The Taylor Marshall MATRIX (He Gets Refuted) - Jay Dyer / Snek

actual schism happens. Because you see, you see that everything that that is good and in anti church, he would claim for Rome or that it would it would claim, you know a lot of things, a lot of good things that happen in the West, you know, which was the also at the time, you know, the United Church to be specifically a Roman and everything that's bad that happens in the East will be you know, specifically Orthodox, which is already contradicting its church view because according to them,

we started popping into existence after a schism. But here not only is the saying that we existed before, but this is already splitting the church. So this is a geographic understanding. It's very wrong because it's saying that Rome was never a universal church. Is conflating the Catholic Church and the undivided Church with the Roman patricket alone, which is a huge problem. So here we already we already see that this is a lack of knowledge of early

church history, especially the two thousand years. Yeah.

In fact, he's wrong when he says that the way that you know the Romancolic Church is true is to just not worry He literally says to not worry about the objective evidence, because that's just going to turn into people fighting with one another and throwing disputed documents back and forth. You just pray about it, literally like a Mormon level to your argument, like there's a burning in my bosom when I prayed about it, and so I knew that the issue was my own pride. Well, that

is not an argument. That is a subjective emotional appeal. It's a form of emotional appeal, not a valid argument for how we would know the papacy is true, and

in fact, the papacy itself. When it defines how we know the papacy is true at the beginning of Vatican One, it talks about the fact that you just go and you investigate the history of religions and the history of the institution of the papacy, and it will be manifest to everybody who looks at the evidence that it's the true, historical, continuous teacher of the faithful, and it's never erred in

all this stuff, all the claims of Vatican One. Right, So he doesn't even use the Vatican One definition of how we're supposed to know that the Roman Catholic Church is the true church. He uses a subjective appeal, and that's what really stuck out to me throughout this discussion was that there was almost no theology in this. It was all about problems in history, subjective emotional appeals, and the ultimate claim, which we'll eventually get to, which is

just that it's a pragmatic thing. Bro. Look, we just need a pope, come on, right, we just need the pope and it'll solve the problems. But we're going to see that their own stream everything Taylor Marshall is about disproves that claim because he spends his whole ministry now fighting against Frank as a trad Right, So Taylor Marshall's on the trad trek which we've all many of us

have been on at some point. Right, Taylor Marshall's about where I was at in about two thousand and three or four, Right, I was just at the two thousand and three is when I first started going to the SSPX Latin mass and Marshall is edging towards this kind of SSPI exposition, right, I mean he's not there yet, you know. Whatever, He's he's putting himself as the face of kind of the recognize and resist view on the papacy. But we'll get to all that Vatican two stuff later.

I just want to point out that, uh, you know this the way it started out, it just really started sinking quick, and I really expected better from these guys are supposed to be representatives. But the metre fact that they think Ericabara is the best Roman cathocha apologist. I think it says a lot Ergabar has a play darift and he's terrible.

And the idea that there aren't national churches or national pride, or that there's not national uh uh ism you could say within the world room is laughable. And by the way, they don't even know about all the problems within the world of unionitism. How unionism has multiple contradictory claims. Unionism many of the union its they don't accept Trent Uh. They will revere people that for centuries were considered heretical in the Roman Catholic Church. They revere people in their

liturgies that are officially heretical. And then as you pointed out, I did want to mention too, the point about Isaac,

this Syrian. Now, this is really one of the key ways too, I think totally deconstruct their their stream was the Taylor Marshall's ignorance on his own church comes to the four when we look at Saint Isaac, the Syrian right, people were he thought he got this gotcha on people right, the Orthodox, except Saint Isaac as an historian, saint just saying like he thought this was a big gotcha moment. Why is that not a gotcha moment?

have the same rights as us, discipline as this. The only difference is that they submit to the Pope. Yeah. Actually in attacking in attacking us, on something else in the papacy, he will actually attack his own church.

kettle black. Which, now, if we were to just exchange like arguments based on problems in the church, that would be one thing, generally speaking, because you can always say, oh, you got this problem, well, you got this problem, you got that from. Let's keep in mind that the Romancolic Church is a church built on a specific doctrine of

the papacy. That is the key foundational doctrine, and they kind of stress that in their talk obviously, But it's different when we talk out talk about problems related to the magisterial claims of the papacy right and its contradictions. That's different than just talking about moral problems in this

church versus moral problems in that church. Right, So we could throw liberals back and forth all day, which ironically they just cite a couple of liberal theologians from the from the Orthodox sphere, and they act like that's the voice of all of all Orthodoxy. Right, do we do that?

That's the key here. And by the way, Taylor Marshall has to understand, which I don't think he's gotten to this point yet, where he grasps that you do have to accept the ordinary, universal magisterial teaching of the papacy, and that includes their canonization of saints. So you're gonna have to accept John Paul the second as a saint. You're gonna have to accept Paul the six. You're gonna have to accept Johnny twenty third as blessed or whatever

he is. All of these innovators and all of these guys who brought about this crisis in the Church, that this apostasy that they admit and talk about, they're gonna you have to accept them as saints. You can't reject ordinary universal magisterium. And canonizations are part of ordinary universal magisterium. So that means when he attacks Uni eight saints who were Rivera saints, he's attacking his own saints. That's a huge stupid mistake.

a while. And actually they wild say that actually we latinize it to remove stuff some several paper and cyclical let's says that we cannot touch the right, we cannot touch the way they worship. And it just to this day several creeds and stuff.

things are reconcilable. Actually, we're going to see that the two positions aren't reconcilable later on. But I just want to point out this point that when you do the appeal to pride thing, it has again a sort of false piety emotional appeal, Like, well, I realized how prideful I was, And the root problem of all the Orthodox people is their pride, and they need to be converted to the pope. And he actually appeals to original sin is what keeps us from being saved in union with

the pope. This is bizarre, Like, so what's original sin ultimately effect? I mean, I know that they would say that it's you know, all of our sins, all our our you know, actions against the divine law and moral law, etc. Come from the root of original sin. But the whole force of this discourse consistently was Flanders saying that original sin is keeping you from recognizing the pope, which will

lead to your salvation. I mean, because they're I mean, at least as far as I understood, they're kind of trying to toy with the Peene idea that there's no salvation outside the Roman Catholic communion, right, which Vatican two is completely contrary to, by the way, and numerous papal statements after Vatican Two were completely contrary to. And by the way, ecumenism did not begin at Vatican two. It

began way earlier. Benedict the fifteenth was actually engaging in ecumenical actions early on BENEDICTA six fifteenth with the big supporter of the League of Nations. So I think the papacy there was cracks in the papacy far earlier than

just Vatican two. But that's a different topic. My point is just that the bizarre statements that original sin is what leads us to deny the pope was hilarious because this is really a vindication of the Orthodox claim that really Roman Catholicism is sol of papem It's all ultimately about defending the papacy. That's why Taylor Marshall. I mean, most of his streams are about trying to fix the problems in Rome and the papacy.

you're in total depravity. So by definition you are trying to you're you're trying to to refuse a papacy like it's literally you know, the fall of aid and causes you to to.

so none of that. So the fact that people meet and by the way, Francis goes in praise in in mosques. By his logic, Francis is a Muslim, right now, He's not going to admit that. Well, I would actually say maybe he is right, like I'm a free Masonic Muslim because Francis goes in praise in the mosques. And Flanders argument was literally that some Orthodox people will go to

a Coptic church. Therefore there is this sacramental sharing. And then he has to correct Taylor Marshall on the fact that their canon law actually allows them to go to Schismatics to receive the sacraments in extreme cases, which by the way, is an it's an innovation.

humanist and you accept all the uniates. I mean, if uniates are accepted in the Roman Catholic comunion with completely different faith, different canons and so forth, different saints, then of course you could why couldn't you go receive In fact, they even have canons and extremes cases where you can be baptized. You can ask an atheist to baptize you if you're on the point of death, which is utterly ludicrous, right their whole ex operato system, which we'll get to

in a minute, with their misunderstanding of baptism. But I just want to point out that it was completely disingenuous to make the comparison to all of the Oriental orthodox with the fact that some people will go to a schismatic sect or something like that. And by the way, so all of those same problems that he thinks are probably Orthodoxy exist in the world room Catholicism all over the place, not in extreme cases. I mean, if you are a Roman Catholic you have within perhaps one diocese.

Let's say I listed all my different options. I could go to the SSPX, which is split and by the way, they can't decide or figure out if you can or can't go to the SSPX if you're no asorto. Half of them think you can, have of them think you can't. So I could go to the SSPX, which itself is split between two people who want to go back to and reconcile with the papacy and the Bishop Williamson crowd type who don't want to and still but still recognize

the popes right. I could go to a Uniate church which doesn't accept multiple ecumenical councils as normative in their theology. They might give a verbal accredence to it. Some of them will actually just outright deny it. They don't believe in purgatory, they don't care about Trent, they believe pallemism, quote unquote. But I could so is that the real Romancolic church I could go to. Yeah, I could go to an FSSP church which is in commune with Rome but has all the same ideas as the SSPX, because

they're SSPX people who've been reconciled to Rome. Right, so there's that Latin Mass. I could go to a conservative Novasto church which professes to have problems in Vatican two, and do mental gymnastics on trying to reconcilt Vatican two, but we'll still accept it. I could go to a set of a contest sect or chapel, perhaps in a big city, which themselves will all be split amongst one another, claiming to be a Roman Catholic and claiming to have

validity in valid orders. I could go to a dioces in Latin Mass which is different from all these and will perhaps have a different view than all of these people. Or perhaps I cant even find a crazy Conclavist Mass who perhaps has valid sacraments because perhaps their so called pope was ordained in the pre Vatican two, right. Or I could find a Jesuit clown mass hip hop Mass

that I could say is the Roman Cathity. So within one city, I have this vast array of completely different faiths and liturgies, beliefs, perspectives on a dogmatic council and the pope for the last sixty years. But I'm supposed to believe that his analogy of some Orthodox people in the antioch In church he saw one time, go to a Coptic church that's equivalent to what I just listed. Give me a break.

was really just an appear to the masses. It was like a very low level kind of like just hoping that nobody's going to actually go and check any of these claims and just be swayed by, you know, just emotional appeals. Basically. Uh, the next point is that we are prideful and we don't figure out what we can't uh forgive, and we have grudges again, another emotional appeal. And let's let's I want to keep stressing that there's a reason why Flanders says, you cannot solve this matter.

Don't look into history and the theology to solve this matter, because you're never gonna You're just gonna go around in circles. It's not an issue of object he says, it's not an objective fact issue. Really, really, I thought that that's what Vatican one says is the means in the way by which we solve the issue of the papac that you go look in the at the objective historical facts. But he doesn't want us to do that. He wants us to listen to what he thinks is the root,

which is pride. Which, yeah, of course, pride and pride is the root of every sin, as Augustine says, and it's also the root of heresy, as the root of schism. But just to say that is just presupposing that your position is correct. Right, Maybe you're the ones that's in pride. Maybe your acumenical research at the Ukrainian Catholic University. Uh, in aid of NATO and whatnot. Maybe that was a source of pride. Maybe your thought that you you are going to solve the schism and your research to be

a ministry of reconciliation. And he said, maybe that's pride.

the Gods, so it was it was a union. So but by this metric, do you think your martyrs that were martyred by Rome, you know, who prefer truth instead of union where they're prideful Christ themselves teaches that you know, they will be schism Christ. Is that it brings the sword. I'm not saying that we should look forward to schism, but you know, just conflating any any sort of split if being necessarily bad or prideful is is very wrong because and you know the same way conflating any action

of unity as being necessarily good. You see, political unity is also a tool of the anti Christ.

driving modest operandi. I'm just reminded of the excellent book by Papadaccus, Crisis in Byzantium, which deals with the Senator Blackernee, and it covers the fact that right after the Council of Lions which confirmed the Phillyoquay, the East met and had Blackerne, which condemned the Philly oquay, which, by the way, is binding a normative for Orthodox. And we'll get to one that's binding a normative Orthodox, because they actually touched

on that in the stream. But you see the same designs for for motivations at the time of that reunion synod. You see the same problems at the attempts at Florence's reunion. And the problem is that it's great to have the desire for unity, but again it can't come at the expensive truth and the problem with ecumenism, and we know that that's the motivation of Flanders is one percent totally a cumunist, and even admits us. He says, back when he was received in he was, oh, I was a cumnist.

Back then I was. He was always an acumenist. That's the problem. That's the root here is that the assumption that I'm going to solve these problems because my heart and my motives are right, and I'm going to be the way I can help with this, I can heal the That is pride. That is probably assuming that you don't know, assuming that that you know better than all of these people who actually dealt with this problem for centuries. Right. It's it's that's the pride here is not is not

saying any any position that's not your position is pride. Right. So Isaac the Syrian, by the way, wasn't a Nestorian at that time the Church of the East that he was a part of was actually in union with the Orthodox, and he does not teach an historian ecclesiology or Christology. So so Marshall again has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to the East. But I knew this about Marshaal ten years ago when we would debate the essen synergy distinction. He was totally lost, and he's

still totally lost. He doesn't know why it's an issue. He doesn't get white even matters, And the exact same is true of Flanders. I've never since seeing a person who goes from Orthodoxy to Rome who knew or grasps why the essence introducinction matter. They couldn't tell you exactly what it is. They could say, well, it's like there's a distinction between God's actions and essence or whatever. But like man, we're all just saying the same thing. No,

we're not. And the Sinaut of Blackerne shows that the Orthodox Church knew that and has always known that it's in our liturgy that we accept the essence introducinction. Saint Gregor Palomas has entire debates right the debate with Barlem over this issue and so it doesn't matter how many ecumenists say that we can mess these positions, when the people who expounded these positions thought that then said very

clear that they couldn't be meshed. And all I have to do to prove the Roman Catholic wrong on this is to point out that for centuries they rejected Palomas and now they accept him. That shows you that your church is false. It's not based on truth. It's just based on power, temporal power and being under the pope. You can have as many faiths as you want as long as you accept Peter in their sense right, as long as you accept And by the way, when I say Peter, they want Peter to be the head of

all the world religions. That's where this is going. And by the way, you think that's crazy enough, Flanders loves Salavia. That's what Slavia wanted Peter as ahead of world religions.

you don't get salvation by going to war. Killing someone is always bad. You can you can be part of just what. But if you kill someone, you can become a priest if you if your blood on your hands, can go beIN the altar. And even since Basily says that yes, we can accept that you go to war, but under under some circumstances, if the war is just you cannot be a war for you know, persecution. It needs to be to defend Christians. So it's and you know,

like it doesn't cleanse your sins. And we're going to see that rom itself today shows that the crusade where not to defend Christians, because you know, Jerusalem has been under Moslim rule for quite a while at the time of the first Cruisade. But the first crusade, you know, the crusade thing only kicks off when when the skis them. So he says, we we are unable to yet to forgive this. No, we can forgive you, We can forgive. But what we cannot do is is forget or martyrs.

You know, if your revelations it's the martyr is the blood mart as Christ Chris Evan and in Christ Christ will avenge. So no, we just keep to tradition. What we don't forget is what happened also after the Fourth Crusade, because during the Latin Empires there has been many persecutions of Orthodox Christians. Just after the Crusades, we also have

a crusades starting in Russia. So it's not only against Byzantium, it's against it's against Russia that you know, for example, Saint Alexander Nevsky, he fought, uh, he fought some things that happened if autunami of twutally crusaders and these totally crusaders have been you know, evangelizing the Baltic for quite a while, but they never attacked before the Fourth Crusade. So actually after the Fourth Crusade you just said that we are a fair game. We also criticize the units.

We have many many martyrs against the units we have even Union Busantine Empires. We're in community Rome that persecuted and killed people. We have the Polish, the Polish York over the Ukrainians, and and of course we cannot forget or martyrs, and they were killed specifically for for these reasons. Usually people counteract by saying, this has been the massacre of the Latins in the in the it's the business an empire. If you look at it, it was not

done by the Church. Why did this happen? It happened because you had Venetians and Geneerans competing and they will attack each other's suburbs. And actually, at some point the Empress said, okay, you know authority in my empire. You're trading rights and you started attacking each other in my empire. I'm liquidating a part of the the Venetian carta is. The Church doesn't have much to do with it. That's by the way.

that those are forgeries. What are you talking about? All of these key texts that prove the temporal power of the papacy, everything from donation of Constantine the Galatian to Creedles Is Asidorian, the Creedles right, the Simakian forgeries right, these all played into not just backing up the petrine succession of infallibility for Rome supposedly, but also in terms of Rome's temporal power, which again obviously evolves into being what it is nowadays, the Papal states, the Vatican Bank

a secular institution, something that Metropolitan Sera Fama Pireus calls out very quickly in his his article that it's it's it's largely about papal Cesero power, which is ironic given their claims and critiques of Cero papism.

and you know he later add them back. But oftentimes in order to to they will remove saints and you know, later cover up by saying, oh, you don't always there is the other calendar. It's fine, is they removed Saint Cyril of Alexandria. So they say that there apparently the church that have the authority of the Council of Ephesis. But they were removed in Ceil of Alexandria because he puts them some you know, he cast some shade on

on the purp. So yes, also this proves that, you know, the orthodox way of making saint center the church is part of the divinal human magisterium of church or church is a divin human entity.

they do because it's an obvious innovation. So we are the traditional church, you're not, Yes, So.

know divin a human tradition. For Rome, it can be done and done. It's just about paperwork. So I couldn't even argue that there is no sanctity in in sanctuary in Rome because because they adopted this new thing is just about paperwork. Tomorrow you can you can be canonized next day, you can be uncanonized depending on hobilities, you know, if it always a papacy. For example, sin Cemon of Trent was was removed from the calendar because of the circumstances.

We know that the ecumenists there have been working with the Roman Catholics and the Uniates to undermine the influence of the Russian Orthodox Church there and the Canonical Ukrainian Church and Metropolitan NUFRI. That's all being done at and fostered by NATO in the CIA. What's very interesting that they never even touched on this, and it's well known in mainstream news, It's well known at good Orthochristian dot com,

countless articles describing and detailing the problems in Ukraine. No mention of any of that, no mention of the problems of how acumenists are a big part of this. Right, I thought, Taylor Marshall is not a big fan of ecumenism. Oh, but if it's to undermine the Orthodox Church there, oh, suddenly acumenism is good. Right, So, but that just goes along with their you know, ends justify the means Catholic moral system that we get from Alfonsi's Lagwari. But he

talks about the rival. He says that that this is crazy that one patriarch will be out of communion with another. This is just crazy. Has he never read church history? Does he not know of the countless examples of this happening in the first millennium? And the pope didn't just solve all these problems, right, He acts like this is something that's like just unique to like twentieth century Orthodoxy or nineteenth century Orthodoxy. This has happened in all kinds

of times in the first millennium. In fact, what's the situation with the Synoty of Oak where Cyril of Alexandria isn't he out of communion with Christostom and Rome? Right, So there's a period where they're out of communion. Saint John Chris Sistem for a long time in his life

was out of communion with Rome. Right, So there's plenty of examples of Canon twenty eight of Chalcedon talks about the very thing that he doesn't even grasp, right, the very thing that he says, acts like a some normative thing is right in the middle of the Council of Calcedon.

bad as this isn't even acologies. They say that you know that knows the African schism, if it's incipron of cath that actually disagreeing perpet you know, it's happened, you know during all this part where Rome was trying to to show that that leadership of our Northern Northern africasm graviation Cartho region and they say, but don't worry when when we think about it, it's it's just it's just an exception.

We do not want to add things to decree. It's mostly about jurisdiction. It's a it's it's a political squab. Actually, the fact that we diunited politically, because you know, Church did not come to make an umpire. It said that, you know, don't with Caesar. You give to Caesar what diseases. So the fact that we're not united politically, you know, the fact that we're in competition just like the battery kids.

You know that inside the empire, it shows that we need to be able to keep the theology is the best, whereas they are united politically, and the things that you just need to go up one person to destroy everything. So there's a problem you're having are just as innovative as your dogma. The problem the Roman church is just as innovative as a Roman dogma. And now you can you can just destroy everything there just one man.

honor being given in these councils. And there's no comparison between the honor of the Bishop of Rome, nor does a council determine the Bishop of Rome's local jurisdiction, nor can it be compared to Alexandria or to Antioch. Right, but what do you see here in this famous canon of Nicia?

And again duel Ingjur was correct when he said that after Vatican One, all of a Catholic apologetics will be papal lawyering. It will be just nothing but trying to prove that the papacy and Vatican One was always the case, when clearly the modus operandi and many, many, many examples here you can see. I mean, if we were to say something like Canon six, they would be like, oh, your national church is, bro, you got a bunch of nationalism.

counsuls but was just great. And I have the Canon of the Catholic Church that says that the Roman Pontiff Canon thirty thirty eight, the Roman Pontiff alone, as you can vook, the Commdical Council preside preside over it. The second part it is to the Roman Pontiff to determine the matter to be treated in the council and established order in the in the ops of council. So not only the Pope was not present any of the seven

mecamical council the first ones. But actually this council was convened in skuse be from because this council actually happens during the controversy of Lucifer of Callier. So Lucifer Cacleary, who's the schismatic, refused baptism of people that were persecuted in that our Chlesian And this council is convened excuse of be from because at the time there are two bishops of Pantioch, there is there is Belatius, and there

is a Polinius. And Police is not recognized by by Jerusalem and Constantinople, whereas there's also yeah, Milicious is recognized by Cruz, Jerusalem and Constantinople, and Paulinus is recognized by Rome and Alexandria. So this council is convened by is the part that is supporting militious you know, Besis militant right.

Basil's mind. There's no way he could write the letters he wrote if you believe the Vatican one view, which again they have this curious thing where on the one hand, they are constantly interested in proving the Vatican One mindset from the first millennium of Christianity, and then they turn around and will say and admit that there was no Vatican One mindset. It's a doctrine that evolved and it's something that came to clearer and clear evolutionary truth over tom. Now,

wait a minute, which is it? Is it something that was always there would say, try to argue when they go to Clement or to Pope Victor, or to Leo or these people that they misuse or is it something that wasn't really clear but evolved, right, So they do they do both things at once.

Spirit seals the decision. That means it's infallible, you know the paper and fallibility derections from this, you know, you know before it was only for true ecumenical council. Now it just was the perpect. This means that the Holy Spirit operated at an ecomunic like in an a communical council outside of the post, outside of the community. From that means that Rome was on the on the wrong side of a schism and even Meletius, who died during this council.

the essence of that whole day. Look at where I mean what. They didn't even mention a single canon. They'd even mention a single objection right of something like Canon twenty eight. Now he made Snack made a great point from constat the noble one. But the next council after, well there's ephesis and then you have Chalcidon. The reason I'm bringing Calcaton up is that if you look at Canon twenty eight, which by the way, yes, the papacy later rejected, and obviously they had to reject it because

it doesn't fit with their paradigm. But we're bringing it forth because what this shows us is the canonical procedure of the church, the mindset of the church at that time to propose this canon right and again yes, eventually the Bishop of Rome rejects this canon because he doesn't like what's in that canon, obviously, but what it.

in Canon twenty eight of Chalcedon. What you see is that the rights and privileges of the throne of old Rome were because it was the royal city, and so constant and nobles should have equal rights and privileges because it's new Rome, right, and so it should be magnified as she is to the second in rank, and it should have all the same powers and prerogatives because of why magical peter powers. No, because of divine excuse me, because of the canons of the councils, and because of custom.

And so this custom, right is what is the basis. And it's rejected by the pope obviously, right, so the papacy eventually has to do. You think this is the only example. There are multiple examples. I got a list right here of all of the canons and all the

ecamenical synods. Yes I have, and we're going to go through some of these would show that each one of these canons that's proposed in every economical synod, not all the canons, but each canon that we have as an example here is contrary to the attitude of Vatican One. And again notice the double think schizophrenia of the Roman Catholic apologists, who, on the one hand want to tell you that the Vatican one mindset was always there. It was always there clear and at the same time, well,

it wasn't really there. It was evolving. It was just a seed form right in the Cardinal Newman notion of evolution of dogma. It was a seed form that was there, and it evolved all the way up to the time of Vatican One. And so the most important doctrine of the Church, which is not in the creed, totally absent in John Damascus's exposition of the the Orthodox faith right, which they accept as a doctor of the Church, totally absent. Nothing there. It's the last thing that the Catholic Church

defines in an ecumenical council except for Vatican one. Right, So it took all the way up to the eighteen hundreds to define the doctrine that is the foundation of the church and how you know the true church, and it's not even in the creed. It's ridiculous.

commenical councils, and that's some things. You know. They would say that, you know, this consul is only a communical you know consernerable ones only a communical because the pope accepted it. Yes, but it doesn't matter according to ecclesiology, because it means that a really communical consul is the spirit falling on it your church today, will Marshall accept, you know, in a communical consul if it was convened by you know, Pop Michael. You know Pop Michael is

in community with the church. He has the same theology as as Marshall, who's not heretical according to him. If if I don't know Francis actually you know, if if Pop Michael makes an emmical consul and Francis accepted it, will Marshall agree? Will do this? No, you won't. Exactly is exactly what happened in the in the past. Of of course you know they were not there was not a trailer park, respect but still in kiss and be from. Yeah,

it's it's terrible sin to bring it up. And you know again, you know, really we don't have the potency of the consuls, But why don't you follow the canons? Canon to ide is it was a great well.

It's something that evolves over time on the basis of canonical privileges. And we see the exact same thing with Bartholomew now. Bartholomew now is trying to do the very thing that the papacy did, which was to claim that all of these canonical privileges that were accorded to them, to the different patriarchates over over time throughout the centuries, and the canons somehow now translates into a direct sort

of voice of God modus operandi. But if you look, for example at Canon four of Nicia, we want once again, let's see again how the Romancolic Church after the first millennium completely departed from the normative way of appointing bishops. Now, why would the pope want to appoint all bishops? Well, obviously to make sure that they all agree on the papacy. But now why if that's the case, why didn't Nicia have the wisdom of the foresight to understand that the

pope should appoint every bishop in the world. Right? Who appoints bishops at the time of Nicia Canon Ford It is by all means proper that a bishops should be appointed by all the bishops in the province. It's not just the pope. And after the Renaissance it becomes normative for the pope to sign off on all of the bishops in the world. Right. So again, at a basic, basic, fundamental level, they're completely ignorant.

it not present in the niceten Creed? If if that's the things that ultimately matters, you know, if salvation is ultimately linked, directly linked and mostly linked to the fact to being community from why isn't it in in this In this Creed at ten minutes it says, like we said, it is the need for a nice in Creed, the Creed talks about the church in terms of ontology. Does they talk about the church ontologically? If the church is built on on on Peter and you know not.

which says that there's no martyrs outside of the Catholic Church. Right, we would agree with that there's no martyrs in other churches, right, that's true, we're not acumenists. However, after Unum sanctem this becomes there's no martyrs outside of communion with the Bishop

of Rome himself. That's why Cantate Domino expands that and says no, So unum sanctum has happened, right, Cantate Domino happens at Florence, and it says that you have to not only be in union in the Orthodox Church, the Orthodox Catholicy Church, now you also have to have the requirement of being in union with the successor to Peter

to be saved. So this is a salvific issue, right, Why is this absent in so many church fathers, so many doctors of the Church, so many statements of the Creed, so many places in the councils, This fundamental salvific doctrine is completely absent until magically, surprisingly or not surprisingly, after the schism. Now you have to be in union with Rome to be said. Yeah, and by the way, they

don't even teach that anymore after Vatican too. You can literally, through some generic invincible ignorance desire be said than anything.

So they've been teaching. There was top of the class and they said, you know, this is creating a new religion. And even before that, like we said, like you know, papalism is creating a new religion. It's been, it's been in constant mutation. It didn't start with Vatican to Ecumunism didn't start with Vatican two. You already have multiple rights, multiple creeds, multiple disciplines, starting at Florence. So yeah, there was.

Canon two discusses the fact that bishop stay within their jurisdictions. Uh, this leads to confusion if they go outside of their jurisdictions. There's no mention of the exemption of Rome here, so they make an argument of silence. Oh well, it's just understood. But remember constant Nople was convened in schism right and later is accepted by Rome, so no mention of that. But yet the Holy Spirit is guiding this council. It's ridiculous.

Canon three, the Bishop of Constantinople should have prerogatives as senec mentioned, so we begin to have the prerogatives of honor given to constat noble like Rome. In Canon six of Ephesus, we have the Holy Synod, which is accepted by the Church's ecumenical has authority over all the faith all the faithful. No mention of the Roman bishop having the real authority or the true authority or the principal

foundational authority over all the faithful. The canon specifically says the Ecumenical Council is what has authority over all the faithful. Canon seven is the statement on altering the creed. Canon eight is contrary to the canons of the Apo, the apostolic constitutions of the Holy Apostles, the transgressions of the ancient customs, and the canons of the Blessed Fathers are to be kept, and there's no mention of any special

authority of Rome in this canon. The canon reaffirms the importance of the succession of the bishops and their own jurisdiction, and explicitly condemns taken over other jurisdiction. There's no special authority or exemption mentioned for Rome in Canon eight, which it would have been the ideal place to mention it. Right. Canon one of Chalcedon states that the ancient canons remain

in force. Now, remember every time that these canons state that an ancient canon remains in force, it's presupposing that modus operandi. Right, it's not saying that it's not allowing a new mode of doing these things. Well, now we did that with the canons. Now the pope can come in and sort of arbitrarily decide what he wants and what he doesn't want. Otherwise, Again, the whole praxis modus

operandi of canons itself is snodl. It's collegial. These don't make any sense in the Vatican One mindset, and that's why the Roman Catholic Church has a completely different practis after the first millennium. So what we're trying to demonstrate here is that his claim that we don't have the faith of the Seven Councils is ludicrous. And he hasn't even read these canons, or if he has, he's being

dishonest because he should have dealt with them. He should have said, well, let's deal with some of their objections from these ancient canons. So the ancient canons are in force. There's no mention in those ancient canons of Rome having the universal supremacy. It would have obviously been attached at every point. I mean, look, none of the people at this time operate like the Roman Catholic apologists. Now where are all the Roman catholicapologists at this time in these councils.

They should have just been citing the popes all the time, but they don't do that. Where is that mindset? It's not here, right, and they do the flip flop. Well, it wasn't there because it was nascent and seed form. But now wait a minute, you just tried to argue from all these post Apostolic fathers, Victor Clement, that it was always there. Total contradictions. So Canon one of Chalcedon

is the ancient canons are in forced. Canon five says that all the boundaries of the ancient canons remain enforced. No exemptions for Rome mentioned Canon nine. Appeal your problems in your local jurisdictions up the hierarchy until they reach the throne of Constantinople. You hear that this is Calceadon. You can appeal up the structure until it reaches Constantinople, where is the mention of the final infalliable throne of Rome.

Now quite when the Roman Catholic apologies are presented with this, you know what they actually say. They say, well, it was just understood. In every one of these examples, they always say, appeal to sign. It was just it was it was, it was just. It's all. It's all there, it's just no no actual it is appeal of silence. Well, they all knew that.

doesn't match the Roman Catholic understanding. When it comes to Constantinople one he says that yes, yes, they we're not in the community the purposes that The only other example they have is a previous Roman Catholic historian who actually

quoted a false false acts of Consols. He says that Baronius here Colin Baronius, which is a beatified in the Roman chair here is quoting false stuff, and Barers notes forger it's even it's Barnes also that push to remove Syrilla Alexandria from the from the list of the saints, because he's so he's a problem with papalism in in ephesis because if it's still Alexandria. So yeah, you can even go look at your own sources that will show this at some point, if it even even you know,

goes on it was blackmail. But he still says that that Honorious was a hertic. Still like, go read your own sources. It just it banks the church.

of Nicia is contrary to the Roman Catholic scheme. Right, it says Constantinople is equal to Rome and all the privileges, and it's number two because Rome is more is ancient, and it's doubly Apostolic from Peter and Paul and by tradition and custom. Right. So, in other words, Canon twenty stistic Canon twenty eight shows that they were not assuming

papal supremacy by silence. That's the key here. So all of these other canons are shown to be interpreted in the sense that we mean it, because they included Canon twenty eight in here, which is against the papal view. So you can't argue that all these canons presupposed the papal view when Canon twenty eight shows that did not. So Canon nineteen go ahead.

All right, So now the Roman Catholics have had a change in their position right after Nicia to the Western Church accepted it, and then soon after I don't remember at the top I had which pope it was, but one of the popes after uh Nicea too, I read out Jesuits, and not a crazy Jesuit, but a scholarly book on this long time ago about how there was initially the acceptance of the Canons of Trollo and then

later particularly in relationship to married clergy. The pope obviously later rescinded that because Trollo includes the famous Canon on married priests. But for a time the pope had accepted the Trello canons, which because they're they're part of Nicia too, right, So when we look at Trollo, and by the way, for us, for orthodox Trello is normative, right, it's it's ecumenical. The first Canon, of course talks about the heretics that are condemned, and Honoreus is included in the heresiology as

a condemned heretic. Uh and they were condemned by the unanimous acknowledgment of the faithful that was revealed to the church. They were synotically anathematized, universally considered to be anathematized, and that includes the Bishop of Rome here, So there's no They had no problem with the council condemning the pope, and for a time the Pope accepted the canons of Trollo. Canon two of Trollo says that it reaffirms the previous canons and understandings of the canons, and that they remain

in force. There's no mention of any new foundation or Rome superseding or being the over riding foundation. And again Trollo shows that they understood the canons in our perspective, because the Pope later rejects aspects of these canons in Trollo, anything to.

church allowing this for the first millennium. You see what I'm say.

Canon eleven those are problematic. And then there are multiple Apostolic canons which we still hold as normative, which these councils approve and prepare situate the Apostolic cannons. That's the thing is that the Apostolic canons are perpetuated and approved and Canon one five, fifteen, thirty three, thirty four, thirty five, thirty nine, forty five, sixty four, seventy four, eighty one all are contrary to papal supremacy now in their church, in their mind, they don't care. You can throw all

of that in the trash. It doesn't matter because after nineteen eight, well after the first millennium, the pope is basically the arbiter of canon law too. Right, everything switches to Rome now again. Notice how canon law in the first millennium is sonodle. After the schism, it's all papal who changed the canon. So in nineteen seventeen they had the trad canon law, which by the way, the trads

all follow the nineteen seventeen code. And then in nineteen eighty three John Paul updates the canon law to have a updated canon law, which by the way allows things like communing with heretics and schismatics in extra stream cases or perhaps not in extreme cases. Even so, a lot of the trads. If you're in Sata world, if you're on a set of a contest, you know this. You know that you will appeal to the nineteen seventeen code because there's a change in community getting sacraments from heretics

and schismatics, which Flanders has to correct Marshall on. Marshall's like, I wouldn't do it, and then he's like, well, actually you can according to canon law. So even between them they don't even know what the romancalolicy position is. By the way, it wasn't the pope supposed to solve these problems of where do I get communion? Where do I not? Oh, there's all these problems, Oh communion. We don't know who's in communie with you. You don't even know if you

could go receive communion from a heretic or not. Marshall thinks you can't, Dode thinks you can. Who knows whether you can or can't. And in the Roman Gallic world because the nineteen seventeen code right there, it was very limited in the extreme cases. After a Kumenism in the nineteen eighty three code. Oh, let's just do whatever you want, bro, pretty much right, pretty much?

too late texts. The latest paper found is this is quite no, it's just tradition. You know, if I, if I start using sort of arguments, you can't even use your Bible. But you're saying that you have the Bible because of tradition. So here another layer of dishonesty, another layer of contradiction in Rome.

fantasy of union. But in fact the order our church is united. We have one creed, we have one faith. We have the same canons that we follow, and we have a canonical jurisdiction throughout the world, and we have a single Eucharist that we participate. And we still fence the table from the Roman Catholic Church. No longer fences the table. You can go to the bat I have the countless friends who are atheists and they go to

the Vatican. They walcome and get communion. Now, there may be abuses of canons in the Orthodox Church, but typically speaking, you don't do that. Like you can just walk up there. Oh bro, I'm off the street. Bro give me that wayfer dog ha ha. Look check it out, bro, got a wafer. I have friends that did that. They're like, well, I brought back my wafer from from the from the Vatican. Bra. Yeah.

been to a Vatican two church. When the SSPX people when they reconcile to the Vatican, do you know what they have to accept Vatican two? You can't reconcile, would not accept Vatican two. All the FSSP were made to accept Vatican two when they were reconciled out of the SSPX. Any SSPX person that goes back to Vatican, to the normative diocesan union, you have to accept Vatican two. Any catechumen in the world who's brought into the Roman Catholic

ARCI program is taught Vatican two. The Pope himself has reiterated that Vatican two's reforms are magisterial and irreversible. Francis has said this multiple times.

legitimate convert. Uh, he's going to learn this spiraling world of mental gymnastics and craziness to where on the one hand, the documents of Atticant two are called the dogmatic Constitution on the Church. There By the way, let's let's put something the rest really quick here. What is required in the Roman Catholic system for something to be dogmatic. A lot of them are confused and they think that it's uh, well, the pope has to explicitly state that it's an infallible

extra ory. No, no, no, it's not the only thing that's.

covers a moral side. That's well, let's face.

Aatican two. So they're just lying to themselves and saying, well, I don't have I personally I'm going to reject the acumenical. The pope has enforced this multiple popes for sixty plus years. You can't reject sixty plus years of papal ordinary magisterial teaching.

faith and salvation because of it. Like you cannot go away from this. Beout, you know, starting to loud, Everybody who doesn't like poor Francis to just read past Atonis. It's it's five pages long, grobably less every Saint Roman Catholics that have read this and know that it is a comenical and knows that it is infallible. H Like I've seen many people apostatize because yes, this is actually this is not traditional at all. This is this is a very very modernist take, a very you know, not

in perils, but the absolutist take. If if you don't like poor friends, just read pasta Autonois because this is this is the rules you have to follow. Actually, you know, finally enough about this actually pushed secularism in the West quite a bit, because of course, if you belong to a nozenation, you have this man, you know, the poping rooms as the leader of a nozenation. Let's say that, no, you have to follow, you have to follow faith models, you have to follow decree, you have to follow all

the ordinary magisterium. It means that the pope can state a revolution whatever it wants in your country. And today you know, to an extent he's doing this is pushing for more migrants. It's a question.

the decree. And by the way, don't just read I'm not trying to rebuke you snack, but don't just read Past Returners because Past Returners there is only two sections of Vatican One. If you read all the sections there, and it's not that long, it's about ten pages, you will say that everything that we're saying is absolutely correct. You have to follow the Universal Ordinary Magisterial and you have to accept all of his juridical decisions and decrees.

This is condemned. The idea trads, the idea that you can reject the Holy Office, the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, It's decisions, all any of the pontifical congregations and their decisions, any of the judgments and decrees that you can pick and choose, that is condemned. In Denzinger sixteen eighty three, seventeen ninety two, sixteen ninety eight, all condemned that proposition, because that was the proposition that all the modernists we're using to get around the papal

statements at that time. You see, Ah, but here you have it, the trap that now binds you to Frank. You can't get around Frank.

than him because because they have pride. He says, it's like around twenty twenty thirty times we try to count something that's better that he says that, oh actually he's a cure for pride is submitting to the purp and not asking questions. And what does he do if you look at his Twitter, he says that we should pray for the intercession of the Corey dump tracks, even though the Pope made made an official statement saying that the Corey dump tracks is is foolishness.

So let's let's take a look at pre Vatican to Moral Theology, one of the most famous books if you were in the ssp X, if you were a trad you probably have Canon Ripley's book from tens called This as the Faith. It's it's very popular. A lot of

trads have read this book and refer to it. If you look at the section on page one about what constitutes a mortal sin on the Lord's Day, you have lists of activity, okay, lists of activities that are servile work, and you have things like servile work would be plowing, sowing, harvesting, laundry, laundry, lawnmowing, cobbling, tailoring, printing, masonry, mines,

and factory work. However, in some places there is the custom of justifying knitting and crocheting, but it's also permitted to go walking, riding, driving, rowing, and journeying, even though even though these works can be fatiguing. Fatiguing, literary and artistic works are lawful even if they're done for money. However, servile work is forbidden even though it's done as a

form of recreation. For example, if you were to walk two and a half or three hours for some kind of work and it was to become arduous, this would be mortal sin. So I found on Lord's Day this is the most talmudic like crazy stuff ever in a normative Roman Catholic moral theology. This is why we don't have this problem, right, We didn't have to swing from this insane ai autism of crazinessness level over to Vatican to clown mass. Notice the pendulum swinging of the madness

in Rome. Catholicism of the extreme of this in this was written in nineteen fifty one, nineteen fifties. This is what your your your confessor would tell you in nineteen feet. Oh my child, my child, did you work? Did you walk? Did you walk two hours? My child?

actually a feature of that religion. There's something else weird going on there, This idea of you know, just like if I sneeze during the Mass, I'm damned, it's a mortal sin. The mass is not valid. Just crazy stuff like that, But it's an attitude.

first idea of the canon. That's why it's brought up. That's why it's it's it's even in the Bible. That's why it's the one thing to be very very tidy, very very understandable. And you know you're just doing loawyering. If you look at early Church, it's not about lowering. People are making some level of concession. And here you're you're like, even so a graph about salvation there, the graph about salvation. It looked like a board game, you know, like the float shot.

But what I'm trying to say is that that we didn't have that problem because we understood that you can't have a one size fits all answer to every single moral problem. And that was the problem of the Pharisees. So economia is the bishop making the decision. How do you think the church and the first millennium operated through the local bishop making the decision. You can't ask the pope to solve all the problems in the ancient world. He's a thousand miles away. How's he going to solve?

in their proofs of how indulgence is developed. They'll actually admit they'll say, well, indulgences are because in the early Church, if you would committed a serious sin and you were uh, you were refraining from the table for six years, if the bishop gave you that long of a penance, he could also if he saw that you were truly contrite, he could remove that temporal punishment of six years or whatever that was that was laid upon you from coming

to the Eucharist. And so therefore that's how they they will argue this in their apologetic That's how they will say, oh see, now we have the ability to remove any kind of temporal and it just turns into this giant like algorithm equation scheme, which is ludicrous and crazy.

the Orthodox Church. And in this case, in Cannonade of Nicea, they can be received in a way that's different in other cases. Right, where's cannonadd And I see, I was gonna read it. It reads that the schismatic novationists can be received. I'm way off. It says con concerning those who call themselves Cathari, that's not the medieval Cathari. These are novationists right. And by the way, some tried this week said that they that I think Cathari might be Orthodox.

should continue as they are in clergy. But if they, before all things necessary, that they should be professed in writing, that they observe and follow the dogmas of our Church, and then they will not commune persons who have been twice married commune with persons who are trice twice married. I think it's somehot digamy. And with those who have lapsed in persecution and have had a period of penance, so you could actually relax the period of penance.

Is makes it dirty, and it's a great segue for it for the next part because you know, after bringing Conomia, of course they are they are talking about about divorce and stuff like this. So to court martial it says that, oh, we are blushing when when we talk about divorce, really because it seems like there is a there is a tradition here. It seems that so first of all, I'm going to cover everything that relates to the priest stood when it comes to divorce. So he says that, oh, yeah,

we're important loose morality. Actually know, if you look at a father to that, Tournam has a great talk on Roman Catholicism that mentions this. If you look at Nicia, it states that a priest cannot live with with several women in this house, but that that does not include his wife. And actually is they were talks about maybe restricting this like you're making you know, cilbism monetary at Nicia.

And it's actually a father of the desert who came forward and said that no, by doing this, you would set yourself to a higher standard than the apostles themselves. So we were part of tradition that even suggested that the apostle remains married, you know, remain married, which actually was you know, his confirmed some apocalyphone which talks about

divine Apostle Peter preaching with his wife. He states that, yeah, monetaries, clerical celibacy fosters a great a great missionary spirit, which is realicuous because we're going to talk about this later, because he goes on full it makes really bad argument like prosperity gospel tire, but he says it fosters a great missionary spirit. And then then he quotes, then he said, we converted the Barbarians, you know, before greater missionary spirits.

If you look at it, you know the only barbarian tribes that converted to to to you know the United Church where the Franks and the Franks in their first counsul some years after being converted, they even make a cannon stating that, uh so it's the concept of audience five five eleven for everybody was stating that at least the king needs to approve anybody joining the clergy unless there are sons of clergy, which shows that you know, the guys who we eventilize the Franks were actually married.

We're having wives. We're going to talk about the Franks industries or papers in part. So this is about clerical celebacy. Even today they will admit that they they expanded on it is the easy added, you know, just like the Pharisees. Again, you know, burdens that are very hard to to hold. I'm not going to comment on the pedofile stuff, but you know about the pedophile stuff. Then he brings up

divorce itself, the Orthodox and blushing when you bring up divorce. No, again, we follows the low You mentioned the canon of puzzle about about divorce, and they said, oh, you know, we we don't know divorce.

of Rome. So this is a purple the consul defining a doctor for by the way, Eugene is a second as a council of frobe In in eight twenty six says that you can actually divorce for adultery, you know, which is biblical and remarriage. So you're not following the purple.

this gibberish. Uh. And at the same time, when you admit that all the things that you attack us for are in the Eastern Church that you believe as part of the Roman Collity Church for the first million, for the first millennium, So you're just you're just undermining your own argument and your own church every time you do that. It's stupid.

It does? It means that you know if your marriage fels, it just means that you were never married. It just sounds like shreddingers adult three. You just you just can't know whether you've been married.

same things in your and your worst. There's high there's higher rates of divorce amongst them than there are per capita, even amongst Orthodox Supposedly Lewis had quotes on that, and y'all stream, by the way, everybody, if you don't if you want more than our stream. Go listen to uh David. They touched on a lot of points that I'm not touching on, that we're not touching on. But David the Mill, the real Medwhite. I'll link him and uh snack and

Lewis's stream below here a little bit. But Throadinger is adultery. That's hilarious.

sill right. Uh. Something else is that annulment bring up a real theological problem and for people are so you know, in love if if the great Saints in Augustine, we're

going to touch on that again. You're creating donatism because by having you know, by having an aulement, if your marriage fails, it means that that you don't you don't have sacramental certainty because you know, in order to do this you also have to resort to to to prost and thinking, oh, actually the ministers of of these sacraments is not the priest. It's it's espouses. But you know, isn't it one of the sacraments that the priest can do. Isn't one of the seven sacraments of the church. That

means that everybody can perform sacraments? Yeah, just like the person and think, so, yes, you're creating donatism. You you you you treat you you tell you tell you that you're prestant and you're you're you're thinking like a perstant you know, the keys are to to bind and and bind. A priest can reasonably be the fruct The priest can reasonably barrow you from the Eucharist or the bishop in that case, the same thing can be done with marriage.

So we do not blush. We are just consistent. You actually are worse, and you try to hide it, which makes it even worse. Then then talk about contraception. Uh we talk about this in the industry with David as well. If you, if you alders to the same stand that as you are. First of all, you allow it right now. The unit's a lot of stuff right now. And and you know, just because you do natural family planning doesn't mean that it is not a form of contraception. It

is going against against natural law, you know. Yeah, uh yeah.

You cannot believe or hold that the Roman Sea has promulgated defective rights, because that would undermine all of the sacramento unity that the Romancy is supposed to provide. And it was actually the Jansenists, the Synotopustoia, which was arguing that the Roman Sea had made errors and had given defective rights and the liturgy should be in the vernacular, et cetera, et cetera. And the reason I bring that up is that all of the trads are mad about

all of the sacraments after Vatican Two. It's not just it's not just the sacrament of the Mass and the Latin Mass, and whether the words are valid the words of Institution, which you know, the decrees after Trent say that you have to use the there's a specific valid form, right And then the whole argument is that the New Mass changes that by using the word for all and not for many. And so every trad knows about that dispute,

right well. The problem is that the more consistent the trads got, they also got into having problems with the other sacraments right, So then the priestly right of ordination becomes a problem, and you get people writing order of Melchizedic. I think Michael Davies has a book on that, and people analyzing and pointing out how the Novasorto when it did the new right for ordination of priests, it's very similar to Anglicanism. But if Leo the thirteenth had infallibly

condemned Anglican ordinations, then it becomes a problem. And that's where you get the trads who start doubting ordinations for post Vatican to priests or whatever. Right now, I'm not interested. I don't really care about the bunch of squabbles anymore.

I'm not involved in that world. What I'm trying to say, though, is that all of these sacraments underwent the seven Sacraments underwent revision, and so it doesn't matter whether you say that whether you have a problem with with one or all of the changes in the in the revised sacraments. Octorum fide dogmatically condemns the idea, and this condemns all the trads by extension who aren't set of a contest.

It condemns the idea that the Roman Sea can promulgate defective in any sense rights for the whole church, and most of the trads ultimately end up saying that the texts themselves, the new rights themselves, are defective. Now, not every trad says that. You got some that say, oh, well, we can reconcile Attican two with everything before it, but most of them are getting they get to the point where they're honest themselves, and they're like, this doesn't work.

Mortelium animals cannot be reconciled with Attican two, right, I mean, they're totally, they're totally nine day and then and then we get Pacha Mama. Right. Obviously it's a different faith,

it's a different thing. But again I'm just trying to stress that if you're gonna be honest with yourself, you're gonna be honest with what's in Denzinger, right, the dogmas that you have to hold as a Roman Catholic if you go back to something like actorm fide, which actorn Fide is in here the condemned propos One of those condemned propositions is that the Roman Sea can give defective rights at all.

is a treatent in Latin Mass. She's ridiculous. And that's also on the trilenty Latin Mass very quick at nine minutes minutes, Clander says, I cannot be a proestant because because I can't, I can't just do worship like like like it was done like a worship, a way of worshiping that was created five hundred years ago. This can

be applied to the turn to Latin Mass. It's it's oppressed that inspired mass to to to an extent it was done the concept of twenty, which condemned press and to an extent that it was also you know, lightened. It contradicted to precedent mass and stuff like this. We're going to ritualism into these is use of of of Latin. The idea that Latin is a super language is is ridiculous.

These ideas that you need to centralize everything on Latin ex actually doing the work of the anti crest again by trying to to to to create you know, what is given mystically and divenly. You know, with the glossalalia, the speaking in tongues uh and doing doing it politically, you're just recreating the bubble. Bubble was destroyed because because for for for this reeason as well. So that's that's

very good. They also create. You know, this criticism of vernacular is is also you know, totally forgetting the early the early history, because what is the you know, most Bible, it's a vulgate. Why is it called vulgate because it's a vernacular? If if if the Mass was performed in Latin, is because it's it was a vernacular in the first place.

And you cannot say that, you know, performing in vernacular is bad or has heresy because you have says that are literally saints, because they even invented vernacular the same Curly and Sine Methodius who invented the Glagolitics script which later became the Slavonic. All Slavic languages are saints because

of this. So you're just denying you want saint, you won't church again talking about the Mass I'm just gonna you know, just for the ritualist, I'm just gonna quote what Fortesque Roman Catholic story that is thatwards the rites for the Catholic Encyclopaedia. Right in under the entry Liturgy of the Mass, it says that the liturgy of the Mass that existed in its earliest form in the Roman Mass as witnessing, justin Martyr's second century account, is of

Eastant time. So you know, just just to remind you, no, there is no supremacy in in the masses, no supremacy instead of like this in any way you have to accept all of masses because of the units. Anyway, that was just a quick side note on languages also, you know, uh, this worship of languages is idolization of languages. You can see it up here in in other you know, Protestants like you have the Protestants Baptists who will worship the Bible itself, things that.

any meaningful way. This is how their devotion and submission to this imaginary church is an exercise of humility, supposedly on the one hand, right and at the same time, they have the ability to disregard anything that the that the present pope says that they don't like. The idealized pope that exists only in their minds is the source

of stability, certitude, and Catholicity in their argumentation. But the real actual Pope that exists in the world, on the other hand, is an apostate who needs to re enter into kim union. With their idealized platonic form of pope, which again has no basis in metaphysical reality. So although they are not set of a contest, they exactly mimic and operate like the say it is if you go watch my streams critique instead of a contism from the

John Pontrello book. This is the point that Pontrello makes about the set of a contest, that they have an invisible church and Charipeter that they're united with, which has no correspondence or connection at all to the actual guy over in Rome, which is known throughout the world as and received as the Roman. See right, So the same

thing is true. The same thing is true with these guys, and Emo goes on to say that they're basically doing the same thing as the set of a contest, even though it's the recognize and resist position of the absurd Roman Catholics who think that sixty plus years of the Roman Sea has taught error and apostasy. So they're praying for the Church for the for Francis to come into communion with a pope and Charipeter in their heads. In

their Protestant mindset, they are the price of sense. That's the mind blowing a reality here.

because only the Roman Curia can elect the pope. But regardless, the Conclavists at least understand that you can't have a complete defection of the Roman See. That's that's that totally denies Vatican One. So technically speaking, Email, I appreciate that super chat. But technically speaking, the Satas don't reject, don't accept Pope Michael, but they would actually be a little more consistent if they did. But then you get into the problem of which of the trailer park popes are

you going to accept? All right, well, so let's.

And look at Acts fifteen again he quotes the councils. You know, that's biblical that destroy this position. Acts in Acts fifteen. You know you should read it. It's a short chapter. It's probably the most relevant chapter in terms of ecclesiology in the New Testament. In Acts fifteen, peer is here. Peter is not leading, right, you have Saint James.

of the church. Nobody denies this, you know, even even Central Christostom Will says that they were They were Cory fay A, you know, prural people that had authority, that included James, James, Peter, and and John. The a confusion to be between which Peter it is, between which James it is. We're going to cover that in a moment. But in Act fifteen, ultimately Peter speaks. But it is James who has listened to Peter now and it is James declaration that is word for word the apostolic brief.

If Peter was a perfect supreme authority, why doesn't it why doesn't do this? And I'm going to quote Saint John Chrysostom on this part, which said, no words speaks John here, no words of the other apostles. There the piece for James was invested with the chief rule. And think it no ship. So yes, here here you have you have James, like Peter in did spoke more strongly,

but James here more mildly. For this it behooves one is the high authority to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, well, where he himself appears in the mild part. Okay, I don't really know you can go about this.

Clement you know, was pope. Outlines Oatlands in book six put this Peter, James and John after the ascension of the Savior, he dot claim eminence because the Savior had especially honored them, but chose James the Righteous as a Bishop of Jerusalem. So again there is a debate, you know which James. Especially in Rome, they start says that you know, these James is a lesser you have, you have another James. Anywhere tradition remembers James as a priest.

Tradition remembers James especially in especially important and we even have traditional texts that mentioned that the priesthood came came to the Apostle through James, because James, James was by Christ. He was you know, the half brother of Christ through through through Joseph. So you know Joseph being in this sad little nine it was especially important. And we need to stress this and something that's great. As James destroyed all the heiresses, Saint James, brother of brother of God,

destroys all the heresies Acts fifteen. He destroys, you know, ultimate supremacy of Rome in his epistle, destroys brother Stantism, and he also destroys the claims of you know, Judaism and Islam. That we we actually lost the Covenant. No James is a hint that that propagates the Covenant to

the nuture. Are recommend reading the books by Simon Claude Mimoni, who was Jewish himself and a great historian, and talks about this that James, well, a very important figure for the early Church is that he's the one who brought bought all these things. So yes, very important, very stupid of them to bring X fifteen. You know, probably things that reach the Bible as a prostant thing, because if you read X fifteen you'll see that. I want to stress too.

What is you just ask the Pope, the bishop of the West. Now he appeals to the bishops of the West, he says, And then he goes on to say that we know that Antioch can function like the head of a body, right, he says. The heretics are trying to sunder it to it, render it asunder, he says. But if you Athanasius, go and fix the problems in Antioch, he says, then an Antioch like a head, will heal

the whole body. Now imagine that if I were to read that, they would say that that's talking about the Bishop of Rome the head of the whole body, and he's talking about the church in Antioch, right, and he says that the church in Antioch stands as the head, so to speak, of the whole body of the church, and all else are mere disjointed members. Now it is the prayer of the whole East that this be fixed.

And he says, I've asked Rome for help. In the next letter, so this issue continues, So he writes a letter next to Malicius of Antioch, who's the head there right now, because the Roman costs well. But he's not calling the bishop of Antioch the head of all the churches exactly right. These kinds of phraseologies are used in the Church Fathers, and they're lifted out of that context and used to try to prove the universal supremacy. But that same language is used of the guy who's the

lawful bishop of Antioch. He then writes the next letter to Athanasius, letter sixty nine, and he says, I have again asked Rome for help. He says that, but they have failed to help us because they are men ignorant of the faith. So Rome failed to condemn because they're ignorant and silly. He says, And then he goes on in the next and he writes a letter to Pope Saint Demasis, and he doesn't say anything about Pope Damasis being like, you know, the universal greatest head of all

churches in the world. He just says, will you please help us? We need help in the East. And there's nothing about any magical petrine power here when he writes to demasists Pope Demasis. So then here's the killer is that Later on when he writes another letter to another bishop, to Eusebius of Samisada. This is a letter two hundred and thirty nine, he says that no help is going to come to us from Rome. He says, because there are a bunch of men ignorant in the faith and

they've actually strengthened the cause of heresy. And he says, because I wrote to their corfeus, their corfeus, the patriarch of Rome, the corfeus of the western jurisdictions. He doesn't say our mouthpiece there, corfeus. So what I'm getting at is that when you read through these letters, the actual practice, language, terminology, and usage of Saint Basil is nothing like Vatican One. The Roman Catholics come back and revise all this and reinterpret it and say, oh, but it's actually is Vatican

One because it's an argument from silence. And he's appealing to the he's appealing to all the bishops. He appeals to Athenasius. He says, Athenacious, I know that you can fix the problems in Antioch. Right, all there's not why is he doing that? Like all he has to do is just say, Damass fix all the problems. And then he turns around and says that Damases was the voice the core fees mouthpiece of the Latins. He says, but he was useless. He was useless in this.

are structured. So letters of the fathers it always starts with an assessment of the person they're talking to, and it starts by you know, giving great praise. And for example on his website is actually you had the same Theodore of the Studio, and we say we said a lot of great things about about about Rome. Yes, because when Rome is Orthodox, they have no problem giving it all the praise. It's fine. But when it is not,

we don't. And for example, by taking Theodore of the Studio, he wrote letters to the patriarch of Constantinople saying that he's the head of the church.

Because if you go into these books and we've seen people you know, coming from the twild world. A great friend and manted to one extent, Jehan MacLean, he he went to the PG. It made it made him aposthetize, because it's it's filled with flalsification. It's filled with you know, even sometimes admission of of oh we have different manuscripts, Oh we with these stuff that says the orthodox think, oh there is this alternate version of this of this

church father. Uh, it's it's it's filled with errors. If you read Dollinger. Dollinger actually dug into it, and he has a he has a book and the papers is that just six hundred pages of showing interpolation in this book he said. He says that at times you will have ten layers of clalsification. So again a church fathers and court. Mind, it's it's a bit difficult to you to use as is. If you if you, if you use the same metrics, you will see that just random

bishops at the head of the church. Random bishops are described as being the pillar of the faith. You even yeah, random bishops of priests as uh. You know, he says that it is great to be in communion with you. You see it from all the fathers. So claiming the Father proved the papacy because they says, the purpose doing great when he's doing great things, you know, orthodox things.

and we got to see that it doesn't match anything. Victor, who presided of his church at Rome, you know, not the entire church immediately attempted to cut off from the communion, from the community the parishes of all Asia. Keyword attempted. You know, he cannot have it doesn't it doesn't have this power. Also, you know the fact that he excommunicates someone that he tries to exommunicate someone that outside this jurtyisdiction. Not only the popes did this one day so heresy

or proceed heresy, they would do this. So the parishes of early Asia, the churches that agreed with them as heterodox. So you know that, you know, saying that not orthodox would mean the wrong dogma, So that would make this excommunication, you know, ipso factor and infallible. And he wrote letters and declared all the present the Holy excommunity wholly excommunicate, which means that, you know, if he really had this supremacy,

they would have been excommunicated for real. But this did not please all the bishops, and they bethought him to consider the things of peace, enable, unity, and love. So here you have the pop going ast unity. Apparently they they gloated about the propab exist point just after saying that every sort of schism is bad. Words of theirs are extent sharply rebuking Victor. Among them was Iranus, who sending letters in the name of the bresen in Gold

over whom he presided. So you have Victor presiding over bresen in Gold, which is in the Roman jurisdiction. Why isn't the pope presiding over God himself?

you know, complained with it. People are like, oh, you know, he's perk made a decision, this arretic, let's follow this. The problem is the matter was only resolved as the first secondical console, so he did not have the authority himself. He tried it got rebuked. If this happens today, a guy who rebukes the Purple will be excommunicated, Like, you know, even Cardinal Sarah, you know, the just based black cardinal,

he would say that you have to follow Francis. It doesn't it doesn't appartly doesn't personally agree with Francis, but it doesn't you know, rebuking Yeah someone as I do.

just responded to Ibarra. By the way, I'll put that at Lincoln again in the chat ef everybody wants to read on say Maximus a confessor, how Ibara attempted to use this to prove Vatican one in in Maximus, So there is.

Medical Council. We use that the eighth Ecmmdical Counsole that was the fourteen Synod, that was approved by Pope John the eighth, which means that it also it's lially destroys this claim that we have a disagreement of as a philoquy. We do not have a disagreement of as the philoquy because we have this eighth counsul the ninth is fully is fully in effect. We don't have different disagreements over the energies. We seeing that we be seeing Palamas, we see yeah, that.

everything anti Orthodox rejectsment ecumenical councils that condemn origin. I mean, you have an entire book Christ and Byzantium about Blackernee, which contains all the documents of Blackername, by the way, great book by Papadoccus, and he says, we don't even know if the essence energy doctrine is true. What a bunch of nonsense. There's not a single Orthodox theologian in the twentieth century. That and the ones that are becoming saints,

like Saint Justin Popovich. Right. You can read the famous Georgia Manzides has a whole book on uh Palamas. You can read Father Staniloy. His whole systematic theology is premised on the Essen senterdu distinction. You can read Father Florowsky, powerful proponent of the Essen Center distinction. You could read Vladimir Lowsky. All of the greatest theologians who they didn't

they didn't want Site, and they didn't want Site. A great theologian they cited who where bolgacaw like and Salt like weirdos?

So this is this assumption that Orthodoxy lacks ecumenical councils is really really misses the point of how the church is actually in praxis governed, which is so nottally so every church that everybody's Orthodox, their church is part of a synod of bishops, so that that's the ormative way the church is governed. What do you mean, there's not We don't have to have for the church to survive

in our cemenical Council. And even the Vatican admits that the Orthodox churches have existed for the last thousand years as Orthodox without the papacy.

This understanding was not adopted in the East, which had a different interpretation of scripture. And further on this point, the old document of Kitty is about sinidality being very important, and you know see it by themselves, by the very nature refuting the ideas that you know, just in the centralized authority, right, and.

followed emperors. And have you not read he hasn't. By the way, have you not read the actual canons and acts of the councils that are at least in English so far, because you might be surprised to see the way that your own popes and now these are our poptes too, like we would agree with the Seventh Synod in the posts at this time. But in your mindset and his mindset, the Catholic Church is the church of the first millennium. Oh guess what who do they say?

Are the emperor? The emperors are the God ordained emperors, the God ordained emperors. That's a phrase from Nicia too. That's the letter if you read, if you have the chaft set, it's the letter of the Synod. There's two letters. There's a letter of the Synod to the Emperor and the Empress. And what do they say. They say, you reign like David. They talk about theocracy, they talk about them being the Orthodox imperium, and so on his own grounds,

his church for the first millennium admits simphonia. The very thing he says is ceral papers, which is goody.

the Barbarians the Franks. When they were converted, the first thing they put into place was caesaral papies, and they put symphonia into place. Look at Saint Gregory of Tours, he rights the history of the Franks, the merrior of Angians, the merror of Aingians. You know, not only were Orthodox because by then Gium recognize them of Orthodox. The emperor who was Orthodox, send them, you know, consulate titles, all kinds of glory. But they had orthodox eclesiology. And if

you look at the history the Franks. In History of the Franks, they are talking about first of all rights that they don't have any they don't have anymore, you know. But also the fact that there was this link. You know, the clergy was sort of an administrative class. There was a very a very strong link throughout French history active you will see the calicanism between between the clergy and between the.

That's the very beginning of the conversion. Is the real conversion, the real conversion of the West after the Barbarian invasions. You can see throughout papal history. You can see, you know, for example, Charlemagne trying to challenge things Charlemagne putting So this is not like I'm not saying that Charlemagne was Orthodox. I'm saying the merivingion, we're Orthodox, we have a good claim. So this Charlemagne started to introduce heresy. Charlemaine wanted to

create a parallel authority. But peppin.

recreate the empire of Charlemagne. That in states the Philoquo in Rome by you know, coming to Italy saying, oh no, it's Holy One umpire removing the pope, putting out his own preferred pope and say, noticing the philoquay, that's the philoque come into came into place. So you know, it's really if you look at the old history of the church even later, you know, the Gallican Church, it didn't really answer to Rome. If if you look at it, there was it was a Gallican priest and he said,

is this literally promoted by Vatican One? You know, this full answer like being answering to to Rome. That doesn't work like this. The gallicans when the when the poor try try to you know, be more ultimate maintained, you know, bring more power. So he's actually had at the same arguments that that we do, you know, bring up consuls. You had the King of Friends at some point Louis the fourteen stating that you know the purpose of vicker,

but I am the lieutenant of God. You you had you had kings, you know, after after declarations of like after some declarations of supremacy by the pope, you had kings sending in commanders. That's that's the real, that's the real thing that happened. You're sending like our militiam and

our army capturing the purpse, holding the hostage. Yeah, you had, you had, you know, Peppin, you know, trying to you know, creating the paper state, you know, to vassalize the paper states, the avenue and papers is the same thing if if any interaction between between church and state and the East is caesar papers, And guess what you're with the most scient papists and and you answer to this was paper Caesaries, which was yeah.

say about free Masonic infiltration? Oh, that's who's ruining us all that they got us and all this stuff right, And what's the story of Cardinal Rampola. The Austro Hungarian emperor have the power of vetoing a certain election to the papacy. So literally they believe that their papacy was saved by Cicero papism in this story that all the

Trids believe for the most part. I'm sure there's some trade who doesn't believe it, but most Trads, most SSPX, most seat of a contests believe this story about Cardinal Rampola and he was prevented from election because the cardinals were going to elect him because the Austrian emperor knew. And so the Austrian emperor had this veto power over certain people being elected by the cardinals. So but when

that happens, it's not cesro papism. It's good, you see they but there's countless examples of this kind of stuff, and so for them to call it cesra papism on our side, it's just total dishonesty and ignorance. I mean, do they really not know any of the stuff.

they had the Gallican organization. If this is an anthem, it means that Friends was never Catholic because Friends adopted them a low of secularization of the Vatican One, because they considered that it was treachery, that it incited treachery against the nation way too a nationalist. Yeah that's fine. Uh, yeah, this is really existsful claim Caesar papers.

used by the tries today to try to remove paper authority. Interestingly, and Hike Sancta states that the council is above the Pope, and ultimately it is because of the propagation of considerism. If I some during the Council of Constance that that many Eastern bishops said, oh, maybe we can we can mend the schism this, maybe we should try to have a discussion. So as the Council of Basil, you are

the first Eastern bishops coming. And then and then of course Florence, because we came to Florence because we're like, oh, you know, these guys just propagated Hike Sancta in any communical council presided by the Pope, signed by the pope twenty years ago. You know, these guys are not going to contradict themselves so drastically over the course of twenty years.

But they did. Florence was a big job. They really met right as a whole show if you have the Counsul of Florence, but as the Council of Florence itself contradicts the other councils. So it's you know, they would say, oh is this Machestereo. It's perfect, it doesn't contradict. You have two consuls that tragically contradict one another. Uh, these after schism, so they should they should theoretically know about it, right.

Emperor Johannes Emperor. Joannes even killed and martind like ordered the killing of many i Tonite priests because they refused a union. He wanted union. So yes, you know he constantly felt. But they forget to understand that there even was a contingent of of people and Venetian ships that it came to help. So yes, if if you know the fact that constant plyple felt is a curse orthodoxy, it means that you know, it's it's Roman constant pus.

the old calendarist. You have you have Silva Kantis. It's the same thing. Oh you have the old ritualist as old ritualists. Yeah, some group went away. Actually we were back in even with many of them. But if if I, if I use this metric to determine truth. First of all, you know, it means that Islam who took over all these places, maybe true. You know Nottings believes this. Say the one will conquer constant noble as the right faith

again says that Protestantism. You know, Oh, Presentism comes from Rome. You know there are songs of Rome. You know, maybe maybe they are true, Maybe they are the truth. The other the one we evangelize more, you know, the Pacha mammas that was to prevent too hard and evangelism like evangelism in the beating heard of Roman Catholicism. So yes, this this is really weird. A prosperity gospel. We evangelize

more than you we evangelize. The barbarian already showed that the Barbarians were not evangelized to.

the Latins. If you look at the Christianity spread, you know, if we eventulize someone first re evangelize.

point and then we'll do the super chats. And by the way, I'm also I'll put their stream into the description of the show. I did share it on my channel in the community tab, so you guys can find their stream there. But if you're watching this, you know, months down the road or a year from now or whatever, I'll put David and Everybody's streaming here, and I have their original link to Taylor Marshall stream too, so but David and Lewis and Snack I'll have their response in

the description of the show as well. Yeah.

by tradition. And at the same time, it makes the point that that Rome itself is not using its power. That it has portents, but it's not using it. How can I say that, you know, if if there is no display of of this of this power, how can I say that you are not the with the branch. You know, as can be room can be grafted out, and you can say that you have tranquility in mind by saying, oh, you know the perful results thing, Oh this is going to be true. You know, his popby

selected by the people that he names the cardinals. The cardinals are all paused. It says, oh exactly, sy, it's the only like, it's the only way out, accord to one twenty. Yeah, the papacy is the way out for the problem caused by the papacy, because with other papacy you will have these problems in the first place. If you like, this is the problem.