America First - Nicholas J. Fuentes - Nick Fuentes vs. Jay Dyer

00:00:33.000 All right. 0.55

00:00:34.000 Can you hear me out there, my theological straggling nerds that are watching? 0.90

00:00:50.000 Nick should be here in a second, so. 0.85

00:01:04.000 All right, looks like we're going and we are just waiting on Nick.

00:01:08.000 We're getting 33 viewers.

00:01:10.000 That's good.

00:01:10.000 Not bad for the middle of the day.

00:01:13.000 Nick has said that he will be here.

00:01:15.000 So just give us one second here.

00:01:18.000 I'm going to grab some coffee and we will be ready to go.

00:01:22.000 And this is the first time I've done a Google live stream hangout.

00:01:33.000 So.

00:01:33.000 I think I've got everything right here.

00:01:35.000 All right, I've sent Nick the invite and sent him another one just in case.

00:01:46.000 He just emailed me, so we should be good to go.

00:01:49.000 And I'm going to grab a coffee.

00:02:49.000 Got to get our Catholic dogma ready.

00:03:01.000 All right, I want to thank everybody for being here.

00:03:04.000 And you are, of course, welcome to share your shekels in the super chats.

00:03:11.000 And I guess later on, I don't know how much time Nick has.

00:03:14.000 So this might be an hour, might be two hours, might be three.

00:03:17.000 I don't know.

00:03:20.000 So let's see, just check my email here to see if Nick has replied.

00:03:34.000 Still waiting on Nick.

00:03:39.000 Let's see.

00:03:39.000 Let's interact with the chat while we're waiting on Nick.

00:03:41.000 Yeah, I would ease love to debate Jimmy.

00:03:43.000 Any of those mainstream Roman Catholic pop apologists, dude, that would be so easy.

00:03:51.000 I'm not trying to be arrogant.

00:03:52.000 Like, I've debated two Catholic apologists.

00:03:59.000 One whom I'm hesitant to name because I don't know that he's still.

00:04:04.000 In that vein of things anymore.

00:04:08.000 And then Jerry Matatics, who actually I think went into Sedevacantism a long time ago.

00:04:14.000 And that was actually my first Catholic Orthodox debate about eight years ago.

00:04:18.000 We did a debate where he went and did a lecture in Memphis.

00:04:23.000 And I met up with him.

00:04:24.000 And afterwards, we had a public debate.

00:04:27.000 And Jerry, who is a super freaking smart dude, one of the smartest guys I've ever met, he actually used to study under Bonson.

00:04:35.000 He went to Bonson Seminary, like I did.

00:04:37.000 So we had a A lot of similarity in our past.

00:04:40.000 But actually, Matatics conceded the debate.

00:04:43.000 So that was cool.

00:04:46.000 It was great to debate somebody that I looked up to for a while.

00:04:51.000 But I don't know that Jerry still does apologetics.

00:04:54.000 I think he has a website, but I haven't seen anything from Jerry Matatics in a long time.

00:05:00.000 So I don't know what Matatics is up to these days.

00:05:08.000 But I mean, You have to understand, too, that a lot of the Roman Catholic apologists don't know Orthodox theology.

00:05:20.000 Oh, I used to have a lot of interchange with Jim Lacaudus, too, by the way.

00:05:24.000 So Lacaudus, who is supposed to be the go to dude against Orthodoxy, is one of the worst apologists that they have.

00:05:33.000 So you're talking about a guy who doesn't even know what, when we were interacting in emails, he didn't even know what I was talking about when I talked about the essence energy distinction.

00:05:42.000 So that's the quality, that's the level of apologetics that you're talking about with Jim Lacaudis.

00:05:49.000 And then a lot of people have said, Why haven't you debated E. Michael Jones?

00:05:55.000 I have put out the call.

00:05:59.000 We interacted, I put this all up on Twitter.

00:06:02.000 And E. Michael Jones said he was not up to that, which is fine.

00:06:08.000 That's cool.

00:06:09.000 He's more of a historian, he's not really focused on the theology.

00:06:13.000 Um, so I'm not knocking him.

00:06:17.000 I'm emailing Nick here again.

00:06:22.000 And he may think I, he may think I mean like Skype or something, but I said Google Hangout invite.

00:06:46.000 So, anyway, I'm trying to think.

00:06:51.000 I'm just refreshing my mind of interactions with Catholic apologists.

00:06:55.000 I actually interacted with the Vatican's, I'm trying to remember his title.

00:07:03.000 He was in charge of Eastern affairs.

00:07:06.000 Like, he's the guy that the Vatican has appointed for Eastern theology.

00:07:10.000 And we actually dialogued in some emails, lengthy emails, several years ago.

00:07:17.000 So it's not at all true that I haven't.

00:07:19.000 I reached out to Father Chad Ripperger.

00:07:23.000 I don't know how to pronounce that guy's name, but he, where's Nick?

00:07:32.000 He said no or he declined.

00:07:37.000 I invited Michael Hoffman on.

00:07:40.000 Michael Hoffman said that he may be down the road in the future.

00:07:45.000 So that wasn't a total no.

00:07:49.000 So, I mean, I've done this for a long time.

00:07:51.000 I'm not new to debating Catholic stuff.

00:07:53.000 And I, oh, I invited Eric Ibarra, another apologist.

00:07:57.000 He said no, he declined.

00:07:58.000 Nobody will come on.

00:08:00.000 So, I really appreciate Nick.

00:08:02.000 I also appreciate and respect Kokesh because he was willing to debate. 0.97

00:08:10.000 This Google Hangout crap, man, I don't get it. 0.95

00:08:12.000 It's super easy. 0.99

00:08:15.000 We're going. 0.87

00:08:17.000 We got 100 people watching in the middle of the freaking day. 0.63

00:08:20.000 That's awesome.

00:08:23.000 So, anyway, I don't know how many times I can send an invite, like where you're at, Nick.

00:08:31.000 I don't think he's ducking or dodging.

00:08:32.000 He's probably just been busy.

00:08:34.000 He was on that Worski stream last night debating that guy with the sunglasses, Halsey, or whatever.

00:08:41.000 That was pretty funny.

00:08:42.000 That was a wild debate.

00:08:44.000 Blood sports, they call it on the Worski stream.

00:08:46.000 And yes, so tomorrow night or tonight, I was supposed to debate one of the top YouTube.

00:08:53.000 Guys, period.

00:08:54.000 No, it wasn't Sticks.

00:08:55.000 It wasn't Stefan.

00:08:56.000 It was actually a bigger channel than both of those guys.

00:08:59.000 I'm not going to say who because I don't want to jinx it and people will be like, you were talking smack.

00:09:05.000 No, I'm not talking smack.

00:09:08.000 Andy is setting this up.

00:09:09.000 So I've been kind of going back and forth with Andy Worski and emails and texts and whatnot on Twitter.

00:09:19.000 And Andy is setting up the debate with.

00:09:24.000 He who shall not be named at this point.

00:09:27.000 But he says next week.

00:09:28.000 So, in other words, I don't think it's baloney.

00:09:31.000 I think he's telling the truth that there was some issue that Andy had to where he had a family thing.

00:09:39.000 So, they're not going to be setting up that debate tonight.

00:09:43.000 And I believe him.

00:09:43.000 I think that it's probably just going to be next week.

00:09:46.000 We'll have a good debate with hopefully a good debate with an atheist.

00:09:51.000 If it's not an actual intellectually challenging debate, it will be wild and fun.

00:09:56.000 So, I can assure you that will be an entertaining debate.

00:10:02.000 So, we're getting up in the numbers here.

00:10:05.000 We got 110 in the middle of the day.

00:10:06.000 That's crazy.

00:10:13.000 Nick, baby, where you at, baby?

00:10:15.000 Where you at, baby?

00:10:17.000 I've been sending you all of these invites.

00:10:20.000 Hangout.

00:10:21.000 We're going to send another invite.

00:10:23.000 Hangout invite to Nicholas Fuentes.

00:10:27.000 Nicholas Fuentes.

00:10:31.000 Waiting on, waiting on Nick.

00:10:34.000 Oh, Saint Nick.

00:10:36.000 Waiting on nosing Nick.

00:10:40.000 Like I said, if Nick doesn't, for whatever reason, show, I'm going to debate myself.

00:10:48.000 I will present the Catholic position probably better than most Roman Catholics would because I was Roman Catholic for 10 years.

00:10:54.000 So I'm still groggy.

00:10:58.000 I have not been up for a long time.

00:11:01.000 I was prepping for two debates, man.

00:11:02.000 I thought I had two debates.

00:11:03.000 I thought I had a debate with Nick and then a mega YouTube star debate.

00:11:08.000 So I was like, you know, feverishly prepping, brushing up, and then nothing.

00:11:21.000 No debates.

00:11:23.000 So, but like I said, you know, Kokesh, I respect Kokesh for debating. 1.00

00:11:32.000 All these Roman Catholics that talk shit all the time, constantly on Twitter, and they won't debate. 1.00

00:11:39.000 Dude, it's all air if you won't actually debate. 1.00

00:11:42.000 So, Adam Kokesh has more honor. 0.67

00:11:44.000 He's more of a man than all of these trad virgins that won't come on and have a public debate. 0.91

00:11:52.000 But anyway, this is like WWE smack talk or something here. 0.92

00:11:58.000 I feel like I'll be Paul Bearer and I'll come in with the smack talk.

00:12:04.000 Oh, let's see. 0.55

00:12:06.000 Someone of these kooks in the chat.

00:12:09.000 I love you guys.

00:12:09.000 I'm joking.

00:12:10.000 They will probably come on and debate here if Nick is unable.

00:12:17.000 E. Michael Jones just did an hour long lecture about orthodoxy.

00:12:20.000 So, yes, he does talk about orthodoxy and he tries to make points about it.

00:12:27.000 So, the fact that he doesn't focus on that in his books does not mean that I can't.

00:12:33.000 Dude, it was a bunch of Catholics' idea for me to debate him. 0.97

00:12:36.000 It wasn't my idea. 0.99

00:12:38.000 So, if you're going to argue raison de trait that I'm trying to pick people that.

00:12:46.000 Don't know orthodox theology.

00:12:51.000 Dude, Jimmy, yeah, I've read Aiken's article.

00:12:54.000 And again, you're talking about people who don't understand the basics of what the distinctions are.

00:13:00.000 So this is what I laid out to E. Michael Jones.

00:13:04.000 And this is why they won't come on debate.

00:13:07.000 There's another Thomist, classical theist, I think, on Twitter.

00:13:11.000 And he's saying he wants to do a debate, but he has to understand.

00:13:14.000 He's like, I want to brush up on orthodox theology.

00:13:16.000 That's fine.

00:13:17.000 That's good.

00:13:17.000 You should do that before you.

00:13:19.000 Come and debate, but you see, it's not a thing that you can completely.

00:13:24.000 Yeah, Aiken's thing is old, it's no good, dude.

00:13:27.000 It's weak, it's weak sauce. 0.88

00:13:30.000 It's as weak as his hair and beard, which is pretty damn weak.

00:13:35.000 It's got barbecue sauce in it constantly, dude.

00:13:40.000 I'm look, I'm not talking smack.

00:13:42.000 None of these mainline apologists are gonna be able to handle like a god history dialectic level argumentation, they're not gonna be able to handle it.

00:13:51.000 None of them.

00:13:53.000 And yeah, I would love to debate any of those dudes.

00:13:56.000 It will be a blowout, I guarantee you.

00:13:58.000 And that's not me talking smack because it's not about, it's not just intellect.

00:14:01.000 Actually, the arguments for orthodoxy are quite simple.

00:14:06.000 They're not that difficult.

00:14:08.000 And all these Thomas talking smack.

00:14:10.000 Dude, I got my Summa right here.

00:14:12.000 And I didn't actually read any of it.

00:14:12.000 Yeah.

00:14:13.000 I just stuck all these pretty rainbow notes in here.

00:14:16.000 Right. 1.00

00:14:17.000 That's appropriate, dude, because a lot of the Dominicans are actually gay now. 1.00

00:14:23.000 So when you go to the Dominican. 1.00

00:14:26.000 Things in there. 1.00

00:14:27.000 They're all wearing, they're light in their Dominican loafers. 1.00

00:14:32.000 So I guess that's appropriate for my.

00:14:33.000 But anyway, this is just volume one of the Summa because boy, if we get into divine simplicity, will it be easy.

00:14:40.000 And yeah, I've got my Denzinger ready to go here.

00:14:43.000 So we can talk about the definitions of ordinary magisterium.

00:14:49.000 We can talk about divergence in Vatican II.

00:14:53.000 We can talk about the dogmatic definitions of divine simplicity.

00:15:00.000 And we can hopefully learn Nick.

00:15:07.000 I mean, we all try another invite.

00:15:07.000 All right, Nick.

00:15:15.000 He hasn't responded in the emails.

00:15:17.000 It's okay.

00:15:19.000 He can be late.

00:15:20.000 There's no rush here.

00:15:23.000 Send him another invite.

00:15:27.000 And I guess I can argue with people in the chat while this is going on.

00:15:33.000 Nick is too busy studying Orthodox catechism.

00:15:37.000 Could be.

00:15:38.000 He's.

00:15:40.000 No, dude, listen.

00:15:41.000 Eric, I've already had email and message exchanges with Eric Ibarra.

00:15:47.000 And Eric Ibarra doesn't get the point of this book.

00:15:53.000 And he hasn't read it.

00:15:54.000 I know he hasn't read it because we had, I don't know how many inbox message exchanges over this book.

00:16:00.000 So he doesn't understand that one of the things that's crucial to Orthodox theology is the idea of the.

00:16:10.000 Economy and the theology.

00:16:12.000 So, the economy is the Trinity as it relates to the world.

00:16:16.000 And then the theology proper, or the ontological Trinity, sometimes called, that's the Trinity proper relating to itself.

00:16:24.000 So, in Orthodox theology, that distinction is very important because it means that we can't read economia back into the Trinity.

00:16:32.000 So, this is one of the reasons why we don't believe in the filioque.

00:16:36.000 It's not the only reason, but it's one of the reasons.

00:16:37.000 The main reason is divine simplicity in the Roman view, which is untenable.

00:16:41.000 But, um, Yeah, yeah, you can get Eric in here.

00:16:47.000 Tell him to show up.

00:16:48.000 He won't do it, though.

00:16:49.000 I've asked him three times, three separate occasions to come on and do a public debate, and he won't do it.

00:16:55.000 And that's because he doesn't know what I'm talking about this idea, this distinction.

00:16:59.000 Now, he may know about it now because we've argued over the last year about it.

00:17:03.000 But once you understand that, you understand the importance of hypostatic properties.

00:17:10.000 So for the East, that's the way that they distinguish the persons, and they don't use relations of opposition at all.

00:17:17.000 So relations of opposition is what Augustine proposes as an idea.

00:17:21.000 Here we go.

00:17:22.000 Finally, we're going to get some Nick.

00:17:26.000 Nick, I hear dinging.

00:17:28.000 Where's Nick?

00:17:36.000 Nick, where are you at?

00:17:44.000 I have boomer skills when it comes to this.

00:17:47.000 Hey, right.

00:17:47.000 Yes.

00:17:48.000 Here he is.

00:17:50.000 Yeah, I sent the invite.

00:18:02.000 I gotta wake up, man.

00:18:08.000 So, anyway, what I was saying about we're waiting on Nick here to click in was come on, Nick.

00:18:21.000 What I was saying was that he doesn't understand that distinction.

00:18:24.000 And then, if you read this book, this answers every objection of Eric Ibarra.

00:18:31.000 So, Nick, how are you doing?

00:18:33.000 How are you doing, Jay?

00:18:33.000 Good.

00:18:34.000 Doing well.

00:18:35.000 Glad to have you, man.

00:18:36.000 How was I?

00:18:37.000 I saw last night's Bloodsport, man.

00:18:39.000 That was wild.

00:18:40.000 Yeah, that was pretty crazy.

00:18:43.000 I didn't think they were going to have him on because he's not really like a well known guy or anything, but he's been following me around for a long time and couldn't resist the temptation for a little blood.

00:18:52.000 So it was a blast. 0.96

00:18:55.000 Yeah, I was listening, and when you got into the Liberty part, I was sitting there thinking, like, the president said, I want that GED ship sunk to. 0.96

00:19:06.000 Aid the Israeli army's covert operation there.

00:19:10.000 How does he not know this?

00:19:11.000 Come on.

00:19:12.000 Right.

00:19:13.000 Right.

00:19:13.000 Well, and he said, Oh, you have some guy who said this.

00:19:16.000 You know, it's people at the highest levels, you know.

00:19:19.000 So, yeah, he's like, Well, I believe the official report.

00:19:22.000 The official report?

00:19:23.000 Come on. 1.00

00:19:24.000 It's the Talmudic tricks, as usual, right?

00:19:29.000 So, I can't believe in the middle of the day, we've got 155 people viewing.

00:19:29.000 Okay.

00:19:34.000 Thank you very much for coming.

00:19:36.000 It's not going to be a rude, uh, uh, Confrontational, mean thing.

00:19:40.000 We wanted to do a conversational style.

00:19:43.000 So, if you would, for my audience, this will go up archived.

00:19:48.000 You know, we've got about 20,000 on YouTube, and then I've got 10,000 at the website and several thousand more, 10,000 on Facebook.

00:19:56.000 So, give us an introduction to you and what you do, real quick, and then we'll get into some real meat.

00:20:01.000 Sure.

00:20:02.000 So, my name is Nicholas J. Fuentes.

00:20:04.000 I'm the host of America First, which is a nightly YouTube show where we talk about.

00:20:09.000 Politics, culture, often it drifts into some of your field, which is religion and philosophy and things of that nature.

00:20:16.000 But I do it on my own channel.

00:20:17.000 It's just Nicholas J. Fuentes and find me on Twitter at Nick J. Fuentes.

00:20:24.000 All right.

00:20:25.000 So we decided that we would talk about Rome.

00:20:29.000 And I put out a call, as I usually do, for people to come on and debate.

00:20:36.000 I was trying to think of this guy's name.

00:20:37.000 I forget the guy's name who actually set this up.

00:20:41.000 But I put out a call for a Roman Catholic and I asked several.

00:20:46.000 They were too busy.

00:20:48.000 But thank you to Nick.

00:20:49.000 So let's start off with the main points here.

00:20:55.000 So I said in my email that I see there being basically two different tracks of theology between the East and the West, and that it's not just an issue of the papacy.

00:21:10.000 It's not just an issue of do we recognize the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, but actually that we get two different streams of thought.

00:21:17.000 That I believe go back to theology.

00:21:20.000 So for me, it's not just a juridical issue of jurisdiction, does this bishop have supremacy over here, but actually a question of what is the theological assumption or presupposition that would even lead to that kind of an idea.

00:21:36.000 So for us, it's a divergence on the Trinity itself.

00:21:41.000 So this is where the filioque comes in.

00:21:43.000 It's not the only issue, actually, in our view, the filioque is kind of a logical conclusion of other theological views.

00:21:53.000 And the most important of which, where we diverge, would be what's called absolute divine simplicity.

00:22:00.000 And in the Roman Catholic view, and I've got my Denzinger and my Thomas Aquinas here, they're very specific about the radical nature of this claim and this view in Roman dogma.

00:22:14.000 So, it's not just an opinion.

00:22:15.000 It's not just a debated thing.

00:22:16.000 It's actually a dogmatic position that essentially the starting point for Roman Catholic theology in terms of God is that there's one essence that is absolutely simple without any real distinctions or differentiations within that essence.

00:22:33.000 And so, this leads then to theologians like Augustine or Aquinas proposing that the way we distinguish the persons in God is through what's called relations of opposition.

00:22:44.000 And there's a lot of problems with that view that we can get into later.

00:22:47.000 But essentially, what happens is that God is approached as a kind of essence or a kind of thing first.

00:22:54.000 It's like God is the highest level of super essence that exists.

00:22:58.000 Everything has being.

00:22:59.000 And then there's kind of like a super being that has an analogy to God.

00:23:04.000 So, this is very common in medieval scholastics.

00:23:06.000 It's very common in Aquinas, sometimes called the analogy of being or the analogia entus.

00:23:11.000 Now, all of that to say that this scheme, this system, then results in a whole bunch of different views.

00:23:19.000 Not just about God, but also it affects the ecclesiology, the doctrine of the church.

00:23:23.000 It also affects the social order and the relationship of church and state between pope and emperor or bishop and emperor.

00:23:31.000 It goes on to reflect the notions of sociology, I would say, as many Orthodox theologians have argued, that the social order itself gets caught up in dialectics.

00:23:41.000 And this is the dialectics that were introduced by Augustine and by Origen and other theologians that maybe went well, but the philosophical Presuppositions from which they came, trying to use Hellenism, trying to use and import ideas from the Greek philosophers to where we could start with God, not as personal, not as He, and not have a direct connection to God through our nous or to seeing God face to face,

00:24:12.000 but rather through created analogies, through created beings.

00:24:15.000 So, in other words, to sum up, my theological issue, and we can talk about the Pope and we can talk about the Bible text and all that in a bit, we can talk about the schism and the different councils, but my main theological problem is that this.

00:24:27.000 Scheme, what I finally came to believe as a Roman Catholic was that this scheme kind of puts a wall ultimately between us and a direct deification or theosis with God.

00:24:39.000 We have to then approach God through a bunch of created graces, created analogies, and created forms, and never ever a direct connection to God until the beatific vision in the afterlife.

00:24:54.000 But as St. Gregory Palamas said to his Western opponent in the debate with Barlaam, if this is the case, This seems to lead ultimately to atheism because you never directly know God.

00:25:06.000 You only know a bunch of created effects.

00:25:09.000 And if you only know a bunch of created effects in time and space, then really you're just interacting with a supposed first cause.

00:25:17.000 And if you're just interacting with a generic supposed first cause, then it kind of leads to perennialism or the Masonic idea that we don't know one specific God who is the Father who generates the Son, inspires the Spirit, but we know something that's like, A generic theism that we can kind of paste any kind of God onto.

00:25:38.000 And so my final conclusion is that that is the end result of Vatican II.

00:25:42.000 That's why the documents like Lumen Gentium, Nostra Aitate, why those documents in Vatican II actually propose that you don't need Christ, that it's okay to be Jewish, it's okay to be Islamic. 0.74

00:25:55.000 That theology can still save you precisely because it's the outworking of a long train of rejecting a specific direct connection with God, theosis, or Hesychia, as it's called in the East, and replacing it with these kind of created forms, juridical forms, et cetera, et cetera. 0.63

00:26:15.000 So, there's a lot more to that, but that's my initial opening statement.

00:26:20.000 Right.

00:26:20.000 Well, I certainly think that's interesting.

00:26:22.000 And admittedly, I'm not as well versed on the philosophy aspects of it as you are.

00:26:27.000 And studying for this debate and reading up on scholasticism and on really the technical nature of the philosophy of our religion, I understand there's a lot that I don't know.

00:26:38.000 I've only come around to really an interest in the religious aspects into Catholicism in particular pretty recently.

00:26:44.000 But I always go back to, and we can go back and forth on.

00:26:48.000 Divine simplicity, and we can talk about the nature of the Trinity and all these things.

00:26:52.000 I think where I come from fundamentally, I think that's an interesting debate.

00:26:56.000 I think that's something we could talk about.

00:26:58.000 But I think when we get down to it, it really comes down to what is in the scripture, which is to say that the Roman church, the Latin church, the Catholic church has Peter.

00:27:08.000 And I really find it hard to say that you can be an Eastern Orthodox person, that you could still be a Christian when there's so much in the scripture which says, That you have St. Peter and the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, as supreme over the other bishops.

00:27:23.000 And so I think when you look at that, I mean, it could be an interesting thing that we could go down that avenue and we could say that does divine simplicity, because you don't have that personal relationship with God, you don't have that theosis, could that lead to, you know, in some way, shape, or form, secularism or atheism?

00:27:40.000 I think that's an interesting tract, but I think it gets away from the fundamental point, the fundamental point there in Catholicism, which is that Peter was given.

00:27:49.000 Peter was given the keys.

00:27:49.000 The keys.

00:27:50.000 He was the rock on which the church was founded. 1.00

00:27:52.000 And I don't see how you could be a Christian. 0.91

00:27:54.000 I don't know how that would be not heretical if your church does not include that first church and Rome in particular. 0.96

00:28:02.000 So I know that's not, I don't use all the technical language.

00:28:05.000 I respect your knowledge greatly, but that's really where I come at it from.

00:28:09.000 Okay.

00:28:09.000 Well, two things I would say to that is that one reply to the issue of the claim that, well, if I go to the Bible, I can find these Petrine texts and therefore this kind of vindicates the totality of Rome Catholicism.

00:28:21.000 One problem with that is.

00:28:23.000 That a lot of times, now you may not be making this argument, but I made this argument as a Roman Catholic apologist, and many Roman Catholic apologists still make this argument.

00:28:30.000 They will say that the only way that we know what the Bible is, is ultimately because some councils, but ultimately Rome made the decision of what the canon of Scripture would be.

00:28:43.000 This is a very common Catholic argument, and I don't deny that there's an aspect to which absolutely the church in time confirmed what the canon would be.

00:28:52.000 I would deny that it was completely the decision of Rome, but it's very often made.

00:28:56.000 Clear by Roman Catholic apologists that the papacy confirms the scriptures.

00:29:01.000 So, but what I'm hearing is that at the same time, the Roman Catholic apologists will say the papacy confirms the scriptures, but to prove the papacy, I can go to the scriptures and find a few verses here and there, and that therefore I can extrapolate the universal jurisdiction, both spiritual and temporal, of a Pontifex Maximus, universal monarch for the office of Peter, a bishop in the early church.

00:29:29.000 To me, that's very strained and circular.

00:29:31.000 Now, I do believe that ultimately we can talk about questions of ultimate presuppositions or worldview beliefs being circular because at a certain point you're going to hit the highest authority and it's going to be circular.

00:29:47.000 But the problem is that in Roman Catholic theology and epistemology, they have a view that's called classical foundationalism.

00:29:55.000 Now, this is a term that's given later in time, but it's essentially the idea that you can't have circular arguments.

00:30:01.000 You have to have a kind of a A foundation and then a self evident maxim, and then you kind of build on that, and then you build on that, and then you build on that.

00:30:09.000 So, for most Catholic theologians, it's been things like the law of non contradiction or this kind of thing, a modus ponens.

00:30:18.000 These are self evident maxims, and then we can build our system on top of that.

00:30:21.000 So, what I'm saying is that the problem with that view, Nick, is that you can't, on the one hand, have the Pope being the reason that we know what books make up the canon, and at the same time, Going to the canon of scripture and saying that this is what justifies the universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome.

00:30:42.000 So, and one other point to your argument is that Peter was in Antioch.

00:30:50.000 And so, if I attend an Antiochian Orthodox church, that descends from Peter.

00:30:55.000 So, in other words, there's not, in our position, any specific reason why Rome has a universal jurisdictional primacy beyond it just being.

00:31:06.000 Having a lot of honor.

00:31:07.000 And in fact, when you read the ecumenical councils, we would absolutely agree with the Petrine Sea being given primacy in terms of what's called the, Peter was called the Coryphaeus of the apostles, the mouthpiece of the apostles in the Greek tradition.

00:31:24.000 So, but we don't believe that that necessarily means that he has like this universal jurisdiction over all of the church precisely because when you read the book of Acts, you don't see that.

00:31:34.000 You see Peter going to the council in Jerusalem in Acts 15.

00:31:40.000 And it's James that presides at that council because it's in Jerusalem, and James is the bishop of Jerusalem.

00:31:48.000 We see Paul rebuking Peter.

00:31:51.000 We see Peter basically submitting to the decisions of the council in Jerusalem.

00:31:55.000 And so, my final point would just be look, if the Petrine position of Vatican I was literally what the scriptures taught, then why don't we see that process and that modus operandi actually happening in scripture?

00:32:12.000 We don't see that.

00:32:13.000 We see Conciliarism, we see, let's have a council, let's get together, and we because the whole church has the fullness of the spirit, the whole church has the mind of Christ.

00:32:21.000 It's not just one bishop that has that, the whole church has it.

00:32:24.000 They have the fullness in the Eucharist, therefore, we don't need a supreme Pontifex Maximus.

00:32:32.000 And the fact that the Orthodox Church has continued to exist after the schism with plenty of people shows we don't need that.

00:32:39.000 It's not necessary. 0.99

00:32:41.000 If it was absolutely necessary, why didn't we just completely obliterate like the Protestants into a million schisms? 0.99

00:32:47.000 Well, I mean, to answer the first point, I'm not making the argument that you argued in the first point that because the Catholic Church decided what was canon, you know, I'm not making that argument. 0.95

00:32:58.000 I'm making the argument based on scripture that Peter was given this primacy, he was given this authority.

00:33:05.000 So, for the first point, I'm not really going to answer that because that's not really my position.

00:33:10.000 But to the second point, and sort of to answer that last part, just because it's the most fresh, you say, you know, why, in terms of Orthodoxy, are we not fragmented into a number of different Churches and everything.

00:33:21.000 Well, I think it kind of is, is it not?

00:33:23.000 I mean, you have the Greek Orthodox Church, you have the Russian Orthodox Church.

00:33:26.000 I mean, there really isn't.

00:33:28.000 If you go on the phone book, you can look, and there are a number of different Orthodox sects.

00:33:32.000 Whereas, you know, Catholic Church, you just have one, right? 0.57

00:33:36.000 Okay, but that's a little bit of a slippery slope here because, first of all, the Orthodox Church operates the same way that the church operated for the first millennium.

00:33:47.000 So there were always national churches.

00:33:50.000 Anytime the apostles went out when they converted people, what they would do is they would translate the scriptures and the liturgy into the vernacular.

00:33:57.000 And that's why you have these historic churches.

00:33:59.000 Going all the way back to these nations.

00:34:02.000 Now, it wasn't always a whole nation, but eventually, over time, under the Imperium, you would have, for example, at an ecumenical council, the bishops of the various nations would meet and make decisions.

00:34:14.000 They would debate, so forth and so on.

00:34:16.000 So, the fact that there are vernacular local liturgies, and even the Roman Catholic Church accepts 16 different vernacular liturgies as part of her liturgy, shows that just saying, well, because there's a Russian Orthodox Church and because there's a Greek Orthodox Church.

00:34:32.000 That doesn't mean that there's necessarily a split or division because Roman Catholicism has that as well.

00:34:39.000 Secondly, I would say there have always been disagreements and dissensions in the church.

00:34:43.000 You see this in the book of Acts.

00:34:45.000 You see this all throughout the first millennium of the church.

00:34:47.000 So, dissensions and divisions and a whole nation even going into schism, that's all throughout the councils.

00:34:53.000 But I would just repeat the words of Pope Benedict Ratzinger in Introduction to Christianity, where he says, for the first millennium of the church, they operated in a conciliar fashion.

00:35:05.000 And not according to the Vatican I papal monarchy position.

00:35:09.000 So, even at Vatican II, you've had this recognition.

00:35:13.000 And I'm not a fan of Vatican II.

00:35:14.000 I think it was ultimately kind of a dismantling of the Western tradition, which is sad.

00:35:18.000 But I'm saying you had this tacit agreement that, oh, we need more collegiality.

00:35:24.000 We need more conciliarism because maybe we went too far with our ultramontane position at Vatican I.

00:35:31.000 But again, to your first point, you in that argument may not have argued that.

00:35:37.000 That we know the canon because of the papacy.

00:35:40.000 But this is almost always the Roman Catholic apologist's position.

00:35:43.000 And as far as I know, I've never heard a Roman Catholic apologist deny that they know what the canon is because of the papacy's final decision.

00:35:52.000 I mean, don't you believe that it was the magisterium of the church that decided, in your view, that decided what the canon of scripture was?

00:35:57.000 Yes, yes.

00:35:58.000 But I mean, that's not the argument that I'm making to advance the general issue.

00:36:02.000 I mean, that may be an argument that has been made.

00:36:05.000 I probably believe that. 1.00

00:36:06.000 But I don't know if that's, you know, I think we're kind of gish galloping here a little bit away from. 1.00

00:36:10.000 No, no, I'm asking you a question of a Authority. 1.00

00:36:13.000 Well, no, but wait, but I started out from my position, which was the reason that I'm a Catholic is because the scripture gives this authority to Peter.

00:36:21.000 It gives authority specifically to the church in Rome.

00:36:24.000 And you answer with, well, there's this argument about canon.

00:36:27.000 I don't think that's a very strong argument because I can't answer this contest.

00:36:31.000 But I can talk about, for example, you know, you talk about how, oh, well, you know, the papacy operated differently in the first millennium and actually it was more of a, you know, a conciliar approach.

00:36:42.000 And that's actually not.

00:36:44.000 True, to get to the fundamental point, and we could go back and forth about whether or not having a Russian and a Greek and all these other different Orthodox churches in the United States and all operating with a certain degree of autonomy that is not present in the Catholic Church.

00:36:58.000 To get to the fundamental point of that, which is, did the first millennium, was it operating under the more Roman type or was it operating in the more autonomous Eastern type?

00:37:08.000 It was clear.

00:37:10.000 And I could give you several historical examples here where the church is deferred to Rome.

00:37:15.000 And I can show you here.

00:37:16.000 Yeah, go ahead.

00:37:18.000 Well, I will agree with you that, for example, in controversies where we would have, say, at the Sixth Council, St. Maximus the Confessor, a famous Eastern theologian, he would actually have recourse to Rome and would speak of the longtime orthodoxy of Rome against his monothelite opponents.

00:37:39.000 And I have absolutely no problem with the hallowed orthodoxy of the first hundreds and hundreds of years of Rome.

00:37:48.000 No orthodox person disagrees with that.

00:37:50.000 But again, I think you're missing the point that.

00:37:53.000 That the fact that there are ecumenical councils shows that we don't need a papal monarchy.

00:38:00.000 I mean, why not just write a letter to Peter or to the Apostolic See and ask them how to solve the problem?

00:38:06.000 Why do you even need an ecumenical council?

00:38:09.000 Who called the councils?

00:38:10.000 The emperor.

00:38:11.000 I'll tell you why.

00:38:12.000 I'll tell you why.

00:38:13.000 If you look at the case with the heresy of Arianism, which I believe the Pope was Dionysius, the ecumenical council was called long after he had already made the decision.

00:38:24.000 Long after he had made the decision to create the word, was it homo uvis, which was in substance? 0.77

00:38:31.000 Yes, right. 1.00

00:38:32.000 He had already made that decision.

00:38:34.000 He called the ecumenical council as a means of translating that to the church.

00:38:39.000 But if you look at in every case, for the most part, with these seven ecumenical councils, in each case, the pope had already decided before the council even met.

00:38:48.000 And I wasn't even referring to the councils, but I was even referring to the times when other heresies arose, when other things happened.

00:38:54.000 I mean, not even with.

00:38:56.000 The example you gave, but if you look in, for example, with Clement in 96 AD, which I'm sure you're familiar with, where they, to heal that schism in Corinth, they could have appealed to the Patriarch of Jerusalem.

00:39:09.000 They could have gone to the Patriarch of Alexandria.

00:39:11.000 They could have gone to Apostle John himself, who is alive, but they deferred to the Pope.

00:39:16.000 And there are other examples of this as well.

00:39:19.000 So, Paul, right?

00:39:21.000 Paul writes a letter to Rome and Paul corrects errors in the Roman church.

00:39:26.000 Paul is not a bishop of Rome.

00:39:29.000 Paul, but Paul writes letters to the Roman church and he corrects errors and even threatens the Roman church in chapter 11.

00:39:37.000 He says that you can be grafted out if you don't obey.

00:39:41.000 This is a real threat when he's talking about Gentiles being grafted in, Jews being grafted out.

00:39:45.000 The letter is written, yes, to the whole church, but also to the bishops of the church of Rome.

00:39:49.000 So it's not just written to threats to the lay people.

00:39:52.000 So, in other words, what I'm saying is that Paul very clearly warns the Roman church.

00:39:56.000 So, somebody writing a letter to another church does not necessitate that, therefore, this was an appeal to the ultimate authority in the church.

00:40:03.000 Any more than Paul thinking that he can write a letter to the church in Rome and that therefore the Roman church can be grafted out necessarily means that there's universal jurisdiction for this one.

00:40:13.000 If there's universal jurisdiction for Rome, Paul wouldn't have written a letter rebuking them and warning them about being cut out.

00:40:19.000 Secondly, no, every ecumenical council was called by the emperor.

00:40:23.000 No pope called an ecumenical council.

00:40:26.000 The popes and their legates were the first to sign it, yes, because that is, again, the position of the Corypheus of the apostles, the mouthpiece of the apostles.

00:40:35.000 And that's our view of how Peter is treated.

00:40:37.000 So, but we don't see any position where Peter is treated as if he has universal jurisdiction.

00:40:43.000 In fact, there are so many examples to the contrary that it's very, it's a strained mental gymnastics to try to pull it off.

00:40:49.000 So, and I can prove that by merely pointing out that the sixth ecumenical council condemned Pope Honorius.

00:40:56.000 Now, I'm not saying Pope Honorius was wrong.

00:40:59.000 Actually, he ended up being vindicated.

00:41:01.000 However, the mind of that universally accepted council was that they could condemn a pope of old Rome, and they did in the acts of the council.

00:41:11.000 So that shows you that their mindset was not Vatican I papal monarchy.

00:41:18.000 But Jay, who interprets the results of the councils and who executes the results of the councils?

00:41:23.000 In every case, it is the Pope.

00:41:26.000 You just admitted my point about the canon and the Petrine text.

00:41:31.000 I did.

00:41:32.000 So your ultimate authority is the papal office, but originally you appealed to the scriptures to prove the papal office.

00:41:41.000 So I'm asking you which one of these is the way that you prove it?

00:41:46.000 And in your worldview, in the Thomistic worldview, the classical traditional Catholic worldview, you're not supposed to have circular arguments.

00:41:46.000 Right.

00:41:54.000 Okay.

00:41:55.000 Well, but I think you have to understand that you have to have unity proceeds from one.

00:41:59.000 It is necessary that you have, and it was necessary in each of the cases.

00:42:04.000 If you're arguing, well, look, the Orthodox Church is doing just fine.

00:42:07.000 We didn't need the Pope.

00:42:08.000 We didn't need the higher authority.

00:42:10.000 But if you look in every case with the ecumenical councils and you can try and go back to, oh, well, this is circular logic.

00:42:16.000 But the conciliarism didn't work unless there was a pope to interpret and then execute the results of those councils.

00:42:22.000 So you can go back to canon, but the fact of the matter remains that it is necessary that for a single dogma to be enforced, for it to be interpreted, it has to proceed from one church.

00:42:34.000 It has to proceed from the Church of Rome.

00:42:36.000 And I mean, there it is.

00:42:40.000 Well, number one, I would completely deny that that's true.

00:42:46.000 So the revelation of Scripture, for example, Did not proceed from one pope or one church.

00:42:53.000 It proceeded from the many apostles going out to the many nations, and they had everything that was sufficient for them to set up these churches.

00:43:00.000 And many of them were sent out with no connection to Peter.

00:43:04.000 Peter didn't have any direct knowledge of every single guy going out to the different nations in the first three centuries of the Roman Empire before it was Christianized.

00:43:13.000 So I would completely deny that.

00:43:16.000 That's just completely not true, mainly by the examples of what happens in scripture.

00:43:20.000 We can look at the book of Acts, how many times do people in Acts?

00:43:23.000 Come to believe in Christ, not because of the preaching of merely the Roman bishop, but because Paul argues from the scriptures.

00:43:32.000 Paul argued from the scriptures powerfully.

00:43:34.000 It says this many times in the later chapters of Acts.

00:43:37.000 So that's one easy way to disprove the claim that we only know what's unified and true based on what the Roman bishop says.

00:43:44.000 The second problem with that is that it's just moving the problem back a step.

00:43:49.000 How do you know that you're interpreting the Roman bishop's decrees and magisterium correctly?

00:43:54.000 I mean, I have Denzinger here, and every time I argue with a Roman Catholic, the question is, you don't understand Denzinger.

00:44:01.000 The response is, you don't understand Denzinger.

00:44:03.000 You don't know how to interpret Denzinger and the papal decrees properly.

00:44:09.000 So, who interprets the papal decrees properly?

00:44:12.000 Ultimately, it's the Bishop of Rome.

00:44:14.000 So, it's like the Bishop of Rome confirms the Bishop of Rome by interpreting the Bishop of Rome by proving the Bishop of Rome.

00:44:19.000 And so, it's like this spiraling circularity that never ends.

00:44:24.000 Last point, the.

00:44:27.000 In the 8th century, you have a divide that's actually a predecessor to 1054.

00:44:33.000 So there were two councils at this time.

00:44:36.000 There's the Latin Council that's related to the Patriarch Ignatius in 858.

00:44:43.000 The East rejected this council precisely because of the Filioque.

00:44:49.000 In the East, there's a later council called the Council of 879/880.

00:44:54.000 And the problem with the reason I bring this up is that if we want to talk about, again, papal jurisdiction and all this stuff, Pope John VIII, it is known, every Roman Catholic admits this, signed the Eastern Council, which forbade the use of the filioque in the Creed.

00:45:10.000 Now, when you read Dr. Carroll, the famous Catholic historian, when you read Philip Blosser, another famous Catholic apologist and philosopher, they are at pains to explain this.

00:45:20.000 They all admit, yes, the Pope signed this.

00:45:24.000 Forbidding of a filioque.

00:45:27.000 But again, it's just another example of the fact that the mindset of the church in the first millennium is not Vatican I. Why else would so many Vatican I apologists like Cardinal Newman be at pains and have to come up with this theory of doctrinal development?

00:45:44.000 And oh, the doctrine is like a tree and it grows and it kind of morphs into all these different things.

00:45:52.000 If this was, I mean, so is it a thing that evolves that we understand only in 1890?

00:45:58.000 Right?

00:45:58.000 Or is it a thing that is present and clear at the beginning?

00:46:02.000 Well, you know, I think if we're going to go back to the original point where you say that there's no scriptural basis for patron supremacy, and you keep citing Acts, which is interesting.

00:46:12.000 I'm kind of wondering why you don't cite, you know, for example, the book of Matthew.

00:46:16.000 I mean, Jesus Christ specifically says that he will build his church on the rock of Peter, he gives Peter the keys.

00:46:24.000 And again, you keep saying, oh, well, this, you know, Paul was able to advocate and There's this, you know, it's not deriving from just Peter.

00:46:32.000 It's not deriving from just Rome, but the other apostles were there and they were spreading the gospel as well.

00:46:37.000 But it was specifically said, I don't know how you can continue to discount the fact that Jesus Christ said, I will found my church on you, on Peter.

00:46:45.000 And he gave him the keys.

00:46:47.000 And he even says in Revelations that the chosen one has the keys.

00:46:51.000 I mean, this goes back to David.

00:46:53.000 Hold on, hold on.

00:46:54.000 Go ahead.

00:46:55.000 Wait, wait, wait.

00:46:57.000 Actually, can I finish?

00:46:58.000 Because I'll let you go on a little bit.

00:46:59.000 Sure.

00:47:01.000 You know, and also people might say, oh, well, he was referring to the local church.

00:47:04.000 When he talked about building the church on the rock, which was Peter, people say, oh, you know, maybe this was the local church.

00:47:10.000 This was the church of Jerusalem, which, of course, can't be true because James was the head of the church of Jerusalem.

00:47:16.000 So when Jesus Christ said, I'm building my church on the rock, which is Peter, and Peter's name, of course, is a pun for the rock, I mean, this is very, this is clearly, I think it's hard to deny that Jesus is saying that that would be the church.

00:47:30.000 And you could go into Acts as well.

00:47:33.000 You can go into Acts as well, where Peter is the first one to perform a miracle in the church age.

00:47:38.000 He was the first one to preach the gospel in the church age.

00:47:41.000 He was the first one to refute heresy.

00:47:43.000 He was the first man to raise a man from the dead. 1.00

00:47:45.000 He exercised his power to bind and loose by allowing Gentiles into the church. 1.00

00:47:49.000 And even though the other apostles initially were reluctant to accept this, they eventually did. 1.00

00:47:56.000 Peter is the dominant personality out of all the apostles.

00:48:00.000 He's spoken of 191 times.

00:48:02.000 All the other apostles combined.

00:48:04.000 130 times.

00:48:06.000 And to get to the early church age, you say, oh, well, you know, this was not how it went.

00:48:12.000 This was not Vatican I, so to speak.

00:48:15.000 But you can go to many church fathers in the days of the early church who all confirm this.

00:48:20.000 There's actually not a single testimony in the days of the early church from the church fathers which denies the primacy of Rome.

00:48:26.000 I mean, you could go to Patriarch St. Menes of Constantinople who said, We follow and obey the apostolic throne, we are in communion with those.

00:48:35.000 With whom it is in communion, and we condemn those with whom it condemns.

00:48:39.000 You could go to Metropolitan Sergius of Cyprus, who says, O holy head, Christ our God hath destined by apostolic see to be an immovable foundation and a pillar of the faith, for thou art as the divine word truly saith, Peter, and on thee as a foundation stone have the pillars of the church been fixed.

00:48:58.000 And you could go for hours citing the early church fathers who affirmed the primacy of Rome, but you cannot find a single one who rejects it.

00:49:07.000 So, again, I think there's a lot of evidence that's being left out here.

00:49:12.000 Okay, so I'm familiar with the kind of throwing out machine gun catena approach of quotations.

00:49:18.000 I used to do the same thing.

00:49:20.000 The first thing is in regard to Peter, actually, many of the church fathers do debate the meaning of Matthew 16.

00:49:27.000 So they don't all say that it was specifically Peter, and I don't have a problem with it being a pun on his name because any of these arguments is 100% night and day removed from the arguments made, for example, in the Galatian or the papal decretals.

00:49:44.000 So, if you're familiar with this, this is a later concoction that was all about the temporal power and supremacy of the Roman bishop over all monarchs in the world, so forth and so on.

00:49:57.000 This eventually led to Unum Sanctum, the medieval No Salvation Outside the Church dogmatic decree.

00:50:04.000 So, none of this is anywhere closely connected to universal temporal supremacy of a single bishop.

00:50:14.000 Everything that you said about Peter is true of all the apostles.

00:50:18.000 Now, again, being the mouthpiece of the apostles is not a universal supremacy.

00:50:25.000 That's two totally different things, right?

00:50:27.000 So, for example, Jesus at the end of John breathes on all the apostles and he says, Whoever sins you remit, they are remitted.

00:50:34.000 Whoever sins you retain, they're retained.

00:50:36.000 The very thing that he said to Peter, he gave to all of them.

00:50:40.000 He didn't tell Peter, breathe your breath on them because it comes from me to you to them.

00:50:45.000 He'd breathe directly on all of them.

00:50:46.000 And Peter absolutely is the leader of the apostles in the early church.

00:50:51.000 And since he's the one that you're saying, he established the church in Antioch.

00:50:58.000 I agree that he has set up the apostolic see.

00:51:01.000 Does Antioch have Petrine papal supremacy?

00:51:05.000 No.

00:51:06.000 But Peter established it.

00:51:08.000 So, in other words, why is it the assumption?

00:51:11.000 Oh, well, the assumption is that Peter died in Rome.

00:51:14.000 And so he must have then given it a mystical super supremacy.

00:51:17.000 And for many, many, many centuries, After the early church, do you know what was used to back this up?

00:51:23.000 It was the papal decretals.

00:51:25.000 And the papal decretals are universally admitted to be forgeries.

00:51:29.000 The Vatican admits they are forgeries.

00:51:31.000 They're not real because they obviously, the church in the first and second century was not writing about the Roman bishop having temporal supremacy.

00:51:39.000 That's preposterous because they were still being persecuted by the millions by the Roman emperors.

00:51:44.000 By the way, Jesus is the one who holds the keys to death and hell in the apocalypse, not Peter.

00:51:51.000 The one who descended into hell, the one who descended into hell, the harrowing of hell, that is our feast day, right?

00:51:57.000 The harrowing of hell, the descent and the ascent.

00:52:00.000 That's who has the keys to death and Hades, Jesus, not Peter.

00:52:06.000 Here, let me try and find the specific quotation here that I was referring to in Revelation, because I don't have it here in front of me.

00:52:13.000 Here, he says in Revelation 3 7, he says, Fear not, I am the first and the last and the living one.

00:52:19.000 I died, and behold, I am alive forevermore.

00:52:21.000 I have the keys of death and Hades.

00:52:23.000 He says, the words of the Holy One who has the keys of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.

00:52:31.000 And he's referring, of course, to the royal keys he presented to Peter and Matthew.

00:52:36.000 And you can say, oh, well, you know, he brings out all the apostles.

00:52:40.000 Everybody knows.

00:52:42.000 I've never heard this argument.

00:52:43.000 This is new to me.

00:52:44.000 But it's Jesus speaking to the seven churches in every one of those letters.

00:52:50.000 It's not Peter.

00:52:52.000 Okay, but then why did he give the keys to Peter?

00:52:54.000 Why did he say that Peter is the rock on which he founds the church?

00:52:58.000 I don't understand how you discount the importance here.

00:53:01.000 If Peter is, wait, are you arguing that, well, Peter is, he's the dominant personality, he gets the keys, he's the rock on which the church is built.

00:53:09.000 But that is merely of a symbolic, like first among equals, having a table?

00:53:14.000 I just said that he gave the same power of remitting sins to the entire group of the apostles.

00:53:21.000 So look, two things.

00:53:22.000 But is this arbitrary that he's always named first?

00:53:26.000 It's the disciples in Peter.

00:53:27.000 He gets the keys.

00:53:28.000 Is that just simply an arbitrary distinction?

00:53:30.000 I mean, what would be the purpose of that?

00:53:33.000 Peter is rewarded in Matthew 16 because it's the first time that anybody confesses that he's divine.

00:53:39.000 So, up until that time, throughout the Gospels, the apostles and even John the Baptist had been in doubt.

00:53:44.000 They were like, is he a prophet?

00:53:47.000 Who is he?

00:53:48.000 And then Peter is the first to make the divine confession.

00:53:51.000 So, it's not the man Peter, it is Peter and his confession, and it's deified Peter that is, you could say, a foundation stone of the church.

00:54:05.000 When you read the apocalypse, the New Jerusalem, it's a big new temple.

00:54:11.000 That's a big chunk block built on all of the names of the apostles, they're all there, right?

00:54:18.000 So it's not like there's only Peter and then all the other little apostles are stacked up on top of him, like Qbert or something.

00:54:24.000 It's a giant New Jerusalem temple with each foundation stone being the names of the apostles.

00:54:31.000 So, what is contained traditionally?

00:54:34.000 This is across the board, Orthodox and Roman Catholics have always admitted that the promise of this text is two things it's jurisdiction.

00:54:46.000 And it's spiritual.

00:54:50.000 It's like a bishop having jurisdiction and it's the ability to remit and retain sins.

00:54:54.000 That's the office of the keys.

00:54:55.000 This is what bishops have always done, and priests or presbyters as their helpers.

00:55:00.000 So the East and the West agree on that.

00:55:02.000 Now, all I'm saying is that Jesus says the exact same thing to all of the apostles.

00:55:09.000 He says in the Gospels, He says that when I enter into my kingdom, He says, you will all sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel.

00:55:16.000 And that's always been interpreted as.

00:55:18.000 The authority of the apostles to judge the various churches.

00:55:23.000 And again, we don't deny that there is, as the East has always said, the corypheus of the apostles, the mouthpiece of the apostles.

00:55:32.000 And that's why many of the quotes that you're referring to, for example, if there is a controversy in the church, and a lot of those controversies were in the East, there were a lot of heresies in the East, and Nestorius was the patriarch of Constantinople, you would have Eastern bishops that were correct believing would appeal to Rome.

00:55:32.000 And that's fine.

00:55:51.000 Okay, but appealing to Rome is not being appealed.

00:55:53.000 They're not appealing to Rome just on the basis of the fact that that's because Peter was there one time.

00:55:59.000 It's because the confession of Rome was always Orthodox throughout those centuries, except for the period in the there's a little bit of hairy area during the Arian crisis where one of the popes is forced to sign an Arian confession, but nobody accuses him of being an Arian just because he was forced to do it.

00:56:17.000 But the point is simply that the power of jurisdiction and remitting sins.

00:56:22.000 Throughout the rest of the gospels, it is given to the whole corpus of the apostles.

00:56:28.000 It's not just to Peter, or it's not Jesus giving it to Peter who then gives it to them.

00:56:32.000 It's Jesus giving it to all of them, breathing on all of them, and then they go out as a body.

00:56:39.000 And this is reflected in the early church makeup of, in the ancient world, what were the primary seas or pentarchy, right?

00:56:52.000 This is not the basis of Orthodox theology.

00:56:54.000 We don't believe that you have to follow like five historic seas, like they're little bitty popes or something.

00:57:00.000 It's just that these are the big cities where it was.

00:57:03.000 Prominent to have the bishopric of Rome, the bishopric of Alexandria, right?

00:57:07.000 These are just prominent cities.

00:57:09.000 That's all it means.

00:57:10.000 And by the way, Orthodoxy still retains that.

00:57:13.000 The Pope, the Patriarch of Constantinople, he has absolutely no authority or jurisdiction outside of Turkey.

00:57:19.000 He can't tell the Patriarch of Moscow what to do.

00:57:21.000 The Patriarch of Moscow can't tell bishops in the countryside of Russia what to do.

00:57:27.000 That's because we believe Jesus intentionally wanted to set up a decentralized system, and it's decentralized just like.

00:57:35.000 It was in the Old Testament.

00:57:36.000 You had the synagogue system going out and setting up synagogues in the world.

00:57:41.000 There was one high priest.

00:57:42.000 He was in Jerusalem.

00:57:44.000 We would say that high priest is Jesus.

00:57:47.000 We don't need, because of the coming of the Holy Spirit, we don't need the giant jurisdictional monarchy of Rome.

00:57:53.000 Again, I just think it is a lot of, I think what's happening here is a lot of rationalization because you have here, I mean, right in front of you in the scripture, giving the keys and building on the rock.

00:58:05.000 Very striking symbols.

00:58:07.000 These are very significant symbols.

00:58:09.000 And Peter, the dominance of his personality throughout the New Testament and how he is first in everything, how he's referenced separate from the other disciples.

00:58:18.000 When the angel comes to, wait, but when Mary comes to Mary Magdalene, he says, go tell the disciples and Peter.

00:58:25.000 He's always, in every instance, in every instance when the apostles are listed, he's always listed first.

00:58:31.000 And you chalk this up to, well, this is simply a mouthpiece.

00:58:35.000 I don't know.

00:58:36.000 I mean, you can, and you draw out a lot of the Latin phrases and you draw out a lot of these, you know, these little events and this and that, but I think it is fundamentally a distraction from what is in Matthew.

00:58:46.000 It's fundamentally a distraction from the fact you say, oh, well, he breathed on everyone, and well, that's interpreted as they will all sit and judge the churches, but Peter was given the keys.

00:58:55.000 Peter was the rock on which the church was built.

00:58:58.000 Jesus Christ said, I pray for your faith, and you are supposed to fortify the faith of the others.

00:59:05.000 And I mean, do you just ignore this?

00:59:07.000 Do you just.

00:59:08.000 I mean, do you acknowledge?

00:59:09.000 I know.

00:59:10.000 I addressed every one of those points.

00:59:12.000 And first and foremost, you said that he's always in charge and always first.

00:59:16.000 No, he's always listed first.

00:59:18.000 I said he's always listed first when the apostles are listed.

00:59:21.000 That's what I said.

00:59:22.000 A minute ago, you said he's always first.

00:59:24.000 He's always in charge.

00:59:26.000 I didn't say he's always.

00:59:27.000 No, no, no.

00:59:27.000 I did not say he's always in charge of everything.

00:59:30.000 I said he's always listed first.

00:59:31.000 And I said he was given the keys and he was the rock on which the church was built.

00:59:36.000 He doesn't reside at the council in Jerusalem.

00:59:39.000 Okay, but how do you interpret Jesus Christ as you are the rock on which the church is built?

00:59:46.000 He was speaking to all the apostles in a corporate way when he said that.

00:59:51.000 When he gave the keys to Peter, he was giving it to all of them.

00:59:54.000 So I addressed this a minute ago.

00:59:56.000 I said, first of all, there is debate amongst the church fathers as to what that text means.

01:00:01.000 And what I said to you was that it doesn't matter if it's Peter himself.

01:00:06.000 And we don't have a problem with that, but it's not Peter himself.

01:00:10.000 Huh?

01:00:11.000 I think it kind of does matter, I think, right?

01:00:13.000 I mean, if Peter is, again, the emphasis is arbitrary.

01:00:18.000 That is miles, infinite miles away from universal temporal jurisdiction over all princes in the world.

01:00:26.000 That is crazy talk, dude.

01:00:28.000 If he's given the keys by Jesus Christ, then that's a far cry from that he has supremacy among the other patriarchs and bishops.

01:00:36.000 No, no, no, no.

01:00:37.000 I don't think you understand the extent of the claims of the papacy.

01:00:41.000 The papacy, after the rise of the papal states and after the early centuries, after the false papal decretals, literally claimed that the bishop of Rome had universal supremacy, not just over spiritual issues in the church, but over all princes.

01:00:59.000 That's why. 0.92

01:01:00.000 That's why there is a new emperor anointed in 800 called Charlemagne, because they didn't want an Orthodox emperor in the East. 0.94

01:01:10.000 They wanted to go their own way.

01:01:12.000 By the way, this is the time period when things change in the church.

01:01:16.000 There's no more icons, there's only statuary, there's no more pedo communion.

01:01:20.000 You see, the early church universally gave children, babies, communion.

01:01:26.000 Now, isn't it interesting that Rome stops doing this?

01:01:30.000 At the period when the filioque enters, when we have a new emperor in the West, Charlemagne, all of these distinctions, when we already had a God ordained emperor in the East.

01:01:30.000 Literally.

01:01:40.000 The fact that there's a God ordained emperor in the East that's recognized for all of these ecumenical councils, who calls the councils, not the Pope, shows that Peter doesn't have universal temporal jurisdiction.

01:01:52.000 So I don't have a problem with confining and debating the meanings of Matthew 16 to the church and to what it meant to the first century church.

01:02:01.000 That's what the church fathers do.

01:02:02.000 Some of them say it's Peter.

01:02:04.000 Some of them say it's his confession.

01:02:05.000 Some of them say it's this or that.

01:02:08.000 But what I said to you in response specifically was that all of the things that you claimed were special to Peter are also given to the other apostles directly by Jesus.

01:02:18.000 He gives them the power to remit sins.

01:02:20.000 He says they will sit on the thrones judging the church.

01:02:23.000 But they don't get the keys.

01:02:25.000 But they don't get the keys.

01:02:27.000 That's the meaning of keys.

01:02:28.000 That's what I was telling you a minute ago that everybody, Rome, East, and West, always admits.

01:02:34.000 What does that mean?

01:02:35.000 It's not keys to death and hell that Jesus has.

01:02:38.000 It's the keys to have jurisdiction and to remit and retain sins.

01:02:42.000 Well, it has precedent in Isaiah.

01:02:44.000 It has precedent in Isaiah when the keys were used as a symbol of the king giving authority to the prime minister.

01:02:51.000 Yeah.

01:02:52.000 And so there it is.

01:02:54.000 That's Jesus.

01:02:54.000 Yeah.

01:02:55.000 Jesus is the king, and the prime minister is Peter.

01:02:58.000 That's why he gives the keys to Peter.

01:03:00.000 Peter is given the authority as the prime minister.

01:03:04.000 If that's the case, then what happens is, and this happened in the history of the church.

01:03:10.000 Then local bishops are eventually viewed as lacking something, right?

01:03:16.000 So, in other words, you can be at a church in Ephesus or whatever, and you can have the Eucharist, but it's not the church of Rome where Peter was.

01:03:28.000 And so, therefore, what you eventually get, and this is in Unum Sanctum, the papal decree actually says that Peter and the Petrine office, because of this prime minister view, It actually has a superior special super union with Jesus beyond what any of the other bishops say.

01:03:50.000 Now, there is a famous argument and dialogue that Pope Saint Gregory the Great has with a person who was claiming something very similar.

01:04:01.000 These are in his letters, and he rebukes this as the claim of antichrist, right?

01:04:07.000 Because they were claiming to have sole jurisdiction over all of the churches, right?

01:04:12.000 And negating.

01:04:14.000 The real jurisdiction that other bishops had.

01:04:17.000 So, what I'm saying is that this has played itself out in church history.

01:04:20.000 And even a great pope, like Pope St. Gregory the Great, rebuked the idea in his letters, very well known.

01:04:26.000 And I'm not making the Protestant argument that this means that there's no such thing as bishops.

01:04:30.000 The Protestants go crazy with this.

01:04:32.000 It's a dumb argument, but it does prove the point that obviously Pope St. Gregory the Great didn't, Gregory the Dialogist, that he's called in the East, he didn't view this as temporal supremacy over all princes and so forth. 0.98

01:04:45.000 That's crazy. 0.93

01:04:45.000 Okay, so then why are you trying to force me to defend that as temporal? 0.93

01:04:49.000 Supremacy, then?

01:04:50.000 If the great pope says it's not temporal supremacy, then why are you?

01:04:54.000 Do you understand where I'm coming from?

01:04:55.000 If the Catholic theology eventually dogmatized that it is.

01:05:00.000 That it is temporal or that it is not temporal?

01:05:03.000 Absolutely.

01:05:04.000 Well, again, I don't think, I don't understand how you can look at the keys being given.

01:05:04.000 Okay.

01:05:09.000 And do you, and again, going back to Matthew with the keys, that just bears no significance for you?

01:05:16.000 What did the keys represent if not jurisdiction as the prime minister over the church?

01:05:21.000 I respect you.

01:05:22.000 I just told you twice what it meant.

01:05:24.000 Well, what is it?

01:05:26.000 Okay.

01:05:27.000 There's a lot in there.

01:05:28.000 Every time you give me an answer, we go all over the place.

01:05:31.000 So, can you tell me in a very direct way?

01:05:32.000 Yeah, very direct.

01:05:33.000 So, historically, both East and West, as far as I'm aware, and all the church fathers here, I've never seen this disputed.

01:05:33.000 Okay.

01:05:44.000 You have the discussion of what jurisdiction or the keys is.

01:05:48.000 Right.

01:05:49.000 This gets heavily debated in later medieval.

01:05:52.000 Catholic theology, where they debate exactly whether or not you can attend a schismatic mass, whether or not you can attend a bishop's church who has no jurisdiction.

01:06:04.000 And so the loss of keys means loss of jurisdiction.

01:06:06.000 This all gets debated in Roman Catholic canon law.

01:06:09.000 So what I'm saying is that there's not really a whole lot of debate as to what exactly having the office of the keys means.

01:06:17.000 And as far as I'm aware, it's always explained to be the power of jurisdiction over your area.

01:06:25.000 And the power to remit and retain sins.

01:06:27.000 And then, of course, the power to perform sacraments later will be added onto that throughout the book of Acts when the apostles and so forth go out and they do chrismations.

01:06:40.000 Now, so as far as I'm aware, that's always been what's conceived of as the meaning of keys.

01:06:49.000 It's usually described or referred to in terms of jurisdiction.

01:06:55.000 I never denied that Peter was given the keys. 0.58

01:06:58.000 No Orthodox person has ever denied that. 0.92

01:07:00.000 I didn't say you denied it. 0.86

01:07:03.000 I think you deny or maybe deflect from the significance of that.

01:07:08.000 No, see, what you're doing is that you're reading into this.

01:07:11.000 This is what every Roman Catholic apologist does, that he reads into this.

01:07:14.000 Interesting. 0.99

01:07:16.000 All of the Roman Catholic, like all of these. 0.95

01:07:19.000 Well, you were a Roman Catholic apologist, right?

01:07:22.000 Yeah, for 10 years.

01:07:23.000 Yeah.

01:07:24.000 Yeah, is this what?

01:07:26.000 I mean, what?

01:07:28.000 I just, I'm having trouble being convinced that Peter is, again, Peter is the dominant force in the New Testament.

01:07:35.000 I've been saying this over and over.

01:07:38.000 And I ask for this direct answer, and you tell me, oh, well, people kind of agree that it actually just means jurisdiction over your area, which I don't even believe that because there are so many examples here in the days of the early church where the bishop of Rome, where the church in Rome is deferred to when it shouldn't have been.

01:07:56.000 If what you're saying is true, it should have not been the case.

01:07:59.000 Like I said in the example with the schism in Corinth, where if it was just all the apostles have jurisdiction, why didn't they go to St. John, who was closer to Corinth than Rome was, than the Bishop of Rome, but they deferred to him anyway?

01:08:13.000 In the second century, Pope Victor I excommunicated a number of Eastern churches, and nobody even doubted his authority to do that.

01:08:20.000 Why was the Bishop of Rome able to threaten to excommunicate all these different Eastern churches unless they ceased their heresies?

01:08:27.000 And nobody even questioned his authority to do that.

01:08:31.000 There was, in the third century, the Pope who wrote to Patriarch Dionysius of Alexandria demanding an explanation of reports from other Egyptian bishops that Arianism was spreading in his church.

01:08:42.000 I mean, there are so many examples of this.

01:08:45.000 In the third century, in the second century, in the fourth century, where people defer to the Church of Rome, and you're trying to make it out like, oh, actually, people interpreted it this way, and really, it wasn't that.

01:08:58.000 I think the historical case is against you, and I also think you're ignoring the significance of the fact that Jesus Christ, he breathed on the other apostles, but he prayed for Peter's faith.

01:09:09.000 He gave the keys to Peter, he built the church on the rock that is Peter.

01:09:13.000 And you're trying to say, well, I'm not.

01:09:14.000 He prayed for Peter's faith because Peter denied him three times.

01:09:16.000 That's why he confirmed it three times. 0.96

01:09:18.000 Right.

01:09:19.000 Okay.

01:09:19.000 But he confirmed it three times for Peter.

01:09:21.000 And you are trying to say that that's.

01:09:23.000 But where do you get from this?

01:09:26.000 Yeah.

01:09:26.000 Three times.

01:09:27.000 Where do you get from this to infallibility and universal temporal supremacy?

01:09:27.000 Go ahead.

01:09:32.000 Like how none of these texts, nobody in their right mind could go from that to that.

01:09:39.000 And that's what became Roman Catholic dogma.

01:09:41.000 And I'm saying that shows that something is way off here.

01:09:44.000 This is not right.

01:09:45.000 And it's not just, let me go back to the church fathers and find this quote and that quote, this quote about how.

01:09:50.000 How important Peter was.

01:09:51.000 Nobody denies the importance of Peter.

01:09:53.000 What's denied is universal supremacy, and there's no argument for that.

01:09:59.000 If you go to the church fathers appealing to Rome, you can absolutely appeal to preeminent bishoprics when they're orthodox.

01:10:11.000 The same thing happens throughout the church.

01:10:13.000 You will have appeals to the Pope of Alexandria called Saint Athanasius.

01:10:19.000 He was the Pope.

01:10:20.000 That's a title of Big metropolitan bishoprics or sees.

01:10:26.000 The Pope in Alexandria, St. Athanasius, condemned powerfully all of these heresies.

01:10:33.000 The book of the Apocalypse is only in the Bible because St. Athanasius convinced people in Rome that it should be in the Bible.

01:10:41.000 But he convinced people in Rome.

01:10:44.000 But were it people outside of Rome who put it in the Bible or were it people who convinced the people in Rome to put it in the Bible?

01:10:52.000 You have it in this weird way.

01:10:54.000 You're not listening.

01:10:56.000 You're not listening.

01:10:56.000 So, So, there were a lot of churches that already used this.

01:11:01.000 Right.

01:11:01.000 And nobody denies that there is a premise, a kind of honor given to old Rome.

01:11:09.000 That's in all.

01:11:11.000 I don't think it's true.

01:11:13.000 Again, it's not.

01:11:14.000 If you're trying to compare.

01:11:16.000 Why would there be ecumenical councils?

01:11:18.000 All you have to do is appeal to them.

01:11:20.000 Because they use it as a device.

01:11:23.000 They use it.

01:11:24.000 It doesn't say that.

01:11:25.000 Why would you even do that?

01:11:27.000 Well, because that is one of the temporal ways that the Pope would have his decision on these matters be spread and be decided on.

01:11:35.000 An ecumenical council, you have to look at it in terms of it pragmatically, not as though the ecumenical council.

01:11:41.000 Well, you were arguing a minute ago that the best pragmatic way was to just listen to what Clement said to Corinth.

01:11:48.000 No, and I said that was an example.

01:11:50.000 No, no, no, no.

01:11:50.000 I said that was an example of when people deferred to the Pope.

01:11:53.000 But sometimes the ecumenical council is useful for the Pope to have bishops come and they discuss.

01:12:01.000 But in every case, in every ecumenical council, the Pope had already made the decision before the ecumenical council.

01:12:07.000 And after the ecumenical council, the Pope was the one who interpreted it and executed it.

01:12:12.000 But again, the existence of councils.

01:12:14.000 The popes did not call any councils.

01:12:16.000 No pope called a council.

01:12:17.000 Yeah, no, but they said, okay, you're getting into technicalities here.

01:12:20.000 But the point being.

01:12:22.000 Well, who called Vatican I?

01:12:24.000 Of course, it's not the Pope, it's the emperor, but it's the Pope that signs on to it.

01:12:30.000 Who called it?

01:12:33.000 Who called it?

01:12:35.000 The Pope.

01:12:37.000 Okay, but again, you're going back to.

01:12:40.000 No, a technicality.

01:12:42.000 This technicality shows universal temporal supremacy is not true.

01:12:46.000 No, wrong.

01:12:47.000 Because, again, you're trying to say that the mere existence of a council is proof that the council is what determines what is true and what is not true.

01:13:00.000 No, I'm saying that's not the argument.

01:13:03.000 The argument is that ecumenical councils show that the Vatican I view of the papacy is not true.

01:13:10.000 And that's why Ratzinger says that the first millennium of the church didn't have the papal monarchy view of Vatican I.

01:13:16.000 But then why is it that nobody questioned the authority of the Pope to intercede in every one of these affairs whenever there was some kind of a schism?

01:13:25.000 I just gave you examples of rejections.

01:13:27.000 No, you didn't give me examples of rejections.

01:13:30.000 You gave me examples where people persuaded the Pope to exercise their jurisdiction over the other.

01:13:35.000 No, I gave you an example of St. Athanasius convincing Rome to give this book to them.

01:13:40.000 Yeah, to put the book in the Bible.

01:13:42.000 But ultimately, who executed that?

01:13:45.000 Who needed to be persuaded?

01:13:47.000 Nick, there were already churches for hundreds of years that had been using different canons.

01:13:51.000 Okay.

01:13:52.000 So I'm not saying that because St. Athanasius convinced Rome to put the apocalypse in the canon, that that's why the whole world has the apocalypse.

01:14:02.000 There were already churches using the apocalypse.

01:14:04.000 Okay.

01:14:04.000 But I think it kind of.

01:14:05.000 What I'm saying?

01:14:06.000 You're not listening.

01:14:06.000 No, no, no.

01:14:07.000 What I'm saying is that there was a superior theologian named St. Athanasius, who was the Pope of Alexandria.

01:14:07.000 You're not listening.

01:14:14.000 The bishops of Alexandria are still called that.

01:14:17.000 And he showed the Roman bishop where he was incorrect because they were going to, in their jurisdiction, remove the apocalypse.

01:14:26.000 Okay, but again, you are, I think the language betrays the fact that the bishop in Alexandria was not the executor of who put what in the Bible.

01:14:34.000 He had to persuade.

01:14:35.000 It's a very different thing.

01:14:36.000 No, no, no.

01:14:37.000 It's a very different thing.

01:14:38.000 Hey, I'll let you finish.

01:14:39.000 It's a very different thing to say.

01:14:42.000 It's a very different thing to say that people came to the bishop of Rome.

01:14:46.000 In many instances, whether it was a schism in Corinth, whether it was a bishop who was not vacating the episcopal residence, whether it was in the instance where, who was it?

01:15:00.000 Let me pull it up here.

01:15:02.000 In one instance where two Eastern councils evicted somebody and the Pope reestablished it.

01:15:07.000 I mean, there are so many instances where the churches at the time, in the early days of the church, deferred to the ruling of Rome, deferred to Rome giving authority, having jurisdiction, than to say that.

01:15:20.000 Somebody in Alexandria persuaded a bishop in Rome to put something in the Bible.

01:15:24.000 Those are very different things.

01:15:26.000 You're not listening.

01:15:27.000 I think I am.

01:15:28.000 No, you're not.

01:15:29.000 I've already explained to you that I'm not saying that there wasn't in the West, in old Rome, honor.

01:15:38.000 No, no, no.

01:15:39.000 But honor is a very different thing than deference.

01:15:43.000 Honor is a very different thing than universal temporal supremacy.

01:15:47.000 Right.

01:15:47.000 Okay.

01:15:48.000 But what are you executing?

01:15:49.000 Are you executing honor?

01:15:51.000 Are you executing honor when people defer to your bishop, to the successor of Peter, over a living apostle?

01:15:58.000 Is that honor or is that primacy?

01:16:00.000 Nick, our bishops are successors of Peter.

01:16:02.000 He established the church in Antioch.

01:16:04.000 Everyone knows this.

01:16:06.000 Okay, yeah, but then he established the church in Rome.

01:16:10.000 Why did they go to Rome and not Antioch?

01:16:13.000 They did go to Antioch.

01:16:14.000 So, what I'm trying to explain to you is that, listen, the way that the early church functioned was that it had a Pentarchy, it had where there were heretics in the Pentarchy, correct?

01:16:25.000 Absolutely.

01:16:26.000 And guess what?

01:16:27.000 Then, how can that function? 0.99

01:16:29.000 How can that be the church over which the gates of hell cannot prevail if you have heretics in the Pentarchy? 0.51

01:16:37.000 That is a preposterous argument because even your, because our view of the church is not that you have to follow these five bishoprics.

01:16:46.000 In fact, at one point, the Arian crisis, there were only a handful of bishops that were still Orthodox.

01:16:52.000 So, Athanasius, for example.

01:16:54.000 So, listen, any one of these or all five of those patriarchates could fall into heresy.

01:17:01.000 And we know this because throughout the history of the church, every one of them at some point did.

01:17:07.000 And even Rome was accused of heresy at the sixth council.

01:17:11.000 And that's an ecumenical council.

01:17:13.000 Accused.

01:17:14.000 But were they ever heretics?

01:17:16.000 It doesn't matter because the mind of the church.

01:17:19.000 It still matters.

01:17:20.000 Listen, the mind of the church at that ecumenical council was not that this guy could never fail.

01:17:30.000 But again, the church is a very different thing being accused of a heresy than committing a heresy.

01:17:36.000 I already said that.

01:17:40.000 Pentarchy, if you are appealing, especially, dude, you don't understand.

01:17:45.000 I'm not appealing to Pentarchy.

01:17:49.000 I'm explaining a fact of how the early church operated.

01:17:52.000 I'm not, it did not operate in this way.

01:17:56.000 People did not appeal to these different churches the way that they did with Rome.

01:17:59.000 They deferred to Rome.

01:18:00.000 Have you read the apostolic canons?

01:18:02.000 Everybody in their jurisdiction appeals to their bishop.

01:18:05.000 That's no, but in that's a no brainer when it comes to a schism, when it comes to a heresy, when it comes to somebody needs to be evicted, when it comes to somebody who's been wrongly evicted.

01:18:16.000 In each of these cases, you simply just.

01:18:20.000 This happened constantly.

01:18:22.000 You think that the whole world. 1.00

01:18:23.000 This is so stupid. 1.00

01:18:24.000 You think that the whole world literally appealed to Rome in every case? 1.00

01:18:28.000 Well, no, I think in the case of Clements, they appealed to the Bishop of Rome.

01:18:32.000 They didn't appeal to him.

01:18:33.000 He voted for Rome.

01:18:34.000 Okay, but why did they not go to a living apostle, to John the Apostle himself?

01:18:42.000 Okay, first of all.

01:18:43.000 Why did they go to Rome?

01:18:45.000 This is a terrible argument.

01:18:46.000 First of all, we don't know exactly the date of John's death.

01:18:48.000 I mean, okay, well, this is a terrible argument.

01:18:52.000 Disprove it.

01:18:53.000 John was on the island of Patmos.

01:18:55.000 Do you even know what you're talking about?

01:18:57.000 Yeah, which at the time in 96 AD, he was closer to Corinth than was the bishop of.

01:19:04.000 He was exiled to.

01:19:05.000 Hey, look.

01:19:07.000 Even if it was, okay, even if it's not the apostle John, why didn't they go to the patriarch of Alexandria then?

01:19:13.000 If it was the Pentarch system, why didn't they go to the patriarch of Alexandria?

01:19:18.000 Nick, everybody admits that there's a Pentarchy.

01:19:22.000 I'm not saying, I already said in the first hour, that's not a Roman Catholic version in Orthodoxy.

01:19:27.000 Like, we don't appeal to these five people.

01:19:30.000 Okay.

01:19:31.000 I'm just saying.

01:19:32.000 But then why was it Rome?

01:19:33.000 Why was it Rome and not Alexander?

01:19:35.000 Listen to me.

01:19:37.000 Listen to me.

01:19:38.000 I've been listening.

01:19:39.000 Okay.

01:19:40.000 Anybody in the church, I already explained this with St. Maximus the Confessor, could appeal to different sees.

01:19:45.000 Okay.

01:19:46.000 So let's say you were in an Arian area in St. Athanasius's time.

01:19:54.000 Okay.

01:19:56.000 If your bishop was Arian, you might appeal to either Rome because you knew that Rome was Orthodox, not just because it was Rome, but you knew it was Orthodox and it also had Rome as the honor of old Rome, or you might appeal to Alexandria to St. Athanasius because you knew that those two places did not teach Arianism.

01:20:20.000 So the appeal is not based on juridical authority, the appeal is based on correct doctrine.

01:20:27.000 You know that they're not Arian. 1.00

01:20:29.000 All I'm saying is. 1.00

01:20:30.000 It was arbitrary.

01:20:31.000 You're saying it's because they were.

01:20:33.000 I just said it was based on correct doctrine.

01:20:35.000 That's not arbitrary.

01:20:36.000 Well, but I mean, in terms of which church that was correct on doctrine, it's.

01:20:41.000 What you would.

01:20:42.000 Listen.

01:20:44.000 It's arbitrary that they chose Rome, right?

01:20:46.000 No.

01:20:47.000 Why did they choose Rome?

01:20:47.000 Listen to that.

01:20:49.000 But wait, wait. 0.97

01:20:50.000 If there are multiple churches that are not Aryan, why did they go to Rome? 0.98

01:20:54.000 Why did they. 0.95

01:20:55.000 It was an arbitrary choice.

01:21:00.000 Once they figured out, okay, Rome is correct on doctrine, and let's say.

01:21:03.000 This other church is correct on doctrine, that they chose Rome over that other church that was correct on doctrine.

01:21:09.000 You're saying, well, they went to Rome, you know, and any other church which is correct on doctrine because it's correct.

01:21:14.000 But why did they?

01:21:15.000 You're saying after you've decided it's correct, then why Rome?

01:21:19.000 Then it's just an arbitrary, you know, well, they're all correct.

01:21:23.000 When you read the ones are correct, let's pick that one.

01:21:25.000 No, I didn't say it was arbitrary.

01:21:26.000 When I just.

01:21:27.000 Then why Rome?

01:21:29.000 Because of honor.

01:21:30.000 Will you let me talk?

01:21:32.000 Okay, go ahead.

01:21:33.000 The Pentarchy system is not arbitrary, it arose precisely because.

01:21:40.000 I'm trying to explain it to you what the Pentarchy system is.

01:21:43.000 Okay.

01:21:44.000 It arose in the first four centuries because of prominent cities.

01:21:48.000 And there might be different reasons why those cities were prominent.

01:21:51.000 So, Alexandria at this time was prominent because of it being Egypt, because of it having a large library, rumors of that large library, right?

01:22:01.000 It was a big metropolitan area.

01:22:04.000 And so, these kinds of churches would gain a lot of power, they would gain a lot of status over time.

01:22:09.000 And that's why, for example, when Constantinople was built, It became New Rome.

01:22:15.000 Now, I'm not saying that the patriarchal Constantinople is our version of a pope.

01:22:20.000 I'm not saying that the Pentarchy system is five little popes.

01:22:23.000 I'm not saying that.

01:22:24.000 All I'm telling you is an observation of how the early church arose.

01:22:28.000 And this is not debated.

01:22:31.000 So when there's a large heresy that spreads, and this happens many times, and it could spread in the East or the West, if you were in an area where you didn't have access to a correct believing bishop, you would probably appeal to any places.

01:22:47.000 That were prominent and that had a lot of prestige and that had a reputation for orthodoxy, and that would be Old Rome, it might be Alexandria, it might be Antioch, it might be any of these places.

01:23:00.000 And that's what you see in the councils.

01:23:02.000 The councils will list Old Rome, New Rome, and they will give new titles to people.

01:23:08.000 This is how, listen, this is how the Pentarchy system developed.

01:23:11.000 It's from the ecumenical councils.

01:23:12.000 They give titles, they gave Alexandria the title of Pope because it achieved a level of honor.

01:23:20.000 Nobody That any of those places had the ability to tell the entire church what they had to do.

01:23:28.000 And the fact, I've given you probably 20 examples that shows that that's the case.

01:23:32.000 So, what you've done is give me a bunch of examples where people appealed to an Orthodox Pope when they were persecuted by heretics.

01:23:40.000 And I've already admitted that in the first hour. 0.67

01:23:43.000 No, not people, churches.

01:23:45.000 And here's an example.

01:23:48.000 Let me ask you about this example and tell me what you think about this.

01:23:52.000 I don't know if you're familiar with this one, but in the third century, Paul of Samosata, a bishop of Antioch, he rejected the personhood of the Logos.

01:24:03.000 That was condemned by three synods that consisted of the bishops of Syria, Palestine, and Asia Minor.

01:24:13.000 And who was named as a replacement for Paul after he stopped, after he refused to stop preaching this heresy?

01:24:20.000 He was evicted.

01:24:22.000 He was excommunicated, but he refused to vacate the episcopal residence.

01:24:27.000 Dominus was named as his replacement, but of course, Paul, he didn't leave his residence.

01:24:32.000 Now, the emperor could have easily installed Dominus if what you're saying is true about the Pentarchy, and oh, well, you know, a church that is not false could have intervened in this case instead of the bishop of Syria, instead of the bishop of Palestine, instead of the bishop of Asia Minor, all three together, or the emperor.

01:24:51.000 Who did they appeal to?

01:24:52.000 Who did the emperor go to to ask who should be the next patriarch?

01:24:57.000 They went to the Bishop of Rome, and the Bishop of Rome installed Dominus as the patriarch.

01:25:02.000 So, why is it then if, you know, actually the emperor has the authority or actually every pope that is preaching good doctrine are appealed to in the age of the early church?

01:25:11.000 Why was it in this instance that they went to Rome?

01:25:14.000 Well, this just illustrates a very basic misunderstanding of Orthodox theology.

01:25:19.000 No emperor has authority in the church, and no emperor.

01:25:22.000 Makes the decision to remove bishops.

01:25:24.000 Now, many emperors persecuted the church and even like iconoclast emperors persecuted Christians, but they were later defeated and Orthodoxy triumphed in 787 at the Seventh Council, for example.

01:25:36.000 So, no emperor has the say so in the spiritual jurisdiction.

01:25:40.000 We agree that there is a kind of a temporal and a spiritual realms.

01:25:44.000 They're not strictly divided.

01:25:45.000 There's not two different bodies of Christ like medieval Roman Catholic theologians would say.

01:25:49.000 There's only one body of Christ.

01:25:51.000 Nice snipe there, but God.

01:25:53.000 There's only one body of Christ.

01:25:55.000 And so In other words, a decentralized system that will appeal to patriarchates that had primacy is something that we still see today in Orthodoxy.

01:26:09.000 So, for example, if somebody in Russia You're not answering the question.

01:26:12.000 I am answering the question.

01:26:13.000 I'm saying that this is a praxis that has always existed and still exists in Orthodoxy. 0.56

01:26:18.000 Yeah, they always defer to Rome, then, right?

01:26:20.000 Is that something that's demonstrated in this example?

01:26:24.000 Did the Sixth Council defer to Rome when they condemned the Pope?

01:26:27.000 No, but we're not talking about this specific thing.

01:26:29.000 You said they always defer to Rome.

01:26:30.000 They don't always defer to Rome.

01:26:32.000 No, no, no.

01:26:33.000 In this example, why did the bishop of Syria, why did none of these people, why were they not able to do it, but they had to go to Rome?

01:26:43.000 Okay, I said a minute ago, during the Arian crisis, a large portion of the empire. 0.67

01:26:49.000 Okay, but Syria and Palestine and Asia Minor all recognized that this was a heresy. 0.94

01:26:55.000 They were the ones that excommunicated.

01:26:58.000 Paul Samosata.

01:26:59.000 So, why did they not replace him?

01:27:02.000 Why did they not have all three of them?

01:27:05.000 They were the ones that excommunicated the guy.

01:27:06.000 Why were they not the ones to replace him?

01:27:08.000 Why were they not the ones to go in there?

01:27:10.000 If you're saying, oh, well, it's any church, why did they have to go to Rome to name the successor and to install him?

01:27:15.000 Because I already told you that nobody denies the place of honor.

01:27:20.000 The place of honor.

01:27:22.000 That's a pretty stretch, Jay.

01:27:25.000 The place of honor is.

01:27:28.000 That's the wording of the councils for the.

01:27:30.000 For the old room.

01:27:31.000 No, but to say that that's simply a place of honor instead of jurisdiction, I think is a pretty generous interpretation of honor.

01:27:40.000 I mean, that's jurisdiction.

01:27:41.000 There's deference.

01:27:43.000 That's why I can explain things like the council condemning the Pope, and you can't.

01:27:48.000 Well, I'm not familiar with that particular example, but in this example, you cannot explain.

01:27:55.000 That sounds very nice.

01:27:56.000 But in this particular example, I fail to see how this is merely.

01:28:01.000 You seem to chalk everything up here where people defer to Rome, where churches go out of their way to send their rulings on this to Rome, where they go out of their way to clear things with Rome, where Rome intervenes in the schisms.

01:28:14.000 Where Jesus Christ gives his keys to Peter, he builds the church on Peter, and in every instance it's, oh, well, that's a place of honor.

01:28:22.000 Oh, well, that actually has a lot less significance.

01:28:26.000 It seems to just be, it's apologetics, it's a rationalization, it's a denial.

01:28:33.000 The wording that I use to you when I talk about the honor of old Rome, this is the wording of the council.

01:28:42.000 So when Nicaea, And then later, when Ephesus, when Constantinople, and Constantinople too, when they talk about these bishoprics, that's their language.

01:28:55.000 So it's not me deferring, it's not me making up, it's not me talking about it.

01:28:58.000 No, but you're saying that when Rome does this, they are acting in their capacity as in a place of honor instead of in their place as having jurisdiction.

01:29:09.000 And I'm saying, you know, to say that's the place of honor, I think that's jurisdiction.

01:29:13.000 I think you're chalking that up to, you know, because Rome does have a place of honor, but.

01:29:18.000 For the Catholics, they also have jurisdiction.

01:29:20.000 And you're saying, well, in each of these cases, this is merely the capacity of Rome as having honor and not having jurisdiction, right?

01:29:28.000 Right.

01:29:29.000 Now, and again, I don't accept that, but if that's all that Roman Catholicism said, there might have never been a schism.

01:29:36.000 But what happened is that Rome didn't stop at just saying, well, I can intervene and help in a conflict that's 2,000 miles away.

01:29:45.000 It extended into a vast claim of universal.

01:29:49.000 The entire universe that the pope has total authority over all temporal and spiritual matters, there's no way to get from what Peter says to what Jesus says to Peter to the pope being able to like have a giant Rothschild run bank.

01:30:05.000 I mean, that's just how do we get from that to that?

01:30:09.000 How do we get from where from from that to the Rothschild's bank thing?

01:30:13.000 I think that's that's kind of a little bit of a distraction there.

01:30:18.000 I mean, you're kind of getting away again from the point where.

01:30:20.000 No, this is not theoretical.

01:30:22.000 This is what happens in history.

01:30:24.000 This is a real historical church.

01:30:26.000 Yeah, no, I think we could just as easily say that if Constantinople had the same honor, why did they bow to pressure from the Ottoman Turks and withdraw from the Council of Florence?

01:30:37.000 I mean, we can throw a lot of things in there, I think.

01:30:41.000 But we have no problem saying that any of those Pentarchs, any of those patriarchs, could fall into heresy.

01:30:47.000 And in fact, I mean, Bartholomew seems to be heretical, he could easily be a heretic. 0.94

01:30:53.000 Don't you think, though, that that seems pretty?

01:30:55.000 I mean, that if the highest degree of authority in the church is just the patriarch, just the highest degree of authority is, you know, maybe the first among equals, which, you know, if there wasn't a schism, would be Rome.

01:31:08.000 Don't you think that's kind of weak?

01:31:09.000 If they can all fall into heresy, don't you think that's kind of a weak argument that Jesus Christ would leave his church?

01:31:15.000 And Jesus Christ specifically said that his church would never be taken over by the gates of hell, and yet you Say that, oh, well, bishops are subject to heresy, and I guess you think that Rome is subject to heresy.

01:31:27.000 How can that be?

01:31:29.000 How can the gates of hell never triumph over the church if the highest degree of authority has been triumphed over several times in many cases?

01:31:36.000 This is a mistaken presupposition about how to hold together the body of the church, and that it must require a single imperial papal monarchy as the only means by which the church would hang together.

01:31:50.000 And I'm saying, first of all, the fact that Orthodoxy still exists, teaching the exact same thing that we've always taught everything that St. Basil says, we say, everything that St. John Damascus says, we still say.

01:32:01.000 And this is a thousand years of not having communion with Rome.

01:32:05.000 The fact that we still exist and we are still spreading, we are.

01:32:08.000 Converting people shows that we don't need what you're talking about to continue to exist.

01:32:12.000 Oh, you know that's flimsy.

01:32:14.000 You know that's flimsy.

01:32:16.000 No, it's not because we're talking about history.

01:32:19.000 Well, no.

01:32:19.000 And here's why it's flimsy because you're saying, oh, well, you know, our church isn't doing just fine.

01:32:25.000 I mean, that's not really the arbiter of true or not.

01:32:28.000 If there's a systemic problem that the highest.

01:32:31.000 This is a constant argument that Roman Catholics make that there's no way to continue with the unity of the church without the bishop.

01:32:38.000 Of Rome.

01:32:39.000 And I'm saying there's no way that you could know that what you're saying is the truth if you don't have an infallibility, if you don't have a pope.

01:32:48.000 If they could fall into heresy, who's to say that your patriarchs are not heretical? 0.58

01:32:53.000 Who's to say that they will never not become all heretical?

01:32:56.000 Right. 0.99

01:32:56.000 This is a basic epistemological misunderstanding that Roman Catholics have where they move the problem back a step. 0.99

01:33:04.000 Charming. 0.93

01:33:05.000 Nick.

01:33:05.000 So within Roman Catholicism, there are within what is claimed to be the SSPX, there's the FSSP.

01:33:05.000 Okay, Nick.

01:33:11.000 There are liberals like Hans Kuhn.

01:33:14.000 There are the neoconservatives of Vatican II.

01:33:16.000 There's a set of accountists.

01:33:18.000 So, all of these people claim that they have real Catholicism.

01:33:24.000 And every one of them will say, We read the papal decrees correctly.

01:33:28.000 So, all you've done is move the problem back a step by saying that we have the Pope and that's how we know for sure.

01:33:34.000 How do you, as an individual, know for sure that you are interpreting the Pope's decrees correctly?

01:33:39.000 Because we know from the priest.

01:33:42.000 We know from the priest and the bishops and the cardinals, and they all proceed from the Pope.

01:33:47.000 They all proceed from the Pope's dogma is infallible, and the bishops and the cardinals are tasked with carrying it out.

01:33:54.000 I mean, if you get down to it outside of the what?

01:33:58.000 Why is this funny?

01:33:59.000 That's circular.

01:34:01.000 It's not circular.

01:34:01.000 I'm asking you how you know.

01:34:03.000 You said you know from a fallible guy who's a priest because he got it from the Pope who's infallible.

01:34:08.000 And the Pope.

01:34:08.000 Yeah, sure.

01:34:09.000 The chain is a circular nonsense.

01:34:11.000 But I can read what the Pope has said.

01:34:14.000 I can't believe it.

01:34:15.000 So now it's you as an individual reading, and see, that's my argument.

01:34:19.000 It's funny how you have to.

01:34:20.000 I can know truth directly.

01:34:22.000 You have to become a positivist, essentially, and you have to reject, like, well, technically, we don't really know anything.

01:34:29.000 Do you see the kind of.

01:34:32.000 I mean, I argue constantly for absolute objective truth.

01:34:37.000 So that you would say that I think shows a complete misunderstanding.

01:34:40.000 But look at what you have to do, though.

01:34:42.000 You have to say, well, how do we really know anything?

01:34:45.000 I mean, you reading the dogma.

01:34:48.000 This degree of separation between the Pope who is infallible saying it and you reading it, well, you could interpret the infallible dogma any way you want and the way it's supposed to be interpreted.

01:34:58.000 It's, I don't know.

01:35:00.000 I just think it's kind of a disingenuous tactic.

01:35:04.000 That's all.

01:35:04.000 I mean, I believe in objective truth.

01:35:05.000 That seems a little disingenuous.

01:35:07.000 Okay.

01:35:08.000 But objective truth is different from saying that an argument for the existence of objective truth is different from basic empiricism.

01:35:17.000 So, Roman Catholic Thomistic theology is.

01:35:21.000 Kind of naive empiricism where they say that, well, you just read the papal document and if you're honest, you'll come away with what's true.

01:35:29.000 But I mean, this is not what happens in praxis.

01:35:32.000 There's all of these different groups who read the papal documents, and there's a lot of disagreement in Roman Catholicism.

01:35:38.000 There's disagreement in Orthodoxy.

01:35:39.000 I'm not denying there's disagreement, but to think that what I'm saying means that there's no absolute truth is a bit crazy.

01:35:46.000 Well, I mean, it's also kind of just yeah, go ahead.

01:35:50.000 We believe that individuals who participate in Christ, we have participation in the logos.

01:35:58.000 So we have a direct perception of the things.

01:36:01.000 Of God in the world, of the truths of God.

01:36:03.000 We don't have to go through a bunch of mediators.

01:36:07.000 That doesn't mean that there's no church.

01:36:09.000 The fact that Christ became incarnate shows us the need for the church.

01:36:12.000 But Roman Catholicism's basic empirical answer to how to solve all the problems by saying that, well, we just go with what that guy says over there.

01:36:20.000 That just moves the problem back a step because the question is not can we have an empirical juridical office over here that tells everybody what to do?

01:36:28.000 You're asking a question of how do we know what's true?

01:36:31.000 And I'm saying that you can never escape.

01:36:33.000 The individual knowing what's true. 0.99

01:36:35.000 Otherwise, you wouldn't be a Roman Catholic.

01:36:37.000 How do people convert to Roman Catholicism if they don't study and learn these things on their own individually, led by the Spirit, obviously?

01:36:43.000 And if they do, then you already admit you don't have to have a single Bishop of Rome.

01:36:49.000 I like how you say that guy over there said it.

01:36:52.000 You know, earlier, earlier when we started, you said, Oh, how could that guy say, Oh, some guy was just the president of the Secretary of State.

01:36:59.000 And now you're saying, Oh, because that guy over there said it, you know, the Bishop of Rome, the successor to St. Peter.

01:37:05.000 That's not an arbitrary, this is not.

01:37:07.000 A trivial, you know, when he puts out his father.

01:37:11.000 The Bishop of Antioch is the successor to Peter.

01:37:13.000 And this is more disingenuousness.

01:37:16.000 This is not an arbitrary thing that the Bishop of Rome is saying something.

01:37:20.000 And again, it is.

01:37:22.000 And how long have we been at this here?

01:37:23.000 We've been at this for about an hour going in circles where you say, well, you know, these examples don't really count.

01:37:30.000 And well, pounding on the rock and him getting the.

01:37:32.000 I've never said that.

01:37:34.000 I've given you a reply to everything you said.

01:37:36.000 No, man, it doesn't really count.

01:37:37.000 And well, you know, look at this.

01:37:39.000 And again, you bring it over, you say, oh, well, Catholics don't actually have absolute truth.

01:37:44.000 They can't really trust the Pope because, well, there's SSPX and there are other people that break away.

01:37:49.000 There's modernists and traditionalists.

01:37:51.000 You say you're infallible.

01:37:55.000 How do you know that you read the paper documents?

01:37:57.000 I said the Pope is infallible.

01:38:00.000 And to compare SSPX with the autonomous different churches of Orthodoxy on a systemic level, Is disingenuous because what you hold in the Orthodox Church is that, well, you know, one guy, the Russian Orthodox Church and the Greek Orthodox Church, they are autonomous and none of them have, neither of them are infallible.

01:38:23.000 If the bishop in Rome says something is true and the bishop in Greece disagrees, well, you know, that'll just have to stand, I guess, into an ecumenical council and then, you know, the council will decide basically by a majority and then that'll be the case.

01:38:36.000 But that's a far cry saying that nobody has authority.

01:38:40.000 Is a far cry from saying that somebody has authority, but it can be misinterpreted, or a priest could misinterpret. 0.88

01:38:47.000 There was a bishop in Germany just this week who said, Oh, actually, priests can marry homosexuals.

01:38:54.000 And everybody in the Catholic Church said, No, you're wrong.

01:38:58.000 We do not have the autonomy to do that kind of a thing.

01:39:01.000 Our authority comes from Rome.

01:39:03.000 And so that you would try and make that argument, I think just highlights how disingenuous you have to be to compare and contrast.

01:39:11.000 Oh, well, SSPX doesn't recognize the.

01:39:13.000 Divine authority of the Pope, and that's the same as nobody having divine authority.

01:39:18.000 Those are very different things.

01:39:19.000 Can't you acknowledge that?

01:39:21.000 I never said nobody has divine authority.

01:39:22.000 Bishops have divine authority, councils have divine authority, the Bible has divine authority.

01:39:27.000 Interesting.

01:39:28.000 Well, I mean, how do you know then?

01:39:29.000 How do you know if who's interpreting one correct or if somebody else is interpreting it correct?

01:39:35.000 You're not understanding the epistemological argument.

01:39:38.000 It's very simple.

01:39:39.000 I'm saying that you have two options here.

01:39:39.000 Okay.

01:39:42.000 We can either say there's an empirical, external thing that we can appeal to and interpret, and maybe we get it right, maybe we don't, or we have a direct connection to what's true.

01:39:53.000 And every Roman Catholic apologist, as you've done throughout this debate, exemplifies this constant circularity of how they know what's true.

01:40:00.000 At first, it was appealing to the Bible.

01:40:02.000 For the Petrine text, that's how you know Peter is true.

01:40:05.000 Now it's the only way that we know absolute truth is what Peter says.

01:40:09.000 So, you in this debate have exemplified that dialectic, that constant circularity that I've been pointing out the whole time.

01:40:16.000 You have to go outside for truth.

01:40:17.000 You have to go outside for truth.

01:40:19.000 At a certain point, I mean, do you think that specifically in terms of God and in affairs where the human intellect is not even capable of fully understanding, do you think it can rely on?

01:40:33.000 On this alone, that we, well, maybe this patriarch gets it right, or maybe the ecumenical council gets it right.

01:40:40.000 I mean, we say at a certain point that the buck has to stop somewhere.

01:40:44.000 I don't think that happens in Orthodoxy. 0.94

01:40:45.000 Right.

01:40:46.000 All throughout this debate, what we've seen is on your part a doubt of the kind of church that I'm talking about.

01:40:54.000 I think that's fair.

01:40:55.000 And that results, that rests on a misunderstanding of what we say about man, man's anthropology, God, and what the church is.

01:41:04.000 So for us, the church is the body, the icon of Christ.

01:41:08.000 It has the fullness, everything necessary in the local church.

01:41:12.000 There's nothing that's needed outside of it because if it didn't have it in the local church, then what is the point of going to the Eucharist and being a part of the body of Christ in the local church if it's lacking?

01:41:23.000 Jesus didn't set up a church to be universal that's lacking.

01:41:27.000 So we believe that man has a body, a soul, and a noose that is a faculty by which God made him.

01:41:33.000 Paul talks about body, soul, and spirit, this tripartite view that God gave us this faculty for knowing him.

01:41:41.000 The way that we come to know him is not just like a Platonic thing where I sit and I meditate or something like that.

01:41:47.000 You have to be joined to the body of the church.

01:41:49.000 Absolutely.

01:41:50.000 So there is a juridical aspect to the church, but there's not a juridical imperial aspect to the church.

01:41:57.000 That's what we reject, and that's what's nowhere in the Bible.

01:42:00.000 And that's why it's had to be propped up by papal decretals and forgeries like that to lead to Unum Sanctum and the Pope creating new emperors and so forth.

01:42:10.000 Well, I have to.

01:42:11.000 So, listen, one last point on that.

01:42:14.000 This is very, very, very crucial.

01:42:17.000 So, as a Roman Catholic, what happens in the view of the world that you have is that you don't have a direct interaction and confrontation with Christ.

01:42:28.000 And the way that you answered my questions shows that that presupposition is in your worldview because you don't see how what I'm saying could allow for a church to hold together.

01:42:40.000 Jesus, the Logos, is preeminent and he is.

01:42:45.000 Is imminent in everything through his logo.

01:42:48.000 That means that he is in him, we live and move and have our being, as Paul says.

01:42:53.000 We don't need a human power source like super high priest to keep the church together because Christ has the power to keep the church together.

01:43:05.000 It's that simple.

01:43:07.000 And how do we know what's true?

01:43:09.000 The only way to answer that question is by a direct contact with Christ.

01:43:12.000 That's what Paul says.

01:43:13.000 Paul says in 2 Corinthians that.

01:43:16.000 We see Christ face to face.

01:43:18.000 We have a direct experience with God.

01:43:20.000 It comes through the church, absolutely.

01:43:22.000 But it's not a bunch of created forms and symbols that's postponed to the beatific vision.

01:43:27.000 It sounds a lot like Protestantism.

01:43:30.000 It's striking.

01:43:31.000 I had a very similar discussion with a Protestant pretty recently where they said, Why do you need the church?

01:43:36.000 Why do you need to go through the church?

01:43:38.000 Why do you need to go through a priest to have a relationship with God?

01:43:41.000 Why do you need to go to church at all to have a relationship with God?

01:43:44.000 I think, talk about slippery slopes.

01:43:46.000 That sounds like, you know, why do we need a super bishop?

01:43:50.000 Why do we need a super priest?

01:43:52.000 It's because.

01:43:53.000 I think that kind of reliance, kind of in the decentralized way that the Orthodox is, that reliance on this quote unquote personal relationship.

01:44:03.000 I think Catholics do believe in a personal relationship with Christ, but we understand that it's mediated by a clergy, by somebody with authority.

01:44:11.000 I think for somebody to define what is in the faith and what is not in the faith, you have to have authority.

01:44:16.000 I mean, who's to say, again, who's to say that if.

01:44:19.000 I never denied authority.

01:44:21.000 I mean, we hold the councils to be authoritative.

01:44:24.000 Well, yeah, and the councils are determined by bishops who you yourself said can be heretical. 0.60

01:44:29.000 What if a bunch of heretical bishops get together, form a council, and they make a decision?

01:44:33.000 Who's to say that's wrong? 1.00

01:44:34.000 Who's to say that's right?

01:44:36.000 That's the reason.

01:44:36.000 They're simply the Robert Council of Ephesus already happened.

01:44:41.000 And because the faithful know the faith, they knew to reject it.

01:44:45.000 Ah, that's, see, again, I think that's pretty loose, pretty shaky stuff.

01:44:50.000 But that's an obvious question.

01:44:52.000 Do you not know about the Robert Council of Ephesus?

01:44:54.000 That's not a question.

01:44:55.000 I'm making that up.

01:44:56.000 I have to ask you.

01:44:57.000 I'm not saying you're making that up.

01:44:59.000 I just don't know if that logic is pretty sound in terms of you keep saying juridical, but I don't know if that's totally sound that we can rely on that.

01:45:07.000 But I have to ask you before we proceed, because this is an important question.

01:45:14.000 Throughout this debate, you say things like Catholics like to do this, Catholics generally do this, Catholics have that.

01:45:21.000 You speak with sort of this derision for Catholics, or I don't know if it's a condescension or something, but I mean, you said yourself that you were a Catholic for 10 years.

01:45:30.000 You were a Catholic and then you were Orthodox, and then I guess you were Catholic after that.

01:45:35.000 You renounced your Orthodoxy.

01:45:37.000 And so, how can you be so, I guess, condescending?

01:45:40.000 How can you be so derisive towards Catholics if you yourself were not only a Catholic once, but also were an Orthodox and then came back to Catholicism?

01:45:48.000 I mean, what happened after that?

01:45:49.000 What made you reject Orthodoxy and then come back to Catholicism, then go back and then acquire this?

01:45:55.000 I consider you as Orthodox, as pretty close to the Catholic Church. 0.73

01:45:59.000 And we have this alliance, I think, in a lot of ways, as traditionalists against the. 0.55

01:46:03.000 You know, the modernists and Protestants, most definitely.

01:46:06.000 But you seem to have this very, I don't know, kind of this hostility.

01:46:10.000 Maybe I'm misreading it, but I mean, where does this come from?

01:46:13.000 Why did you go from Orthodox to Catholic and back again?

01:46:16.000 And then why the derision?

01:46:19.000 Okay.

01:46:19.000 Well, that's a nice little trick there to try to throw some shade.

01:46:23.000 There it is.

01:46:24.000 There it is.

01:46:25.000 Background.

01:46:26.000 But I'll be glad to address that.

01:46:27.000 So, first of all, it's no shade.

01:46:28.000 It's no shade.

01:46:29.000 I'm just wondering.

01:46:30.000 Well, I mean, can we also ask like every opinion you've had?

01:46:34.000 I mean, have you had any changes of mind or did you get it all figured out by age 19?

01:46:38.000 Wow.

01:46:40.000 There it is again.

01:46:42.000 You're a little bit defensive there, don't you think?

01:46:43.000 I'm asking a pretty sincere question. 0.94

01:46:45.000 I don't understand how somebody goes from Catholic to Orthodox and then back.

01:46:49.000 I'm not asking that with any ill intent.

01:46:51.000 I mean, I don't have a problem addressing my past or background or anything like that.

01:46:55.000 I talk about it frequently in interviews.

01:46:58.000 But I don't think it's relevant to a debate on the objective issues, but I'll be glad to talk about it.

01:47:05.000 I'll be glad to talk about it.

01:47:06.000 Okay, let's hear.

01:47:07.000 So, the first point I would say is yes, 10 years ago, when I was a Roman Catholic and I was interested in a monastic life and things like that, that's when I first got into Orthodoxy.

01:47:19.000 And I had a lot of debates with Orthodox guys.

01:47:21.000 I went to Roman Catholic apologists and had debates.

01:47:23.000 I went to Dominicans and had debates.

01:47:25.000 I actually dialogued with the Vatican's appointee for Eastern affairs, who's actually the guy in charge of Eastern theology and liturgy.

01:47:33.000 We had dialogue.

01:47:34.000 I dialogued with Jim Lacaudus, a lot of famous Roman Catholic apologists.

01:47:37.000 So, I spent about two Years from about 2007, 8, and 9, 10, where I was kind of really having a hard time with the Uniate position, with the Roman Catholic position.

01:47:50.000 I was very, very dedicated to Thomism.

01:47:53.000 And I didn't want to give up that system of Thomism.

01:47:57.000 But I was also confronted with a lot of people who were former Thomists and people who were very intellectual and very well studied in Orthodoxy.

01:48:05.000 So, yes, I had absolutely had a crisis period and I went back and forth for a long time.

01:48:10.000 And so basically, I took a little time and stepped back.

01:48:12.000 I focused on I focused on my grad work and then came back to the theological issues, got involved in the church again.

01:48:23.000 And that was probably, I don't know, four years ago.

01:48:26.000 So it took me about, I would say, a period of about 10 years to really chew on this and to really work through it for me. 0.88

01:48:35.000 So the derision, I think, is a response to a lot of the smack talking that a lot of Catholics will do, but they won't ever come on and debate. 0.80

01:48:46.000 So that's the, the, the, Derision is that it's not directed personally at you. 0.92

01:48:52.000 I mean, I'm not mad at you, but I don't. 0.71

01:48:55.000 I feel like I'm debating myself when I was like 20, and I'm not being a dickhead. 0.80

01:49:01.000 Okay.

01:49:02.000 No, I was just wondering because, and I wasn't asking that to call you on the curb, like, oh, you're not sincere.

01:49:09.000 I was just wondering because I know you were a Catholic for a long time, so it was kind of weird, but I get that.

01:49:14.000 I get that they don't debate. 0.79

01:49:16.000 But yeah, anyway, moving on.

01:49:18.000 One last point on that is that I think that.

01:49:20.000 For me, one of the other Trump arguments, dad of Trump arguments, will be the point that what was so hard for me ultimately was the documents and the teachings and the papal encyclicals after Vatican II.

01:49:37.000 Now, ultimately, when I started reading a lot of the pre Vatican II papal encyclicals, and I probably read 500 pages worth of those, I came away with just a constant inner struggle with how to try to reconcile.

01:49:53.000 The very clear statements in Vatican II, and you seem to say that the councils and the documents are clear.

01:50:02.000 I felt that they were.

01:50:04.000 I don't see how there's any possible way. 0.75

01:50:06.000 And I've listened to all manner of Roman Catholic apologists trying to mesh and make sense of the documents of Vatican II and how Nostra Tate can say that we're united with the Zionists and with the Jews and that Islam can also provide a way to heaven and how that we don't need confessional.

01:50:25.000 Orthodox or Christian states anymore.

01:50:27.000 So for me, there's so many things in Vatican II that are just so obviously a complete apostasy that I got to the point where I just could not defend it anymore in honesty, right? 0.86

01:50:40.000 So for me, that's the end of the line.

01:50:42.000 I mean, there's no way to accept the ecumenism of Vatican II.

01:50:47.000 For example, the 19th, I think it's 28th encyclical of Pope Pius XI called Mortalium Animos.

01:50:53.000 When you read down in that encyclical, and encyclicals in Rome.

01:50:56.000 Catholic theology are part of the ordinary magisterium.

01:50:59.000 You can't reject them.

01:51:01.000 In Mortalium Animos, he says that the kind of religious ecumenism where we're praying with all of the other religions and we go into the mosque and pray like Benedict and Francis have done, when we go in the synagogue and we pray like Benedict and Francis and John Paul have done, when we do these actions, he says these are apostasy.

01:51:22.000 He says this is an apostasy from the truth and it teaches everybody indifferentism.

01:51:27.000 Now, Roman Catholic canon law is very clear.

01:51:29.000 About what kinds of things constitute apostasy in Roman Catholic moral theology and in canon law, it's a very specific sin like schism or like heresy that leads to certain conclusions ipso facto, as it's called.

01:51:45.000 So, ipso facto excommunications in Roman Catholic theology result when a bishop or a layperson even does or teaches something explicitly heretical.

01:51:56.000 For example, even the modern canon law will excommunicate a person who gets an abortion.

01:52:03.000 And to be forgiven, technically, the bishop is supposed to be able to forgive the person upon confession and repentance and whatnot.

01:52:10.000 So, what I'm saying is that actually in canon law, it's the same thing for actions of apostasy.

01:52:16.000 When we go to Aquinas and we look up in the moral theology what constitutes apostasy in the Summa, he says if any Catholic were to pray at the tomb of Muhammad, that would be an action of apostasy. 0.56

01:52:29.000 Apostasy, as described in.

01:52:34.000 Alphonsus Liguori and his moral theology is very similar.

01:52:37.000 He describes the kinds of actions that would be considered apostasy.

01:52:41.000 So, my point in all this is to say that traditional Catholic theology being so clear about what apostasy is, what schism is, what heresy is, there's no way that any honest person could follow John Paul, Paul VI, John XXIII, any of these, especially Pope Francis, who just a couple of weeks ago said we don't need confessional states anymore.

01:53:05.000 That's not just errors.

01:53:06.000 Those are absolute total heresies. 1.00

01:53:08.000 You can't go and pray in synagogues.

01:53:11.000 That's actually in the canons of the ancient councils. 0.88

01:53:13.000 That's heresy.

01:53:14.000 Like you're out of the church if you do this.

01:53:17.000 And so for me, those people don't obviously represent traditional Christianity.

01:53:22.000 Nobody ever would have thought you could do this until the flowering of Vatican II.

01:53:27.000 So for me, it's just a no brainer that that's obviously not the office of Peter.

01:53:32.000 That's not, Jesus didn't command me to go submit to a guy who goes in synagogues and prays and who. 0.53

01:53:40.000 Goes to the mosque and pray, and who prays with pagans and who receives Hindu markings on his head and these Hindu rituals that he participates in. 0.94

01:53:48.000 Those guys aren't Christian. 0.98

01:53:51.000 Yeah, no, and I certainly understand that. 1.00

01:53:52.000 I get a lot of criticism for that on my show about Vatican II.

01:53:56.000 And certainly there are a lot of things in there we're not wild about, especially the conduct of this pope, even outside of the dogmatic stuff.

01:54:02.000 I think what's most offensive is just simply the conduct, like you said, the praying with the other people and the washing of the African feet and the political statements.

01:54:13.000 I think that that, I think in many ways, that is a call for further faith in the church and that we have to get the church through these things.

01:54:22.000 This is the one holy Catholic apostolic church, and I think we got to commit to it.

01:54:27.000 You know, certainly there have been times in the past where popes have done these kinds of things.

01:54:32.000 There have been corrupt popes and popes that have sold indulgences and have tortured people.

01:54:38.000 That's not apostasy.

01:54:41.000 Yeah, but I mean, these are still things that.

01:54:44.000 Well, and who decides?

01:54:45.000 Is Thomas Aquinas in an official role when he says that something is an apostasy?

01:54:49.000 He says it's an apostasy to pray at the tomb of Muhammad, but if the church dogma says that that's not true, I mean, who do you defer to?

01:54:58.000 Do you refer to Aquinas or do you refer to the church?

01:55:01.000 Which, in your view, is only the pope.

01:55:03.000 So, no pope could ever excommunicate a pope unless a pope excommunicated a pope.

01:55:09.000 Yeah.

01:55:10.000 Yeah.

01:55:11.000 No one can excommunicate the pope.

01:55:12.000 No.

01:55:13.000 I mean, I think.

01:55:15.000 The pope, not a pope, the pope.

01:55:15.000 So, in other words.

01:55:18.000 So, that's what I'm saying is that how can you maintain papal infallibility if the guy who has this office is consistently.

01:55:31.000 Doing not just sinful things.

01:55:33.000 This is very clear in Roman Catholicism. 0.62

01:55:35.000 What sinful things? 0.85

01:55:37.000 Like if he were, like many of the Medici's and these people.

01:55:40.000 Oh, yeah, yeah, sure.

01:55:41.000 Like they had concubines and this kind of stuff. 0.51

01:55:44.000 Right, yeah, yeah, yeah.

01:55:45.000 So that's in Roman Catholic theology, that doesn't automatically excommunicate you.

01:55:49.000 Right.

01:55:50.000 But canon law is very clear about ipso facto excommunications.

01:55:53.000 And one of the things that does that is apostasy.

01:55:56.000 And I'm saying, yes, actually, in Roman Catholic moral theology, apostasy is pretty clearly laid out.

01:56:01.000 Now, Now, you're going to say, well, but who, nobody has the authority to excommunicate the Bishop of Rome.

01:56:07.000 That's true.

01:56:08.000 And that's why that whole thing doesn't make sense to me.

01:56:11.000 Like, why would Jesus command that I have to submit to a guy, not just who has concubines? 0.95

01:56:16.000 I mean, there have been plenty of Eastern Orthodox people who sin. 0.91

01:56:20.000 We're not talking about just sin, but specifically in canon law, a very clear sin that is mentioned, by the way, in Mystici Corporis. 0.99

01:56:28.000 And it's also mentioned in Leo XIII's encyclicals, where he talks about what apostasy is.

01:56:33.000 So if you want specific, Papal definitions of what apostasy is.

01:56:37.000 You can read Mestici Corporis and you can read Leo XIII's encyclicals because he will define that apostasy, schism, and heresy are sins that automatically excommunicate a person from the body.

01:56:50.000 And how can any man be ahead of that which he is not a member?

01:56:55.000 I just don't think that he is committing apostasies.

01:56:58.000 I guess that's where it differentiates.

01:57:01.000 I guess that's where it diverges. 1.00

01:57:04.000 Well, I mean, how can a Christian? 1.00

01:57:08.000 Participate in pagan rites and go to the synagogue. 0.96

01:57:11.000 I think that's more of a diplomatic thing.

01:57:14.000 I don't know if that qualifies as, you know, again, I don't know if that invalidates papal infallibility, right?

01:57:20.000 Are you saying it's infallible or you just can't believe, well, because it's a sacred thing?

01:57:25.000 The early canons excommunicate a person for praying in the synagogue.

01:57:29.000 Yeah.

01:57:30.000 And it's not that the building itself is bad or that the matter, the tables are evil.

01:57:30.000 Okay.

01:57:35.000 It's that the action itself signifies as a public act.

01:57:40.000 Right, this is also distinguished in Roman Catholic moral theology private actions, public actions, conscience, and so forth.

01:57:46.000 So, public acts by persons of authority carry much more weight and have much more significance.

01:57:52.000 And that's why, in Mortalium Animos, the papal encyclical from 1928 by Pius XI, when he says that these actions are apostasy, he says this because they teach indifferentism.

01:58:04.000 And we cannot, no Catholic, he says, can in any way allow this kind of a thing.

01:58:09.000 Yeah, again, I don't think that qualifies as.

01:58:13.000 As total apostasy, if they're out there doing that.

01:58:16.000 I think it's a far cry.

01:58:19.000 It's a far cry between the Pope doing something which is a sin or an apostasy and the Pope saying something, putting something in dogma that is in error.

01:58:32.000 I think it's very offensive.

01:58:34.000 You don't have to say something in dogma to be excommunicated or to be in error.

01:58:38.000 I understand that.

01:58:39.000 Okay, but are you hearing that Pius XI calls it apostasy?

01:58:39.000 I understand that.

01:58:43.000 Yeah, yeah, I am hearing that.

01:58:46.000 Yeah, I will.

01:58:47.000 And now this pope, I guess, is saying that it is an apostasy, right?

01:58:50.000 In a de facto way, correct?

01:58:52.000 Because he's going out there doing that.

01:58:54.000 You don't believe in objective truth, so the pope can actually deny it.

01:58:56.000 I'm not saying that.

01:58:57.000 I'm not well, but the Pope didn't.

01:58:59.000 But, but that was it put in dogma that that's apostasy, or was that just what papal encyclicals are considered ordinary magisterium?

01:59:09.000 And it doesn't even have to be listed as dogma because everybody doesn't sound legitimate to me.

01:59:14.000 I mean, if has anybody informed the Pope that he was committing an apostasy?

01:59:18.000 I mean, are you the one that's taken issue with this?

01:59:21.000 So, so anybody who has a like a basic sense of what the Bible teaches, the New Testament, what the way that the church operated for the first thousand years.

01:59:31.000 There's no way that you could come away thinking that I can go and participate in Hindu rites and that I can have giant Assisi meetings with voodoo practitioners in the church, that I can cover the altar up where the Eucharist is to not offend the voodoo practitioners who are doing it in the church at Assisi One.

01:59:49.000 This is John Paul II in 1986. 0.85

01:59:54.000 There's no way, nobody who's honest with themselves could ever justify that stuff as not being an apostasy.

02:00:00.000 You see, this is a very flimsy standard.

02:00:02.000 There's a.

02:00:03.000 You're saying, oh, well, there's no way you could read all this.

02:00:06.000 This is basic Christianity, dude. 1.00

02:00:07.000 This is the 10th. 1.00

02:00:08.000 I understand.

02:00:09.000 You shall have no other gods.

02:00:10.000 You can have, and nobody could say that you read the New Testament and you believe that the Medici popes are doing the right thing, right?

02:00:20.000 We believe that the Pope.

02:00:21.000 I already explained that I'm not even talking about.

02:00:23.000 By the way, no way would I accept the Avignon papacy, three different popes.

02:00:27.000 That's crazy talk, too.

02:00:28.000 That's another thing we have to accept in Roman Catholicism, is like these guys living in giant palaces.

02:00:34.000 No, Jesus didn't set Peter up to be.

02:00:37.000 The world emperor in a giant palace to have a Vatican bank run by the Rothschilds since the 1700s.

02:00:44.000 That's why Vatican II happened, by the way.

02:00:45.000 That's why the papacy changes position on usury, is because the Rothschilds are the Vatican bankers.

02:00:52.000 This goes back to the Renaissance popes.

02:00:54.000 Anyway, but again, I already made the distinction in Roman Catholic canon law between just sinning, mortal sins, and actions like schism, apostasy, and heresy.

02:01:06.000 Yeah, again, I just don't know if I buy that.

02:01:10.000 I don't think that's very credible.

02:01:11.000 I mean, if that.

02:01:12.000 If you're making it up, yeah, you can't buy that, then there's a problem in the basics of Christianity for you because the Ten Commandments say we can have no other gods, yeah.

02:01:25.000 No, and I well, when they go, so so tell me when they go and they they pray in the synagogues, do they pray to other gods?

02:01:33.000 The way that the first the way that the councils when they talk about forbidding praying in synagogues, it's not the point is not that okay, but you said, but you said, thou shalt have no other gods, so you're.

02:01:44.000 You're arguing kind of two different things here, right? 0.61

02:01:46.000 If you're saying, well, it's in the Ten Commandments, but you're saying, oh, well, now it's not a matter of, well, it doesn't matter if they pray to the God, but only if they pray to the place of God.

02:01:54.000 I'll make it clear. 0.90

02:01:55.000 So when John Paul participates in Hindu rites, that's on God's, okay?

02:02:00.000 So if you want to say that technically, is the synagogue in some way still referencing God the Father, maybe you can make that argument.

02:02:07.000 But actually, on the stream last night, you were arguing that modern, fair sake Judaism is not connected to the Old Testament. 0.77

02:02:14.000 Yeah, no, but I'm not making the argument that he was.

02:02:16.000 I'm making the argument that if he's observing a rite or a ritual, is that a form of worship to another god?

02:02:24.000 Is he worshiping another god?

02:02:26.000 You made the claim that this was a good example. 0.82

02:02:28.000 This is classic Kasustri. 0.90

02:02:28.000 Come on, dude. 0.90

02:02:30.000 This is where we're trying to say, well, I can bow before a Hindu god and receive the mark of the Tilak on my head. 0.72

02:02:39.000 And it's kind of, but if I direct my thoughts to Jesus, then the action that I'm doing is not really in obeisance to that God. 0.93

02:02:48.000 No, this is great.

02:02:50.000 It just seems to me like a diplomatic thing.

02:02:52.000 I think you're taking something which is the.

02:02:54.000 If you think that's the.

02:02:57.000 You need to read the New Testament if you think that participating in pagan rites is just diplomatic because you have no conception of basic Christianity here.

02:03:05.000 It seems diplomatic to me.

02:03:07.000 I disagree with it.

02:03:07.000 It seems to.

02:03:10.000 I'm not saying I agree with it.

02:03:11.000 Paul says you can't eat at the table of demons and sacrifice and participate in those rites and come to the kingdom.

02:03:18.000 What was the ritual that they participated in that you're referring to?

02:03:21.000 I'm not familiar with this example.

02:03:23.000 Okay, John Paul has done.

02:03:24.000 You can just look up John Paul's life, but he was involved in the TLAC, I believe it's called.

02:03:30.000 If I recall, this is a Hindu thing. 0.93

02:03:32.000 But I mean, he's done this so many times you can't even keep up with it. 0.70

02:03:35.000 Well, can you give me an example of one of the TLAC?

02:03:38.000 And what does that involve?

02:03:40.000 What is that?

02:03:42.000 In that case, it was the he received the mark of something on his head.

02:03:48.000 No, it wasn't Ash Wednesday.

02:03:50.000 I don't know all the pagan rites.

02:03:51.000 I'm not an expert in all pagan rites.

02:03:53.000 I know a lot about comparative religion.

02:03:56.000 But again, it doesn't matter.

02:03:57.000 That he only did that one time with that religion.

02:04:02.000 Like he has continually participated in these. 0.96

02:04:06.000 Again, Assisi.

02:04:07.000 Look up 1986 Assisi.

02:04:08.000 That's the most clear example of this indifferentism that is obviously night and day with what Mortalium Animos, Pius XI, talks about.

02:04:20.000 But there's also plenty of other actions like this. 0.73

02:04:22.000 I mean, there is, just because Islam names Allah, and just because Pharisaic Judaism still. 0.83

02:04:32.000 Says that they worship Jehovah, you can't participate in their rights. 0.85

02:04:37.000 It's long been Western and Eastern canon law that you can't do that. 0.99

02:04:41.000 You can't go and pray in synagogues.

02:04:43.000 Yeah, and again, I would say I would disagree with that. 1.00

02:04:47.000 But I don't know if that would be the right thing.

02:04:49.000 How do you disagree with that?

02:04:50.000 How do you disagree with that?

02:04:51.000 No, no, I mean, I would disagree with them going and participating in the rights.

02:04:55.000 I would say that you're right on that, that they shouldn't be doing that.

02:04:59.000 But it's a very different thing from saying, do you personally find it against.

02:05:04.000 The faith, do you personally find it in a certain way, or does that completely disqualify and delegitimize the foundations of the entire church?

02:05:13.000 You know, which I think those are two different things. 0.99

02:05:15.000 So, well, I agree with you.

02:05:16.000 There are actions of apostasy according to 1928 papal writings, according to Pius X, Pacendi Dominici Grazius, Lamentabili San.

02:05:16.000 I've not.

02:05:25.000 I mean, I could give you a whole list of them.

02:05:30.000 Show me the dogmatic writing that says, and then show me the example where it says that this is an apostasy.

02:05:37.000 I just did.

02:05:38.000 Well, I mean, can you cite that for me?

02:05:40.000 Mortalium Animos is an entire encyclical written about this.

02:05:45.000 Okay, and what does it say?

02:05:46.000 And is this dogma, and what does this say?

02:05:49.000 Papal encyclicals are ordinary magisterial.

02:05:51.000 Ordinary magisterial.

02:05:53.000 Yes, and what does it say specifically?

02:05:56.000 The entire encyclical makes it very clear numerous times that it says specifically apostasy.

02:06:03.000 These actions are indifferentism.

02:06:06.000 I just find it hard to believe that the Catholic Church has gone on.

02:06:10.000 That's your presuppositions.

02:06:12.000 What's that?

02:06:13.000 You find it hard to believe because that's your presupposition in the Roman.

02:06:16.000 Well, no, because I'm not familiar with the example, and I find it hard to believe that.

02:06:21.000 And this is not like a swipe at you, but to say that the Pope is out there committing apostasies.

02:06:30.000 According to the magisterium, he's out there committing apostasies, which I'm not familiar with this example.

02:06:35.000 And the person who has an issue with it is not the cardinals or the bishops or the priests.

02:06:41.000 Well, there's an entire group called the Society of St. Pius XII.

02:06:44.000 No, I'm familiar with them.

02:06:45.000 I'm familiar with them.

02:06:46.000 Okay, well, I mean, they've talked about this for 30 years.

02:06:49.000 Yeah, well, this is not a significant, you know, this is not a significant in terms of size or numbers separation, right?

02:06:58.000 I don't personally care about the Society of St. Pius X. I'm just saying that they're a group of a million.

02:07:04.000 You know what I'm saying here.

02:07:05.000 They're a group of a million people who talk about it all the time and have for 30 or 40 years.

02:07:09.000 Well, I'll have to look into this particular example and we'll see if I'll look into this.

02:07:14.000 And if I'm wrong, I will tweet about it.

02:07:16.000 But if not, I'm not familiar with this.

02:07:18.000 And I find it hard to believe because if that's the case, then you'll have, yeah, I will have to.

02:07:23.000 Cast some aspersions, but uh, okay, let me let me say that the if you want like one book that really I think illustrates that, there's a book that Tan Publishers, which is one of the larger traditional Catholic publishing houses, they publish a book called The Popes Against the Modern Errors, and really all it is is just a collection of the key encyclicals of the last few hundred years.

02:07:49.000 So it's only about two to three hundred pages, and I would recommend that.

02:07:53.000 And when you read that, I think.

02:07:55.000 You'll see that everything that I've said is 100% spot on.

02:07:58.000 All right.

02:07:59.000 Well, I will read that book and I'll get back to you.

02:08:02.000 I'll post about it on Twitter.

02:08:04.000 Okay.

02:08:05.000 All right.

02:08:06.000 Well, is that all?

02:08:07.000 Is that all that we got here?

02:08:08.000 I think we had a good talk here.

02:08:10.000 We built up to, in the middle of the day, 270 viewers here.

02:08:14.000 That's pretty good.

02:08:15.000 Not bad.

02:08:15.000 Yeah, for sure.

02:08:16.000 I thought it was fun.

02:08:16.000 For sure.

02:08:17.000 A good talk, definitely.

02:08:19.000 And in good faith.

02:08:20.000 You know, I think at the end of the day, we're Christians trying to find the truth, trying to save the world from modernism, from Satanism.

02:08:27.000 And, uh, Collegiality between the two churches.

02:08:30.000 That's what it's all about.

02:08:31.000 That's how we're going to win it.

02:08:32.000 So, appreciate you having me on.

02:08:34.000 Thanks for a great talk.

02:08:34.000 Absolutely.

02:08:35.000 Thank you, Nick.

02:08:35.000 Have a good day.

02:08:36.000 You too.

02:08:36.000 Take it easy.

America First - Nicholas J. Fuentes - February 08, 2018

Nick Fuentes vs. Jay Dyer

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript