language of the second Council in Nicia.
There's no way, very strong, right, and that's added agumenical council.
That's this is very very strong.
Yeah, but it did they not realize that the Pentarchy had already been accepted at Nicia two, like prior even prior to Nicia too, the Pentarchy had already been accepted. And flowery language, as we saw in the debate between Ibara and Ubi, doesn't again doesn't get you anywhere because the same flowery language is used of the emperor and the empress. For example, the emperor is called the he whom the gates of Hell cannot prevail against. Oh, so does that mean that he's equivalent to Peter? So in
other words, it's a double standard. Right, The same argument has brought forward when this was the point Luigi made to Voice of Reason. Right, So it's a double standard. So just because you see that flowery language like that, they'll pick and choose and they'll say, well, when it's used of the emperor, it doesn't count. But when it's used to the Bishop Rome, that's the only time it counts. That's a double standard.
Incredibly strong. So if we have that kind of language, this is fort millennium. Uh, this is the first millennium. And if we have that kind of language there, the Church is agreeing upon that kind of language, then there is a foundation.
Now it's a non sequitor. So because the first the flowery language is there in some of these examples, which is selectively chosen to ignore the flowery language that's said identically of the emperor. By the way, I understand, I'm not arguing that the emperor is the bastion of the gates of Hell, right, I'm not arguing that the emperor is what will keep the church from falling to the
gates of Hell. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the same phraseology is used of the Emperor, and the Roman Catholics ignore it because it doesn't fit their model and their usage, because they would then have to admit that there's flowery language that's used a lot in those centuries.
Let me give you another example. If you read Basil's letters, when he talks about how Rome was useless in the Malitian Schism, when he refers to the Church of Antioch, Basil says, Antioch the head of the church, the head from which the body desires and seeks its knowledge and it's whatever all this flowery language, nobody believes the Church
of Antioch is the head of the Church. You have the same language in Pope Saint Gregory the Great where he calls the See of Peter Rome, Alexandria and Antioch as late as Pope Saint Gregory the Great. So that doesn't fit their model though, you see, because they have a selective usage where they pull out the quote that fits the model, ignore the contrary evidence, not to mention the contradictions against the Vatican One idea of indefectibility, like
popeias or a pope being deposed. They'll set that aside for a minute. That's ignored because what's useful is the selective, flowery language that fits the narrative of Vatican One being read retroactively into these passages.
We love them and the orient Orthodoxy, and they're gonna say, hey, well, we weren't there at and I see it too, so what about us. So the way to answer that, in my opinion, is to look at beforehand. Sure, and if you look at beforehand, if you look at in the Syriac fathers, they have strong language when they talk about the papacy as well. And there's look, Michael, there's no
way around the language of the Bible. Yeah, it's very clear the model that is laid out there, and that model is at very clear of the papacy the way the Captain Church points it up.
Now, come on, So far we've heard Matthew sixteen, we've heard Luke twenty one about the Luke twenty two about the denials, and John twenty one about feed my flock. That's all we've heard. And he just says the papacy's clear. You haven't demonstrated anything from Vatican one in the Bible, nor have you demonstrated anything for Vatican one in the Patristic text yet. And by the way, you've not addressed any of the objections either.
By the way, nobody I mean, I mean.
Like Honorius, Virgilius, et cetera, which are classic problem texts for the papists. And let me remind you of Ybarra mmh. Let me see it definitely, So try to pull up. I'm not sure if I'm logged in, I could say what the hell was that? IM trying to find my clip. Let's see if it's on X. See if we can find it over here. You'll see why I'm pulling this up. There's a clip I uploaded where Abara doesn't have an answer and the freaking search on here is terrible.
It's on my TikTok. Let me just play it this way.
So we're gonna show from Ibarra, who's far better than Albrecht at this point, how bad the augmentation is here. Okay, here we go, who.
Never departed from the traditions of the fathers and directed the Church of God in utter tranquility.
Do you think that's correct? Not literally?
Yeah?
Oh so wait a minute. So we have a quote, a patristic quote that this certain situation, I can't remember if it's talking about the emperor or what, but it's saying that this bishopric or this in this situation, they always kept to the faith and never departed. Right. So this is the same language that's used in the ballet or Bagatho.
Right.
So I understand that Ubi's making the argument to a borrow that flowery language, even in your view, doesn't prove the papacy, because you admit, when the flowery language of never departing from the faith is used of the emperor or of the other bishoprics, it doesn't count.
You hear that who never departed from the traditions of the fathers and directed the Church of God in ultra tranquility. Do you think that's correct?
Not literally? Oh, flower, language doesn't automatically prove it. Let's see where this goes. It's not literally correct, but when the papacy works for the Roman Catholic it's literally correct.
By the mid fifth century, how many popes have had like heretical views.
Yeah, this is a hotly debated issue. So, I mean, there's questions related to the pontificate of.
Liberius and Felix.
But you know there's there's both sides.
Yeah, Theodora. Oh so wait a minute, the papacy has had heterodox people in its chair. What about that doctrine called indefectibility. I'm pretty sure there was a promise of indefectibility. That's part of the Vatican One mindset and ethos of what the papacy is. Well, you understand the pope is indefectible until he defects. That's literally the Romaicelli position. And you just heard admit that.
Mention this letter. Yes, for that Holy see speaking rom has precedence over all churches in the world for many reasons, and above all for this that is free from any taint of heresy, and that no bishop of heterodox's opinion has ever sat upon its throne, but has kept the grace of the apostles undefiled. Do you think he's correct?
I mean, so that's pretty strong, flowery language.
Uh oh, unless he elsewhere condemns another pope.
So, as you mentioned, maybe he didn't know. I mean, he's out in the sounds like he's out in the boondocks when he riots, I can the constitutions of the church be destroyed?
Constitution, the police, You're just done through the churches, right?
And these guys are talking about when the Holy spirits down through the church is always, always, always, so I mean, okay, so in one case remaining, oh thank you. So in this case, I mean, when taking too account that there had been heretical popes, I mean, I don't see how you can maintain that the always there should be the exception.
Yeah, we don't know. So oh, always the papacy was always the rock and never taught error.
Right, right, And these guys are talking about, with the Holy spirits down through the church is always, always, always. So I mean, okay, so in one case remaining, oh thank you. So in this case, I mean, when taking too account that there had been heretical popes, I mean, I don't see how you can maintain that they always there should be the exception.
Yeah, we don't know.
I mean, look, I believe Honorius was a condemned heretic.
Oh so the papacy isn't indefectible. It's indefectible until it defects. So you understand that the bar right there denied the indefectibility of the Roman See do you.
Think in the case of Saint Silverius, he was deposed by bel Sorrus, He's sent to Justinian, finds out says you have to give a guy trial. He's handed over to Virgilius. Virgilious he was a horrible person. I don't know when sounds of it, He's horrible. I mean, how does that work out? If Virgilius is the pope, but he's judging a former pope. That means that the deposition of the former pope had to be valid if Virgilius
is a pope. If if the deposition is not invalid and Virgilius is judging him, then you still have the situation of a pope being judged by non pope.
I'll be candid with you, this is something that I have not really had a satisfactory answer to.
Oh so when we have the real hardcore problems the top apologist, I don't know, man, I don't have the answer. So there's Abara, who's way more advanced than this goofball doesn't know the answer.
That the way the papacy looks at the time, they're not saying, well, the papacy has to look like this. Yeah, in the one hundreds, the church has been persecuted. You know, the church has developed, doctrine has developed.
There's no argument about Oh so wait a minute, now, remember Vatican One Pastor attornis uh uh satist cognitium. They actually argue that the prerogatives and the powers of the Roman bishop were always there and always known and recognized by the rest of the church from the earliest days. Well, but it is persecuted, so it's not really there. You don't really see it. They're not able to do it, and it develops. So wait a minute, is it always
there and clear from the earliest days? According to the Vatican one and Lee the thirteenth people teaching or was it not clear? And it developed over time into unum sanctum and the pope is the king of kings and has a bank run by the roth Charles the Battican Bank. Which one is it? Is it a development or was it always there? Those are mutual exclusive claims.
You see doctrine developing. It is not the same thing as saying that doctrine has been created and there is no example of this his Oh really?
Yeah?
What about the idea that the Roman bishop has full temporal authority over all kings and it is himself a king of kings. And if you don't believe that, your dannd where in the first thousand years is there a doctrine of that? You must believe in the temporal supremacy of the Roman Bishop to be saved. Oh, it doesn't exist. That refused the very thing he just said.
You know, the unfolding of the doctrine in industry is another thing too. So it's a good point. You bring up the wordy in orthodox A. Yeah, well they do accept ephesisure. What's interesting there is you have at emphasis Phillip the leg at the representative of the Pope making some pretty serious claims in front of the Council fathers about the Bishop of Rome. That is really the seeds of Vatican Willing in my estimation, Yeah, no doubt he makes them openly.
Oh so wait a minute, remember Vatican I and post returners in Scatheast Cognito teach that the powers and prerogatives of the Roman bishop were always there from the earliest days, recognized by all. But now we have at ephesis the seeds of the papacy. So understand that when you admit that these doctrines and these ecclesiology type structures evolve, you're admitting the evolution of doctrine, which allows for a position of in nineteen twenty eight condemning interfaith gatherings to nineteen
sixty eight, sixty nine, seventy. Now it's the work of the Holy Spirit. If doctrine evolves, the Holy Spirit can contradict himself followers accepted.
Yeah, yeah, there's no doubt about that. So you bring up a very good example there, because the church is not broken off at that time in emphasis. So to me, the best that they can do is try to claim that maybe later on that that wasn't accepted. It was accepted there though there was no doubt about it. There is no doubt that it was accepted there.
So what do we But again, the flowery language or the strong language of legates at Ephesus, this comes up in the I think it was the Yeah, let's remind everybody of this classic. Right, So the the translator of these texts, right, they had him on reason and theology, Father Price, right, So let's remind these two people in terms of the source that they're going to Richard Price. What does Richard Price say about this argument of Chalcedon
and Ephesus. Let's see what he says, because he doesn't say what they say, but he's who they rely on. What's this?
Why did the bishops in Calcidon feel they needed to judge THEODOREA if Leo had already reinstated him.
Oh, well they didn't. They didn't recognize Roman jurisdiction in the eastern provinces.
Whoa you?
So there's reinstating for them was not decisive. The decision has to be made in the east. The the Odora's position at the council is an interesting one. Uh when the uh.
So you see why this was not what they wanted on this stream. They invited Richard Price On who translated the Ecumenical Council acts in the sessions and all that, right, and they got a question that didn't fit their made up narrative. Right. And Richard Price is admitting, because he's enough of a scholar and he's honest with the texts, that the East didn't care about Roman authority and the
Roman bishop in some sort of unilateral way. It's the exact same thing that Rome's eighty document says right here in paragraph nineteen. The Bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East. Let's hear Father Richard Price again, the very guy that these guys rely upon.
You understand, the bishops and calcid On feel they needed to judge Theodora if Leo had already reinstated him.
Well they didn't, for they didn't recognize Roman jurisdiction in the Eastern provinces.
Oh oops, doesn't fit the narrative. Just ignore it.
Talk about the orient Orthodox. That to me is a problem for them because they reject the papacy. But it becomes an even greater problem for the Eastern Orthodox because we have so many examples, especially at the Second Council of Nicea, and this is what I would.
Ask Before he goes into this, I should point out that from the Orthodox perspective, the power and prerogatives of the Roman bishop are something that unfortunately evolved. So I'm not saying that actual theology develops. I'm saying that the power and prerogatives of the Roman bishop developed over time, and you do get stronger and stronger statements about the
power and prerogatives of the Roman bishop. So even by the time of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, when they had already accepted pentarchy, you tell that to a Roman calogy, they think that you're making that up. They don't even realize that their own popes accepted the pentarchical structure by the time of the sixth and seventh Council. They're assuming that the statement from the Bishop of Rome necessarily makes it.
So.
Well, that would only be true if the Roman Catholic Vatican One position was true, which is the thing in question. So you notice, because these people are evidentialists and they're very sort of low tier, not very sophisticated when it comes to epistemology. They just assume that you just quote mine and pick out the evidences, and if you stack up enough evidences, then it ninety two percent proves maybe the papacy in its seed form. But that's misunderstanding the
paradigm question here. From the Orthodox paradigm, just because the Roman bishop starts accruing to himself more and more power, which you clearly see in when I'm signed them and Dictatus Pope, it doesn't mean that it's good or necessarily so. From the Orthodox perspective, the Bishop of Rome is like any other bishop. He can be a heretic. You've heard Ibara admit that there were heretic popes. There's no special
prerogative that makes that guy immune to these problems. So the fact that a pope, as we get into the seventh, eighth, and ninth century, makes more outlandish claims, makes more outlandish temporal power claims, doesn't prove anything other than that you're just presupposing the papal position. But they don't actually think that way, right. They think that if the pope has more and more outlandish claims, that proves the papacy. Well, only if the papacy in the Vatican One position is true.
Is that the case, But that's the thing in question.
Which church most resembles that church of the second Coast of nice in language?
And oh, really, you're sure you want to go that route? Because the Second Council of Nicea is about icons, and the iconographic theology of that council lays down patterns and structures that are not allowable outside of the canons of what's appropriate for worship. In fact, there's a council that
reaffirms Nicea two in eight forty three. It's called the Triumph of Orthodoxy in the East because it's the final victory of Nicea two over the Iconoclasts, and that produces a gigantic document called the Sonoticon, which condemns all kinds of things, including the outlandish violations of worship and errors in the Roman Catholic system. Eventually, this develops in a
lower D sense of developed. I don't mean that the doctrine change, but I'm saying that canon law is the application of the principles at different times and in different ways. For us, canon law can be flexible. It has to be can't be immutable. There has to be changes and applications of canon law because cities go away. Times change. For example, you have canons that say that clergy can't ride on a horse, right, eventually clergy can ride horses
because we don't have nobility anymore. So horse riding was something for the nobility, and priests weren't supposed to be engaging in the actions of a civil servant and the nobility. So that's why that canon was there. So canons are a tricky thing because they're not necessarily infallible or immutable or eternal. Their applications of the principles of divine revelation to the time and to the place. And I don't think anybody believes that unless they're sort of crazy, that
all the canons are infallible and eternal. It's just not even a possible position. And that's different from the Creeds or the confessions or the dogmatic statements of an ecumenical council. And I would argue the anathemas are also. You can't deny the anathemos like voice of reason. And these guys do to try to make Mystorius into something acceptable in the Roman Calolic Church, but they actually do, they actually
accept Nestorius in the Romancolic Church. It's crazy. But again you notice that it's all premised on the idea that the system can evolve, and what we have today in the modern Roman system is somehow identical to the seed forms of the Church in the first thousand years, when every ecumenical council has canons that refute the Vatican one mindset. Now wait a minute, Jay, I thought you said that
the canons are flexible. That's correct. The argument is not that ecumenical canons are infallible and thus refute the premiacy of the Roman bishop. The point is that in every ecumenical council there are canons past that show that the council didn't have the mindset of Vatican one, because it contradicts the mindset of Vatican one in every acumenical council. But you notice the Roman Catholics have left out all of that evidence, and they've selectively chosen the things, and
in this talk they haven't even done any that. They've done little to no argumentation. They've cited three Bible verses and two councils and they haven't addressed any objections. And I'll give you right here this essay that I did or excuse me that Seraphim, who's now a deacon. It might be a priest by now, but this was a buddy of ours from the discord, who is now a clergy. By the way, from twenty eighteen. I think he wrote
this in twenty eighteen. I posted in twenty twenty, So my computers might be freezing here.
It would be without a doubt.
Yeah, you and I see it too, also argue no doubt I would even know Vigilious and the way he views himself with the Fifth Council.
You just heard Ubi stomp Ibarra on Virgilia. So here's Loten appealing to Virgilius. And what did They're better? And Ibarra is way more advanced than either of these goofballs. What did he Borro say about Virgilius never departed from the traditions of the fathers and directed the Church of God?
And do you think in the case of Saint Silverius, he was deposed by Bill Sorrius, he's sent to Justinian, finds out says you have to give the sky a trial.
He's handed over.
To Virgiliusius was a horrible person. I don't know from the sounds of it is horrible. I mean, how does that work out? If Virgilius is the pope, but he's judging a former pope. That means that the deposition of the former pope had to be valid if.
Virgilius is a pope.
If if the deposition is not invalid and Virgilius is judging him, then you still have the situation of a pope being judged by non pope.
I'll be candid with you.
This is something that I have not really had a satisfactory answer to.
So the best top papacy apologist can't explain the very thing that Lofton just said is the best argument for the papacy? Are you serious or one of the best.
Fourth council Leo? He most certainly thought his son was a definitive prior to an ecumenical council.
Nobody didn't, though, And the quote that we just saw from Richard Price refutes that. You see, And I wonder if they still have the Price thing up. They might have taken it down just because it doesn't fit with Lofton's narrative. Right, So you hear you heard what Lofton said, Right? We know it's so obvious that Chalcedon Chalcedon thought Leo was authoritative and he had full temporal power and supremacy. Let's hear it once more.
Why did the bishops in Chalcedon feel they needed to judge Theodora if Leo had already reinstated him.
So why are the bishops of Chalcedon separately judging this individual called Theodora? It's over the Nestorian question, even though they knew that Leo had already pronounced a condemnation. If Leo had ex cathedra papal power and authority, they would not rejudge something that Rome has spoken cases closed, right, And what does their scholar that they're relying on here with all of these translations of the council.
Said, Well, they didn't they didn't recognize Roman jurisdiction in the Eastern Prophnce.
Oh oh, oops, I guess it's not Vatican One at the time of Calcedon.
Is it ruling on the matter? And what's even more interesting, he is he overturns a canon of the Council of Calcedon.
Oops. Oops, it's not what he does.
By the authority of Saint Peter a council.
Yeah, this is the Roman Catholic revisionist story of what Canon twenty eight of Calceildon is about. When you actually look at what Leo says, Leo does not say, I reject this because I'm the pope. I rejected because of Rome. Canon twenty eight of Calceldon that Constantinople one had already enacted by the way out of Connunia with Rome made Constantinople second after Rome. So it placed new Rome second after old Rome. All right, so here it is, and why did Leo reject this? It had nothing to do
with Vatican one papal prerogatives. The real reason why, if you actually read into the subject matter, is that Leo believed, somewhat correctly, you could argue that Canon twenty eight of Calclodon, which is actually a canon from Constantinople one, at this time Rome had not yet accepted Constantinople one. Keep that in mind. Leo believed that it violated the rights and the privileges of Canon six of Nicia. So if you go back to Nicia, Canon six says, let the ancient
customs in Egypt, Libya and Libya and Patapolis prevail. The Bishop Alexandria has jurisdiction in all these since his like is customary for the bishop of Rome and likewise Antioch. So notice the jurisdiction of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria is all likened to be similar. By the way, there's nothing about universal autocratic, unilateral jurisdiction here. And when you bring it up to the Roman Catholics, well, it's an argument from solnce because they just all knew it. It's not there,
but they knew it. So again they ignore the country evidence and just assume it and say that it's an argument from silence, which is what it borrow says. Now, Leo thought that to say that Constantinople now was the second to see after Rome in this listing of canonical privileges would be to violate Canon six of Nicea. So it had nothing to do with the authority of the Roman bishop. It's rather that this canon, that is Canon twentia of Calcildon, was a restatement of a canon from
Constantinople one. Constantinople one tried to make for the East. In the East saw this as a ecumenical council. They tried to make the UH the place of Constantinople second right. And if you go to UH Nicia. It's different in terms of the canonical structure. Right, so it differs from Nicea in the canonical structure. So here you see, here's here's Constantinople one. Right, here's Canon three. Because it is new Rome. Let the Bishop of Constantinople enjoy the privileges
of honor after the Bishop of Rome. Does this say anything about papal prerogatives unilateral jurisdiction. No? No, it says the privileges of honor right after the Bishop of Rome, and let the patriarchal Constantinople be number two. See so Leo says that's not fair to the canonical structure listed at Chalcedon. That's why Leo rejects it. Right, has nothing to do with Vatican one papal powers. He just doesn't accept it because the papacy did not accept Constantinople one
at this time. Constant Noble one is the Trinity Council. It's the council that was held out of communion with Rome, which dogmatize the Cappadocian doctrine of the Trinity. The decree of that council says you must follow the two of Saint Gregory of Nissa to be orthodox in your trinitarian theology. And by the way, the Roman Church does not follow that. So constantinople One is not accepted as an ecumenical council until centuries after Leo by the West. Do you hear me?
The papacy later accepts constantinople One even though it was called out of commune with Rome. It's presiding St. St. Meldio's died out of commune with Rome.
Oh, it just.
Happens to magically retroactively be an ecumenical council once Rome accepts it, and it dogmatizes the Trinity. So you understand that what they're talking about, they actually understood this. It actually destroys the Vatican One via the Papacy because it's admitting that this original controversial canon comes from a council that defines and dogmatizes the Trinity outside of communion with Rome.
Yeah, no doubt, which, if you think about it, the proceeding has been set at the Council of Jerusalem in X chapter fifteen. Now, nobody's going to doubt or argue that the head of the church in Jerusalem.
Was James Nobody, of course, But who is the one that makes the.
Decision and James of course after James. Of course, James agrees, But it is Saint Peter who does it. And that's a big, big factor because you look at the commentary in X fifteen by Saint Jerome and he's noting the very same thing, calling Peter Saint Peter the prime mover of the Council.
So well, first of all, the fact that Jerome says that that also doesn't translate into Vatican Ones claims and there's nothing in this that tells us that because so hold on. So they're admitting that it's presided over by James. But they're saying, but Peter makes all the decisions. What does it actually say at the decree here it pleads the apostles and the elders with the whole church to send this out. Does it say anything about papal decree?
There is no papal decree model here. In fact, it's so bad for them they actually have to say that, well, Peter spoke at the beginning, and Jerome thinks that he was important at the council. But they just admitted that it was presided over right by James. Now let's see what their argument is. The apostles and the elders came together to consider this matter. There's a dispute. Peter spoke and said, men of God, you know that God chose
me to be the mouth of the gentiles. God knows the heart and acknowledge them by giving them the Holy Spirit. Just seated us, so we should receive them without much fuss. Then all the multitude kept silent, and Barnabas and Paul declared the wonders that they had done. So Peter speaks, Barnabas and Paul speak, Everyone's silent, and then after everyone was silent, James answers. So the focal point of this section, just because Peter begins talking, that doesn't prove anything. How
does that prove Vatican won? In fact, if I'm going to argue from the reverence, it's everyone becoming silent when James speaks. James has the final say, not Peter. They didn't. He just admit that James was presiding. Why would James preside when Peter has the superiority. It should be Peter's presiding.
So James has the final say so right here, and then we get the Jerusalem Decree, where in the Jerusalem Decree do you see anything like the unilateral papal decrees that you see in the later eras of the church. Why didn't the letter just say Peter spoken cases closed? Remember they argue Peter has spoken through Leo Rome has spoken cases closed. Why didn't they just say Peter has spoken cases closed? What's even the need for a synod? Anyway?
We're not infected with Peterson when we begin to quote passages from the Bible and then quote commentary on the way the fathers viewed those passages.
And yeah, but if you read Denny's book Papalism, he has an entire chapter pointing out that the majority interpretation of Matthew sixteen is not that it's Peter. So once again, the majority, the consensus, which is largely I think there's like sixteen or so that think that it's Peter himself. The majority is no, it's Peter's confession or it's something else, right, Peter's faith in that case, Well, we don't care about
the majority. You see, so selectively quote mining again and ignoring the contrary or the majority is precisely what they do.
It's important because we see a kernel of how that leadership was.
Oh so you see it's not actually Vatican One, which was supposed to be there from the outset, believed by all. It's now the seeds and the kernels once again. So when there's not evidence, it's the seeds. But at the same time they say it was always there. It was clear Henry twenty eight seventeen. Side note, new monastic lore dropped. I don't know what that means. Harry Supponis went o. The philly Oquay downs downgrades the Holy Spirit, and it
encourages all these papal heresies. Yes, not an accident that once the Phillioquay becomes more and more accepted in the West. It's it's the same thing with the rise of the papacy, right, the papacy coming to power is exactly when they begin their rejection of the Father as the sole archae in the Godhead. Papal supremacy is a demonic usurping of the world of spirit. Yeah, exactly, Charard's book on that. That's really good church papacy schism. That's pretty much the whole
argument for the most part. Let's talk God, please search up and I'm gonna I'm not gonna play those clips. Joshua Ward five dollars. William wants to debate the ingredients of your male enhancement pills. They say that you sell fake pills. They're not male enhancement pills. They're pills that relate to adaptogens and workouts, so it has nothing to do with mail enhancement. They're not fake pills. You can go get them and see for yourself. I mean, it's
a multimillion dollar company. How would it be fake pills. John Milner thirteen ninety nine, Canadian Christ is God Jordaan five dollars. Brother Sam said, God is my witness Jay. He is calling me a bald inward in my studio. The clips are all over Twitty's that's fake, man. I mean, I'm sitting in here livestream with you. That's all fake. Sisiphost Canadian ten dollars. Set up a debate on a neutral platform. I'll try to get him to come to
a neutral platform tonight. You're betting on all Brick not being available. Yeah sure, yeah, I'm scared, even though I showed you at the beginning of the stream five years ago where I tried to set up debates with William Albreck and he would just postpone it for six months. Every time I do it, Cosmicgoulo five dollars. I realized that William was not very good when he did a video on Purgatory and Palomas and Descythius. He tried to say the Orthodox don't teach what Palamas says. Okay, whatever,
that's crazy, glitchy two dollars. I just got here chat yes or no. I don't know what that means. Common sense ten dollars. Jane Ever said that we need to debate right now. Yeah, it just says. I'll show you what it says. I sent him two different messages. I'll show you what I sent him on here. So here's this meltdown material here, what's this? This is two different messages here. One says, how are Protestants going to be better off defenders of the Trinity than the Orthodox? So
that's the initial thing that I took issue with. Then I said, how about you and Albert come debate me on the energies and the triad okay? And then I sent him a letter to thirty four Basil and then I said we can have a friendly exchange. Whoa, Oh my gosh, I'm unreal. And I sent the exact same thing on Twitter, except for maybe a couple words different. So that's what called That's what caused today's flip up. When he called in, they played dumb William ran and
accused Jay of calling only because he left. Try to keep up. I holify, I heal a five five dollars, Eric five dollars. This is what happens when Sham Chamun lets the hul comania run wild himself. Brother mL hated Kummunism three dollars. At forty nine minutes of his stream, you can see the real reason why he's mad. Go
watch it before he deletes it. I don't know. I'm not gonna I don't I don't even follow or keep up with this stuff like these people are they think that I'm like following and watching all their stuff, Like I watched Sam Schmun here and there, mainly clips. I don't follow his live streams. I was interested in today's live stream because he was talking about Protestant and Catholic doctrine views of the Trinity. Models of the Trinity. Roland William is ready to debate. Are you ready? I mean
I thought we're gonna do it tonight. Forty two attack three dollars. Favorite part of tonight. All of us Catholics in the chrispal chat want Andrew to moderate. I thought we were going to do it. Beny Canadian two dollars time stamp. He is live. This must be old. Look you miond go love your cell p oh dollars? Am I am? I own opinion. The only thing that the ORB could be is an uncreated energy. It's from God. Yeah, I'm sure that's what it is. If at Jay versus
All Break debate happens, it must be blood sports. Well I don't. That guy is the worst. And I say the reason I say is the worst first of all is that you see the tear of the apologetics we get here right. It's just literal, low tier quote minding. That's about all it is. And the reason he's such a nasty individual is that years ago on a live stream, he started saying this stuff like he was going to fight me in real life, and I clipped it. I
have the screenshots. And then he says, I never said that. I never said that. I mean he was saying it in the chat. He's like he wants to fight in real life, which is so ridiculous because we were talking about doing a debate, because again in twenty nineteen and twenty twenty, I tried to schedule debates with him and he would just postpone it for six months every time. So here we are five years later, six years later,
and he's claiming that I'm scared to debate him. It's the same point that UBI made, is that UBI also tried to work out with All Bricked, and you just get this, you know, tap dancing play that like it's like I don't have time to run through this game
with you, like we've already tried to do this. If you go back to the beginning of the stream, the first thing I talked about, I showed you his old messages where he would say, oh, I need six months, so give me another six months, give me another six months, and it just got old. I just finally moved on. And then I called Albert one day because I had I used to have his phone number, and he went melted down at all. He lost it on me and
said that there is no discord. This is like twenty twenty somewhere in there in twenty twenty one, so that I don't have a discord. It's all made up I paid bots to go in there. There is no no one is converting to Orthodoxy. This literally, this is what he said. And then he gave my phone number to Lofton, and then Lofton sent me a fake lawsuit threat. So this is what we're dealing with. This is the people
that were talking about here. Juliana Talant five dollars, sir, thank you for all that you've done with your lectures, presentations and debates. When I ask you some questions about they're troubling me. PS. Great victory for the devil for the trash of Sam Shamun. It's so sad. Common sense one hundred dollars. You handled this very well. You're often accused of being mean, but I've lost respect for Shamun.
These are all bogus accusations. Fwintes admits that his debate with you is the worst, but seeing this, he did the most with what he had. Stay strong, be humble, God bless you and your family. Well, thank you for that generous super chat. I appreciate that. SS twenty one five dollars. See what John Christism says about Acts fifteen. Ibarra has a paper on it that basically refutes himself. That's interesting. Everybody should look up chrystalstom on Acts fifteen.
I don't have my church father's set here at this house, so I can't look it up. But if you if there's a link on new admit you guys can send it to me. Store ninety six five dollars. Shout out to my dog block Party Vintage who is now forts certified Carrie s MW nine three dollars if possible, not too much. Could you summarize your position on what we're we're critiquing the papers position all night tonight v N two dollars. You are a genius, big fan. Keep it up, thanks man, I appreciate that.
And of course it becomes much more fleshed out through church history. And you bring up a great example there with the striking down of the canon. Yeah, that is a tough one to overcome there, because somebody that did not believe they had that authority vested in them from Christ would not have even had the audacity.
It was such a thing. But the do it, well, that's a false equivalence because that's asking me a non sequitor. Because you just heard Richard Price say that the Eastern Bishops didn't accept everything that the Roman bishops did because they didn't recognize Roman jurisdiction in the East. So the fact that someone doesn't accept something that doesn't prove that they have papal supremacy. I mean, if the Eastern bishops are rejecting something that the West is doing, does that
mean the Eastern bishops have papal supremacy? Does rejecting something prove papal supremacy? It just means that Calcidon that Leo didn't accept Constantinople one. But guess what the East did. So at the time of Leo, you have differing numbers and views of what the councils have been. Right. If you're in the East, you believe that there's nicea constantinople I ephesis and now Chalcedon. If you're Leo, you believe in Nicea ephesis Calcedon. So they don't even accept the
same councils. Now, guess what who in up being right in this situation. Rome a few centuries after Leo accepts constant the number one, So the East was right the entire time. This all refuses what they're saying. Let's move on to their coverage of Francis. Let's see what they say about frank.
It just seems like that there, you know, there's a point of disconnect there now. So in other words, they're their hang up is that? Okay? I can see this historically, but I just don't know about Paul Francis.
The number one thing I would say is I have never been the biggest fan of Pulp Francis ever, But he is the Vicar of Christ. Sure, here's a valid pope. Here's the pope. And in his defense, Michael, I think he gets ripped out of context so much. I really really do.
Fifteen sixty eight gay priests are punished with death in this document. Now you can bless couples of the same sex in the Roman Catholic Church. This is the Vatican, this is Francis's fiducia. Supplicans and the Romancalolics say, well, but up at the top it says that you can't bless the gay marriage and the bubble. It doesn't matter what it says up at the top. All that means is that the document contradicts. There you go, So what
was the point. I'm starting to get tired because it's late at night, right, So what was the point of this, Francis, I'm showing you another contradiction that disproves them.
Right.
Francis says, the Gospel is contrary to death penalty. Right, I'm showing you how crazy and contradictor of the Roman Catholic system is. Pope Francis Vatican News. The death penalty is inadmissible. It is contrary to the Gospel. Here he says, it's contrary to nature. Right. The CDC Congregation of the Douction fe has made changes to the death penalty. It is no longer admissible. But wait a minute. In fifteen sixty eight under Paya, that's the fifth you were punished
with death if you were a Skittles priest. Do you see that punishable by death in fifteen sixty eight. Now fast forward to Fiducia supplicons of Francis two years ago. The blessings of the same sex couples is now within the horizon of the Roman Catholic Church. I'm not talking about marriage, but you know what it says here as couples, they can be blessed. It's just not marriage. Skittle's priest put the death fifteen sixty eight. Now the death monality
is the country of the Gospel and skittles. Couples can be blessed. So here's what Sam Chamoun and William Albreck want to convert you to. There you go, I'm mute, dude, Thank you, Jay, You're muted, Eric Vigilant Data Loss and Jordan Johnson it's because I'm getting tired, so I'm getting a little sleepy here, Noel, I'm Mirandez two dollars. God wants I'm muted, Logos Logic three dollars. Is this your first time on the internet? Si two dollars. I'm mute.
See maybe I should just unmute because you guys send super chats when I'm muted. Ultra violence two dollars. I always thought Shimun had a weird, unwarranted level of confidence, but I couldn't put my finger on it. Clearly has issues. He can meet you like some Dawa Nube bizarre behavior, Windy Torrents, I'm mute. Jordan Johnson five dollars. I will fight Albrick. He reminds me of a father in law.
I'm six four, two forty. There's no need to fight anybody who just had to refute these stupid positions.
Now on the other side to be gives.
So I want to keep I want to remind you guys, who's the person who asked to debate the theological subject matter?
Me?
Who's the person that did a stream about the theological subject matter?
Me?
Did anyone else do that? Or did they just lose their minds and melt down?
Do I think he can be more precise? Sometimes I do, I truly do. But I don't think Pope France this is heretical. I think I know he's the pulp. He's about successor Saint Peter uh, and I think that there's a lot of good he does.
Okay, so a lot of platitudes. Where was any actual defense of any controversial statements or explanations? So he this is presuming questions for Catholics. Right, So every one of these little sections is what about that? I can one? What about the head of the church? Right, it's all sort of questions. What about Pope Francis? Does he have an a? He just states his own psychological belief, his
own self reporting that he believes Francis is the pope. Okay, well that's great, but how is that an argument?
See? I truly do. I really do think first off, we villainize him