All [Music] right, welcome everybody to underground Catholicism. My name is Elijah Yasi and we have a special show. It's been a while since I've done one of these. Um I think it's been about five years, maybe four years or so. Um used to do those with uh Allen Rule. Shout out to Allan. Uh some of those I did by myself. Um but lately I've taken a hiatus. I took a hiatus for a few years or a couple years I guess. Um and then I started doing some interviews with Eastern Orthodox and uh folks. I did some with an Eastern Orthodox priest. Um and you know just been busy with family and work and and all that fun stuff. Uh but I'm back at it here and and it's going to be a jampacked show today. Um, this is probably the most uh content I'm going to have in one show because I'm going to try to do everything all at once. I don't want to break this down into any parts. Um, so the goal is to get it all out. I don't know how long it's going to take me. It's 10:04 p.m. my time. Um, so it might take two hours. It could take two hours. I don't know. I I haven't actually rehearsed this and and and tried to see how long it's going to take me to go through all the content. Um, but however long it takes, uh, it doesn't matter. We're gonna get through it. Um, I do want to give a little bit of background, uh, in a little bit. I'm just waiting for folks to to come on. Um, we got I don't know if you guys can uh can hear me. Actually, let me check the chat. You guys all hear me? Let me know if you guys can hear me. I can hear myself doing this thing. Uh Cenne is asking where you from. Uh if you're asking where I'm from originally, I'm originally from Iraq. I'm a Calaldian Syriak Catholic. Um but I'm in the United States now in I'm in Michigan. Um let me see. Elijah is the Pope of YouTube. He has special progives. It's hilarious. Um, I wonder if Enoch is around. Enoch is my twin brother. If you guys don't know, he's a rapper, Catholic rapper. Check him out. He has some good stuff. Um, open Elijah can show me the minimalist position. You got OG Miles in the house. And yes, I I am going to show the minimalist position. Um, without a doubt, it's going to be uh I think irrefutable that you can't say that we don't teach this position after I go through all the stuff that I go through. Um, let me see who else. Look at this guy. We can hear you but would prefer not to. I like that. I'm going to use that next time on his show. Um, how do I call in to debate? Uh, you can only call in debate if you're an ortho bro. If you're nice, then I don't want you to call in. I only want clickbaits. I only want things to cause uh commotion and fights just so I can uh create content um and things like that. So, if you don't provide that, then I I don't don't waste my time. Uh, all right. We can hear you. Sounds great. Iranian. All right. Neighbors. Elijah is Assyrian. I guess you can call it Assyrian. Uh I'm Calaldian. Uh just for semantics sake, just for clarification. Um Calaldians aren't communion with Rome. Assyrians are not. But if you're talking about ethnicity, Calaldians and Assyrians are the same thing. Uh let's see. Wagner mogging redeem Zoomer stream and now this today is a good day. So I actually was going to go live earlier today about four hours ago. I postponed it because I did not want to go live at the same time they were on. Um I was watching the show and it was a it was a good one. So you guys haven't checked that out. Uh check it out. Um all Calbians are really just Lebanese. Let's be honest. Uh that guy needs to go the gym. looking small. Yep. I've been I've been working out. I've been working out. I went on a carnivore diet. I lost about 12 pounds 13 pounds. Elijah is a beast and he knows I love him. I've got to come out swinging. Love you too, bro. No, I know you're joking. I know you're joking. Ortho bros call in. It would require them to log out of Call of Duty. Yeah, that's true. They're all like 14 years old. Um, okay. Well, I don't know who else wants to join here. It's We got uh some viewers. I'm sure it's going to increase as I go through this. Uh but two hours is probably what it's going to take. If it goes over, it goes over. [Music] Um so, let's get this party started. I'm going to share my screen and let me know if you guys can see this. Let me do it like this. Actually, can you guys see the presentation? You can. Okay. Yep. That's right. That's right. Yeah. 8 million is Come on. That's those are rookie numbers. Come on, bro. Those are rookie numbers. But those those numbers are in um in dinars. 8 million subscribers. Those are in dinars. So, probably like 3,000 subs. It's not enough. Um, let me give you guys a little bit of a background uh of of where this whole thing started and and why this started. Some of you guys already know, but I do want to give a background. Um, I used to be on Catholic Answers uh forum back in the mid 2000s. It's when I started um 20 20 years ago, it's when I reverted back to the Catholic faith after being a Protestant for one year. Um and what I noticed is on that Catholic forum is I noticed Catholics becoming Eastern Orthodox because of the papacy. It always puzzled me. Um, and so I and I found out that the reason why they became Eastern Orthodox is because they were taught that the Pope is this autocratic lone ranger that is to stampede and stomp on everyone uh and get his way every time and win the day. And then when they saw that the pope wasn't doing that in the early church in the first mill millennium for the most part I mean you do have some instances that he um you could say he acted in in such ways uh not in a disrespectful way just you know he stood for truth um but uh but when when they're thinking that he's an autocrat and they're looking at the first millennium church and they don't see that they become Eastern Orthodox. Yeah. Well, it must be cidality that wins the day then, not not primacy. Um, and so I I took an interest in this topic and I came across a gentleman um his name was on the forum and he taught me all this. This is 20 years ago. He taught me all this stuff. um he he was a Coptic Orthodox that became a Coptic Catholic and the way he became Catholic is just by reading the magisterial works on the papacy. He did not read anything else like he did not read theologians or scholars. He just read the actual sources and he was shocked to find out that uh that the teaching is colleial. It's not literally autocratic. And then so he became Catholic, Coptic Catholic. Um, and he taught me a lot of the things that I know. Um, and then he was friends with the gentleman named Glenn Guadalupe who passed away recently. Uh, God rest his soul. Uh, who also taught me a lot of the stuff. Um, they were friends. They're they're both Filipino. So, and they're they live in the Philippines or Glenn lived in the Philippines. Um, and they they taught me this this position which they didn't call the minimalist position. Uh, they called it the high petrine view. there was the low petrine view, the high petrine view and then the maximalist view. Um, and so I took very uh I took a lot of interest in this and when I started looking into this, I actually got into reading theologians and scholars just to confirm what they're saying because I thought the pope was an autocrat as well uh 20 years ago until I until I came across uh martikum and I wish I wish I still had contact with Marticum. I don't know what he's doing or anything like that, but uh Catholic Answers Forum is is gone. So, I have no I have no way to contacting him. Uh but he's he's the he's the OG. He taught me all this. And so, when these uh Eastern Orthodox folks come along and and you know, they say, "I don't have a platform. I don't have enough." Like, you know, I'm a nobody. Um, what's funny is I I've I'm not trying to toot my own horn, but I've been in this for two decades, and this topic has been my obsession along the the two decades. So, I I've studied this for a very long time. Um, and that's why I'm willing to, you know, debate any Eastern Orthodox that wants to debate what we really teach. If they think we teach autocratic papacy, then they can they're more than welcome to uh debate me on this uh as soon as this Monday. I don't I don't really need to push it out any further. um because I already have all the stuff prepared. I've been preparing for this for 20 years. I have all the materials. I mean, I have a PowerPoint presentation here uh I'm about to share with everybody. Um but they uh the excuses are I don't have a big platform and then Ubie Petrus is well, you know, you're uh you he'll only debate me in person. Um blah blah blah. And I'm like, okay, in person then then come to Michigan, right? If you want to do it in person. I'm not going anywhere. I'd love to do it on YouTube, not in person because I don't I don't want to travel to do a debate. I don't do this as a as a ministry where I'm trying to build my channel. I'm not doing this as a ministry where I'm trying to make money, which there's nothing wrong with any of that. That's just not what I'm doing, right? This is I'm just doing this for uh for people to learn um the truth. And uh sermon, let me make you a mod. How do I do that? I don't know if I made you a mod yet or not. I don't know if that's I'll be a mod. I don't know. I just put a star next to your name. Not sure if you're a mod or not. Um, so anyway, uh, you like I said, I'm willing to to debate any Eastern Orthodox on this. So, here's a little bit more of a background just to continue on this story. Um, about five years ago, uh, we had Oh, no. You're not a mod yet. this. I'm just really bad at this stuff. Um, put user on timeout. That's not it. Uh, yeah, bro. I don't know how to do it. So, everyone's a mod. You're a mod in my heart. There you go. Um, five years ago, uh, you know, Ruby Petros came in the scene and he started making videos against Eric Ibara, um, saying basically, well, you got to show us where the Pope acted alone if you want to prove Vatican 1. And then I started making videos if you guys have ever watched my papal infallibility series uh against ubietus to show that we don't believe that the pope is to act alone. That's not how how things work, right? And so if if those are not that how things work according to us and we're we're going to show that today. Uh then there is no reason for me to show where the pope acted alone because that would actually be an imprudent act on his part if he acted alone, right? or if he if he acted without consulting the bishops or or getting the consent of the church or what have you. So, uh my my rebuttal to him was we don't need to show that. We actually don't believe that that's how the papacy works. It's collegial, right? Um and that was my rebuttal to him. And so now the debate is he thinks I'm wrong. I think he's wrong. He thinks the papacy is autocratic. I think it's collegial. And so I'm like, "Okay, let's debate this topic." According to the Catholic Church, what does the Catholic Church teach? And he claims he knows better than than what I than me on this, which is fine. You can claim that. Um, but I have scholars, theologians, popes, bishops, councils that say otherwise um that refute him. So, and that's what we're going to start with today. So, what is the minimalist position? So, let's let's start this uh this presentation. Okay, we got um the minimalist position is where there's going to be bullet points here. The pope does not need consent in the sense the word consent here can mean two things. In this sense, it means permission to decree. The pope does not need consent. Permission to decree. Okay, that minimalist position hold to that. Pope does not have a jeritical obligation to consult the bishops. So that means the the fact that we believe he he will consult the bishops, he doesn't have a jeritical obligation. Meaning that if he doesn't consult the bishops, it doesn't invalidate the papal ex cathedral decree if he decrees it. Okay? We'll get we'll get into that. Pope can act alone. He can. Okay? And and this is very nuanced. Um, and this is not me conceding uh their point, which they think I'm conceding their point by saying that he can act alone. Um, juroritically speaking, jeritically speaking, he can act alone. But we're going to find out what that means as we unpack this. The pope will, the pope should, and the pope is expected to consult the bishops. Okay, that's what we believe. So, we don't believe that the pope is going to act alone. we expect him to consult the bishops to get the consent of the church. That's the normative way of doing things in the Catholic church. Um the pope has a moral obligation to consult the bishops. Okay. So now think of this juxtaposed to the pope does not have a judical obligation but he has a moral obligation. Okay? So jorditical meaning that there is no rule. There is no rule that says that the pope has to consult the bishops, but there is a moral obligation for him to to do that. And we're going to unpack where the church teaches that the pope cannot go against the consent. And here the consent means agreement or teaching of the church. He cannot decree in opposition to the teaching of the church. And again, we're going to prove all all these bullet points that I'm showing you are going to be proven from the magisterium. Uh, and this is a good point here by uh John Kolarafi. Technically, Vatican 1 doesn't say that the pope is infallible, but that he has infallibility under the conditions defined. Infallibility is a transient charrorism. In other words, yes, that's that's definitely true. Okay. So, the pope cannot go against the consent of the church. So what that means is he cannot go against the agreement. So if all the bishops around the world hold to a certain teaching that's what the church teaches. If they all agree on something the pope cannot go against that. Now what do you say if you say okay what if he tries to go against that? What if he tries to decree something that goes against the unanimous consent of the bishops? Well, as Bishop Gasser would say in his relatio, which we're going to look into, which is the official interpretation of Vatican 1, is that he will be impeded the that God will impede him from acting if it's really against the consent. By consent here, we mean agreement and teaching of the church. If it's really against the teaching of the church, then he cannot act. He will be impeded. So, he won't even be able to decree the excra. Okay. So consent will always be behind his teachings. The consent of the church will always be behind it. And that's what I mean by he can act alone. And even if he does act alone, if he doesn't get the permission of the bishops, which he doesn't need permission, he doesn't get the agreement of the bishops, which he does need. Um and and I'm not saying he does, he needs a manifest agreement. He doesn't need manifest so he can actually act. So if he knows what the bishops believe, he knows what what what they all teach. He doesn't need to go and pull them. That's a waste of time, right? So, but he does have to have the consent of the church's teaching behind his act. He can't just be the only one that believes that. Okay. All right. Now, the pope is the head. The bishops are the members and they will always act together. We believe this providentially. The popes and bishops will always act together. always have uh uniformity. Now not perfect uniformity um not perfect uniformity but you know as we see sometimes in the early church um we have a majority and sometimes you have like church that gets split right but a portion of the bishops and the pope will always act together uh for the most part it's the majority uh is is how it works. Now, um, Taylor brings up a point here, but the bishops aren't infallible in their joint agreement apart from the agreement of the pope. Correct? The the bishops can do nothing without the pope. They can do nothing without the pope. The pope has to always have his consent or his approval in order for anything to be binding. Okay? The pope and bishops are not opposed to each other, but work in unison. That's the same thing as basically what I said uh about the last bullet point, but I just want to drive this home because Gasser talks about this and and so does so do all the theologians and popes um that talk about this topic. The whole church is infallible and there can never be a time where the pope is the only infallible bishop in the church. That would falsify the church. If if the pope is the only infallible bishops, then the episcopit is a divine institution. The the episcopet is the divine institution. So it cannot fail. The episcopet and the papacy are both divine institutions. Now what is the maximalist position? This is the position um that is the exaggerated version of the papacy and we'll talk about how this came about and where this came from. Um the pope does not need consent permission to decree. So they are the same um in in this topic. They're in agreement. minimalist and maximalist. The pope does not need consent agreement to decree. And I completely messed that up and I apologize. I didn't do a closed parenthesy. Um the pope does not does not need consent. Whereas the minimalist, the pope does need consent agreement. Maximalist, the pope can be the only bishop in the church to be infallible. He can be the only bishop to hold to an opinion and still decree something and everyone just has to bow down and follow him and he will decree it successfully. U as far as a maximalist position goes. The pope can act alone. They both believe that minimalist and maximalist. The pope may consult the bishops. So he doesn't really have a uh an obligation to do it. He's not expected to. It's not a should. It's not a will. It's he maybe. If he don't wants to, he can if he doesn't have to, right? It's not it's not really important because he's like basically almost like an oracle, right? He knows everything. He's the pope. The pope does not have a moral obligation to consult the bishops. The pope is the the the pope is the consent of the church. So, he is the consent. So, what what his opinion is, whatever he thinks is the the the church's opinion is the opinion of the church. He's a lone ranger. He's an autocrat. He can listen to, you know, bishops. He can get their advice if he wants to. It's it's not really a big deal if he does or doesn't. The pope head and bishop's members may or may not act together. So they they they may be in unison. They may not. It doesn't matter. As long as the pope takes a side, that's that's the only thing that matters. That's where the truth is. Doesn't matter about the bishops. The bishops don't add any weight to his um to his decree. The pope and bishops may or may not be opposed to each other. Pope alone is infallible and it is possible that he can be the only infallible bishop in the church. Okay. Now we we went through what the difference is. So let's talk about Vatican 1 and the backgrounds of Vatican 1. So what happened at Vatican 1? It's a council as you guys know the Catholic Church held in 1870 1870. Um and the uh there were three groups at the council uh three three groups of bishops that had uh three different beliefs. Right? So they had there was the maximalist group. The maximalist group were not that many of them um but they were the loudest. They had the loudest voice. Then there was the majority bishops and and that's the majority is what won out. And then you had the minority bishops. Okay. So the minority bishops um were the ones that wanted the pope to consult the bishops before he decrees or at least they wanted in the dogma of Vatican 1 to say that the bishop's consent is important that the church's consent is important that not that that he has to go pull them or anything like that but that that their witness to the truth has a lot to do with Exc Cathedral. And the majority bishops said, "We do will not put that in the dogma, but we will agree with you that the pope has a moral obligation to consult the bishops, that he should and he is expected to, that we don't see the pope acting in opposition to the bishops." So the majority and the minority were in agreement that the pope is going to consult the bishops or that he is going to get the consent of the church or he's going to find out what the church teaches before he decrees. he has a moral obligation to search these things out. So they were in agreement on that. Everybody at the council virtually speaking for the most part believed in papal infallibility. So this was not a debate on whether the pope was infallible or not or that he has this charisma of infallibility. There there's some people think that there was you know uh some some bishops that didn't want to vote um and it's because they didn't believe in papal infallibility. That's not what it was. Those were some of the minority bishops who were not comfortable with the uh idea of the pope having no judical obligation to consult the bishops. So they wanted that in the doc do document. And then you had some doc some minority bishops who did uh vote positively on the dogma because they believed that their position was being uh taught at Vatican 1 that the pope is to uh get the advice and consultation of the bishops uh before he acts. So they they believe that and you'll see why. Um and then the maximalists were just rejected outright um by the council. But now here's the problem. Uh today most Catholics probably believe the maximalist version of the papacy. And and this is why I made this a um a point to study this issue uh to find out why. And you know I'm just a small channel uh but I try my best to educate Catholics on what we really teach on the papacy. Um and so the the the maximalists had the biggest voice. So they left the council thinking or telling everyone that their side won that the the pope is infallible um in all things almost like basically like he's just infallible in his in his office, right? It's not so much just in his public person, but he's just infallible. Um, and then they had this idea that the pope can do whatever he wants. He's just this he's just this uh autocratic lone ranger. The church has never taught that. That's just an opinion from these bishops that came out of the council and they went out to the world thinking that their side won or they at least they told everyone their side one. Whether they knew that or not, I don't know. Um, but it's it's more of a political movement. Uh, because those were the bishops. Now, get this. Those were the bishops that were in the Vatican that they were in Rome. They were the ones that were the closest to the pope. So they had power to do things. They were the centralization of the ecclesiology. They were the pope's right-hand men. And so they wanted all the power to be in the pope because they are right-hand men. And so they have all the power if he has all the power because you know he he looks to them uh to uh to make decisions and stuff uh I don't know if my mic is too loud but let me turn it down a little bit. Um, so they went out thinking that their side won. And now up until this day, up until this day, they their their error has spread all over from Vatican 1 to Vatican 2 and onto our day. And that is why you see some manuals, and someone asked me a question about manuals. Uh, some manuals that that seem to have a maximalistic view of the papacy. That's not what the church's official teaching is. That's just an opinion in the church and it's an interpretation of Vatican 1, but it's not the necessarily the right interpretation of Vatican 1. And so how do we know what the right interpretation of Vatican 1 is is we have to look to the popes who interpreted Vatican 1 for us. And that's what we're going to do today. But let's let's uh let's get into Vatican 1. So uh Vatican 1, this is dogma from Vatican 1. Pastor Eternos therefore faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith to the glory of God our savior for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people with the approval of the sacred council we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks excra that is when in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church he possesses is by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter that infallibility which the divine redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrines concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman potive are of themselves and not not by the consent of the church irreformable. And that right there is where folks get confused because the the the council said that the uh ex cathedralas are the definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not by the consent of the church irreformable and they think well he doesn't need to get the consent of the church. What are you talking about Elijah? Um and we we're going to unpack that. That's a complete misunderstanding of what the the Vatican 1 council is trying to say. If you think that it's saying that the pope can act alone, it does not need the consent of the church. That's what the Eastern Orthodox think. We believe that's what Ubi Peter would say and he said that he doesn't he doesn't he's he doesn't understand the background of that sentence. That sentence has a huge background and and there was a lot of debates about that and what that really means during the council and after the council and we have clarity right after the council of what that means from Pope Pas the 9th himself. Okay. And that's chapter 4 paragraph 9. Uh so we continue. The Roman pontiffs too as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinions of the churches scattered throughout the world. sometimes by special cinnids, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine pro providence defined as doctrines to be held those things which by God's help they knew to be in keeping with sacred scripture and the apostolic tradition. So basically this is Vatican 1. This is the official document of Vatican 1. And it says that the popes uh depending on the circumstance circumstances of the time uh they they they went and basically got the advice and the consent of the bishops before they acted through either summoning councils or consulting the opinion of the churches uh scattered throughout the world. Obviously it's talking about bishops and theologians sometimes by special senates. Right? So even Vatican 1 itself is saying that there are times when the pope does do these things and that's how he uh is able to decree before he decrees. Now I am going to go through minimalist position proven by the Catholic Church which is that the pope um and the bishops act together collegially whether it's ecumenical councils or ex cathedrals papal infallibility it doesn't matter they're always in unison for the mo like I said for the most part I'm going to go through all that prove it from the church magisterium and then after I'm going to go into the church fathers and show you where that is in the church fathers so that no one can say that our position is not petristic. It's not in the first millennium. First, if you understand our position properly, it's all over the church all over the first millennium. It's everywhere. It's in every century, multiple times over. It's so easy to prove once you understand it properly. But once you have a misunderstanding of it and you think the papacy is an autocratic office, then it's going to be harder to find in the early church. It's there scattered here and there. Uh but it's not the way things normally operated. Continues on and it says, "For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter, not so that they might by his revelation make known some new doctrine, but that by his assistance they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverence and followed by all the holy Orthodox doctors. For they knew very well that this sea of Peter, St. Peter, always remains unblenmished by any error. In accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the to the prince of his disciples, quote, I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren. And you're going to see that that's verbatim from the church fathers. The church fathers spoke this way about the Sea of Rome. Um, yeah. So, this whole time the orthobros have been attacking straw men. No way. Yeah. Exactly. I know you're being sarcastic, but Exactly. It's it's a straw man. And so, that's why when we have these debates between east and west papacy, let's go to the first millennium, blah blah. We've done that so many times. It's just been it's just been overdone. I don't think that needs to be done anymore because we're talking past each other. The Eastern Orthodox is expecting us to prove an autocratic papacy. Um, who's that quote from? This is Vatican 1. This is the official document of Vatican 1. Pastor Returners. Um, so they're expecting us um they're expecting us to uh show them where the papacy in in the first millennium was autocratic. Well, let's have a debate on what we should be uh showing you. First of all, I don't believe the papacy is autocratic. So, let me prove to you that it's not. And then if I do that, then you should not expect me to show you a straw man in the early church because we don't hold to that. So, that's why the debate, and hear me out here, I I've asked Eastern Orthodox folks to debate this with me, and none of them want to. The debate should be what does the Catholic Church teach on the papacy? Is it autocratic or is it collegial? And you're to say, well, why why should they debate that? It's what we believe. That's because they're the ones telling us what we believe. So if you tell us what we believe, you should prove it to us. If you can't prove it to us, then you should just shut your mouth. You shouldn't be going around telling everyone this is what Catholics teach, right? Know where your place is. Learn what we teach properly and let's have a debate. But once you learn what we teach properly, there won't be a debate because you'll know that what we're presenting here is what we teach. And there's no autocratic papacy doesn't exist. So this is chapter 4 paragraphs 5-6. Okay. Now minority bishop. We talked about this earlier. Minority bishops and majority bishops. This is very quick. The minority bishops believe that the pope is infallible when speaking as cathedral. But they they believe that the pope must consult the bishops before decreeing. Majority bishops said the pope is infallible when I speaking escathedra. Same thing. So they all believed in this infallibility, the this gift of infallibility. They all believed it. It's not a debate on whether the pope has infallibility or not. This gift, the majority said that instead of must, it's should will is expected to consult the bishop before the queen. It's very nuanced. It changes a lot, right? But both believe that the pope has this obligation to do this. They both believe that the pope has this relative necessity to do this. Sorry, I still have this up. Um uh now let's get into the relatio of Bishop Gasser. Okay, the relatio. And before I get into this, I want to discuss what this is. Um, the relatio of Bishop Gasser is the document that the bishops at Vatican 1 read before they voted on chapter 4, which is what we just read right now at Vatican 1. This is what they read to explain the document. It was really a speech by a bishop named Gasser, Vincent Gasser. He gave a speech which we have the speech in written form. And this is what we're about to go through. And so he gave a speech to explain to the bishops what you're voting for today. Here's here's how we explain Vatican 1 papal infallibility. And the way we explain it, this is what you're saying yay or nay to. Okay. And then there was all these discussions in the background uh after the the speech was given. So um and and another thing I want to uh emphasize is that the the Vatican 1 council was cut short because of a war. So it looks imbalanced. The Vatican 1 Council looks like it's is talking about the papacy and only the papacy, which it did. But it had plans to balance the power of the papacy with the power of the bishops and the collegiality of the bishops. That was in the plan, but the war stopped the council abruptly. And so they weren't able to do that. And so it looked like the the council was one-sided about the papacy and which is another reason why those maximalist bishops went out of the council thinking their side won because it looked uneven. Look, everything is about the pope here. It's all we're talking about and exactly uh that's what Vatican 2 did and we're going to talk about that. Vatican 2 balanced them out. Um so this is this is a good point here. So yeah, there were two bishops that voted against promaggating pastor eternus. two people think it was like 25% or 30%. But those ones that were that that did not vote weren't because they didn't believe in papal infallibility. It's because they were not comfortable with the fact that there is no droidical obligation for the pope to consult the bishops. Now before I read Gasser, I do want to say one thing. I do want to talk about this heresy called gacinism which is what Vatican 1 was going against. So what is gicaninism? Gallicaninism was a political movement that said that the the pope can do nothing without first getting the permission of the bishops. So he first has to get all the the permission of the bishops before he can act. We reject that. He doesn't need permission. That's galicanism. And it was something that the kings, the monarchs at the time wanted because especially this started in France, especially in France and and I think in some other European countries. Um but basically, you know how you have a bishop in each area dascese? Well, the the the monarch, the king wanted the bishop to be his pawn. So he did not want the pope to be involved in what the bishop's decisions are because the king wanted to control the bishop. He didn't want the pope to control the bishop. And so it's a misunderstanding to think that the the the papacy it's a misunderstanding to think that papal uh supremacy was to usurp the power of the bishop. When when Vatican 1 talks about the the pope having power over the universal church, which is a petristic language, there's nothing wrong with that. Having supreme power. We're going to go through all the petristics. Um when when when Vatican talked about that, it's not saying that the pope is going to overstep his authority and and stomp on the bishop. What it's talking about is it's saying that the pope has the authority over the bishop not the kings not the monarchs and the bishop is under the pope not under the kings that's what Vatican 1 was dealing with this is very important point this is this is why the majority bishops at the council did not want to put a obligation for the pope to consult the bishops a jeritical obligation because had they put the jeritical obligation there then that means they are affirming which is the thing that they are trying to refute. It would the language would be very confusing. It's like you you held a council to refute Gacinism and you're you're affirming it by your language. So that's why the majority bishop said to the minority we agree with everything you're saying everything 100%. The pope does need to get the consent of the church. The pope does need to go in and get the advice of the bishop before he acts. He does need he needs to do all of that. But we can't put that as a jeritical obligation in the dogma because it's a moral obligation. It has to do with his it has to do with him searching out what the church teaches. It does not have to do with the actual dogma. And what they were decreeing was the actual dogma. What is papal infallibility? What is excathedra? That's what they were answering. They weren't as answering how does it work. They weren't answering what does he have to do beforehand. None of that was in the document. That's not what they're talking about. They're answering is what what is it and how do we recognize it when he actually decrees it. That that's the question they were answering. Okay. Um so so that's very important to to know before uh we we go into Gasser which we're we're about to do now. So Bishop Gasser uh this is known as the official interpretation of Vatican 1's pastoris which is what we just read. He says, "In what sense can the infallibility of the pope be said to be separate? It is able to be called separate or rather distinct because it rests on a special promise of Christ and therefore on a special assistance of the Holy Spirit, which assistance is not one and the same with that which the whole body of the teaching church enjoys when united with its head. For since Peter and his successors are the center of ecclesiastical unity, whose task it is to preserve the church in a unity of faith and charity, and to repair the church when disturbed, his condition and his relation to the church are completely special, and to this special and distinct condition corresponds a special and distinct privilege. Therefore, in this sense, there belongs to the Roman pontiff a separate infallibility. But in saying this, we do not separate the pontiff from his ordained union with the church. For the pope is only infallible when exercising his functions as teacher of all Christians and therefore representing the whole church. He judges and defines what must be believed or rejected by all. He is no more able to be separated from the universal church than the foundation from the building it is destined to support. Indeed, we do not separate the pope defining from the cooperation and consent of the church at least in the sense that we do not exclude this cooperation and this consent of the church. This is clear from the purpose for which this prerogative has been divinely granted. Okay. So this this is the this is the agreement of the majority bishops saying we're not here to separate the pope from the church. The pope is part of the church. He is to speak the mind of the church. Which is why we read Vatican 1's pastor at returners earlier. It says the pope is not to create new doctrines or new dogmas. That's not what he has to do. That's not his job. That's wrong. His job is to just reaffirm what's always been taught by the church from the beginning to now. His job is to reaffirm. And how do you know what the church teaches? Is you go and pull the bishops. You ask the bishops. That's the normative way of doing knowing what the church teaches. Because if all the bishops teach one thing, that's what the church teaches. Um, so one thing I I want to uh talk about real quick here. Uh, if I can remember what it was. It just I don't know if it's going to slip my brain. Um, so Oh, that's what it was. Okay. So, h how do things how does papal infallibility work? Now, you could say some people ask, well, if the pope is infallible, then why do we need councils anymore? uh or they'll say you know the pope is infallible then why does he need to pull the bishops the reason why is because infallibility as Vatican 1 says we read it does not come to him in a form of inspiration it's not like there's a question in the church there needs to be an answer and just because there's a question in the church the pope is going to have the answer the way papal infallibility works is through a what's called a divine assistance the holy spirit assists the pope Pope he doesn't inspire the pope. He's not like it's not scripture. It's not inspired. How does the pope get in assistance from the bit from the from the holy spirit is uh the holy spirits protect the holy spirit protects the pope from decreeing anything erroneous. So he doesn't necessarily lead the pope into what the truth is. He just prevents him from speaking any error. So if the pope was about to decree error, the Holy Spirit steps in and and um and impedes him. Uh so how does the pope know what the truth is before he decrees it? Is he goes and looks at what the church teaches. So he's making known the mind of the church. That's his job. He is the voice of the church. That's he is the only one that can speak for the on behalf of the church. And that's what Gasser is saying. This is a distinct distinct uh promise given to Peter alone. Only Peter can speak on behalf of the apostles. All right. So that's very important to know this that that we don't think that the the pope has um the pope doesn't have this uh this oracle from God, right? And that's where folks misunderstand this this teaching. It's it's almost like it's natural. It's a naturalistic organic way of the pope coming to what the teaching is is he goes and he looks at the scriptures. He looks at tradition. He he looks at theologians, the scholars, he looks at the bishops. He looks at all means. He looks at everything before he decrees because he doesn't have the answer. He is a human being. The only thing that protects him from decreeing error is the Holy Spirit. So the gift comes from God. And so, you know, uh I've heard it said that, well, you guys are putting your eggs in one basket. Yeah, we are. That basket is God. It's not the Pope. The Pope is a human being. And he could error. He could be wrong if he's not careful, but the Holy Spirit will impede him if he's about to decree something wrong. So, and impeding him could be he can drop dead. I don't know. uh he can change his mind and he he decides not to decree something somehow the Holy Spirit will impede him and we don't know how we just know that he will. I hope that makes sense. Uh continuing on with Gasser and thereby we do not exclude the cooperation of the church because the infallibility of the Roman pontiff does not come to him in the manner of inspiration or of revelation but through a divine assistance. I just said that. Therefore, the pope by reason of his office and the gravity of the matter, this is where we get moral obligation from. Moral obligation, the reason of his office and the gravity of the matter is held to use the means suitable for properly discerning and aptly uh imun imuniating the truth. Okay. Moral obligation. These means are councils or the advice of the bishops, cardinals, theologians, etc. Indeed, the means are diverse according to the diversity of situations. And we should piously believe that in the divine assistance promised to Peter and his successors by Christ, there is simultaneously contained a promise about the means which are necessary and suitable to make an infallible pontipical judgment. In other words, we believe that the Holy Spirit is going to give the Pope all the necessary means to be able to have the full information before he decrees to know what the consent of the church is because he's decreeing the consent of the church. The agreement, the belief, not the permission, the agreement, the belief of the church. That's what the pope's job is to is to decree that Alan Rule is in the house. Uh shout out to Allen. Check out his channel. Um he continues. He says, "Finally, we do not separate the pope even minimally from the consent of the church." Well, wait a minute. Didn't you just say Vatican 1 says and not from the consent of the church? But how can we say we don't separate the pope even minimally from the consent of the church? We'll talk about that. As long as that consent is not laid down as a condition which is either antecedented or consequent, meaning that it cannot be jeritical. We cannot say that is there's judical obligation for the pope to get that consent. We are not able to separate the pope from the consent of the church because this consent is never able to be lacking to him. That means when the pope acts, the consent will always be behind him. Indeed, since we believe that the pope is infallible through the divine assistance, by that very fact, we also believe that the ascent of the church will not be lacking to his definitions. Will not be lacking to his definitions since it is not able to happen that the body of bishops be separated from its head. Where did we just hear that from? The pope head members body can never be separated. We believe that this is right here. And since the church universal is not able to fail because if they were to be separated that would the church would fail that would sever the church completely the pope alone versus all the bishops. Now get this. We're we're told that the pope can act alone. He does not need the consent of the church. Blah blah blah. But here we have Gasser saying that the ascent of the church will not be lacking to his definitions since it is not able to happen that the body of bishops be separated from its head. What in the world is Gasser talking about? Is Gasser contradicting Vatican 1? Of course not. He continues first axiom. The members should be joined to the head and the head to the members. From this axiom they deduce that it is necessary for the pope in defining dogmas of faith to do nothing without the advice and consent of his brothers. So that's the axiom that means like this is this is what the minority bishops are proposing that the pope should do nothing without getting the advice and consent of those brothers. And so now the majority bishops are about to answer that this is gastro he's going to answer them based on this very thing they just said the pope needs to get the advice and consent of his uh brothers. He says, "Before I reply to this objection, it will be helpful to remember that in this opinion of the adversaries, we are dealing with a strict and absolute necessity of episcopal advice and help in every dogmatic judgment of the Roman pontiff. So much so that it must have its place in the very definition of our dogmatic constitution." So in other words, he's saying that before I answer this, let me just say what I'm answering is that I'm answering the fact whether this consent of getting the advice of the consent of the bishops must have its place in the actual dogma of Vatican 1. This is what he's answering to. And he says it is in this strict and absolute necessity that the whole difference between us consists. The difference between the maxim the maxim not the majority and the minority of the of Vatican one the difference between them two is that this jeritical obligation it's this fact that the minority want this place in the definition this this this obligation they want it to be in the definition and the majority are like we agree with everything you're saying we just cannot put it in the definition because once we put in the definition we are approving ganism. And then he says the difference does not consist in the opportunist or some relative necessity which must be completely left to the judgment of the Roman pontiff moral obligation as he determines according to the circumstances. As such, this type of necessity, this type of necessity of putting it in the dogma, not that we disagree that he should consult, but that we should put that in the dogma, cannot have a place in the definition of a dogmatic constitution. All right. But this issue is pressed by saying, and this is the third axiom, the consent of the churches is a rule of faith which even the pope ought to follow. Okay, I put that in green because that is an axiom is um is what the minority bishops are telling the majority they want in the document. So they're saying we want this in there and they're saying the consent of the church is a rule of faith which even the pope ought to follow. So the minority bishop saying this is a rule of faith. Now how does how does uh Gasser answer this? Does he agree or disagree that this is a rule of faith? We'll find out. He says and therefore he should consult those who rule the churches before he makes a definition in order that he may be certain about the consent of the churches. So before he uh before he makes a decree, he's decreeing the consent of the church, what the belief of the church is. Consent here means agreement. So he's he's decreeing the agreement of the church. So in order for him to know what the agreement of the church is, he has to know uh he has to pull the bishops in order to know that. Right? So that's that's what uh that's what they're saying, the minority bishops. And he says, I reply, this is Gasser's response to them. The matter has come to its extreme point and we must accurately distinguish between true and false less we suffer shipwreck in port. It is true. It is true. It is true that the pope in his definitions excathedra has the same sources fontis which the church has scripture and tradition. Now remember he the minority bishop said the consent of the church is all rule of faith which even the pope ought to follow. And now he's going to say I'm going to respond to that. So here's his response to that. Here's what Gasser says. Here's what majority bish bishops say. Here is the Vatican one position. They say it is true that the consent of the present preaching of the whole magisterium of the church united with its head is a rule of faith even for pontipical definitions. He did not disagree with them. He says you're right. The consent of the church, present preaching and the whole magisterium that means what the church believes today in its magisterium. What the bishops hold today united with his head is a rule of faith even for ex cathedrals. Yes, it is. He says yes. So I'm not making this up. This isn't me, Elijah Yasi making this up. You guys know if you guys have seen my shows, this is why I have so much content when I do these shows is because I don't like to give you my opinion. I read these things to you guys, present the magisterium, not present Elijah Yasi's opinion, which the Eastern Orthodox failed to do because they're just giving you their opinion. But from all that, he says it can in no way be be deduced that there is a strict and absolute necessity of seeking that consent from the rulers of the churches or from the bishops. So he says there isn't this strict and absolute necessity. It's not this, it's not a jeritical obligation. And but why does he say that? He says this because this consent consent, so we're still talking about what the church's teaching is, what the church's belief is, is very frequently able to be deduced from the clear and manifest testimonies of sacred scripture, from the consent of antiquity, that is of the holy fathers, from the opinion of theologians, and from other private means. All of which suffice for full information about the fact of the church's consent. So he's not saying the church's consent is not important. He's not saying that the pope does not need to seek the consent of the church. He's saying that the pope can find out what the consent of the church is by other means without having to consult the bishops. And I'll give you an example. I have to be careful with this because I've been uh misunderstood by uh Ubi Petrus who thinks I was talking about this and saying that the pope decreed this as an excra. Pope John Paul II when he uh when he decreed not an ex cathedral when he decreed on female ordinations he said no to it right he says we cannot do that did he consult the bishops before he do that before he did that no he he did not consult the bishops and this is what Gasser is talking about the question is so stupid that he doesn't need to go waste their time it already is the teaching of the church for the last 2 years that we don't ordain ain emails and so he did not bother to go consult the bishops. He just said that we have no authority to do that. That that was his decree. Okay. Again I have to say this that's not an excra. It's part of the ordinary universal magisterium of the church uh or or papal magisterium of the church. ordinary people. Okay. Um, everyone awake? Everyone uh understanding this so far? Is this making sense? Is this confusing? It's going to make more and more sense as we go through it. But is this making sense so far? Uh, we're reading church documents, not Eastern Orthodox orthobros. So, um I know Sam Shimoon likes to do this. So, hit one if you guys understand. There you guys are already doing that before I even say that. Okay. So, everyone's awake hopefully. Uh now, the Swiss bishops. So, let me give you a little bit of a background about the Swiss bishops. So, the Swiss bishops, I don't know where my mouse is. There it is. Um the Swiss bishops, um this is after the council. This is after the council. What happened is again council was abruptly stopped because of the war. And so there was confusion. What did Vatican 1 teach? Bishops are like split on the opinions of that, right? The minority bishops are thinking one thing. The maximalists are thinking one thing. The majority bishops are thinking one thing. But what is the truth? And so there was these Swiss bishops that wrote to Pope Pius the 9th who was the one that was at the council Vatican 1 who promagated and cons consented and confirmed and affirmed and everything. The same pope Pope Pius the 9th they wrote to him a letter about to read the letter and they said here is how we understand Vatican 1. What do you say? Are you are you saying we're wrong or are you saying we're right? What is your opinion? Right? That's that's that's what they're going to ask him. So, let's let's read it. I want I wanted to preface this. So, this is after the council, a year after the council, and there's much confusion after the council. And so, they're clarifying the confusion and they're asking the pope. So, um this is what they say. In order to complete what Monsenior Fesler here says, we borrow a passage from the pastoral instructions of the Swiss bishops in June 1871 which has been approved by a brief of Pope Pius the 9th. So he approves this what we're about to read. Pope Pius approves it. The definition of the council, say the Swiss bishops, has not in any respect brought about a separation between the head and the members of the teaching body in the church. Again, we talked about this earlier. Head and members cannot be separated. After the council, as before, the popes will exercise their office as doctors and chief pastors in the church without forgetting that the bishops are appointed with them by the Holy Spirit. This is talking about papal infallibility. Why does it matter what the bishops think? He continues says, "And according to the constitution of the church as successors of the apostles in order that in concert with the pope and in subordination to the successor of the prince of the apostles, they may govern the church of God." They they all of them, not the pope alone, they as the popes did before the council. So now after it will they continue to strengthen their brethren the bishops in the faith. You guys ready for this? This is going to bury all the Eastern Orthodox PMICS pmicists right here. So also in the government of the church, never never never will they undertake anything which concerns the universal church without taking the council and advice of the bishops. This is how the Swiss bishops understood Vatican 1. They were there. They would know. They continue as they did before the council. So now also afterwards will the popes summon councils, ask the advice of the bishops scattered over the world, use every means in their power to obtain a full understanding respecting that deposit of the faith which has been confined to the church. What is lacking that I need to show you to prove that this position is what we hold to? This is approved by Pope Pas the 9th. What are we doing here? What what is that? What what is like why do I have to sit here and argue with Eastern Orthodox people what we believe? It's right here in front of us. There's no argument needed. This is what we believe. Now think about this. He they say before and after just like before so too after the popes will consult the bishops. This is not Elijah Yasi's opinion. This is the Swiss bishops in the approval of Pope Pius the 9th. They continue. It says, "It will be according to this only in immutable role of the faith that they will decide as if in court of supreme and last instance and infallibly for the universal church all questions which can possibly arise on matters of faith and morals." Now remember when we read the Vatican 1, it said and the popes decrees are irreformable in of themselves and not from the consent of the church. And Eastern Orthodox will take that and say, well uh it says right there not from the consent of the church. So he can act alone. He doesn't need the consent of the church. The Swiss bishops are about to interpret this for us. Nevertheless, add the Swiss bishops, even when the popes use all possible means to obtain a profound knowledge of the question of the faith which is under consideration as the duties of their office require moral obligation. Yet I mean yes is it not this purely human knowledge however complete it may be but it is the assistance of the Holy Spirit that is to say it is a special grace of his state peculiar to himself which gives the pope the inhabitable in assurance of infallibility and which guarantees to all the faithful with an absolute certainty that the definition of faith of the supreme teaching authority of the pope are exempt from error. Okay. Um I want to Oops. Let me go back. I want to go back. Oopsies. Um I want to go back to uh to this. I want to go back to this so we can understand what this is. So um let me do Okay. So what they're saying is this where it says therefore such definitions of the Roman pot are of themselves and not by the consent of the church irreformable. The way they're interpreting that the way they're interpreting this is they're saying that it's not saying that the pope does not need the consent of the church. What it's saying is that the decree is infallible in and of itself. The decree is infallible. When the pope, you know, proclaims an ex cathedral, when he says, you know, we believe this and it's to be held universally. When he does that, that decree is infallible in and of itself because the Holy Spirit puts that stamp of approval on it. Because if the pope is able to decree, that means it's infallible. That means it's successfully infallible. Because if it wasn't infallible, the Holy Spirit would step in and impede the pope. So it's saying that the infallibility comes from God alone but not from the consent of the church. That's what it's saying. It does not saying that he does not need the consent of the church. It's saying that the consent of the church does not make his statement infallible. It's saying that the permission he doesn't need to go get permission from the bishop in order for the ex cathedral to have validity. So it's saying that the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is the one that ensures infallibility, not the bishops. However, it doesn't mean that the consent of the church won't be behind his decree. They most certainly will be behind his decree. They have to be. Okay. Uh so the source on the statement of from the Swiss bishops I I actually um uh it's from this book called um here I'll I'll show it to you guys um uh here. I'll look it up right now. You can download this book. