Was Vatican 2 Infallible？ Are Catholics Imploding？

They'll be forced to they'll be forced off the wind and so forth for an environmental reasons and basically concocted and invented environmental nonsense, and then you'll be stuck in some hell a whole mega city in a basically a cart in size apartment, living over a target or something, or inside of a target or a Walmart. As I said several years ago, it's actually coming true now there's actually target cities m M. This is all part of

the long term globalist strategy. But to get there, you've got to have the constant clash, the constant alchemical blending and mixing and smashing together right out of Manicheanism to produce the convergence, to produce the synthesis. And that's what's crucial in all this, and what is absolutely true from an alchemical, esoteric, philosophical, angieobolotical perstrictive the fact that the rule elite seek to be host Jason alsos dot com.

You can't try to fix today's problems politically. This is what so many people have. Old circles, not ride and whatever I need it. They all seem all right, welcome here, we are, We're back. And I like it when people. If you keep coming and keep coming at me, keep coming at me, I just double down and I do more streams, and I do more responses, and it has more effect. Lord willing God, God's grace. So I'm not

deterred by all of this constant drama and nonsense. And if we want to go into that kind of stuff, we can. I'm happy to do that. Let's talk about who some of these people are, what they're into, what they're doing, the geopolitical forces behind what all's going on. We can go into Denzinger got Denzinger pulled up for you here right now, and we can get into the present implosion that's going on on. Apparently within the world

of trad Catholicism. Things are heating up, not just Tracktholicism, but even the world of normies in the Catholic realm as well. Now, as you know, we've had a lot of I've had a lot of interactions over the years here and there, mainly blogging ten years ago with Taylor Marshall when I was new to the issues of divine simplicity and the energies and all that. And actually initially I kind of liked Taylor back in the day. He used to comment on different blogs that I would go on,

and he used to comment on mine at times. And then things obviously went in a different direction. So once I left the world of Rome, I didn't, as you know, I didn't immediately go into orthodoxy, but just found it less and less convincing. But the irony is that where I was at ten years ago is the position that

Taylor has presently adopted. That's the big irony here is that he would have called me a loon, a trad maniac at the time and then here we are ten years later and he's adopted this SSPX type of position. Now we're not going to focus on Taylor Marshall on all these antics of the Roman Catholic apologists, but I do want to hit on some of this just because the world of Roman Catholicism from the inside is different

than the world of Roman Catholicism from the outside. Now, that could be said for any position or organization or church or entity. Sure, I'm not saying that that in itself is what proves or disproves any given position. So I'm not saying that because I can find a bunch of problems in these different position in these so called theologians, that that just proves the whole thing, or in their lives or whatever. I don't do the drama with people's lives.

That's typically what other people do. The only reason I'm pointing this one out is because it's illustrative. It's illustrative of what happens when you don't have the normative experience that we would say it's consistent with the Batristic experience in terms of how we come to know God and what the experience of the Church and the Saints are

supposed to be. So. For example, if you listen to the stream that I did with Snack yesterday or the day before, whenever it was, we talked about the admission on the part of Bishop barn that there was this loss, something was now missing. And yet at the same time, the Romancolic Church is supposed to possess the fullness right, and the Orthodox Church is lacking. But yet we're told that Vatican Two was partly an attempt to try to find the missing links to the Church Fathers, the missing

links to the Eastern Liturgy, all of these different things. Right, So we're gonna go into a lot of that today. We're going to go into this and another thing I want to do too. I may set it up as a SEP stream. I may just do the kind of critique of Vatican two and wasn't infallible and all that in this stream, and then right after this, I might do a second stream, or I might do it all in one. I'm not sure what the best way to approach it is. I'll just have to see how it goes.

