Sovereign Brah: OPEN DEBATE: Roman Catholics Vs Protestants Vs Orthodox -Jay Dyer

The the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the mm hmm. I had to eat between streams, so oh all right, always down for a impromptu discussion, and I had to eat really quick between the last live stream in this one. So thank you just swallowing my giblets, swallowing my gravy filled with giblets. I'm not sure what a giblet is, but that's what I asked Jamie to make, and being

a good wife, she did it. She made me roast giblets, all right. So now sovereign brought people misunderstand I'm not debating sovereign bra So he raised the question of, hey, what is the issue between trying to see how he phrased it, Orthodox and Roman Catholics of ten fifty four, Why did the Eastern Orthodox Church reject Rum's claim to people's supremacy at the Schism of

ten fifty four? What was the reasoning of Constantinople. I am struggling to find a succinct answer to this, and then he says, maybe this isn't the right question. Maybe a better question is when did the Romancolic Church officially reject the Catholic doctrine of papal supremacy. And then he says that we should bring in, you know, some other people. He's listen, he's popped on here, So I'll add him as a speaker and then we'll open it up here in a little bit. If you want to phrase your question,

I don't want to put words in your mouth. If you want to, if you want to say anything, if not, you don't have to. Hey, what's up, Jay? How are you good? Dude? How are you? I'm chilling. I'm chilling. Thanks for having me and being willing to host this discussion. Sure, thanks for bringing me into the chat. Yeah, absolutely, So I want to give a little bit of like context on why I would ask this question before I explained the question and where

I was going with it, if that's okay. Yeah, So for anybody listening who's been following me for a while and anybody who doesn't know. So, I'm technically a non denominational Protestant, have been for nine years now, and I have a number of Orthodox friends and Catholic friends, and over the

years, as I've been speaking about the faith with them. You know, when you speak to someone who's deep into Orthodoxy or Catholicism, you just you realize how much more there is to the faith than you find in Protestantism. You know, with the sacraments and all of the teachings of both churches, you know, Protestantant Protestantism kind of leaves a lot on the table, so

to speak. And so I've been, you know, I've been curious about about both, and I've been kind of moving towards both, yearning for, uh, the opportunity to get deeper into the faith. And I've spoken with both Catholics and orthodox And the thing about the thing about both Catholicism and Orthodoxy is that they make, each of them individually, makes specific claims to truth.

And one of the reasons why I find Catholicism very interesting is because it's it's very Western in its thought right, Like the Catholics have articulated every single imaginable aspect of the faith. And as someone who enjoys reason and logic and having things articulated, and as someone who has many questions about the faith,

that aspect of things it's dealing to me. Now with that said, there's the question of the And this is something that that I've been you know, wrestling with because the papacy and the supremacy of the pope, there's a lot to make sense out of there as someone who's new to kind of both Orthodoxy and Catholicism. And Catholics are are absolutely militant about protecting the pope, protecting

his authority. I mean, it's you know, their religion essentially revolves around that, aside from obviously you know, the teachings of the Bible and so on and so forth. Like the papacy is really what seems to differentiate it in large part from Orthodoxy as far as I can tell, you know, there's like Orthodoxy is like much more mystical than than Roman Catholicism and so on

and so forth. But the papacy is like this central thing. And when I was looking at the history of the Great Schism, there's just there's so much to pull apart there. But it seems like, basically, to summarize it, it seems like the Rome was like, hey, we have supreme authority, and the East was like, no, you don't, like we're not going to respect your supreme authority. This is a gross oversimplification, but

it kind of seems like that's at the root. And when I read so you shared Dictatus Pope on my thread and I read through that, and I'm

like pretty blown away by this document. Speaking frankly, it just seems like it seems like the East kind of disrespected the claimed authority of Rome, and then Roman response was like, Hey, you know what, We're going to dictate that we have like complete and total authority over like all of Christendom and it's going to be concentrated in the hands of the pope, and anybody who

disagrees with that is excommunicated. It kind of seems like it was like a massive power grab, and I'm just I'm trying to make sense out of all of this, Like, I don't know, I don't know if the Roman Catholic you know, claim is correct. It could be it could be false. I don't know. I'm just trying to make sense out of all of it, you know, Yeah, sure, I Mean, the first thing I would say is that when it comes to the Schism ten fifty four,

there's not really one thing. There's sort of an evolving and sort of piling

up series of things that occur that lead to the schism. At that time, there was already disagreement over the addition of the Phillioquay to the creed in the time of Saint In the time of Saint Photius in the eight hundreds, there was already discussion of this, and Photius in his letters complains that Frankish missionaries had been sent under Charlemagne into territories that were Orthodox Bulgarian areas and so forth, and that they were foisting this creed with the addition of the Philioquay.

So already there was dispute, and this is what why there's two different councils between the East and the West, which are called the Eastern. It's the Eastern eighth Council and the Western eighth Council. Pub Leo the third Uhl explicitly forbade altering the creed, So even as late as that that period it

was not acceptable to change the creed. But it's actly let me see what Leo the third dates were that may have been Contentinople eighth sevent Is that what you're thinking of Publio the third is he has pope from seven to ninety five to eight sixteen. Yeah, so it's even earlier, but I mean he's famous for that position. Then I think the pope after him is the one that says no, actually it is okay to have the addition to the Creed.

So basically, I mean it's not just about the the Creed, it's also about other claims that are being made, which, as you correctly pointed out, by the time of Dictatus Pope, which is the Gregorian period, this is really where we start to see an alteration towards explicit temporal powers. So if I was to lay out one of the strongest arguments against this position, it's not really about whether the pope is first among equals or first in

the church, or he'd be signed a lot of the councils. First, the pope never called an ecumenical council, Okay, they're always called by the emperors, first of all, So that for us is a sign that they're not operating on the mindset of Vatican one. Vatican one places this is the later council in the eighteen hundreds that places essentially all the authority in the Church ultimately on the office of the Roman Sea. So he's declared to be at

Vatican one infallible he's not able to teach error. And by extension, I would argue the assumption of Vatican One is that you can't have a pope that's a heretic, so because it would mean that the Roman Sea can error, in the Roman Sea can defect, so you have the indefective ability of the Roman See, which is taught again later on, but we already have in the first thousand years, particularly the case of Honorius the sixth Ecumenical Council,

he's condemned as a heretic. So I'm just making the point here that the Church in the first thousand years, especially the sixth Econmenical Council, certainly didn't have the Vatican One mindset because they saw a fit to excommunicate a pope for

actually teaching theological error. Has nothing to do with his private opinions, as Roman Catholics say, because when the council excommunicates and they don't adjudicate between private opinions and public documents, they simply say that he taught error in one of the letters that he wrote to someone else, and he taught the Monothelite error.

So this idea that the Vatican one definition, which is what is the burden of proof for the Roman Catholic You either have to say that this idea of Vatican One evolved over time, this is the idea of doctrinal development, or you argue, as Satis Cognitium of the thirteenth says, it was always the teaching of the Church from the earliest days, recognized by all. So

it can't be both of those. Those are mutually exclusive positions. So most Roman Catholic apologists and defenders end up having to kind of choose between these two options, and I think either one they choose is kind of devastating, because if it's a development doctrine, then we're kind of at the position of like Vatican two developments which go in the direction of theological liberalism, even perennialism or

universalism. If you look at Lumgentium sixteen or Nostre Attat, which are Vatican two documents, or the statement that the Jews are elder brothers in the faith, and that you know a lot of the statements that the Vatican has made about the Jews post Vatican Two, I mean, these are all really retroactive or revisionist positions based on the idea of evolution. Of doctrines. So in other words, there's nothing about evolution of doctrine that necessitates evolving quote unquote into

a conservative doctrine. It can, in fact involve evolve into something liberal. I would argue that the idea of doctrinal development itself is actually a kind of a liberal idea if you look at even though Cardinal Newman and people who proposed this idea might have been somewhat conservative, there's no there's no idea, there's

no reason why this necessarily would be a conservative development. But if you go with the director the argument of well, it was always the teaching of the of the Church that the roman Sea was universal and its supremacy, its authority. Uh, it was always indefectible. It was always an errant. And you notice in one of the one of the propositions of the thought as Pope

is that the roman See can be judged by none. I think that the roman Se has never aired and never will err into the end of the world. These are ideas of ineffectibility. So, but this is really impossible. Uh. If an ecumenical council, particularly the sixth Ecumenical Council, is condemning Popenoori's for heresy. Three later three later councils reaffirm that that excommunication Honorius for heresy, it's not stated to be a private opinion. It's actually explicitly said

to be to be heresy. So what we have in Dictatus Pope under this Grigorian reform period is really the pope becoming a geopolitical power. And yeah, that's what it to me. Yeah, yeah, And now a Roman calvic might say, well, maybe dictas Poppy isn't like totally dogmatic or it wasn't really like totally authoritative. This can be something that we can throw away.

The problem is that multiple Roman Catholic scholars nowadays admit that this period of the Gregorian Reforms of the eleventh century, this would be like Kongar Francis de Vornik again recognized Roman calthoc historians and scholars, this is the revolution period. It's called the papal revolution because the Church shifts away from sonodal ecumenical council approach to a monarchical papal approach, meaning now that for example, the pope will decide

every bishop in the world. Okay, prior to this, the pope did not determine who would be every bishop in the world. This is a total ecclesial renovation. And we know that this is the direction that the Church went, because even if you were to throw out Dictatus Pope, you need to look no further than unem Sanctum of Boniface the Eighth, which actually says not only that you have to believe in the Roman Sea and be in commune with it to be saved, you actually have to believe in the doctrine of the

temporal supremacy of the Roman bishop to be saved. Now where in the first thousand years of the Church was there this idea that to be saved you had to submit to the pope as a geopolitical world power. Nowhere? Why was it there? It was backed up via forgeries. The donation of Constantine most famously backed up this idea of the necessity of salvation via the via the temporal

supremacy of the pope. Now Vatican wanaccu mean Vatican two. The Pope took off its crippled triple crown, and the triple crown that he used to wear signified his authority in every realm, including heaven and earth. So the taking off of the papal tr The Triple Crown signified that at Vatican Two they would no longer accept or try to promote this doctrine of temporal geopolitical supremacy. So what was necessary for salvation at the time of Boniface the eighth and thirteen oh

two nowadays isn't even necessary for salvation. In fact, post Vatican two they actually say that countries should decatholicize, there should be a de christianization of the state post Vatican two. This is in some of the Vatican two documents. So that's a clear change in doctrine in terms of em what's necessary for salvation. Now, there's many other things that can be said, but I think

that it's not just a question of the philioqua. It's actually centering on this shift away from the notion of a church that's synodal, that's concilier, into the direction of the papal autocracy. And last thing I'll say is that the recent Vatican this is papally approved, by the way, for you Roman Catholics who are going to hand wave this the Alexandria Document of June twenty twenty three, this is the council that discusses issues of relating to the Eastern churches and

to the Orthodox. This is a part two to the CH eighty document from some years earlier. The CH eighty document ends by saying that they admit that the Roman Sea did not have universal jurisdiction and premiacy in the first thousand years. That's the most important element of that document. It's at the very bottom. Can you can you repeat that one more time? Sure's the G eighty document. Let me pull it up. It's c h I E T I. If you look at the very last proposition, I'll scroll down to the

bottom of it. It says proposition nineteen. Here. Over the centuries, many appeals were made to the Bishop of Rome from the East in disciplinary matters. Attempts were made at the Council or the Synod of Sartica. This is what's called the Canons of Sartica. Sometimes Roman Catholics try to argue that this teaches papal supremacy. Of course it doesn't. If you read the actual canons, it's about it's about re establishing trials. It's not appealing to the Roman

bishop. As the final word, this admits that it says that it establishes rules for such a procedure. Sartica was received at the Council of Trollo. Trello is a council that's accepted by the Orthodox and is accepted of the Seven the Communical Council. Roman Catholics don't accept Trolo. The Canons of Sartica determined that a bishop who had been condemned could appeal to Rome, and that later,

if he deemed appropriate, he might order a retrial. Okay, so it's not a de facto Rome says the final word, It's just a retrial. It was to be conducted by bishops of the province and the neighboring the bishop's own Sea. Appeals regarding disciplinary matters were also made to Constantinople, so you could appeal not just to Rome, but also to Constantinople. So Sartica is not a defense of Vatican I stuff like they want, then, it

says. Such appeals to major seeds were always treated in a sonoda way. Appeals to the Bishop of Rome expressed the communion of the church, but the Bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East.

So here you have a papally approved admission she eighty document twenty sixteen, and then they reconvened this Eastern papally approved synod meeting in twenty twenty three last year, and it's called the Alexandria Document. And what's amazing about this is that the Alexandria Document goes even further to admit about ninety percent of the criticisms that Orthodox make of the Roman Catholic Church. And I'll end up I'll end with

this part. That does not mean that we're moving towards reunion. What this means is that the papacy, out of geopolitical and ecumenist motivations, is admitting that many of the criticisms of the Orthodox are actually correct. It even admits that the false decretals, the false donation of Constantine. The very things I mentioned are mentioned within the third paragraph as basically forgeries that were used to prop

up things like the temporal supremacy of the pope. The Roman See can be judged by none that's actually based on a forgery, as well, that famous statement that still I think in Kenon Law and the Romancolic Church anyway, So all of these things are really admitted in the Alexandria document, and what it means is that Vatican one is not true, and a Vatican one is not true in the extent of its explicit definitions of what the universal ancient historic jurisdiction

of the Roman sea is. It's in defectibility, it's infallibility, supreme teaching office, and so forth. Then Roman Catholicism is false because it's a system that's based on a consistent dogmatic statement over the centuries. So you can't have ecumenical councils. But whether it's Vatican two if you're a triad, or whether it's Vatican one if you're a novus auto Catholic, you gotta submit to all of these. You can't have your cake and eat it too. And if

one dogmatic pronouncement contradicts, the whole system falls apart. So that document that you just read from am I correct in understanding that it was conceding that the pope did not have supremacy for a certain number of the first centuries, of the first thousand years or whatever it was. Yeah, the first document, the Chi eighty document, is admitting that there was not universal supremacy of the

Roman bishop in the first millennium. And then the second document is admitting that all of this stuff was really propped up around things like forgeries, the false Decreidls, the donation of Constantine. There's actually many more of these, Simokian forgeries, the Galatian decredles, on and on. There's a whole bunch of these that were used for centuries to prop up which now the Vatican admits, as do most scholars, that these are forgeries. So they're not legitimate documents.

They're not the only things that were used, but they were very they were used very heavily for many centuries to prop this up. That's a pretty big deal. If I could just of note on that on that topic specifically, the donation of Constantine was what was referenced Bipopolio the ninth pat the schism. That's literally the document in his papabowl when he excommunicates content and ople that's the document he references to justify it. And this is a document that is

now considered a forgery. So it's it's it's not just a general attatation to these forgeries, like it's literally the document they used justify the schism. So you know, as I look at this from a bird's eye view. Obviously that the claim from both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox is that, you know, everyone says we are the one true Church, We're the Early Church, right, we trace our roots back to the early Church. And obviously both

churches can to some degree make that claim. The question is whether or not. The question is which one can fully make the claim. And my personal leaning the more and more I learn is towards Orthodox being able to make that claim. But I obviously haven't heard the full picture from both sides yet. I mean, there's there's a ton to the history here, and I want I'm sorry, I just wanted to add something on that. If you after

you're finished, go ahead. Yeah. So the question of the papacy again, it really seems like it's primacy came into effect like during the eleventh century and then after the eleventh century, and it sounds like prior to that, Jay, from what you're describing of the history of the church, major decisions within the church were not determined by a pope, but were instead determined by

synodal councils. Is that correct? Well, yeah, I mean that the church's approach is concilier, that's what the Vatican Document is admitting, and it's basically saying, you know, when it comes to the Vatican One idea of

the papacy, that's something that it's something that evolved pretty clearly. So they're going with the Newman coldinal Newman route of the evolution or the development of doctrine versus the idea of Satis cognitium, which is Leo the thirteenth cent cyclical, that it was always there as the you know, ecclesiological structure and modeled the church to be you know, Vatican one papal. So so yeah, I

mean, I mean that's that's what Catholics today say. They say Peter was the first pope, right, and there was you know, papal succession all the way down from Peter to you know, the current pope Francis. Well, well, let me let me add a little nuance here, because as Orthodox we agree that in we believe in the same doctrine of appostolic succession. Where we differ is not so much whether Peter has a lineage or a succession

at Rome. We think he does. But in the Orthodox mindset, if you read aaron As for example, in book three, excuse me book four, I think of against Heresies. He explains that the greatness of Rome is precisely because of the presence of Peter and Paul. So it's nothing specific to Peter, it's Peter and Paul. That's the ancient tradition, even in Rome

to this day. If you go to the latter in Basilica, which is the ancient Basilica of the Roman Church when it was Orthodox, you'll see up at the very front the two sort of equal uh statues of Peter and Paul are. They're situated very equal, so they're they're facing each other at the very front of the church. And I think that speaks to the ancient tradition of Rome being the see of Peter and Paul. Even all the way up into Saint Gregory the Great when you read his letters, he says that the

Petrine Sea is Rome, Antioch and Alexandria. So even at that time there was the idea that you know, Peter established his succession not just at Rome, but also at Antioch and in the in the Orthodox Church, that's where we get the idea of Antiochian Orthodoxy. They derive their descent also from Peter. And so when Rome is presented with that, Well, they say, well, but Peter was martyred in Rome. You see, so there's a special significance to Rome, which then court, you know, somehow grants this

special terrorism of infallibility to the descent in Rome. And yeah, and it's not just infallibility, it's also indefectibility all of these other you know, attenuating doctrines as pro Vatican One. But again, church history doesn't bear that out. And if you want an easier, quicker route, I would say the easiest way to see what the mindset of the Church was in the first thousand years, to see if it was papal or if it was concilier, is

to look at what's called the canons of the councils. So each ecumenical council establishes what are called canons, which are basically just church law. And these ecumenical canons at every single ecumenical council do not align with the Vatican One mindset of the Pope being the supreme, universal, infallible, final word on everything

doctrinal. That's why every council has canons that conflict with papal supremacy and assume conciliarism and For example, we have canons that talk about the only thing that's needed for a bishop is to have two bishops and a metropolitan to ordain a bishop. There's no mention of the Roman See being necessary for the ordination of

bishops. Throughout the world, we have statements about the limitations of jurisdiction, and there's no explications in these canons that the Roman Sea is exempted from the limitations of jurisdictions. These are consistent canonical statements and teachings, and so then what Rome has to do is say, well, yeah, but you know, the Pope basically just can throw out all the canons that he wants. He's above those. But the councils don't treat the Roman Sea as if they're

not subject to the canons. The attitude of every council is that the Roman

Sea, just like every other sea, is subject to the canons. And that's why it's so great to have the Vatican now admitting this nowadays, and that's why the Trads have to just say, well, I don't care what the Vatican says anymore on a tried cat and I handwave whatever Francis and the Vatican post Vatican two structure does and says unless I like it and decide that it's trad So was Tictatus pope canonized with unam sanctum basically, well, I'm

just saying that, so that the point is that at that time there's no clear It's not like there was a clear expert because that Dictata's poppy was included in the Pope's Register of the year of ten seventy five, so he certainly expected it to be accepted. That is Pope Gregory the seventh right when it says it was included in the Pope's register. What does that mean exactly? That just means that he saw it as official, his official teaching, and

what he expected. Now, whether he had in his mind that everybody would do that is you could perhaps debate that, but it doesn't really matter about whether that, like each of these propositions, is quote dogmatic, because the main point is that what this is really about is about his temporal supremacy, and you can go to you know, unum sanctum, which explicitly does make

the temporal supremacy necessary for salvation. So, in other words, unum sanctum really is the dogmatic statement that shows that the attitude of Dictatus Pope is expected to be accepted even if every single proposition isn't necessarily part of when I'm saying, does that make sense? It's expected to be accepted for your salvation.

What's expected to be accepted for salvation is that you have to believe not just in the supremacy of the Roman bishop and you have to be in communion with him, you also have to believe in the temporal power of the pope and he dictated as dictated in I believe so now. But even if you think that it's not dogmatic, that's what I'm saying. Yeah, yeah, I'm saying if I think I'm looking at this and okay, So for those that are listening, Jay, is there any possibility you could pin your tweet where

you linked Diktatus Pope on my thread to the jumbo tron. It is important for people to read because when I read through this, my mind was pretty blood right. Well, but the reason I'm talking about when I'm sanctum is that I already know all the Roman Catholic responses. I used to be Roman Catholic for many years, So they're just gonna say, oh, well,

we don't have to accept that because it's not quote ex cathedral. Now, this is an whole other problem of epistemology, which is that there's no wait wait, wait, wait, wait, before you go on that, I want to hear that. But before you go on that, we have a lot of listeners that are like hearing us talk about this, and this is like this is like high in the sky church history for like the lay people, and they don't they need to know what this document says. I want

them to see it, like I'm reading it right now. Number nine, on Dictatus Pope says the Pope alone, that of the Pope alone, all princes shall kiss the feet. Number ten says that his name alone shall be spoken in the churches. This is the only name in the world. It is permitted to the pope to depose emperors. Number nineteen says he the pope may be judged by No. One. Number twenty two says that the Roman Church has never aired, nor will it air to all eternity the Scripture bearing

witness. I mean twenty two obviously so central Catholic teaching teaching. But nine through twelve like this is like like it's like I guess I'm asking if you don't. Is it Catholic teaching that if you don't believe in these things according to Unum sanctum, if you don't believe in these things, like you can't attain salvation. Is that? Is that? Basically? So here's what I'm

saying. Yes, basically, so Lunum sanctum is affirming the basic principle that you have to believe in the temporal supremacy of the pope to be saved. So it doesn't really matter about every single one of the propositions because a Roman Catholic's gonna say, well, these aren't es cathedral to follow these, that's the first thing they're gonna say. And I can say, well, I can grant you that, because it doesn't really matter because you do have to

accept Dunum sanctum as dogma. And it basically makes the point that you must believe in the temporal supremacy of the Roman bishop to be saved. And if the temporal supremacy the Roman bishop to be saved is dogma, then all the

things in Unum sanctam follow, I mean, in dictatas pape follow. Then he can say, you know, his word is law in terms of the temporal's fear, he can depose and call armies, because you understand, after this, the pope starts having a standing army, right, yeah, which I mean honestly, like, I don't have much of a problem with that's pretty dope when you've got to well, no, but it's not on. Well, but here's the thing though, Well, here's the thing though.

The canons of the earlier councils, like Calconon, for example, forbid any cleric from holding civil office. There's a clear teaching of the distinction between temporal power and spiritual power in Orthodoxy, which is the teaching of the first seven councils. This is the meaning of the double Byzantine, the double headed eagle, the Byzantine eagle. Right, it's two heads, not one head. It's two heads, one symbolizing the temporal power and one symbolizing the spiritual power.

Now, you can't blend the two because the canons have already taught and had already been accepted universally that it cleric cannot be a civil ruler and he can't be a warrior. So it's actually a violation of Church law to mix these two realms. Now, now let me say also on this point, let me let me find the tweet and i'll I'll put the tightest pop. Now we have a lot of people who want to jump on. Is that okay with you? Do you? Yeah? I have. I have two

other questions for you. Sure, go ahead. Now, So there's a there's a young man who says I'm scared and running, which I've already told you, bro, We're gonna go to you, dude, Like, just chill the first question. So the Great Schism, as far as I understand, the disagreement was over unleavened bread and the filioquay. Is that correct?

Now? Those are just again like partial elements, Like the schism ends up being over the office of the of the Roman see whether he has universal jurisdiction, whether he can unilaterally act outside of his jurisdiction to excommunicate or to control the liturgy elsewhere or whatever right, in other words, to change the creed? Does he have that ability? Okay? So that's part of it.

There's also theological divergences that are occurring between a Latin view of how we understand the Trinity and Grace versus the Orthodox conception of how we understand the Trinity and grace that was already in the dispute going on in terms of Augustinian theology versus the theology the Cappadocians and theosis. Okay, so that's part of it, as well as the issue of the philioquay, whether there's a double procession or

whether it's a single procession from the Father through the Son. All of these things are contributing. And then there's other issues that you mentioned as well, such as the bread issue, even things like communing event infants, which the Orthodox Church has maintained the ancient practice that infants received communion. The Roman Church changed that Chee Church a band married priest which it used to have. The

Council Trollo teaches that you should have married priests. So there's a whole litany of things that end up being the source of the schism. Okay, gotcha, thank you for that. Yeah. And the second question, so, as far as I understand it, nostre at Tate was created in order to

like heal relations between the Catholics and the Jews. And I saw a documented a few years ago out of the Catholic Church basically saying that the Catholic Church would not authorize officially any mission outreach to Jews to convert them to Christianity, which is like crazy to me, because the Bible says that if Jews don't believe, then they will be cut off from the tree. And you know, they already are broken off because they've they've rejected the Messiah. But if

they don't believe, you know, they're damned. And when I look at the Catholic Church basically officially stating no, we will not authorize official outreach to Jews to convert them to Christianity, I look at that and I'm just like, what's going on here? Like it seems like some sort of I don't know, I just get like weird vibes, Like it seems like a subversion from like within the church potentially. I don't know, what do you make

of that? I know that's absolutely correct. In fact, the Vatican has been putting out documents, not just lumingentium and notes for Tate, but they've been continuing to put out documents. There was a particularly scandalous one that was approved some years back about the Church's relationship to the Jews, even so called

trad Pope Benedict in his book many religions. One covenant says that, oh, Jews have a valid reading of the Old Testament, and you know, there's not a necessity to necessarily convert our elder brothers, is I think something John Paul the Second said so. No, this is a very notorious error. And that's precisely because Vatican two is not just about Jews. Vatican who also says that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. It says that Hindus

also call upon God in love and adoration. And this is essentially, you know, perennialism. It's the idea that all the religions ultimately are sort of masks of God. And this is the basis for Francis creating the multi faith center. Francis approved this is based on the document that he signed with the Grande mom that we can have a Muslim, Jewish, Christian multi faith center in Abu Dhabi. Okay, well, that's just apostasy because we don't worship

the same God. If you don't believe in the Triad, then you're not worshiping the God of Abraham. Because it's basic christology, basic orthodox theology that Jesus is who's there with Abraham. It's not a Unitarian, generic Muslim god or a Jewish God. It's father, son and spirit. It's Yahweh, his angel and his spirit. That's the Old Testament revelation to Moses. Remember the quote from Pascal, the God of Abraham than Isaac, not the gone

of the philosopher exactly. He's actually correct. Okay, dope, Yeah, thanks thanks for answering that, Hey, that they just got it Beloved. One last thing, do you think that they just got it wrong, Jay, or do you think that it was like intentionally subversive? Were there other elements that were, you know, interested in pushing this stuff like I mean no, I mean that there were There's actually a long history of uh,

you know, there's geopolitical powers that play into ecumenism. Even there's even Roman Catholic authors that have written books. David Wimhoff has a great book. He's a Catholic lawyer called John Courtney Murray Time Life Magazine. American Proposition, which is about the influence of America. It's deep state on Vatican two and the doctrinal warfare program headed up by CEEDE. Jackson's a famous Roman Catholic book.

He's been interviewed on countless Roman Catholic podcast. So this is not some orthodox conspiracy person. U. Yeah, this is you know that there is a geopolitical power element to uh to ecumenism, but I think that really it's it's

also an outworking of a long train of theological mistakes. So you know, the the idea of absolute divine simplicity, which is the Augustinian presupposition for how we go about understanding the Trinity. That really leads to a different model of the Trinity that's adopted in the Latin West in the Middle Ages, and it's not the model of the Triad that's very normative and universal in the East,

which is the Cappadocian teaching at the Second Ecumenical Council. So basically, if you read Photius, we would say that Saint Photius and mystagogy the Holy Spirit, the divergence is really about the triad and that's what conditions the ecclesiological papal divergence. And if you you know, I mentioned that Schirard book Church Papacy Schism, he actually makes the argument that the papal thing is actually outworking of

that the logical mistakes. Gotcha, thank you for that. Have you have you produced content on Operation Gladio. Oh yeah, yeah, I've got probably five six seven podcasts on that legit. Yeah, I figured you probably did. Sweet. Yeah, thanks for answering my questions. Father, Sorry for interrupting you if you tell me, hey, no problem. I wanted to

let you get your questions, and they were excellent questions. And uh, I'm actually just really impressed at the right kind of questions you're asking at the level that you are, So keep up the great work. I mean, that's your miles ahead of where I was. Appreciate that, man. Yeah, honestly, I mean when I speak to people that are educated on all of this, I feel extremely retarded. So I appreciate the vote of encouragement

if I could. On that topic. It's not as complicated as people make it out to be, Like even like the skis him itself, Like just from a comment stands standpoint, like four of the five patriarchs were on the Eastern Orthodox side, and it was only the one patriarch to pope that was on the Western side. Yeah, and I wanted to add to that that way. Yeah, the church, like in the first millennium, the church was built on the five patriarchs, one of which was was was Rome.

And even in the Roman Catholic Ecumenical Council A sixty nine, they admit that the heads plural of the church are the five patriarchs, and four of those five simultaneously we're on the side of the Eastern Orthodox ath schism. Rome was alone. So that's that's not like an insignificant detail, and it's kind of like a common sense detail that a lot of people kind of overlook. Right,

Yeah, that's exactly the point that I wanted to make. So one thing that both Jane noticed in It's just the kind of common problem that any of us could be infected with is that we take our own paradigm and then you read that in to everything else. And so with the Roman Catholics,

they have a very centralized all the power centralized in one office. They don't have this kind of concept of decentralization what we call an orthodoxy autocephally and nodality, and this kind of caused some problems for them kind of thinking through these issues. And let's so let's go to what Luigi is actually saying about the

split in ten fifty four. They tend to conceive it of it is and frame the issue as look, it's this one church against this other church, like two people, and then it confuses people inquiring into it which one's right. They're boastitting they're right, But as Luigi correctly pointed out, this is because they failed to understand the kind of notion of decentralization and autosephalacy. Here you have five patriarchal sees and when they operate jurisdiction, they're independent, so

it means a lot that. Well, wait, it's not one person against one person, or one institution against one another institution. And who's right? You have four of those people who are all should I say people, jurisdicians and sees who are independent. Right, they're not under one another. They're economous entities. Let me add to real quick that and a lot of Roman Catholics don't even know this. They think that Orthodoxy just made up autocephalist churches.

It's actually the Council of Ephesus, that is the first statement in four point thirty one of autocephally granted to the Church of Cyprus. So emphasis ratifies the notion of Cyprus being autocephalus. So it's actually out of the econmenical councils enough, something that Orthodoxy invented on their own, and pentarchy as well, comes out of the canonical structure of the economical councils, not something the Orthodoxy

invented. Yeah, so really you have a forgance. One if I could give an analogy, imagine you have like five friends growing up, and they're telling a story about One of the friends tells a story about what happened growing up, and the other friend says, well, wait a minute, that's that's not true. That didn't happen. Oh yeah, yeah, no, that's the way it happened. So it's a he said, she said sort

of thing. And then what you get is, oh, wait, you get the other three friends come in and say, no, that's that's not how it happened. In fact, you're relying on a document that the forgery to perpetuate your lie. That's more kind of an analogy of what you're what's going on. It's it's that you've got four friends that are saying that's not how the story went at all, that's not correct. In fact, you're using a forged, false document to even argue that. I think that's a

good analogy and good way to kind of think about it. All of which, the four friends haven't been talking and been separate, so they him conspired against It's just they were accounted their their history together and they found you have four against one. I think that would be a strong case that you would be at the very least suspicious of the one friend I e. Rome and what their claims are. Let me add eve Evan, he's really eager to

argue. The Roman Catholic set of a consciosposition is the timeshare presentation over? Yeah, it's really funny. What's that? What's your argument? You like that? So first Jay, I just want to let a ready know that Jay go, he's got to go personal stuff. Yeah, you're going to go personal stuff. And then say, I'm running. Do you have an argument? They have any Do you have an actual argument? I just waited. Now you guys are gonna stop, I have Do you have anything to

say? And yeah, you're gonna let me be a sentence? I just waited. Okay, but it's not about me. So you're going to make an argument or not. Oh I'm gonna make an argument. I'll already know that. You refuse to debate the Diamond Brothers and you're running because I think they're a crazy cold and that's not an argument. No, it's because you know you're going to lose. So I just wanted to get that on the

table. So where's your argument? Hold on? Jack? So he doesn't have I'm letting everybody know that you refuse to debate the top Yeah, I don't debate crazy cults, correct, because there's no point in that. Man. Amen, nobody takes sad seriously, bro. So he waited all that time to say that he didn't have an actual argument. So now can the energy. By the way, I just want to let the audience kind it's it's just anger at me, right, So it's like anger and it's uh

yeah, classic said behavior. Yeah, just take it easy, come in and be respectful. That's oh yeah, I've got I've got about fifteen minutes. I'm curious if there's anybody in your audience who's Roman Catholic who wants to make a counter argument in favor of the pope's authority being legitimate. All right, So if you've got Roman Catholic arguments, you guys want to bring it

up. I do see a lot of people in the quay in the queue, as the Brits say, feel free to request to speak, raise your hand because I see a lot of people, so I don't know who's who is and isn't Roman Catholic, So just sort of do the raise your hand thing. Yeah, over waiting. I just want to point out sovereigny as you get into this kind of like these discussions. One of the common arguments

that Jay pointed out is the developments of the papacy argument. And it's actually self refuting because Pastor Returnos Inbatic in one yeah, specifically says that it's been known since the beginning of the Christian religion, like in the same paragraph where it's talking about the infallibility of the pope. So it's self refusing to say it's developed. Says what has been known since the beginning the infallibility of of the of the of the pope. If you read the paragraph says it too.

They both do yeah yeah, So so like Vatican want itself like refutes itself if you argue it developed, because it specifically says it's been known since the beginning of the Christian religion. What do they what do they base that on? That it's been known since the beginning of the Christian Rulin. They're going to go to the verses in Matthew or is it yes, Vatican want itself is gonna is gonna reference Matthew sixteen. That's exactly what that's what it

references to justify it. And then ironically it says it's because the keys were given to Peter. But if you go to latter in four, which is also ecumenical for Roman Catholics, it specifically says the keys were given to all the apostles and older successors. So that's a contradiction between two economenical councils.

Yeah, and they also will rely on a lot of sort of quote minds where it's like things taken out of context, things that don't have any context, and then when you go and learn what the context is, it's like and that doesn't actually teach people infallibility. So roma spoken cases close this kind of stuff, and then you go see the context and it's nothing to do with what they think it says. So all the Roman Catholics are left after

that one guy. So I thought we would have somebody who raised your hand. If you want to come on to argue the Roman Catholic position. Yeah, I would. I would genuinely like to hear a rebuttal from the Roman Catholics. So we got like four or five hundred people here on Twitter, or we did earlier. Surely there's a Roman Catholic here. Come on, use the little raise your hand, think of a jig. If you want to hop on, I'll give you the mic. Sean. There was a

guy earlier who was saying he wanted to come on now. He left best Buy? Are you one best ball? Here we go. This guy says he's Romany. Noah, just unmute. Noah, you're on No I just got to unmute, dude. I'm sorry, folks. I hope everybody's doing well tonight. Before I give you know, any rebuttals or anything about the Pulp, I just want to say that, you know, we complicate everything, and we divide and conquer everything, and we're always looking for who's right

and who's wrong. So it is it is. But like that sounds awesome based me. You know, the whole purpose is to have a personal relationship with God. That's where it will be game. Well, are you all right? We're gonna move on. So we specifically requested h a person who wants to argue the Romancalloy position, not evangelical testimony. That sounds pretty base to me. Conquered divide, find truth, and that what Jesus said. I can't and I came to divide. So and we prayed it for our

bishops to rightly divide the word of the truth. Like yeah, amen, King, did you want to speak? You got to unmute king? Can you hear me? Uh? So, I'm a Roman Catholic and I have one question about like Matthew sixteen, because I mean, I'm kind of a set of a contest Catholic. So because I can't really you know, be consistent with the you know, Vatican two and past. Let me see, well, as a Roman Catholic who is a set of a contest, how

are you ever going to have a pope again? If Francis has basically chosen all the cardinals to be a bunch of liberals that you think are no longer a Catholic as well, how are you going to ever get a pope again? I mean, honestly, I don't think that's the case. Like I think it would be that either this is in times or we would have to rely on Orthodoxy to do that to you know, to come to the Catholic faith. I think, so you're going to rely on the Orthodox Church to

come back to Rome to save the Roman Catholic Church. I mean, I don't expect that, but I think that would be the only real solution. Okay, Well that's not going to happen, so, yeah, I know. Have you read Etsy Have you read the document Etsy Multa? Uh? Yeah, Okay, do you not think that that, even though that's written against the old Catholics, does the principle in this not refute set of accuntism?

I think that, Like, I don't think it refutes it entirely, but I can see how it can be used as an argument against it. Okay, well, how how does the promise that we have, like in Vatican One, that there would be successors in the Office of Peter to the end of the world. How is the fundamental components of the Roman Church?

How is it not lost if it loses its fundamental constituent component of unity the Roman see, I mean, it would be it would be, you know, be lost in the way that visibly, But I don't think it would be lost invisibly. Like now, now you're a Protestant, okay, because the Vatican One does not say that there's an invisible church, an ethereal of platonic form of the papacy. The only papacy that you can be in communion with is the visible one over in Rome. You understand, it says that

visible unity exists till the end of the world. So you can't switch over to a Protestant invisible church model. Well, I think that it would still be visible in the way that they exist in the Church history visible visible. No, what's visible is the office of unity, the Roman Sea. So you would have to say that the Roman Sea continues. Maybe all the other

bishops in the world fail. Right, if you wanted to preserve the Vatican One position, you can't have the Roman Sea disappear and still have the visible unity of the Romancolic Church. There is no other Roman Cacolic Church in the one in Rome. Right. That's why said of a contism doesn't work. It's an it's a dead end position. You can't don't you see how it could be possible that this could be like similar to the Old Testament? No, I mean, the whole point was we're not in the Old Testament.

Bro Pentecost is the promise of the Holy Spirit to the church to lead and guide her into all truth, as Jesus says in the Gospel of John. So it's not gonna leave church. The church if the Roman see is the Romans see, it's Holy Spirit is not gonna leave it, and we're gonna revert to a pre Pentecost time in the Old Testament. Okay, So where would you say I should look into? Like, if I want to look into Orthodoxy, I would say read, uh, First of all, read

John on Trello's book Set of a Concious Delusion. Because we helped John convert to Orthodoxy out instead of a contism. I myself had a period where I thought, say it was correct, So I would say read that. Read Michael Welton's book Two Paths and John Pontrello's book Set of a Contius Delusion. Those are two places to start. Any other Roman Catholics who want to come on, raise your hand, best ball? Did you want to hop on as Roman Catholic? I got another question for you to j When you get

a moment, go ahead, best ball? All right, Hey, thanks for letting me talk, guys, I but love for my Orthodox brothers. So you guys were saying the path sy essentially was something that came to be in Vatican one, and in Vatican one they were claiming it was something that was I was saying it evolved over many, many centuries, but that the

aims of Vatican one are a historical and retroactively read back into history. The papacy is a see of Peter that existed and eventually, in our view, sort of evolved away from Orthodoxy. So it wasn't invented at Vatican One. I just want to read something specifically from the Council of Ephesus in four thirty one a d. So this would have been before the schism, you know, something that would have what we know what we know the quote minds uh,

Luigi has addressed these. Luigi, do you want to address the quote. Yeah, he's going to read you're talking about post Salestine. Yeah, it's referencing. It's it's the Legate Philip talking about post Salestine's letter. Yeah, it's just the same. It's gonna be the same language talking about how the pope, you know, uh, will never fail. This language is applied to the Emperor it's applied to all the patriarchs in various councils. So

what Roman Catholics do is they'll literally quote mine. They'll just pull this this one quote that's referencing the Pope specifically, and then they'll ignore all the same quotes that reference the Emperor and the other patriarchs. For example, in Constantinople III, Matthew sixteen is applied to the emperor, So it's like the case

of hell will never prevail against the emperor. So obviously these quotes are honorific and nothing more than that, and so it's disingenuous to apply them to the Pope and not apply them literally to the emperor or to the other patriot. The other thing, too, is that the Roman Catholic Church now admits, via the papally approved synods that Chid and Alexandria are the documents produced by these these working groups or whatever, that these these periods are not teaching Vatican One.

So what's on the what the burden of proof is the Vatican One view not? Did Rome sign councils first? Was it called the first ce? Was this language used at times? The question is can you show the Vatican One claims in the first millennium and Roman myths. No, So can I just read this excerpt? I mean I wasn't here for earlier in this discussion instead of you know, just saying I was gonna we knew what you were going to read, so and you admitted it. Yeah, would it be

okay if I were to read it? So if people in the chat who haven't actually heard it before, I can hear it directly? All right?

So direct quote Council of Ephesus for thirty one a d. There is no doubt, And in fact, it has been known in all ages that the Holy and most Blessed Peter, Prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the Kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins who down even to today and forever, both lives and judges. And his successors.

Do you think that Rome and Alexandria and Antioch are his successors? Yeah, all bishops you know within the Apostolic line are successors. But there's something no, no, no, no, The patrine seas are who according to Pope Saint Gregory. What are the three patrin seas according to Pope Saint Gregory. Yeah, I'm not going to comment on that. I'm not well versed enough. Okay, well i'll tell you. He says that Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch are the three patrine seas. So by your argument, that would

mean that all three of those fall under that blessing. It would not, because it's something very unique is happening. In this excerpt, it says that the Holy and Most Blessed Peter, Prince and head of the Apostles. Yeah, but you don't even understand you you're not understanding the argument that I'm making. Do you understand that all three understand you're making that they have equal authority? No? No, you missed the point. Those are three patrine seas,

they're all from Peter. So you just shot yourself on the foot. Yeah. No, I get what you're saying. I understand it. Well, your reply was not based on understanding. It was based on me thinking that they're saying that it's all the bishops. Now there's three patrine seas, so does that apply to them? Well, this excerp specifically says and head of the apostles. So is there that has nothing to do with that has nothing to do with his successors, who are all patrins say for the other

patrine seas specifically head of the apostles. Well, Constantinople eight sixty nine, which is acumenical for you, calls all five patriarchs the heads of the church. So then and then Constentin Noble three calls the Emperor the head. So headship is not exclusively applied to the Pope, it's applied to the Emperor. It's applied to all five patriarchs. Yep. So this is why your quote minds don't work. I appreciate you, guys, let me share. I'll

let the audience decide for themselves. I appreciate it. And this is the general point that I think, Jay, you're pointing out that everything you said about Peter being the head therefore applies to Antioch and Alexandria and not just Rome. So for some reason, I know the reason the Roman Catholics and I think that patrin cy only applies to Rome and all the kerry picking verses that

they do, well, that's just Roman papal supremacy. Well, if you read the letter here from Pope saying Gregor the Gray his epistle, he actually uses the patrin key language. He cites Matthew sixteen of the Keys, and he says, for he himself, Peter exalted the sea, which he dained to be in the rest of his life. He himself adorned the sea that he sent his disciple Alexandria, and he himself is thinking that this was some

special thing in Rome. That's why they don't have a good argument. They just say, well, it's only in Rome because Peter died there, and they come up with these weird arguments to try to say that it's only Rome because they immediately realize that Peter isn't just the Bishop of Rome. He also has lineage in Alexandria and Antioch. But then they have to cut off Alexandri and Antioch from falling under this patrine privilege. So why is it only Rome.

Oh, it's a tradition. So then they fall back on a silent tradition. Yeah. Ironically, I actually just remember to in that same council, and this is on page three to eight of the Prices Acts of Emphasis. It calls the Emperor the divine and inviolable head. In that same council that he just referenced. Yeah, it calls the emperor the divine and inviable head. So like this idea of headship in the very council he pointed to

reference his someone other than the pope. Yeah, that's why selective usage of the language. For example, in Besil's letters, which we did a whole podcast on Basil's letters, when he's having problems in the East, he appeals to Rome. Rome doesn't help out, and he calls the Bishop of Antioch the head of the body. So he's calling the Bishop of Antioch out of the church. He appeals to Rome, Rome doesn't give any help. Basil then says Rome is absolutely worthless. Oh so much for the first see so

much for it solving all these problems. And it's not even called the head. He calls Antioch the head. So this is because this language is used amongst the church fathers throughout as a as a sign and as an honorific thing. As Luigi said, it doesn't always have a theological baggage all a Vatican one like Roman Catholics wanted to have. They read that into it. I

also want to bring up something too about the indefectibility. Interesting enough, last Sunday was the Gospel of Mark And do you guys just remember what the what the gospel was about the mirror bearing women running to them. Yeah, and the Angel says, uh, go get the disciples. Oh and Peter, remember so talking about defectibility, Peter himself had defected. Like so, this idea that that Peter in this and the see of Peter can't affect is crazy

to me. It's like he it's obviously pointed out up to the Angel too, he's not even part of the disciples at that point. Well, it's going to be brought back in. But Paul, if Rome can't defect, then why does Paul warn the Roman Church that they will be grafted out if they fail to believe? I mean, these warnings make no sense if this is really something impossible, right, And he doesn't say oh, well, but you know they'll say, well, he's not talking about the Bishop of

Rome. He's talking about Oh yeah, sure. No, it's a warning to the entire Roman Church. If you are unfaithful, you will be grafted out. There's no special privilege to this church. In fact, it's the same type of warning that the Church is In the Book of Revelation of the seven Ers of Asia Minor, they're warned that they can have their lampstand removed in the same type of removal as Rome can have right being grafted out through

unbelief or through being puffed up with pride. Isn't it interesting that Paul warns the Roman Church of being puffed up with pride and the possibility of being grafted out? Almost prophetic perhaps? Alright, so Solemn Bride to leave. We've still got a full house here. Anybody else who would like to pop on. You're welcome to romany cath Yeah, appreciate you having me and I gotta hop off, Okay, yeah, appreciate Luigi, Father Moses, you're here.

Did you want to speak to something? He's busy lifting weights for now. Sorry, let's see. We've got a bunch of people who are in here. Luke, does Luke want to speak? I'm mute, Yeah, I'm mute. Yeah, all right, Luke's not able to speak. Michael hm gat to talk or I have a little bit different of a question. By the way, Jay, I just found you about three weeks ago. Only enough amazing work. And amazing apologetics. Thank you, thank you. But I have a slightly odd question I may ask you, gentlemen. See,

I try to say very unbiased. My my goal is to get people into the church rather than into a specific church un Orthodox. That that's clear. And what I'm trying to do with my Christian channel across Cruise header is to really just get people into the church, opening the Bible, questioning what they believe. And I'm finding it pretty difficult to stay unbiased. And I was wondering what your perspective, both Jay and both of fathers here, what

your perspectives would be on me trying to remain unbiased. What do you mean remain unbiased? So I don't really think we can be unbiased? What do you mean? Yeah, I think that's kind of my issue through So I'm trying to remain unbiased in the aspect of I'm trying to to When people ask me questions, I respond in both the Catholic and the Orthodox. So I try my best to give both perspectives so that people can choose, you know, which church they go into or enter into. Well, yeah, well,

I'm not trying to be rude to you. I don't think that's the right approach. I don't think we can mute. I mean, these are mutually exclusive positions. For example, if your Orthodox, you have to believe, for example, in the Palamite Synods, and they are mutually exclusive. With Roman Catholicism, I mean, you don't offer the Jewish perspective right forbably all the exact it's true, So why why why offer the perspective of a

heretical fact. It doesn't make any sense, That's pretty much, and it's been heavy on myself so well, I would say I would recommend one of an antidote perhaps to that would be this book right here. So get this book by Norman Russell where he's translated. It's really just a translation of the Palomite Synods and a bunch of letters of Saint Grey Palmas in the Life of Saint Gregory. So that would be one really good way to maybe drill into

that question. Also, if you're more of a history guy, not really a theology guy, Christianiese in The Rise of the Papacy by Papa Dooccus and Mayandorf really solidifies this period of departure. So I'm glad that sauvegn Bra raised this question about this time period, because there's not a lot of books that

are really good about this period. And that's why I'm so glad that Papa Doacus and Mandorff wrote this excellent book because a lot of people, you know, prefer history to straight up theologies to tech nicol and this book is really good at being historical but then bringing in some of the theological disputes of this crucial period of departure ten seventy one to fourteen fifty three. So if you're more of a history buff, I highly highly recommend everybody read this book.

It's great Christianese in the Rise of Papacy the Church ten seventy one to fourteen fifty three is one of the best texts. Now, there's a lot of other great texts, you know, Michael Welton's Two Paths, these kinds of things. There's also the new Sushensky book, which it's good for maybe drilling into a lot of these quote minds that we've heard tonight. So we've had you know, Ephicis thrown out and you know there's going to be you know,

Lee has spoken Roman spoken, Cases closed, et cetera. And Sashensky's new book Papacy and the Orthodox. It kind of has chapters on a lot of these a lot of these topics, which is really good. But yeah, so we're we're we're getting really good material published of late on these on these subjects. But the Papa Docus mind or book is by far one of the best so long time. And then the Norman Russell book is just like this is now essential, Like if if we haven't had an English translation of

Palomite Synods really until this, and this is all of them. So this and the reason that's so important is that we've had so many of these Roman Catholic car salesmen trying to tell us that, oh, we're all saying the same thing, and oh, actually palamism is can be reconciled with Tomism. No, this explicitly rejects the Tomistic reading of Palamas. In the Fourth Thomas,

the fourth Palamite Synod specifically rejects the Tomistic view. So enough of this nonsense and all the car salesmanship that they've been telling us for so long. Sublime Providence gotta unmute man. We've got a super chat from MM and he says, does Elijah and the prophets of Bale show us that all occultism is fake and gray. Well, it shows that in that instance to be fake and gray because they're cutting themselves in their demon doesn't manifest. But I mean,

we have other places in scripture where occultism seems to be real. You know, Saul in the Witch of Indoor, you know the Samuel appears. We have you know, Paul casting out demons. In the Book of Acts. One of the girl who's a fortune teller is said to have a pythonic spirit. I think in the Greek it says something like that. You know, Jonathon John Brace are said to mimic the first two quote miracles. I

mean, whether they did miracles or not. I mean, in other words, we have some instances in scripture where there does appear to be real monic activity. So I wouldn't say that all occultism is fake and gray just from the Elijah story, but certainly the prophets of Bill didn't seem to have any any powers. Did you go ahead? Man? Got on, I mute your own you got your hand raised? Go ahead? Okay, yes, okay, yeah, what's up? I'm doing pretty good? So can I

assume that? Oh? Real quick? Huge fan of you. I see Rachel Wilson and listening to a huge fan of her and a husband, I just want to say, right quick, uh, if we all believe in a universal Catholic and Aposolic Church, and I assume we all agree in this, right I'm Catholic, Well we don't. We don't accept that the Roman Catholic Church is still part of that body. Fine, yeah, but the thing with the Roman Catholic Church is the Roman part is just the Western Rice.

We have Eastern Rice. So this twenty three No, it's not it's not no, no, no, it's not about right. It's about the Roman Sea and Vatican one. So it's not just about the rights. Yeah, I understand all that. Mostly this is not I mean, it's somewhat of a theological issue, but that can be worked going to various councils. This was an ancient political tension that happens between the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire. That's what this is about now, and that's part of

it. That's what we already argued earlier. It's partly geopolitical, but it's also theological. We can never accept the double eternal hyposthetic procession. We can never accept created grace, and you don't have to because it's not necessary that you do that under the Eastern Rice. So no, that's not true. That's not true. Eastern Riot Catholics are expected to accept Vatican One, regardless of the fact that Melchites and other people pretend like they don't have to.

It's just simply not true. All that says is that it's a contradictory position that allows for you to pretend that you don't exc that Vatican one. But Vatican one is binding on everybody. So it's just it's just a made up thing that Eastern Catholics don't have to accept Vatican one. Vatican one does not speak that way. Certainly, a Vatican one could be changed. So no, Vatican one cannot be changed. What are you talking about. No,

it cannot. You can't change that's an Acumenical councils dogma. You can't change dogma from the from the seat of the pope. You can because he can, he can declare infallibility and change it. Okay, so it can no, And well all that says no, Well, all that says is that the position again is inconsistent because supposedly unchangeable dogma can be changed by the pope. So again that's another reputation of the position. So that's fine, we

understand the history. How is that fine If that's a contradiction, it's fine because the Western Church had to deal with more uh than that's than the Eastern Church did at the time. It was a lot of changes that the Western Church made to acclimate to the various populations to get them on board. So then when you look at the shit number, difference between how many Catholics they are and there as many Orthodox they are is not much bigger than a Protestant

denomination. That's not true. But it's also a fallacy. So you moved to a fallacy of a numbers game. So was the true Church determined by numbers when most of the church was aryan or semiarian in the fourth century? The true Church is based on Apostolic secession. I just asked you now that you're not answering the question. In the fourth century, the numbers game was on the side of the Arians and the semi arians. So is the numbers

game or not? No, not necessarily. I'm talking more strategically, So I'm not saying I'm saying I want to see a universal Aposolic church. It already exists. So it's not determined by numbers. Catholicity is determined by the fullness of truth. That's why Saint Maximus says that I would be amongst the small band of true Catholics even if most of the bishops were not Catholic. Do you want to save the solo everyone on earth? Again, you're presupposing

that we're both part of a giant ecumenical church, and we're not. I understand that Orthodox don't see to see Catholics as being so, then just stating to me an ecumenical position doesn't prove your position. Your position is incorrect. No, well, let me articklate. My position. My position is this, My position is there are way more Catholics than the Orthodox. I already

addressed the numbers argument. You don't understand why that's a bad argument. No, no, no, that's not That's only a part of the argument. So the argument doesn't consist of just when Clinton. So it exists through a series of premises, and we'll get to a conclusive all right, So deductively, so I can say, uh, the vast majority of well Christian's period of Catholic is the largest church that has Apostolic succession. Uh. All you need to be to be Christian is just except the nice and creat We can

discuss it for the real quake. But outside of that, the point is strategically Okay, So so in other words, we're not gonna care about We're not going to care about correct doctrine. We're gonna make up an idea. What's strategic. No, no, no, we do care about. Now you're moving the gold post. Conversation can be had within the church, So that can be had. We understand all of the history associated with it. We're in the present right now. This is this is just us author.

How is this an argument? How is this an argument for the Roman county position? All I'm hearing is you talking around a bunch of stuff. Where's the argument? Okay, here's the argument. The pope was always considered the first and most equals. I believe that all the patriarchs of all of Orthodoxy, the original four, which is, like you said, Rome, Alexander, Alexandria, and and Jerusalem. Uh, and then of course Constantinople later

on at the Constantine. We believe all of those is legitimate, and to a degree even Anglican is. To a degree Anglican is drastically moved away from Doshrin. But they also Okay, So your argument is that because the Roman Cality Church accepts a wider swath of what's considered Christian, that strategically means it's better and approves it. That's a terrible argument. No, because it's bigger, it accepts more and is more. Again, I already addressed these arguments.

I already addressed these arguments. So you're just gonna keep talking around it, Boycott, what's up? Those are terrible arguments. I mean by that line of argumentation, the more broad I make, the most acumenist position is

therefore true. So why don't I just be a perennialist and say that, oh, we're all on the same team because all the religion that's actually the attitude of Nosratate is that all the scale of the world religions, they're all on a graded scale, and the Muslims are like forty percent correct, so they're part of our strategic alliance as well. So if I just move the goalpost, that makes the position true. That's a terrible argument. Exactly,

People in the chat. Well, by this argument, Islam is part of the faith too. Yeah, exactly, that's the whole attitude of nos Ratate. Well, we all call them the same God because the worship one God. What does LUMANGENTM. Sixteen say? Right here, We're all calling on the same God because there's one God. Part of the problem with that argument two J is that if all these different sects have Apotholic succession, and then all of their priesthoods are valid, included to Anglicans, then all of their

sacraments are valid. Well, actually need to be part of the Roman Catholic Church to receive the sacraments, you know what I mean. Yeah, the Roman Catholic position is that you need the sacraments in order to be saved. And you say, well, look, the sacraments are outside of Catholicism, then you can be saved outside of it as well. Yeah, And I mean he's not even correct. Leo the thirteenth already stated about the nullity of

Anglican orders. So the Roman Catholic position Apostolica cure Anglicans do not have order valid. They do not have valid episodic succession. According to pote Leo the thirteen. So again, oh well maybe now they do. So again, this is an ever evolving changing thing, and this guy should understand he made that. So he said, well, the Pope can do this. The Pope can change Vatican one, you know, as he said, the Pope can change. No, he can't. Oh but wait, he actually can,

because the religion is a worship of the Pope. That's the whole religion. So even though in eighteen sixty nine, eighteen ninety six Anglicans don't have valid orders, well according to the post Vatican Oh non, Now maybe they can't. You see. So it's always subject to flux and change, and it's really at the whims of what the Pope says, uh, which is whatever the need is of the time. So it's nothing to do with it's objectively true. It's literally based around the Fiat, the divine word of the

Pope, and that's why the position is obviously not true. Not go ahead, hello, yep hi. Yeah, So I guess what's convinced me of Catholicism is the overwhelming evidence that Catholicism has that's unique to Catholicism. So my central question I would ask is when God reveals himself publicly? Why does he do so exclusively through the Catholic Church? No idea? Where you were? I mean, it's a terrible argument. So tell you where I'm going with

it? Real quick. Well you mentioned all these evidences, So what's the evidences you didn't give? I just real quick, I'm there we go fatm Okay, So how did three children know the exact time and place that the supernatural event would occur? Well, you're assuming it's supernatural, first of all, so how do you know that? Okay? So he's not even gonna listen? So what hold on? That's what a newspaper says. I have newspapers over lied. Yes, but oh but here, no, have you

have you read it? Have you have you read that? Well, let's let's take it to the question. So you're going to say a miracle claim? How many? How hold on? Hold on? How many religions and groups out there claim miracles? Not many claim public miracles? Worth thousands witness it, and there are plenty of Hindu yogis that claim public miracles. Sai Baba claimed many public miracles. He had many uh patawan's underneath him that thought he was a miracle worker, but not you again. My My point is

that you in Catholicism, there are thousands of witnesses. Okay, so or it's objectively verified, and I can name other instances as well. So hold on. So ok so every so Orthodox churches claim miracles, We claim the miracle the Holy Fire. Okay, this is publicly witnessed every year in Jerusalem. So wait a minute, So what how do I know where the If I'm not visibly empirically there, how am I going to judge the faith on miracle claims? So? So okay, here, just real, So I

guess my My answer to that is it's it's different. It's not different. You want it to be different. How's it different? Okay, it's different in that and that you had, you know, seventy thousand there the consensus was, and it wasn't all you know, we're all Catholic Christians. Oh okay, So it's a miracle if it's seventy thousand, but not if it's I don't know what twenty thousand in Jerusalem, Like, what's the what's the miracle proof number? Thirty thousand, fifty thousand? This is arbitrary. I

look, I agree with with your principle. But here, just let me finish my pot real quick. You're very intelligent, but I just want to say one thing. So what happened was it was pouring down rain pals. Everything I know the story of Fatam I used to be a Roman Catholic man. We don't need we don't need the story. Okay, we know what Fatima is, we know the claims of it. How am I supposed to know that that's the miracle that I go with versus another miracle claim? Is

it the specific number of people? What's the miracle number? What's the magic miracle number? Fifty thousand, thousands of thousands of people witness? And if Catholicism is false, then why did how did three children Catholic know the exact time and place that this? Yeah? I believe that that's a geopolitically motivated story to prepare for World War one, and that the Western Powers use that

as a way to prepare war with Russia. So you think, okay, well, if you think it's a lie, you think that, like everyone you know, all the witness stories and the newspaper articles and all of that, it's all false. I believe that even if it were true, it has nothing to do with proving what religion is true, because every religion has all kinds of claims, every religion has all kinds of miracles. So there's no way that miracles can be the thing that determined the true and the false

faith. But not to this degree though, that's arbitrary. That's arbitrary. So again I can come up with I mean, if you go to Russia, if you go to Russia, you will hear countless stories of miracles. Does that how does so do you hear me arguing that that proves orthodoxy because

in the thousand year history of Russian Orthodoxy there's miracle claims of widay. So again this is it doesn't matter because there's no there's nothing about the number of witnesses that makes it suddenly that one that's true because there's thousands of witnesses in Jerusalem, and you discount that one. So then you have to come up with so now there's miracles in the false faith. If there's miracles in the

false faith, then the miracles don't prove the true faith. No, no, no, no. The miracle of the fire in Jerusalem hasn't been objectively verified because another example. Okay, so now you're arbitrary. Yeah, so right, But I'm supposed to accept one hundred year old news stories that happen to fit into geopolitical strategies. Let me ask you a question about Fatima. Let me ask you a question about Fatima. Sure, Where does communism come from Russia? Okay? Yeah, okay? Does it? Yeah? No

it doesn't. Where does it come from China? I'm not sure to be mean to you, man, but no, it doesn't come from China. It doesn't come from Russia. You don't know where communism originates. You to believe Fatima, you don't even know where it originates. Tell me it comes out of England. Okay, okay, So how come Mary didn't mention that? How come Mary didn't mention that she said because there's a geopolitical motivation to what she said preparing for World War One? What's your point though? Okay?

What's my point is that it's not Mary if she's not telling you the truth about where it comes from, and she's giving the impression that it comes out of Russia. Communism doesn't come from Russia. It comes from England like Marx and Ingles, and it was exported to Russia. You don't know this, but but in regards of the Mary and apparition. But what I mean, because mm hmmm, because that I mean, I'm not trying to be

mean. I'm gonna have to pull out because if I continue, I'm gonna get mean, and then people are gonna use that as an excuse to say that I'm just being mean. So I'm not trying to be mean to you. Then I'm gonna have to pull out now because I'm gonna start getting sassy and that will just be a way for people to get mad at me. So so to those that are wondering, my point is that there's no arbitrary

number to tell us the true miracle. Oh well, when it hits fifty thousand people, that's when we know it's the miracle that proves that religion to be true. But if you sign up today, you can actually get your own miracle calculator where you can calculate the exactly. I mean, this is how Roman Catholic thing. I'm not trying to be mean, but this is like remember Cameron's Baysing spreadsheet argument that will mathematically prove the papac So this is

how stupid this is. You could actually if we were actually bad guys, we could have a whole like multi marketing pyramid scheme where we send people. Think I'm joking. When Cameron says that he converted, he says he converted because he came up with a Bayesian spreadsheet quick books argument where mathematically he can prove with ninety percent certainty or some ridiculous thing that we are ninety five point

four percent certain that the papacy is true based on my basing. This is so, this is literally the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life. And how can these miracles testify to the truth of Roman Catholicism. It is patently false. Well, you notice that what happens in Roman Catholicism is that when people are confronted with the historical and the theological problems, that's all brushed

aside and then you immediately run to Fatima. And I've talked to so many Roman Catholics who will They say, I have to shut my brain off and just jump to Fatima because that's what I fall back on. So total irrationality for something, by the way, which is supposed to be supremely scholastic and rational, but then it's ultimately right. He just went into subjective prost experiences.

People think I'm joking. This is an actual We did a whole livestream laughing and making fun of this preposterous argument from Cameron over here on pints with Aquinas where mate Fried. Please tell me, Cameron, as we sit up here on top of the Vatican, on the roof of the Vatican, smoking seagulls, pretending on Australian giants bond, tell me what's the quick books argument for the papacy? Oh well, I'll tell you. I lay down a

quick book spreadsheet and it proves the papacy. I'm not joking. That's like literally what the argument is. Anyway, So we got other roal mechalics who want to pop on. I assume Tyler has been whiting for a while. What's up, Tyler? You have to unmute Tyler? Can hear me? Yeah? Oh there we go? Okay, cool, all right, Jaydyre. I'm a big fan. I am merely a student of the faith. I am not an expert. So, but I was on the fence between

Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism. I decided to go with Eastern Catholicism. But I thought I might say some of my objections and see how you refute it. I won't be able to. Okay, Before we go to that, I want to ask you, uh, you know, I think David made kind of the ultimate kill shot video where you know, really Eastern Catholicism is the strongest argument against Roman Catholicism. So, you know, how do we get

mar Mary Nestorius being revered? How do we get revisionism to where people who are considered heretics like Polla, mos markov Ephesis, Photius, now they're revitalized and renovated to be saints. I mean, does that not tell you that this is a geopolitically motivated, altering and changing position where people who are heretics for centuries can suddenly be saints. Yeah, that's that's a that's a tough one. I think there are that It's it's hard to say. I'm still

trying to work that out. Okay, Well have you have you seen David's classic video on that? No, okay, well here's the video. Eastern Catholicism refutes Rome and he fleshes out a lot of these types of arguments. So go ahead, okay, Okay, cool, So I one of the things that really was tough for me is in there is an argument made by Pope Leo he opposed Canon twenty eight of the Council of calcel Ony. Okay, so I'm familiar. So do you know did you look into why he

opposed it? Yeah? I guess I really like the idea that I don't like that Constantinople could just be declared the second See without any Apostolic pedigree, and I guess that was But do you understand Rome eventually agreed to that. No, I didn't understand it. Yeah, so a couple hundred years after Pope Leo, Rome accepts that Conceptinople is second. Oh okay, yeah, but but okay, okay, that's I'm not going to refute your arguments because I'm not I'm not an ext No, that's true. You can go look

it up. But the other thing I would like to say is that, uh, would you say that Pope Leo uh saw the saw didn't wouldn't you think that Pope Leo had saw Roman supremacy in a similar way as defined by Vatican One? No, not at all. Really, No, if you read about what they did at Calcidon, did they just accept what Leo said, and Leo spoke case closed. No, they spent several days comparing what Leo says to Cyril. Cyril was the test of orthodoxy at Calcedon, not

Leo. Okay, And have you watched Father Price on Reason and Theology? No? Okay? Well, when Father Price is on Leo Ari is on Reason and Theology with Lofton and Ibarra, they say, what do you think about paper supremacy at at Chalcedon? And he says there is no preapal supremacy at Calcidon. And they pulled down that clip because it was an embarrassment. And he's the one, He's the one that's the translator of the councils that everyone accepts the price. The price, Tuls, all right, let me

play it for it. I've got it over here on my my clips page, okay. And I said, what about breakfast there, Tiffany, as you said, I think I remember those some Then all right, here it is, let's see shorts. It's a short clip. All right, So this is Father Price on Reason and Theology. I can't get the worst of sound? Was there no sound? Heeded him? Hold on, I gotta go back to the beginning of right now, hold on, here we go, seated him. It's not letting me move the cursor back to the beginning

of this held one. I owe the banks a lot of money, but little do they know. Hold on, this is grabbing me crazy. Kay made my screen a little bit smaller to reach the button. Kay and Chalcedon feel they needed to judge Theodora. If Leo had already reinsated him, why did Calcedon feel the need to judge Theodore it if Leo had, as the pope had already reinstated him, is the question to Price. They didn't they didn't recognize Roman jurisdiction in the Eastern provinces. Uh oh so, and then

Eborro's face drops and you can't believe that he said that. Now, this is echoed in the scholarship that Rome now promotes and accepts both at the chi eighty document, paragraph nineteen, which says that the Roman bishop did not express canonical authority or exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East, exactly what Price says. And then the Alexandria document goes way further than the Chiady document and it mets about ninety of the Orthodox arguments against the paper. Oh wow,

yeah, have you read the Alexander document? No, okay, so this is a paper. Let's see what else were they gonna say? Uh, there's there's one other thing I wanted to say. Let's see what was

it? Oh? Oh yeah, yah, the Council of Sartica. So the uh what The one thing I kept getting in like Orthodox circles was Rome had this primacy of honor, which just didn't jive well with me because it just like didn't seem consistent with history that like, certainly Rome way more of a primacy than just honor, And I think the Council of Sartica was just

a clear rebuttal of that. Yeah, I totally disagree. In fact, if you read the very document I just mentioned, paragraph nineteen three sentences prior to the statement that the Bishop of Rome did not exercise authority in the East is about the Canons of Sartica, and then we read it. Over the century, many appeals were made to the Bishop of Rome from the East in

disciplinary matters, such as the deposition of a bishop. Attempt was made at the Sonata of Sartica in three forty three to establish rules for this procedure Sartica was received at the Council of Trollo in six po ninety two. 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 appropriate, could order a retrial to be conducted by the bishops in the province neighboring the bishop's own.

See it's not a de facto autocratic move of the Bishop of Rome. Appeals regarding these discipline matters were also made to Constantinople and to other seas. The very thing I said in the Abarro debate when I debated Abarrow, which they were all laughing at, but is right here. In their own Roman documents, such appeals to seas were always treated in a synotical way. So the very argument that Roman Catholics try to make is in this Roman Catholic papally

approved document admitted to be interpreted in the Orthodox view. I see, Okay, yeah, if you read Sartica, it's retrial, it's not autocratic unilateral operations, and and and and it admits that there's appeals were made to Constantinople. And I think even Alexandria. I think even Athenacious. There's discussions of appeals being made to Athenacious. Uh uh at Alexandri. So I brought that up in the in the in the bar debate, and people were lacking,

like that's not true. It is true. Yeah, I did. I never you know, it was tough for me to assent to Vatican One, but it just I just could not see Rome as just being a primacy of honor. I knew that it was more than that, but at the same time, Vatican One was the language. In Vatican One. It's hard for me to reconcile that with the well setting aside all these reconciliation of these ancient documents, does it look like the present day Vatican has maintained the faith of

the ancient church praying in mosques towards Mecca? Uh? You know, It's it's tough because I feel like liberalism is creeped into all churches. But this is different because this is the Roman Church is built on the guy in Rome. The Orthodox Church is not built on one. Dude. Yeah, but ultimately, well, but do you believe in indefectibility? Right? Because I mean the selling point of Rome is infallibility, indefectibility, solutions to crises,

preservation of unity. Do you believe that that's what Rome does? Do you accept that we worship the same God as Muslims and Jews and Hindus. You know, I I sent to the Vatican one teaching without fully understanding at this point. That's really where this is Vatican two teaching though, Yeah, and Vatican two obviously I have to so as a Catholic, I have to. But I would say that I'm questioning it at this point. I'm trying to like do my research. I just I've been on the fence for a while.

I understand. I mean I struggle with it too for a while. I understand it. Guy throwing one thought, Tyler just something they considered. Yeah, I mean, forget forgive me because I don't want this to sound harsh. We obviously don't know each other, so this is not a personal criticism or attack or anything like that. But it sounds very cultish. So it's like you you get into arguments that don't make sense, that don't add

up. You don't like, you can't trust the things that you're seeing right in front of your eyes, and then the response is like yeah, but like I have to believe those things, and it's like that's not a good

that's not a good place to be. I've been Orthodox for seventeen years and I literally can say I've never had that attitude, Like I've never I've never stopped and thought, you know what, the church is doing something totally caddy wampus that doesn't make any sense whatsoever, And I've just got to kind of turn my brain off and just accept it. This is part of being Orthodox that I have to kind of accept this type of behavior, you know what

I'm saying. So, yeah, that's that's true. But you would you guys, how'd you guys feel about like female deacons. Well, it's not even how we feel about female deacons. It's like you have a group in Alexandria who's been making a lot of unilateral decisions in their own diocese. If you actually understand what's going on there, they've had huge problems with their own clergy, being upset with their local bishops because they're not listening to them right.

So there's a whole host of issues that are going on that were prior to this, and then you have them quote unquote or dating a deaconess to a role that has never existed historically within the church. But you know,

again, I don't have to say that I accept that, right. That's the difference is that if I'm Roman Catholic and the Pope does all these catywampus things, I have to say, well, I'm wrong, even though you know what I'm saying, I'm wrong, even though it looks like what he's doing is really wrong and heretical because he can't make the he can't make he can't make bad decisions, he can't do bad things. And I think that's the point that Jay's going back to, is like, look, since the

beginning of Christianity, there's been heretics in the church. That's that's not a new This isn't like a new concept or something. The point being that when you when everything relies upon papal decree and papal decision, you basically have to turn your brain off to all kinds of wackadoodle things that literally, you know,

don't make any sense whatsoever. Father. That's an interesting point too, Like we see a lot of this, especially the Roman Catholics, that when a problem comes in, we're having obviously a problem in Alexandria, that happened, that this is just unheard of in history. We've never seen well they all have church history. Like well, it's like a gotcha moment, like oh we got you, and we're like wow. So well we agree to disagree, like we agree that it shouldn't have happened, and we agree with

the canons on why it shouldn't have happened. Right, the woman was not a monastic, he's not forty years old, you know, like there's you know, she's serving in a liturgical role that's never existed in the church. Right, we can make that argument and we're not outside of the church or in open rebellion or defiance or anything else for saying that. Yeah, I think that the key, Oh that's your problem. Yeah, the key is to see that it's not a question of who's got more or less liberalism.

It's not. That's not it. It's a question of which system has systemic level problems that invalidate the system. That's the difference. So if you have a decentralized church, which we would we would admit, for example, many patriarchs of Constantinople in church history have been heretics. That doesn't that doesn't affect the Orthodox worldview or ecclesiological structure. It's not a good thing. It's a

bad thing, but it's not like devastating to the system. If the Roman See defects and teaches error for the church, then that's devastating to the system. So this is two different it's different different types of problems determine whether the system works or not. And I know, and I know this is going to sound kind of silly or maybe trite to some people, but honestly, a lot I feel like a lot of this stuff, honestly, it just

has to do with manhood. And there's this weird cope where you have to be you have to be lockstep with the pope and he's like he's your defining figure. It's a weird it's a weird anti masculine take. And beyond that, when you talk about the systemic, you know, problems, it's like the homosexuality amongst the clergy. I mean, this is not something we're making

up. This is something. I mean, I've heard from numerous Roman Catholics who are like, yeah, you know, when so and so went to seminary, all the you know, basically all the guys he was in seminary with were all homosexual and this was a known thing I talk about my Eastern Catholic priest. He mentioned that in seminary there's definitely a huge problem with homosexuality. I mean, I mean, I mean, yeah, huge would be

almost an understatement with how it's like patistrophic. It's almost to the point where it's literally just it's just active. The problem is too a lot of these guys are active homosexual, Like it's not even it's not even that you're that you're just getting homosexual. I'm not throwing a you know what I mean,

I'm not throwing shade at them. Obviously we know there were saints and holy people within Orthodoxy who did things, but they are people who are active in that participation of those activities, and that's where you're getting all your clergy from.

To me, it's like it's weird. I just I don't know why people go, oh man, the you know what I really want to do is go hang out with a bunch of gay priests and it's like, bro, go to Orthodox, you get a bunch of you know, like you know, you get a bunch of and I hate the word based, but you get a lot of solid men who are married, those in queerdos, you know, like they're just normal guys. Anyways, a little random. I appreciate that. Yeah, I was. I was on the fence for

a very long time. I was even going to Father Josiah's parrish at Riversite. And then I just felt like I needed to start partaking in the sacramental life, even though I'm still like a student. So maybe I made a quick judgment, but I just I thought that, like it's more important for me to partake in the sacramental life. That's why I went Eastern Catholic,

because I saw Eastern as like the ultimate fence sitters basically. Yeah, but and the problem, the problem with all that is is like you're being initiated into something right, and so it's hard to be initiated into something period. And as a man, you know, that's just that is part of the process, you know. You know what I'm saying, Like I lift weights and I've got a couple of guys who live weights with me at my house. Nobody shows up on day one and impresses everybody. That's okay, nobody's

gonna put you down for doing that. But what we're looking for is effort, integrity over time to prove yourself as being part of the group. That's a normal masculine experience of being with other men. And anybody who goes, Okay, hey, you came to church for one month and now I'm going to commune you, it's like that's a bunk. I mean, I just like, as a priest, I'm like, how can you even fetch somebody

in a month or three months or a week? I mean Candas Owens, you know, the irony Like Candas Owens is just like, oh, I wanted to become Catholic, and so now I'm Catholic. It's like, where's your catechumanship, Like where's your instructions? Where's your renunciations? Like how do you know in the Early Church for three years? It took three years to become a Christian in the Early Church, and now we've reduced it in the modern Orthodox Church till like a year, which I'm still not even convinced is

enough. And now you've got modern Catholicism where it's like a matter of weeks or months or days whatever else, Like how can a person be transformed? And maybe that's part of the reason why so many people who are Roman Catholic don't actually follow or even believe in the dogmas. So I don't know, sorry forgive my rant. Uh, yeah, I appreciate it. And Tyler or not Trey, We're gonna have to move on because we've got a lot of people. But a great question, Tyler, thank you appreciate that.

Let's say we got another Tyler. So Tyler Manino, what's up Tyler? And by the way, before Tyler, before you go, we had a super chat here asking a question. Noah emphasays for three dollars. Jay I asked this earlier. It might have been missed. Bishop Alexander Galitzen is my bishop. I met him recently before my baptism. While he does think that Origin led in an exemplary life, he told me that he defers to the

Fifth actumn Ocal Council and does not believe in universal salvation. Now, the issue was not whether he believed in the universal Salvation, but whether Bishop Glitzen said that Origin is a saint, and in the Orthodox Church, a saint is a person who's experienced uncreated light and has lived a holy life. Origin is not a person that we believe experienced that, nor did he lead a holy life. He was excommunicated from the church, and so his own state

lunch was from Origin of a Sandria. They're great, very great patristic writer. He was not appreciated. Three hundred years later. They condemned him as a heretic after he had died in the peace of the church three hundred years which was wrong. But he was still a saint. So there you go. So the question is not does he teach universalism? The question is does he believe that the councils and the church fathers were wrong in condemning Origin.

He clearly says that that was wrong, and he believes that he is a saint. So it's not about universalism. And Origin is not a saint and he did not live rightly. Go ahead, Tyler. Yeah, So I just you know, I want to say from the offset that I think, unfortunately a lot of Catholics are poorly catechized, and you know, a lot of them don't a lot of them just don't know a lot about the history of the Church and don't understand a lot of aspects about it. But I'll

try a little bit of a Socratic method here. I think it's we can all agree that there is no such thing as a perfect church, right because humans are not in general, humans are not infallible. Well, well, hold on, so when we say perfect, we don't mean morally. But both Orthodox and Catholics profess to believe that the churches that they adhere to do

not officially teach error, so they're not theologically in error. But my point is is that you know, we're all humans, so we all make mistakes, and clearly throughout every single religion, both Catholic and Orthodox, there have been heretics, right, sure, Yeah, So therefore I think it's possible that you know, a church can be let's say, ninety nine percent correct on certain things, but then because of human error, there are some times

when it screws up and where there have been corrupt probes, and a lot of Catholics, myself included, believe that this current pope is and I don't think that even though you know, the church teaches people and fallibility, I don't think that's correct and I don't think that's a necessary thing to believe for salvation. Okay, Well, Vatican One, which trumps you, says that it is necessary for salvation. It says that the Roman seed does not teach

error, cannot teach air, and never will. So you have to submit to that. You don't get the right in the liberty as a Roman Catholic to pick and choose dogmas and ecumenical councils. No, of course, what is it possible that dogma's and ecumenical councils were made in error? If so, then the Romancolic Church is not true. Look like I said, it's

ninety nine percent accurate. No, because the claim, the claim about the church is that it never airs, not that it's right nine percent of the time, but that it provides the individual Roman Catholic the certitude to trust the Church that it will never air. If there's a one percent chance that it might be airing, it might be airing in this statement or the next statement or the next statement. So you see why it's a totalizing system and a

totalizing claim. Yeah, but my point is that claim itself could be the exact error. Well, then Romaicasa is not true. That's all we need. It only takes one to invalidate the system. So do you do you think that orthodoxy is completely perfect and that does not teach any errors? Whatsoever. Yes, Okay, see, I think that it's close to impossible for us to know for sure, which is exactly correct. I think it's possible to get like, well, do you know that with certitude? No?

No, of course, there's no way for us to know for a fact. No, I'm asking do you know? I'm asking do you know that statement with certitude? Because that's your starting point presupposition, So for that to work, you would have to have certitude about that starting point. I'm asking you if that presupposition is correct with certitude? Could you repeat that we all only have ninety nine percent certitude? Let's say that was your starting point.

I'm asking if that proposition is certain for you. I'm not saying that's sortain, but I'm s well, then that's self reputing. How is that self refuting them? Because you've got to have something to start with that's certain, right, So I'm saying that I think it's possible for us to be You missed all You just missed the whole point. So you have a starting point that you believe is certain. It is your belief that nobody's certain and everything

is ninety nine percent certain. For this to work, you've got to be certain about that starting point. And do you not see how that's inconsistent? Yeah, I think that what you're getting at. But at this point, I mean, that's just that's just arguing logic, which I understand what you're trying to do here, but I mean, the thing is weird because so logic doesn't matter anymore. So if it's no, logic does matter. But we so Catholics everything, So don't change the subject. We're on the key

point of our starting points. Because I'm not a Roman Catholic, I believe that your starting point is going to determine everything. You have a relativistic starting point. So how do you know that that's true or that that your starting point is right? Well, because I believe that the Catholic Church is the closest to the original. But how do you know that though, because your starting point is it self fallible? Right No, through I think through through

people's own research, and through disarment spiritual I think that'll hold on. So our people are wrong sometimes right, So ultimately it's not the pope or the Roman Catholicy Church, it's you. It's the final authority in this system. Right. No, I don't agree with that I think it has to be in communion with scripture. No, no, no, but but but you this is your interpretation of this, that's my point. And you're saying that, well, uh, maybe Vatican one is wrong and I don't like this.

I'm gonna take this. So it's you constructing the Roman Catholicism that you want, that's your system. No, I'm in search of the truth. I'm trying to find the truth. Yeah. But you're saying, is that in the search for the truth, it is possible for things that we've formally thought were true to be false, or things that we formally thought to be false we're true. Okay. So that's why I went to your starting point, which was ultimately relativistic, your first principle that you're using. I'm not

assuming anything. I'm saying everyone you are, though. Everyone assumes things. Everybody has presubsitions unavoidable. Okay, that's fair. How do you know you have the right starting point? Is the question? Well, I guess technically does does anyone know that? Really? Okay, so you're a relativist, that's my point. No, I'm not a relative. How are you not? How are you not? That's what you're arguing basically what No, I'm not what are you talking about? Why would I be a relatives? I'm

just asking you your position. Everyone has that right. My position is born and raised Roman Catholic. No, No, okay, why the position's true? I know what your position is. I'm asking why the position is true, and it sounds relativistic. Your response is no, because I found through my own search, through my own struggles with my own faith, and through trying to do as much research as possible to discover the truth, and through

spiritual discernment through prayer. How do you know you're discerning right? Maybe you're discerning wrong. Well I'm pretty I'm pretty sure I was discerning correctly. But this could this? I mean this could this is a circular argument. I mean that could go that's right. Now. My point is to show that and illustrate that it is circum that's correct. I agree that was my point. But your point could then your point could be that at like everything see

that your point could be then nothing matters. And essentially what you're saying, no, I'm just saying that the Roman Catholic position and it's astemology leads to these dead ends because you're trying to make a system that doesn't make sense work, and that's why you're led to these conclusions, is my point. No, I don't think that the Catholic Church solely based on the table infallibility. I don't think that specific doctrine is the entire basis for the church. I

don't. But it doesn't matter what you think, because Vatican One trumps you, and you don't get to interpret these documents the way you want to. You have to interpret them the way Rome interprets them. But that's not the core of the faith, though it is according to Rome. According to Rome, it is. So you don't get to say that. Do you not understand that it's not a system. You're not a Protestant. You don't get to construct the Roman Catholic system the way you want to. No, and

I'm not claiming to do so, but you are doing. You are doing that before everyone. That is exactly what you're doing. Because you just say, I don't care what Vatican one says. I can choose to not believe that one. I didn't say that I didn't care what Vatican one says. You said it could be wrong or whatever you said. It is possible for human beings to make mistakes. Then you don't believe in the guidance of the Patrian Sea, with the Keroism of Peter and all that that Vatican One teaches.

So you don't believe the Romancallic Church is teaching. But you yourself just said that that every religion has had heretics, that even Orthodox he had. So having a heretic is not the same thing. Having a heretic in the religion is not the same thing as a fundamental contradiction in the theology and the dogma of the religion. Two different things. Okay, I can see your point with that. Okay, fair enough. I appreciate that. All right,

we're gonna move on. Not trying to be rude, but good exchange. I appreciate that we didn't get you know, we handled it in a

civil way. Ignacio Gonna, I'm mute. Yeah. So I was watching Catholic Apologetic channel the other day and I asked a question, you know, that I was choosing either Eastern uh to being Eastern Catholic or Orthodox, and they mentioned that I should choose Catholicism because Orthodoxy was the one that that actually changed their teachings in that supposedly they accepted a meical conception, and no, the amcular conception is a very late Roman Catholic dogma. How could the Orthodox

accept that when the dogmatization of that is far after the schism. That makes no sense. So, uh, the Orthodox Church says that she's the spotless Verse, but the word spotless virgin doesn't translate into immaculate conception. And also that Orthodoxy has accepted Philiokley and then for some reason they okay, yeah, I'll just make sure. Yeah, I mean, the Palomite Synods are all

premised on rejecting that. So you could read the Palomite Synods in the Norman Russell book, or you could read Saint Gregory Palamas's book Epidict the Treatise on the Holy Spirit, which is published in English now, So those things will show you that, no, we don't accept the Philioqui probably talking about Florence. So Roman Catholic should to argue that, oh, well, you had

several bishops that accepted Florence, so what not all of them did? We don't have this like, oh, if you get three Orthodox bishops, then you know your whole thing folds. No, it's a mark of Ephesus did not accept it, and when they took the decree of union back, the rest of the church booed them and three tomatoes at them and rejected it. So, no, we did not accept Florence. And then you could read the Austro mob book on the Council Florence Demetrio's Jim, Hello, Yeah,

what's up? My question is what would be your thoughts Would you consider it to be heretical or would Orthodoxy consider it to be heretical to take a pretorist slash postmillennial position, you know, concerning the Book of Revelations. That is to say, we'd be saying, like, you know, these predictions happened in our path. We're living in the Kingdom, you know. No, I think I think partial preterism is what's taught by Athenatious, by Saint Cyril.

It's taught by John crystalstom clear as Day and his homilyesa on Luke twenty one in Matthew twenty four. Yeah, so no, I don't. But

there might be elements of post millennialism that some orthodox might disagree with. I don't think that it's I don't see anything necessarily on orthodox in post mill that's a pretty it's a pretty uh you know, happy optimistic position as far as you know, combining you know, futurists or all those four categories versus I used to be right, so I come out of the reconstruction as bonds and rush uni sphere. I used to be into that, so I'm familiar.

Yeah, yeah, So so I wouldn't be considered if I were to say, hey, we're living in the millennium now, should has happened? Should have still happened? In CHRISTI is coming back, but you know, we're just you know, Jesus is putting everybody you know at his footstool sort of speaking. Well. Another possibility is, yeah, I mean, we'd believe those things for sure. Another possibility is that Roumans eleven that when the Jews convert whenever that is, and Paul says that they will convert the rest of

the world. It seems to be the terminology of Romans eleven. That might be something that happens quick. So you could potentially have whenever that is a something that's fast that fulfills a lot of those quote post millennial prophecies such that it doesn't then require like you know, ten thousand years for the earth, but then again you might have another ten thousand years. So I don't think there's any I think that we would say these are the Laugumina. Okay.

And then another quick question is concerning the Council of for Florence. Now again just to get your thoughts on this. You know, there was as many bishops from the Eastern Church as there bears were at any other councils for that matter. At the end of that council, obviously they became union again on paper, uh right, but not all of them did. Saint Mark of

Evesins is the saint precisely because he didn't. And you can read the Oustromov book on the history of Florence. Yeah, yeah, definitely, definitely definitely, but uh yeah, we're not, but we're not. We're not papists, right, So, like there's no like magical number of like oh, if you get you know, five bishops to who are heretics, then we've

won. That's the whole church, right. So Roman Catholics are always thinking in terms of like these like gotcha numbers, Like well, if I can get you know, three or four patriarchs, if I can get you know this many number of bishops, Like, we don't do the numbers game, Like there's no numbers game that like proves or disproves the totality of the church. That's all Roman Catholic attitude. No, yeah, I wasn't concerned with that. Mainly, I was concerned with you know, it was ecumenical council.

There was agreement, were signed, not an ecumenical council. So it's not gonna we don't, well, the Orthodox Church as a consider it an ecumenical council. But I'm saying it's only an ecumenical council if you're a papist, correct, But in the general uh layout of previous it's not acumenical because oikumenae means accepted by the empire, so they're in both Roman Catholic and Orthodox theology. There's the idea of acceptance that eventually occurs. So for us,

there's no like immediate magical thing that makes something quote an ecumenical council. That's why after the ocumenae goes away, we have what's called pan Orthodox synods that are accepted throughout the entire Orthodox world, like the Palms. So in order for a council to be legitimate, it requires more than just the acceptance of the bishops. And I mean yeah, because there have been Robert Synods. Correct. Okay, so the only thing I would I would, uh,

we're we're well, I guess that doesn't matter. I was gonna say, we're excommunications given post the council of Yes, absolutely, yeah, all those people were considered traders. So they came back and they're like, yeah, we signed on paper. But then there it's just what Yeah they were, Yeah, they were called traders and had tomatoes thrown at them. But isn't it wouldn't it be heretical to say we're changing the the outcome of this ecumenical

council. It's only an acumenical council on papal prerogative. So you just keep assuming the papal perspective and saying, well, it's an ecumenical council. But why what what do you think makes something an ecumenical council? Well, i'd

be Double's advocate here obviously, have a full disclosure. I am orthodox, so you can tell by my Greek name probably, but like you know, the the I'm being Devil's advocates saying like, you know, the patriarchs signed it, multiple bishops sign it. At the end of the council, everyone signed it. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit. It's law, we go bad. Not all of the pat not all the patriarch has signed it.

That's not true, well not all, but as much as I mean, there's people that rejected in ecumenical councilors that were legitimate to the Eastern orthodoxray Okay. So my point is that there's nothing about a council itself that magically makes it binding authoritative, because there have been many false councils, as even

Roman Catholics admit. So if we're gonna go with the papal approach, we've got a whole host of other problems, namely, why isn't Laterans six forty nine and acumenical council It should be, according to Roman Catholics, And yet no Roman Catholic council that has an acamical council. Oh yeah, I definitely see that privacy, There are no doubt, but I'm wondering if there's if there's you know, so when Constantinople fell, officially we were union correctly,

right, okay, and people you know, and uh. And Roman Catholics don't mention that, by the way, when they make their curse arguments. Yeah, well other curses that that they they say that, yeah, we've said it on paper, but we brought it back and we're heretical because we let the late late people say we don't want this, and they refers the decisions of an Yeah, but the Orthodox Church doesn't. It's not this clerical worship church where the laity doesn't have a role. The laity has a role.

For example, the Iconic class current controversy would have prevailed because the majority of the important bishoprics and sees were Iconoclasts. And the reason they Iconic class lost was because monastics and laity, Yeah, you know, the ones that bring up the you know, the the union part of constant. In other words, we were cursed because we were you know, uh, you know, refused that econ medical consols, so to speak, according to Catholics.

And it's interesting that the trad Catholics are like the most that like don't accept Vatican two are like we're like wait a second, bro, Like you're like more like, oh well yeah, but see when when you bring up curses about that kind of stuff, then it becomes proof that they're the true Church because they're persecuted. So that's called moving the goalpost exactly, Joe Enders, what's up, man? Yeah, I'm mute. Yeah, what's up? Jay? So I'm not going to argue with you because I honestly don't know

the material well enough. But I want to start studying the material so at least I can get your perspective before I go and study the material. I hope that's okay with you. Okay, Yeah, So I just you've brought up something specifically, and you bring this up a lot in your videos. You talk a lot about Vatican One. Now, what specifically is the hypocrisy that you were trying to point out in Vatican One that Catholics can't see the

answer. Well, there's multiple ways that that argument could be formulated, depending upon whether we're talking about a novus orto person that accepts Vatican two or a track cat that doesn't like Vatican two. Novasorto obviously, just to do a regular Catholic argument, well, again, it depends on like I've talked about Vatican one a lot, so you know, it could be I could be arguing that Vatican one contradicts the Canons of the First Seven Councils in the way

that it approaches things. I could be arguing that a lot of Roman Catholics, for example, say I only have to believe the ex cathedral statements, which is not true. You have to believe much more than that, such as the Pope's universal ordinary teaching, as well as submitting to his ordinary teaching, which is even fallible. You still have to submit with docility. So I make a lot of arguments in that regard. So I could be talking

about any of these things. Well, yeah, no, So specifically what I was I think I believe it was regarding the regarding the catheter statements, which, honestly, like as as you know a quote unquote Popal planner, I probably agree with your reading of Vatican one. So that's what I was asking. Okay, so so what so at that point I was probably arguing, where is the list of ex cathedral Where is the list of ex cathedra statements? Oh, I don't know, there's not one. That's your point

is that there isn't a list of ex cathedral statements. So because there isn't a list of ex cathedra statements, well, that's one point. Why why wouldn't I mean, I thought that the papacy is there to help us understand and know certitude and all this. Why wouldn't they give us some list of these things? If that's your sort of like Trump argument, kills shot against pretty much everybody else Protestants, right, I mean, like I said, I don't know. I'm looking into it. I'm going to look into the

arguments right now. I don't really think that that's the strongest argument that you well, it's one argument, but I think it's really strong for Protestant or for excuse me, for Romancolics that are struggling, because it's one thing to say, Okay, I believe that the pope you know, has this power to define dogmas in an extraordinary way ex Cathedral et cetera. I follow and

have I'm bound to the ex Cathedral teachings. But then as an individual Catholic, you're not in any any better position because you don't have any clear way to adjudicate without going through this mountain of documents. You're not. My point is that you're not in a much better position than a Protestant because instead of the Protestant trying to wait his way through interpreting the scriptures, You've got more work to do with mountains of papal documents and three broad criteria as to what

counts as binding an authoritative and you're not in any better positions. So how do you know as an individual what dogmas you're supposed to follow when Roman Catholics are just sort of parroting this idea. Well, I follow the ex Cathedral teachings and you're not even given a list of that. You're given three broad criteria. Now it's upon you to dig through mountains of papal documents to figure out what that is. How are you in a better position than a promised

it? Oh that's what that's your point. Okay, I see what you're getting at. I see what you're getting at. Okay, Yeah, I mean when it comes to that, this is one of those things that if I were to, you know, critique like the compendium of papal documents that

we have, the compendium of ecumenical councils all throughout church history. One of the things that I think needs to be more clearly defined is the magisterium and what the magisterium is and how the magisterium operates and how Catholic laity is supposed to interact with the magisterium. And I don't think that we need to be

going through every single Taple document. I obviously believe that you know the politics of Rome, the political establishment of the Catholic Oh wait a minute, though, Wait a minute, I'm not talking about papal private opinions of politics. I'm talking about talking about it. Either, that's not what I'm talking about. Either, you're misunderstanding. Even the teachings themselves, even the things coming out directly from the Church, they have a very very narrow effect on the

lives of every day Catholics. None of that is relevant to the point that I'm making, which is that you're bound to follow not just ex Cathedral but also the Pope's universal, ordinary magisterial teaching and his ordinary teaching. That means, in this mountain of papal documents, all of those are binding on you. That's the point. They're binding on you. And if you if you know them, if you know what they're if you know what they're there binding

on you. Whether you know them or not, they're binding on you, whether you know them or not to a certain capacity. But there's obviously like reduced culpability when somebody does something, What does that have to do? What does that have to do with? How are you in a better position than a Protestant with this massive amount of documents to know what your actual church's teachings

are. Well, that's what I said. You need a clear definition of the magisterium and the lil so two thousand years of the Roman Catholic Church hasn't figured out how to define magisterium yet, as far as I can understand. There's some uh, there's some pointing to it in Vatican One, which is kind of what I was asking you about. And then uh, yeah, And my point is that my point is that Vatican One gives you three criteria

of what you're bound to follow. That does you no good into actually adjudicating what goes into what ben as an individual Roman Catholic reading through the mountains of documents. I'm not talking about reading through the mountains of documents though, that's

not the point that I'm making. What I'm asking you about is like if if you think, if I were to think as a Catholic, like I said, as again, this is simple, if there is this you know, uh, if there is this compendium of things that you need to follow regarding ordinary magisterium, ex Cathedral statements, all these things that you know are binding on you, that that that are all these things? Does Vatican One explicitly state that? If it does, obviously it needs to be defined more

clearly in maybe a future Church council or anything along those lines. That how much I can agree with you with That's what I'm asking about. Yeah, it gives you three broad criteria, and it doesn't tell you what amongst the massive amount of documents that you're bound to in those documents is in which Ben, it's a very simple argument that I'm presenting to you. So the fact that you're saying, I don't care about all those other documents, that's my

argument. My argument is that you have to care about all those other documents because you're bound to those documents. And the three broad criteria do not give you any better epistemic position than a Protestant reading the Bible. Okay, so the papacy doesn't do what it's supposed to do. You're misunderstanding what I meant

by I don't care. I mean I don't care in regards to this very narrow, specific thing, not that it doesn't matter on Yeah, well, but you're not addressing the challenge that I'm presenting, which is that you're in a position I'm not going to because I don't know the answers. I'm literally trying to get information from you so I can look it up and understand it better myself. Okay, Well, that in one's not long. It's it's a it's a short council. You can read it printed out. It's about

fifteen pages if you print it out right. But I need to know what your objections to it specifically are. That's my point, sure, and I mean again, I've done it Infallibility is one of the things that you bring up quite often, and I'm guessing it's regarding what you're saying about the cathedral

statements and the magisterial time. I think this is a very strong I think this is a very strong argument given the fact that Roman Catholics are always saying that we have the trump card, which is the office of the Pope, which allows us to give certitude, to settle disputes, to know what the dogmas are, to be certain of our faith. These are constant, constant

pop Catholic arguments that we are all the time. My point is that what Vatican one tells you is three broad criteria and doesn't actually tell you where to put into what to put into that into those bins. And so if Roman Catholicism was actually going to do the work that it claims to do, we should at least have a list of the ex cathedral dogmas. You don't have that. So this is every dayiculous, bureaucratic, stupid system. That's my

argument. Okay, I mean, yeah, that's that's fine. I just like I said, I don't think that that's a very that's a very strong argument. And why is it not a strong Why is that not a strong argument, Because because you're saying that that the system is entirely ineffective because there's something that could be potentially added to it in another acumenical council in the future.

That actually, no, that's not the argument. The argument is that it has not provided the very thing that it claims to have provided for two thousand years. That's the argument, not whether there can be a future clarification. So what you're specifically saying, I'm understanding you, Well, you can aggravate it I'm asking for understanding because because you're being of twos, it's a

very clear, specific, obvious argument. No, I'm not. I'm not being in too, so I'm actually being honest and asking you genuine questions. If you want to assume that you're welcome to Okay, well, how many

more ways do I have to do? So? Look, the argument is this that the real Catholic apologists all the time constantly argue that we have the trump card as a Roman Catholic because we can give certitude, clarity, unity, provide pastoral universal guidance through the office of the Pope as supreme teacher. He's indeffectible, he's infallible, et cetera. That's the claim, that's the

argument, that's the car salesmanship that goes on. And what I'm saying is that when we actually try to look at the doctrines and what I'm bound to follow, when we raise a very basic question as to Okay, what are the ex cathedral dogmas that I'm bound to, there's no list of the ex cathedral dogmas every different Roman Catholic will get. That's a very strong argument. If it in fact doesn't do this, it's a strong argument against the apologists

who are making an incomplete argument. That's all I'm here. They're echoing what they're echoing what Vatican one says. That's the point. They're not wrong in their argument, they're saying. That's what I'm asking you. So you're so what you're saying about the Vatican One is that Vatican One makes a claim that they can't back up. Have you read have you read Pastor Attornives? Have you read Leo Staudi's Corgnito? No, I'm going to That's what I'm telling

you. I'm going into this discussion and I wanted to get your perspective. That's why. So I'm not trying right. So when you read those doctrines, you'll those doguments, you'll see that they're saying what I say, this is the way you know the true faith. I'm asking for an example. Is my point from the that you might know off the top of your head from the documents that you're specific Yeah, it's it's called pastor Attornives. It makes this very argument. Okay, yeah, I'll look at I'll look you

into it a little bit more. But it seems to me like you're refuting Catholic apologists, and no Catholic apology. This is this is sophistry. It's sophistry. No, it's sofist. It is sophistry. Off halfway. If you cut me off halfway through my argument, you can make it. It's

an argument that it's sophistry. But if you'll only finish it, then you're never going to get to the point at which I hopefully get direct and explicit, because it's not a question of whether it's only a thing that the apologists say. Okay, I was using them as an example. The apologists are making their argument from what Vatican one very clearly teaches. It's called pastor attornis. So rather than getting all sassy, you need to go read your basic

documents. This goes back to what I said. Okay, okay, you got sassy in the debate. So then you came here claiming you weren't in a debate because it was a bad argument. Because it was a bad argument. It wasn't a conclusion. What are you regument It's not it's irrelevant. It's not a question of what the apologists as authorities are saying. They're basing it on Vatican One. I'm asking what part of Vatican One. It's called pastor Attornis. It's called Pastornis. My gosh, it's not okay. This

is ridiculous. He doesn't even know his own documents, and then he's playing like he's this victim and I'm cutting him off. This is what we get with these people. Unbelievable. Connor, Well, I don't know about it than one, but I'm gonna come argue it, even though I'm saying I'm not arguing. I'm not arguing. Don't come off. They always play these games. So sick of these people's games, Connor, go ahead. We

can't hear you man, no sound from you. Bro Bradley. Somebody said I can tell you it was Calolk by the way he's arguing, the pitch of his voice. It's always the it's always the same manifestations. Go ahead, Hi Jay, Yes, sir, Yes, your last two guests were very interesting. Just a little bit of background. I was an RCIA teacher.

If you don't know what that you know what that is? No for several years and one of the things that drew me away from the Roman Catholic Church was I simply could not answer the questions of non Catholics who were thinking

of joining the church I had. I realized I hadn't really thought about some of the promulgations coming down from the batting, and especially the Immaculate Conception of the eighteen hundreds, and then after nineteen hundred years, the assumption and the rationale was always this has always been a part of the belief of the ancient Church. Well, if that's the case, then why why doesn't the Orthodox Church accept the Immaculate Conception? I mean, how far do you want to

go back to Saint Anne her parents? It didn't make any sense to me, and I realized, even though I had passed that question in high school and a religion exam, I didn't really believe it myself. So I couldn't really in good conscience continue teaching r CIA something I didn't believe myself. And then there were other issues that contributed to my leaving the Roman Catholic Church.

But that's one issue. I have another issue that I'd like to I don't know if this is appropriate for this or not, and if it is, if it isn't let me know. After I left the Roman Catholic Church, I attended an Antiochian Orthodox Church for about a year and I met a very nice couple, man and wife and his son, and they joined on Pasca. I didn't join. I really wanted to, but something was kind of

holding me back because I really come more drawn to Rocor. In any case, after about a year they joined, and after a year they had to move several hundred miles away and they didn't have a local Antiochian church to go to. And from my understanding, what the man told me was his pastor, his previous pastor had to undergo a sort of a negotiation with a Greek

Orthodox church to transfer his membership there. And I wonder. I know that there's a population problem and you know, overlapping dioceses and in this country, but Orthodox Americans are somewhat at a disadvantage because if you're a Roman Catholic in this country, all you need is a letter of transfer to from one church to another. It's a pretty simple process. But where you have to cross jurisdictions and get permission, you know, to join, I can see that

as I wonder how many Americans have that problem. I mean, a laity can go to whatever Orthodox church they want, they don't have to do letter of transfer, So are they are they allowed to Are they allowed to uh received communion or do they have to? Is there like I know, yeah, absolutely, I'm not trying to be rude. I'm going to move on. You know, we're talking about kind of Roman Catholic protests and stuff, not orthodox jurisdictional issues. But yeah, I mean, unless you're under some

canonical impediment, you can Drago got another Roman Catholic. Yeah, I'm mute. Is it on me? Sorry because the stuff cut off or someone else speaking, You're right, Oh, thanks, j Yeah. So I used to be a Protestant, you know, k through twelve school, then became a Catholic, went to the University of Notre Dame and Catholic for about eight years. But I am you know, I'm going to start looking just get up to speed on the different church history positions, Orthodox, Catholic, et

cetera. But I know we're folks a more on the Protestant stuff. I guess my question is, I know, for the Catholic perspective, there's the idea of development, whereas you know, people who criticized Catholicism would say, yeah, you're kind of adding stuff that that wasn't there before. I know, someone mentioned the emaculate conception and well, but also I mean Pastor Attornis and about you know, Stati's cognitium. They don't speak as if it's a

development, They speak as if it was always the case. So I think that you're kind of put in a mutually exclusive choice position if you're a Roman Catholic as to whether you want to accept development of doctrine or whether you want to accept that it was always there. Yeah, it seems I feel. I guess the frustration for me is a lot of these claims from both sides just seem fundamentally unfalsifiable. Or you just have to choose your axiom and your

presupposition and that dictates then the rest of how you look at history. Is that a fair thing? Or do you think that you can definitively have the correct epistemology without resorting to just an arbitrary selection of an axiom. I think that if Romancatholicism contradicts at a dogmatic level, that's all you need. That's that invalidates the system. And would you say, okay, for example, let's say transubstantiation, right, the formalized the presentation like that language wasn't used,

It wasn't written like that the church. But how can we know whether from an argument from silence, whether it's a clarification on something that was previously intuitive. So you kind of intuitively knew it, and then you just created the language to describe the intuition behind the concept, versus just creating a novel concept entirely that wasn't even grasped intuitively, Like is there a reliance? I don't, So I think that's a different topic in terms of, you know,

explicating and clarifying what was already believed. We don't believe that doctrine develops. We don't believe that there's something that the faith has at the Seventh Council with icons that's new and wasn't the case in the Apostles. Right, So a lot of times, for example, Eric Abara will say, well, look good the icons they developed. They didn't have those into first century. And yet when you read the Seventh Ecumentical Council, it says it's not a

development, it's an Apostolic tradition. So he goes against the very thing the council says. So that's different. So we have a different approach. We don't think that there's some deficiency to the patristic period that's complete calling crusades against Muslims versus going and praying and moss towards Mecca, because that's a straight up

contradiction. How is it not, you know, saying at Chalcedon that clerics cannot be members of the state, and then you have the papacy saying that you have to believe that the papacy is a state with universal world geopolitical power to be saved. I mean to me, those are just contradictions. Yeah,

I have to look into those. On the former one, though, we talk about crusades on Muslims versus praying in a mosque, is that just kind of like some kind of official doctrinal thing or just more of a pastoral discretionary you know, maybe better See again, you can't, like the councils teach that clerics cannot go to synagogue's mosques or the gatherings of heretics and schismatics to participate in liturgical services. So to go into a mosque as the pope

and to pray with the Muslims towards Mecca is an action of apostasy. In traditional moral theology the Romancolic Church. I see, yeah, I got to

look at that event. So thanks for mentioning that. And if I could just ask one question, you know, yeah, one Protestant brought to mind this quote of Augustine and his Retractions where Augustine talks about the you know, rock of the Church, and Augustine says, you know, sometimes I say it's Peter, sometimes a price confession, but let the reader decide which interpretation.

And for me, I'm kind of scratching my head, like, why is Augustine saying let the reader decide if it's like some arbitrary Well, I mean more than that. If you read Denny's book Papalism, you'll find that the majority of the church fathers do not expose it that in that way. There's a lot of dissension, a lot of dispute about the Rock and about Matthew sixteen. And so that to me says, well, wait a minute, if there's a lot of dispute and dissension, then it's not so.

Forty four of the church fathers believe that it's the faith, seventeen of them say it's Peter. So so much for what was believed everywhere at all times by all. Yeah, no, I see, I see what you're saying. What's the what for Orthodox? What does the mean? What is the whole primacy of Peter mean? First among equals? Is like? In practice? What does that necessarily mean? Is there any added layer of authority or is it there no additional authority? Like? What does it mean to be

first? I still don't quite understand that one. Well. I mean, in the ecumenical councils. In the Orthodox view, certain privileges are accorded to metropolitan sees, and typically in the history of like the Canons of sartk or something like that, you can appeal for a retrial. So if you wanted an answer to that from a Roman Catholic perspective, you could read the Alexandria document right here, which actually is a Roman Catholic approved document that basically admits

what we would say. It's basically admitting most of our of our arguments. There's a couple of places where I think it still tries to salvage the Roman Catholic people position, But for the most part, if this document is correct, the Medican one's not true. So, I mean, if you look at, for example, the way I'm metropolitan has privileges within his jurisdiction, like the Moscow patriarchate. You know, he has privileges about all the bishops

in his domain. In terms of the synod, he has privileges about priests that are ordained, he signs off on them. So different different patriarchates can have privileges within their synod. However, those privileges don't really extend outside of that jurisdiction. And that's why the Alexandria document and the Chi eighty document admit

that Rome did not exercise jurisdiction outside of Rome. So whatever privileges it has signing the documents first at the ecumenical councils, you know, flowery language, whatever, none of that is. You know, Vatican One's super bishop got it all right. Well, the thank you J for having me on and

for hosting these spaces. Absolutely have great questions. I appreciate your your attitude as a very civil connor do you want to try again because we get in here you a minute ago, A J appreciate you giving me a second chance there. So I hope this isn't getting off topic, and I'll feed the ground if it is. But I did hear you addressing about pritterism and some aschotology questions do And I've been having some discussions with some ultodox I'm Protestants,

and I have encountered this concept of the Great Apostasy and it's playing. I have some questions about what Orthodoxy believes about this. This is the standard teaching. And it also seems to me that there might be some issues with with the debate about the West most of the East as it as the question is, I guess the West kind of looks at the future as we are progressing. There was a progression in Christianity is looking for the future that is going

to be different than the the past or the present. And maybe Orthodoxy doesn't see things this way, if you mean, like, do we see truth as something static and unchanging? Yes, So the faith that's once we're all delivered to the saints, as Jude says in Jude three, that's sufficient, right, So there's nothing that occurs in the seventh century that makes up for

deficiencies in the first or second century. So a lot of Roman Catholics have this attitude of like, well, you know, that was the early infant church and it hadn't developed into the flowery medieval, you know, worldly kingdom of the papacy. Yet we would say no, no, it's there's nothing deficient in the first century that the seventh century adds, and so can them. You seem to you seem to buy into that view without a general Orthodox

view. I would say most of the Eastern church fathers that comments on those passages have a typical partial predators attitude. Athanatos Syrial uh St John Chris System. Okay. In the Great Apostasy, is this a concept in Orthodoxy or what is that? Yeah, I would say when it's discussed, Uh, you have a lot of elders, saints and church fathers that talk about a

final day's apostasy based on the Thessalonians text. Yes, there's an Orthodox book that's well known called Apostasy and Antichrist that's put out by Jordanville Monastery Jordanville Monster. Okay, but so truth doesn't change. But then Christianity is progressing to with some vision of the future. I mean again, you're you're using kind of terms that that are not like, I don't know what you mean by progressing. I mean we would say that you know, the Gospel being spread

is progression, but progressing like in the progressivism or Newman's doctrinal development. No, we don't believe those things. No, I totally understand that. But I guess, and I'm using language because I don't. I don't really have the theological language's that's okay. I have very conservative beliefs, so I'm not

I'm not talking about liberalism per se. But I do find this frame, it seems like with a lot of Orthodox where they just find everything like the whole rational mind in the West is corrupted because we're trying to we're trying to create a society or a world that is better than the one we have now. And it seems to me that in the Christian frame, this is essentially what we are doing. Yes, so maybe we're not discovering more truth, but we do have to just we do. I mean, we do have

to discover more truth. The truth is not changing, but we're discovering it now. Well, there's created truths and you know, truths about the world and nature, and those are those can be new discoveries. But we're not making new theological discoveries. There's no new dogmas or something like this. So again I guess I'm just not sure what what what you're getting at with that. No, it's probably off topic for the for the space, but I'm gonna look that up. So the Great, the Great Apostasy Book? Can

you give me the title? One? And Anti Christ Jordanville Monastery. Okay, thank you, you have good questions, Concreasador. I'm getting a little tired, so I'm gonna have to wrap it up pretty soon. We've been going for a long time today. Good I'm your you guys. Hey, Jay, thanks for having me. I gotta admit a lot of smart speakers in here. I'm kind of retarded when it comes to that, just a lowly new Protestant here. My biggest question for you is what do you think

Protestantism is getting right in America today? And what do you think is getting wrong? Thank you? Well, I wouldn't say that Protestantism as a whole collective movement is like doing things right, because it kind of assumes that it's like this singular front. I think that the best way I could frame that is there's a lot of sincere individual Protestants who are doing good things and who

mean well and are sincere. But I don't think that there's any like collective bodies of Protestantism that I would get behind or say that it's really that they're really doing good things. So good question, what are they doing wrong? I think the protestantsm just kind of started as a reaction to legitimate corruption in the Roman Church and unfortunately kind of threw out a lot of the baby with the bathwater. So as a historical movement, I think it's pretty much been

a pretty bad, pretty big failure. But that's not to speak to individual Protestants, who I think many of whom are good and are sincere and are doing good things. Michael, you got im, mute man, Gimothy Torton one dollar. Tim says that he's not at theologian when you're ask him questions, and he constantly makes videos on theology. Yeah, I mean, I got. I think Tim likes to just stay in the wheelhouse of philosophy and

cultural war. So that's probably what he feels like is his wheelhouse. Harry Sarpano's ten dollars, Jenny, thank you for good works and exposing falsehoods. Thank you, Harry, appreciate that long time super chatter. Now we lost our dude or Michael, you're still there. Do you want to unmute? You're up, man, if you want to unmute and talk all right, moving on schoolyon history, you gotta ummute. Sorry, sorry about the Jake and you hear me? What's up? Man? Hey man? First off?

Okay, so yeah, funny enough. I actually I think I know

that one angry Joe guy, that Catholic guy. I'm pretty sure he's my buddy's uh co worker, work for a Catholic studio, And I just want to just I'm not here to debate, I'm orthodox, but really quick, I just wanted to say that, like, you know, I think the problem is with a lot of Catholics is they when debating, they're looking into really technical issues and they're getting so detailed they kind of miss the force for the trees, you know, and they see it as like I don't think

the Night's Catholics were detailed, So no, but you know what I mean, Like I basically I think they they get stuck on you know, but they get stuck on these little points, right, and they'll and then you kind of lose your way, or at least that's what I find when I'm debating my Catholic buddies. But I think the funny thing is it's like if you look back, I think the right way to go is like with the Pope, as you say, you know, it's not a technical thing,

but they look at it as a technicality. I talked to a Catholic buddy and I said, is it supposed to work? Is the Pope supposed to bring clarification? And he said, technically, technically it's supposed to work. And to me, the question is like, does God work in technicalities or does he work in reality? Well? No, I mean I think they end up with this sort of Telmudic type attitude ultimately, where no, God works on technicalities and he tallies up your days that you owe and temporal punishment

purgatory and if you don't pay off every day. I mean, it's just ridiculous. So not trying to be mean, but I do want to get through some more of these m jancomo undici. So you got another Catholic h kah, go ahead, got i'm you. Did you not turn your mic on, bro jihncono gihncomo undici, we can't hear you. Man, come out and come back in turn on your michm all right, let's try again. Oh well, yes, sir, how's it going? Can you?

Can you hear me? Yeah? Man? All right. So I've been listening to a few of these people, and I've actually watched a few of your debates. I think I watched you maybe debated some big eric I think his name was, and then I watched this other guy, Luigi debates some other guy. So I've watched a few of these debates, and I've seen the orthod. So the Orthodox they seem to in these debates, it seems to appeal to Vatican one and they go back in one is why Roman Catholicism

is false? And I guess my question is, I don't know if I'm able to, like I from like suit a debate this, But I guess my question is, wouldn't it just make more sense to debate from the schism like from that and like before and see like, okay, which system was true at that point because that's when they broke off and then you see which church which is true? Beforehand? Like? Does that? You see what I'm saying? Why don't you debate? No? This is an argument I

make all the time. I've done countless live trains where I argue that the church of the first thousand years is the way that we would determine who the ancient church is. So I'm saying, like you, a lot of like what I've been hearing today is just like you talk about zatk in one. Well, that's just what came up tonight. But I've made countless hours of videos arguing from the first thousand years of the church. Okay, yeah, that was probably my that was my main question. I have like another small

question. Okay, so I saw this on Twitter. There was this like deacons in the Orthodox Church who like I don't know what, I don't know exactly what it was, but she was a deacons and she was like handing out to Eucharist. How and like the Orthodox system cannot be like stopped or something like that, be like not let's stop, because it's rejected by most of the Orthodox world. So it's a very small minority who really wants to

push these things. So how does like that situation get like handled is like within like the local church, And yeah, if if it continues, then eventually they get basically rejected by the rest of the Orthodox Church. And synods would come, would consider them condemned and so forth. So they're more Roman Catholics, so we get a lot of a lot of Orthodox questions. So I'm getting pretty tired modern apostate. It's a Catholic. My mind's turning too

much. Because we did a live stream before this. Yeah, it's just kind of funny to hear people talk about it like problems in the Orthodox Church when you know, like I live in Chicago, and you know, a priest's blessing the gay union, and then you know, like there's I saw a video recently where there's this woman she's offering masks, and it's just it's just kind of ridiculous. And I I'm Catholic, but I'm considering converting because

it's just all the arguments seem to be very convincing. One thing I wanted to ask was if if I'm considering converting, how do I go about living liturgical life? So, for example, if I'm Catholic and I've committed sins, should I go continue going to the confession in the Catholic Church or should I wait until I'm accepted into the Orthodox Church? Yeah, I mean I would I would say I wouldn't. I mean, you're gonna do probably what

your conscience dictates to you. So I can't tell you what your conscience is, and it shouldn't be. But if I were in that situation, I wouldn't continue the Roman Catholic stuff because I think you're uniting yourself spiritually. Not trying to be rude, but I mean, we see a communion as something important, and who you're in communion with matters, and I would not want

to be in communion with friends. So because there's a spiritual thing going on there, Centurion, you got I'm mute, Hey, can you guys hear me? Good? Even Jay, thanks so much for having on. So I'm coming from a Protestant background. I was raised as a Lutheran and then I kind of aposthesize, went through you know, whole atheist phase, all that stuff, and coming back into it now. I am very interested in

Orthodoxy, leaning towards it. Absolutely wonderful sort of a question for you, coming from almost a Roman Catholic perspective, because one of my Catholic friends was trying to convince me not to go Orthodox, and one thing he mentioned was that there's an Orthodox tradition of denying women communion if they are on their menstrual cycle, and from a Protestant background, denying communion as someone just seems kind of wrong to me. Yeah, this is just a thing that pops up

in certain Russian areas for whatever. It's kind of a Russian superstition that pops up. Sometimes. It's not the norm, and it has to do. It's just sort of like people reading Old Testament texts and then sort of getting concerned with this. But it's not usually the case. I've never I've only heard it discussed as a thing that happens sometimes. But to me, I don't think that should make It doesn't make sense in terms of the liberty that

we have in the New Covenant, I wouldn't think so. But you do sometimes get these like the Old Believers, for example, they developed some kind of weird superstitions at times. So I'm not knocking everybody that attends an Old Ride or whatever. I'm just saying that sometimes you can get these sort of superstitious ideas that developed. Chris, what's up? Uh? So it looks like Chris can't connect. Donald wants to come on, Okay, Donald Trump's

here, finally, unbelievable. We have a great guy, Donald Rubby Sham He's gonna be great good. I'm mute, gonna have to im mute. I gotta tell you if you good, I'm mute. Hello, Yeah, hey Jay, can you hear me? Okay? Sorry Jay? Hey j Dyer. I've been a huge fan since early twenty eight, twenty nineteen. Part of my preachings is that that you won the culture Wars, you beat

JF at blood Sports. Okay, back the thing anyway, I've been exclusively Jad what the freg before that and ever since Jay Dyer all the way. I'm a Protestant born a Catholic, went through the ropes, you know, the early stuff. I'm sorry to ask, but I just wanted to know, as it was brought up today, what is the rapture like? Is it a thing like? What does the Bible say about the end times? What does it really look like? Even though like I've gone through like the

Bible twenty times, I really don't concentrate on the end times. I've also have seen you also have you seen terrors amongst the wheat seql to lamp and the which goes into the beginnings of the Protestant and Catholic crusade against them. I won't take up any more of your time. Good sir, I love you, thank you. I appreciate that. Yeah, I have not seen the documentary or movie that you're talking about. The rapture is a there is

a bodily assumption resurrection event that occurs in the Book of Thessalonians. But we would say, Paul just talking about the last days, the final the general resurrection of all men, and then the eternal state. So there's no pre tribulation rapture. This is a Plymouth Brethren Protestant created doctrine. John Nelson Darby and C. I. Schofield and the whole idea of dispensationalism made up this idea. It has nothing really to do with anything in terms of historic Christianity.

And yeah, so fond ten dollars. I used to I visited the Pentecostal Church. It is the same atmosphere as a temple in Pentecostal Church. God inhabits them. They scream and shake, they jibber. This was on a Hindu telegram. Yeah, okay, so he's quoting a person on a Hindu telegram saying that the Pentecostal church is just like demonic manifestations of Hindus. Yes, Father Surfer Rose was great, Low pen ten dollars is off topic.

But there's a fourth book by Quickly called Weapons Systems and Political Stability. Yeah, I don't have that when I bought his Evolution of Civilization's book, but I don't have the one that you're talking about. It's a sequel to Tragi Hope. That's interesting. I didn't know that. I mean, Angle American Establishment's kind of a sequel. But it's a book that was written the last twelve years of his life. I'll have to get that, Thank you,

LoWPAN Caleb of three dollars. I'm going to read these quick because my mind is turning in the most prostant for ins at Orthodoxy's contradictory because he says I baptized infants. Because wait, we say I'm baptized infants don't go to Hell. Professions does not say they go to Hell. Uh. He says it's a contradiction. It's not a contradiction. Stelio's ten dollars. What would be the response to a Catholic? He says that Saint Justinian is a heretic

when the Orthodox Church accepts. Read the Kenneth Vasha book Saint Justinian Christology Saint Justinian Kenneth Vasha, w E. S c H. I've never heard that he reposed as an ethartodoctist. I've not heard that talk. Who have five dollars? In answer to a fellow who was thinking about confession when I was an Orthodox catechimum, my priest wanted me to confess periodically in a practiced, non sacramental way. But he's talking about confessing to his Catholic priest. So

you can't confess in a non sacramental way? Or did you mean as a catechumen to him? Maybe that's what you meant. I think that's what you meant. Since Sara Hippocert three dollars thirty seasons is a coherent for Orthodox to reject the liberal paradigm while thinking that free market is the best economic system. You can go back and watch my old podcast, the Critiquing Libertarian Economics. Any last, Roman Catholics, I'm not taking anything except raise your hand for

Roman Catholic all right, no more, I can't take it anymore. My mind is mush. Thank you, guys, appreciate that I'll be sure and have over to chalk dot com. He's promo go j forty four Life Go get tickets to our live event June twenty second in Vegas. Thank you, guys,