But we're also going to cover some of Pelicon, because there's a separate book. I know that we haven't worked our way through the totality of the Pelicon series, but I might skip over to this one instead because this one is a really good introduction to the philosophy of the Cappadocians, probably the best that I could think of if you're new to the topic. And I mean, I'm trying to work through a book right now, writing a book, so I'm utilizing some of these kind of really good

key sources. Obviously the Bradshaw book that I'm reading this through for the second time, really really good stuff. But we don't want to just critique the just quote contradictions between Vatican two and previous dogma. We also want to understand the different paradigm. And this is something if you go and listen to the many talks that I've done with Father Deacon and Iyas, then you know that we've

covered this right. We've covered it many many times. He and I have done multiple, multiple streams going through Riscyte philosophy categories how that is transformed in the Orthodox understanding. There's not a one to one necessarily correspondence between the meaning that those words had in Pagan philosophy and the meaning that they come to have in the patristic mindset

as the theology is explicated over the centuries. All right, classic example logos right logos is not synonymous between the usage in I don't know why that didn't show up the alert boxes on it's supposed to show up. Let's see, where's the alert box. Oh, it's behind Taylor Marshall. So let me let me move the alert box and then I'll replay your little ding your little ding dong there, Thank you for your little ding dong. We love your little ding dongs here. All right, let me fix that. Yes,

there we go, easter worshiper in the house. What's up, Easter worshiper?

a little bitty tiny baby Taylor Marshall. Anyway, so the whole point of all this is to get at the real points of departure between our theology, our paradigm, our system and theirs. And the fact that we have some overlap does not mean that we have synonymous systems. And that's the key here. Are there overlap between orthodox and tomistic ideas, Sure, but there's overlap between any position potentially

and any other position, right. I mean I could say, I mean, say, for instance, a luciferians as I believe in one God, and I could say, well, I believe in one God. Well, there we go. We've got the same system at work, no way, because we both agree there's quote one God. Yeah, but what that we mean by that is obviously radically different. So the fact that we're using the same words really has nothing to do with necessarily having the same meanings or conceptions. This is

the word concept fallacy. And it also doesn't mean that there's no similarity or no overlap. For example, when a Saint Maximus utilizes neoplatonic ideas, there's some overlap, but there's also dissimilarity, Okay, So that it's really it really doesn't matter whether there's similarity or dissimilarity, because it's a case by case basis as well. There might be a situation where there's no similarity. There might be a situation where

there's a lot of similarity. So there's no one size fits all way to look at, compare, and analyze without considering context as a whole, paradigms as a whole. So that's what we want to do here. But in regard to Taylor, the reason I'm bringing him up is because, so this last couple of weeks, well within the last week, I've had two traditional Catholic friends, a couple of the

few remaining ones that still will interact with me. I have about four or five maybe that still will interact with me that I've been friends with for a long time, many many years. One of them reached out. I won't say anybody's name, but one reached out and has been having a kind of crisis. I'm not going to go into anybody's personal details or anything like that. Another one reached out, similar situation for different reasons. By the way, one doctrinal, others not so much doctrinal, but both of

which I think stem from the Roman Catholic struggle. And in the case of Taylor Marshall, I'm going to say it's the same thing. It's stemming from the Roman Catholics. I know what it's like to be a Roman Catholic. I know what it's like to deal with the issues. I know what it's like to struggle with reconciling Vatican two to the Prior Dogmas. I know what it's like to be in the world of the SSPX and attending the Latin Mass. I mean, I understand all this. I

know it very well from being there. And again, I don't hate Roman Catholics. I don't hate Tim Gordon or any of these people that are kind of freaking out and having these fits and episodes. I don't hate Taylor Marshall. I think that they are doing the very things that I've experienced. But of course it's a lot different to reflect on, you know, a mindset or attitude that you had,

you know, maybe ten years ago. And I'm not saying this like, oh, I'm better than Taylor Marshall because iude ten years ago, but I did, and I can have some insight into what is going on here. And the problem is that the Roman Catholic system is a bunch of systems. So on one level, yeah, you could say it's the papacy, and it's these councils, and it's these books, and it's Denzinger, and it's this church over in Rome,

and it's the Gregorian Academy, and it's all this different stuff. Yeah, I know, But on another level, the actual prexus of the Roman Celic world is a lot of different things that you rely on. So sometimes it's extremely scholastic and philosophical. Sometimes it's very obsessively the opposite, where you're relying on mystical experiences and visions. Now, what's different with Orthodoxy is that we don't stress or look to visions and mystical

experiences to confirm what just happens to be our chosen presubositions. Right. So, in other words, if I had a mystical vision that said, Jay, all of your theology in terms of Orthodoxy is absolutely correct, and I angel so and so Angel soprano, Angel t soprano, confirm that your theology is perfectly orthodox, go forth with

this angelic blessing. In the world of Orthodoxy, the first thing that we would do is say that that's probably prelist, that's probably a delusion that was sent you see, and if you read the philocolia. This comes up right where the inclination is to not leap into and jump upon

these visions. And a couple of the key signs that the saints and elders and fathers all kind of talk about that indicate when a vision is legitimate or illegitimate has to do with what we how we view ourselves, pride, humility, the experience itself being one of kind of overwhelming peace, love, assurance, or does it lead us to this pre list of

now being super prideful. If you listen to the debate that to the father Deacon doctor Anonias has had with Matt Slick, you can see a perfect example of the ultimate reliance upon the individual's experience, subjective experience that will then be the determining factor for what he accepts from that point on, because it was this supposed Calvinist experience that he had that's going to tell him the Protestant Canada scripture and Calvinism and his you know, do it

yourself sect of Matt Slickianism is the true church and the true way to go. You see, it's that formative, mystical quote unquote experience has determined the rest of his system and What's funny is that Rome Catholicism has this just incessant emphasis on a kind of external, juridical authoritarian response to this question of how do you know and what's the right way to go? It's almost a worship of authority. And in fact, I would critique that very

simply that Roman Catholicism is a worship of authority. Right, That's it's one of the key problems here is this idolatrous worship of authority. And yes, it's possible to have an idolatrous worship of authority, right, I mean, what is it the Catherine of Sienna that says, even if the Pope were to tell you directly the words of Satan, you should still follow it. Because it's the pope. That's worship of authority. It's ludicrous, right, forget the exact quote,

but it's you know, it's something like that. And so between Matt Slick and Taylor Marshall, you would think there would be a world of difference, right, You would think there would be just an infinite chasm of dissimilarity between the experience of the Calvinist and the experience of the mystical Tonist, Right, which apparently now it's a mystical tonism, right, it's not a rationalism. Right. But I'm gonna play this experience because a lot of people didn't believe me when

I said they thought I was making it up. Oh, Taylor Marshall didn't actually claim to have a vision of Milker's. No, he does. And what I'm getting at is that you will notice the similarity between the Protestant and the Roman Catholic excess is exactly the same, like the relying on the subjective experience, which is ironically the very thing that both of those groups. Right, Matt Slick as a presuppositionalist, typically, Oh,

you can't just rely on your experience. You got to prove your arguments, right, Matt claims to be a presuppositionalist, And likewise with Taylor, Oh you can't just rely on your subjective experience, you got to submit to the pope. He's made a career ten years of making this basic argument that you can't have Christianity without the office of the papacy. But now, because of his mystical vision and all this other nonsense, he's better. He knows better than Rome.

And that's just the standard process that happens. So I'm going to play you and you'll notice notice the similarity between the claims. I'm not saying they had the same experience. I'm just saying that this is all indicative of humanist religious creation. Whether it's Protestanism or whether it's from Falsism, they both are basically the same in terms of worshiping creatures,

obsessing over incessant creaturely things. And what's missing here is the authentic experience of uncreated grace and the cleansing of the News. Neither of those positions has any conception of that. Yet this is fundamental to orthodoxy that without the undergoing the process of repentance and the cleansing of the News, which is not just the mechanical experience of going to auricular confession in the Romancallic Church, it's the actual transformation

of the individual. And that's not even possible in the Romancealoic system because of their doctrine of the beatific vision. You don't have. There's no possibility of the experience of uncreated grace in this life or seeing God knowing God directly in this life, because their whole theology is predicated on that not being possible in this life. Likewise, the Calvinist, even though he doesn't really have the categories, he just

much confesses created grace. He just as much confesses and denies the possibility of actually participating in the uncreated grace of God and having a direct experience in life from

God and with God. Both of the positions, even though they're radically different in all these frills and fancy talk and whatever, at a fundamental level, both deny the reality of experiencing uncreated grace, experiencing and possessing that in this life, experiencing and possessing that on an individual level, right, and they preclude that as even a possibility with the rest of the theology that they confess, both the Protestant and the Roman Catholic. Now, what did the Protests and the

Roman Catholic share in common? Hmm, oh, well, it just happens to be absolute, define simplicity the Augustinian presuppositions, because a quitness, of course, adopts the basic Augustinian presuppositions about who God is in terms of his essence, the Phillyoque created grace, et cetera, et cetera. And when the Reformation happened, they defaulted to accept all of those same positions without question.

So the real root of this dialectic between the Protestant and the Roman Catholic is not in do you like Calvin or do you like Thomas Aquinas. In fact, I've got a great little book here from a philosopher who helped me in my transition from Calvin to Aquinas. His name is Arvin Boss. He's a pretty well known academic Quinus and Calvin contemporary Protestant thought, and he just shows

all the similarities and the kind of easy, smooth transition. Now, what was Taylor Marshall's background, Well, it wasn't he an Anglican. I'm not faulting converts, by the way, That's not the point here, right, there's nothing it's not being a convert in its off that has isn't problematic. I'm just pointing out that the doctrine of God is the real issue here. Who is God? What are we talking about? What do

we mean by these words in terms and phrases. Do Roman Catholics have the same triadology and Christology as the first millennium? Do they have the cappadition Doctor of the Trinity? I don't think that they do. It's very easy, I think, to demonstrate that. We'll look at some of that in this book. My allergies are going bad, so I've got like a super sinus headache today. And we will get to the super chat TOURNAMENTE. But first I'm going to

play this teleormercial clip. Now, hopefully this works. I'm on a different computer than I'm usually on, so I'm not positive at the sound will come through to you, guys. But let me it's not that long. It's just a little clip. It's going to illustrate the point I'm making. Welcome. We got three hundred and seventeen nerds. If you would, we only got eighty eight likes. Please smash like if

you're enjoying this time. Even if you can't directly hear it through the right way, at least it will echo in this the microphone to a degree, so you'll be able to hear some of it, but you'll get the point here. A visionary I'm turning, not a profit.

repentance and their humility. I mean this itself is prelest okay, so uh, you'll notice Orthodox, but they don't typically come on the live streams to talk about their humility.

profound act of humility. I perhaps laying there for eighteen hours. In fact, I lost all sense of space and time in my experience of profound humility and repentance.

full of pride. And now let me explain to you, and let me tell you how prideful I've been, as if that's not itself just oozing with this this. Come on, man, everybody can see through that stuff. It's not it's just gross, dude, it's just cringe and scandals.

like I saw this beautiful woman. She had blonde hair, she was perfect, no wrinkles, no spots, and I immediately discerned that this was Holy Mother the church, and she was writing and paint. She was in a bed and there's sheets on her, and she was very sick. And I noticed that her breasts were engorged with milk.

months after this blocking, what does he do? He comes and does this car video of this ridiculous claim to this mystical vision of engorged milkers. Let's play this again.

It's okay to be wrong. I got into wrong Catholicism. I lived it, breathed it, took it so serious. I mean, I was super committed to this stuff, right. It wasn't like, oh, it's just a you know, cultural thing. I'll pretend, dude. I mean I've read Denzinger twice. No nobody does that, Okay, unless they're serious about their Catholicism. People don't just sit down and read through eight hundred page books about Catholic DNMA.

You don't get so serious that you're going to the Latin Mass for years and years and years if you're not taking this serious. So I get it, dude. I understand the modus operanda, the mindset. But this is embarrassing. And it's not just embarrassing because oh it's some kind of rivalry with I don't follow Taylor Marshall. I don't keep up with the tried drama. I haven't kept up with that in at least a decade. I left all of that stuff, haven't been back. I don't miss it

at all. I have no interest in any of that stuff, although I will debate Roman Catholics. But it's illustrative. That's the point here. It's illustrative that it's the exact same issue that you saw with Taylor Marshall. I'm excuse with the Matt Slick and the debate with doctor Ananias, Right,

what is the foundation really of these positions? Is it really all of this high falutint philosophy and dogmatics and magisterium and councils and all, or is it really the subjective desire and experience and the impetus to want to ratify what is your own position? As father deacon? Doctor Ananias said it really well. I think it describes adequately the Roman Catholic perception, which is, and you could say the same thing for Calvinism. Are we not I'm speaking

as a Roman category Calvinist formerly being one. Are we not really just defending an idea? I mean, are you not really just worshiping your idea of God? I never really thought about that when I was a Roman calthuy if It wasn't until I heard, you know, Orthodox critiques where I started thinking that, you know, my idea is not a correspondence to who God is or what God is, right,

they don't match up. And I know that in theory, Roman Catholics confess via negativa, and I know they confess that, and I know in some sense Calvinists we confess that unless they were like a Clerkian or something. I mean, they actually think that our ideas are like literally, I'm synonymous with propositions in God's minds. So but there is a process. And if you go watch Father Peter Heres's talk that he did that's really good on heterodoxy, it's the talk that he did about a month ago on

the Holy Fathers. I highly recommend this talk because the all of the issues that we're talking about here today with Calvinists or with the Roman Catholics of Thomas, none of it can be settled through factual propositions, debate, and analysis. You may think that sounds weird. What why would you do apologetics, discuss and debate if it can't be settled, Because ultimately, it's not an issue that's intellectual. The reason that it's not is because it can be right. But

what I'm saying is that it can't be reduced to that. So, yes, God can use argumentation, He can use good arguments to persuade people. But the issues at hand here are not propositional rational problems. There are problems that man in his heart has and the whole basis of both the Calvinist Protestant Augustinian slash Tomistic Romanclitic approach. By the way, it's not actually actually Augustine's view of elimination is closer to

our view. But setting aside that the Roman Catholic perception of how we know God and the Calvinist conception or prosing conception of how we know God are themselves both propositional and based on created grace. So you see, the system has already determined from the outset set the limitations and possibilities of knowing God. This is why Saint Gregory Palamos says that if you go with Barlum's presubpositions it leads to atheism, you will end up atheist. I'm not

saying that necessarily every person ends up atheist. He's saying that if you followed it out to its consistent logical conclusion, you would end up atheist. And that's because again, the system is determined from the outset that you don't actually directly know the God that you're proclaiming to believe in, teach about, dogmatize about, you know, creative effects. You never have the direct experience of his uncreated energies, at least not in this life. But doesn't that really beg the question?

Then how do you know God? I mean, this is really the whole entirety of the argument throughout the debate, the dialogue with a barleymite right between Palamas and Akandino's that's where it leads. I mean, this is really just rehashed what doctor Bradshaw says in Aristota Lisam West right.

If we take all of these assumptions Actus puris all the Aristilian movement of eternal matter on actualized actualizer type of stuff that you see in Phaser and that you see in every tonis that I've ever heard of, or the the Ruman Catholic doctrine vince siplicity, then we're left with an unknowable, ah unsaving knowledge of God. And it's not the doctrine of the Compendosians, you see. But let's hear this again because I just want I want you

to understand that. I mean, I told you guys that Taylor Marshall is he's not even that great of an exponent of Cathol and I said it ten years ago, and here he is relying on something utterly ridiculous.

she doesn't want she's poisoned. She doesn't want to nurse the children.

It's done all right, you're not going to get it from the SSPX. And just on this point alone, I mean, let me show you the absurdity of this from the Roman Catholic dogmatic perspective, the idea that mother Church could be poisoned and giving this out is ludicrous. The Church, in terms of her sacraments, in the Roman Catholic position, cannot be poison cannot be Uh. I'm trying to find this. It's a it's a comment in oxworm fee Day, So

I'm just trying to find it here it is. So I'm going to show you the Denzinger text for yourselves. So let's come down here in fifteen seventy eight. So I don't know, hopefully you guys can read that. It might be a little too might be a little too small. I can make this bigger if we need to hear trying to change the size of this anyway, we'll just leave it as it is, dancing in fifteen seventy eight. So now this is this the condination of the Senate

of Pistoia. So if you remember, there was a group called Janseness, and Janseness were radical in the sense of being strict Augustinians and the Jansenists wanted to do a lot of things that were kind of similar to what Protestants wanted, and even similar in ways to Orthodox But eventually this became condemned and it was not seen to be consistent with Catholic teaching. Because maybe I can make

this bigger. Like this, there we go. Because the problem with the Jansenists presupposition, in light of the office of the papacy and the claims of the Roman Sea, it would be to presume that the Church has already and

for a long time, aired in something fundamental. It would see suggest that the failure to perform the rites and the sacraments in the vernacular, which is one of the key points that they were having an issue with, right, it would suggest that the Church had committed a serious mistake. And it's, as you can see, very problematic to say that the Church can commit some serious mistake in her rights and in her liturgy and in her sacraments, because it would mean that it is a compromising of the

fundamental constitution of the Church in Roman Catholic theology. In other words, it would mean that something that she could never fail to have, namely holy sacraments valid sacraments, sacraments to save the world are now lacking, and so in other words, it would compromise the indefectibility the church. Right. So that's the problem with this idea and why it's

considered injurious theoretical, et cetera. When you look there at fifteen seventy eight, it says the prescription of the synod, this is the Synod of Pistoia of the genteness about the order of transacting business in the conferences, in which after it prefaced in every article, that which pertains to faith, to the essence of religion, must be distinguished from that

which is proper to discipline. Now, what they're doing here, the Jansonness are making an argument about distinguishing dogma from discipline, right, and so conceivably you could see, okay, there might be a distinction here. But the problem is that this argument was being used to justify that the Roman Sea had

aired in terms of its discipline. In itself, discipline there is to be distinguished from what is distinguished what is necessary and useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or burdensome for the liberty of the sons of the New Covenant to endure, but more so from that which is dangerous or harmful, namely leading to superstitious and superstition of materialism, in so far as by the generality of the words it includes and submits

to prescribed examination, even the discipline established and approved by the Church. As if the Church, which is ruled by the Spirit of God, could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leads to superstition and materialism. This position is false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to piaced ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, and

at least erroneous. Therefore, it is a jansonous proposition to say that the Roman See can establish bad rights or disciplines. So as you can see, it doesn't really matter what one thinks of Vatican two as an individual Catholic or its rights in terms of its novasorto promulgation, no sort o missay, et cetera. Because you can have all the opinions you want, you cannot say that the Roman See can establish bad disciplines for the entire church. And yes,

these new sacraments are for the entire church obviously. So really this is a no brainer. And I bring it up because it will go towards reputing not just Taylor, but the entire SSPX type of position, this idea that Vatican two is not infallible and it's really up to the whims of whatever judgment or any individual Roman Catholic makes that he doesn't really have to accept it unless he unless he, I guess, chooses to. I mean, what does it mean to have an optional pastoral ecumenical council?

So it's optional. That's funny because every FSSP person who's ever been reconciled from the SSPX to Rome f SSP has been made to accept the Vatican Two. Why would that occur? Why would that happen if it was an

optional council? This is a trad myth, it's a trad lie, as we'll see here in a moment, that Vatican two is optional, and it doesn't matter how many times the Vatican restates that it's not optional, they will continue on saying that, well, I don't have to accept when the Pope says it's not optional because he didn't say it dogmatically. This is ludicrous, all right, This is just absurd levels of coping mechanisms. Right, welcome everybody. We have almost four hundred.

There's the super chat. If you want to leave a super chat, feel free to support the stream by the super chats. But that's just one example. Now we're not going to just stop there. We're going to look at a couple more places in Denzinger because one of the key points that is crucial to grasping the mistake of the trads is the question of the magisterium and the

ordinary and universal magisterium. So, being that I do know Denzinger like the back of my hand, I would like to direct you direct you to another section in Denzinger. And of course this is related to Vatican One. So

let's scroll down here to sixteen eighty three. All right. Now, So at the time of Vatican One, there were some interesting questions raised along the same lines, relating to not just bad disciplines, but other aspects of Roman Catholic dooma like the Roman congregations, or the idea of jurisdiction, or

the idea of the Holy Office condemning people. Right, So, In other words, there were arguments being made like, well, I don't really have to agree to the condemnation of a heretic from the Holy See or from the Holy Office, because that's just an exercise of discipline. So therefore, conceivably

could discipline be rejected. Well, we look at sixteen eighty three and it says it reads we persuade ourselves in the middle there we persuade ourselves also that they did not wish to declare that that perfect adhesion to reveal truths which they recognize is absolutely necessary to attain true progress in the sciences into refute errors could be obtained if faith and obedience were given only to the dogmas expressly defined. This is the argument that I only have

to adhere to something expressly defined. For even if we're a matter of concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, it would not have to be limited to those matters that have been defined by express decrees of the councils or the rom upon defendency. What would have to be extended to the matters handed down as if only revealed by the ordinary teaching part of the church spread throughout the world, and he says that this is false. Right, you don't have

to only adhere to dogmas. You have to hear a to all of the decisions and decrees. And we know this because the next point sixteen ninety eight continues this argument, because it explicitly states in sixteen ninety eight, judgment and decrees cannot be doubted even when they are merely juridical. So the judgments and decrees of the Roman see cannot

be doubted even if it's something just juridical. There's also seventeen ninety two the object of faith, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things that must be believed which are contained in the written Word of God in tradition, and those things which are proposed by the Church, either of sall the Magisterium or by her universal ordinary teaching power,

are to be believed as divinely revealed. So you see that you can not reject the universal ordinary stat Magisterium under the guise of saying that I will only follow the dogmas expressly defined by extraordinary Magisterium. It's explicitly rejected there both attempts, and by the way, there are more. If these are not good enough for you, but hopefully these should be good enough to really kind of make

the point right now. Next up, I would direct you to another issue that I'm not really trying to get bogged down in drama because I don't really care about this kind of stuff. However, it is worth noting that the trad world is just as problematic as the world of the Nosorto that it claims to be superior to. And if you go to this church militant article, there is and this is I'm saying this is because this relates to Taylor Marshall. Because if you go to this

Survivor Speaks, there's an entire documentary presentation here. Okay, this video here, so be sure and go. I'm not gonna play it because I don't want them to. I don't trust any of these groups. They'll just try to copyright you. Ding you there. These these guys, these people are are something else to deal with. So if you go and play the Spotlight clip, it will it will make this point that I'm making about all of these different problems in the SSPX world. And one of their top quote

canonists this what's his name? I forget that our gray, our gay or some Spanish name. What's the guy's name, father something, It's in this article and in this video, this guy is like, you know, in all this trouble over this and he ends up with a castle and he ends up promoted. I'm not making this up to living in a castle. It's in this video. I'm not gonna play the video. I don't remember the guy's name father, somebody his Hispanic named guy, and now he lives in

a giant castle. You can't make this stuff up. Now, this is supposed to be, you know, the center of trad world SSPX. I was looking for the picture of the castle, but I can't find it anyway. You can go watch it in that video that I linked there. Now, when I say this, it's not because I'm interested in supporting Michael Vories and Church Militant and the Gordon brothers and they're historyonics today. It's just to show you that the trad world appears to be imploding and enveloping itself

in its own kind of implosion. So you've got Michael Voris and his crew going after SSPX crew and these people, and this I guess I'm told led to Taylor Marshall blocking Gordon and all these characters or his former co host anyway, I don't know if I can share this, but really what my point in all this is just to say that it's not accidental that I've had to one trad rip or in another Catholic guy reaching out this week saying, look this, I don't know how to

deal with all this. I can't make sense of all this. And tomorrow, all right, you've got Francis is going to drop his new and cyclical and it's called for Telly Tutty. I'm not joking. I know that sounds kind of like the Fortelli's like goonies. Well, Francis's goons, his goonies are going to drop for Telly two D. Francis is new and cyclical on human fraternity and solidarity. And what do

you think this is cyclical is based on. It's based on that humanist style meeting that he had with the Imam's in where was it Abu Dhabi or somewhere, And I said this in Cyclical is going to be about the humanist gatherings, the Humanist Manifesto Council that Francis originally had planned for this year until COVID happened right. So part of the reason why people are kind of having

these issues is that they know what's coming. Okay, we will be looking forward to Francis's explication of Fratelli tutti and how we're all brothers and sisters in a free Masonic sense, even though we're not all brothers and sisters. Okay, but I'm trying to figure out how to do this. So here, what we're going to look at is a couple of documents. So the first one is Francis here, and I want you to be very clear. Here's what Francis says, so hopefully you can see this. Okay, here's Francis.

This is the sixty eighth address to the National Liturgical Week in Italy. We can affirm with certainty and with magisterial authority, the Liturgical Reform is irreversible. Can you hear me? Do you hear that? I'm going to put it in the chat for you so you can read it for yourself. We affirm, with certainty and with magisterial authority, Turgical Form Reform Vatican two is irreversible. Do you hear me? Can you be honest? What does it say? Okay, says that. Now,

let's look at oh man, I hate it. One does this. This is John the twenty third. I'm not gonna read this whole thing. You're gonna have to go to Google Translate and you're gonna have to put it in there. I'm gonna give you the quote or the link. Okay, and you go to Google Translate. It's not that long. Here it comes. This is the address at the opening of Vatican two. And when you read this, when you put it in Google Translate, you can make it out. Fine,

it's not disputable what he means. He's very clear that this is an ecumenical council. It is called with the full authority, full power, full apostoric, apostolic universal sense. Right, so there's the opening of the council, John the twenty third his speech telling you it's dogmatic. There's Francis telling you it's dogmatic. Now what about Paul the six. Oh,

you see he said that it's pastoral. So what there's nothing in Paul the six calling it pastoral that somehow means that it's not protected by the terrorism or not dogmatic. He says it defined no new dogmas. So what that's not the criteria for what makes something dogma in real Catholicism.

So there in the link you'll see the speech of Paul the six nineteen seventy six, restating and explaining his comment of it being a pastoral council and laughing and making fun of the people who act like it means that you don't have to accept it. I mean, come on, guys, so this alone, right, here's three clear testaments from the popes that you have to accept Vatican two, and it's thus a tread myth that you don't have to accept it. I think what I'm gonna do is do a separate

stream for this book. And actually I may just cut it short and just do this. Was it infallible?

in the links. If you're watching this a year from now, if it's we're still here, hopefully you can pull up those links and you've got three testaments. John the twenty third, Paul the sixth, Hope France is telling you the Vatican two has to be accepted. Vatican two opens with the full papal authority. The documents close with full papal authority. It's a trad myth that you don't have to accept Vatican two. If an SSPX person comes back into communion

like the FSSP, they're made to accept Vatican two. And to deny this would be to deny the Universal Magisterial Teaching authority. It would be to say that Rome has for sixty plus years enforced heresy, bad doctrines and rights, and bad disciplines, which is condemned, which is the denial of the terrorism. So there you go, so that there's

really not much to debate about this. Now. I was gonna read it, but the problem is that it's Google translates, so I'll have to scroll down, and when you scroll down, it jumbles up the text, so you'll have to go read the actual three documents that I placed into the text. I'll put the three documents also in the show description as well. But there you go. So there we have the pretty clear presentation that you cannot reject the magisterial teaching,

whether ordinary or extraordinary. Primal Edge says, for fifty dollars, an entire community in Ecuador, ninety people just became Orthodox. Awesome Roman Catholic priest. No bishop is becoming an Orthodox priest. Wow, praise God for that, and thank you Tristan for that money. Much appreciated Orthodox one hundred dollars. Do all Protestants have visions? No? Are they from Christ or mockery? I mean, I would say in theory, it is possible for Jesus to appear

to a Protestant. Sure God can do whatever he wants to do. He hears the prayers of Cornelius, so sure he could do whatever he wants to. But you know, that kind of a manifestation is not going to produce you know, pre list, it's not going to produce these kinds of self appointed prophet type things. I think this

light is drumming, It's like drum my mind crazy. So outside the church, we don't speculate on you know, where those those visions come from, so we just try to keep it consistent with what we know Revelation says, right, So we're not going to speculate about like whose visions outside the church are coming from?

this to be more accessible. Jire Bear ten dollars. I would say, go watch Craig's debate and talk on immaculate conception. Craigs are really good on that. But anyway, I'll talk to you guys later. I'm gonna have to go do some other things. This stream is going to be have to cut short. There was other things that I thought I wasn't gonna have to do tonight, but I'm gonna have to go do that. So I'll talk to you guys later. And God bless. Hopefully this is clear with

three key examples. They'll also be in the show description.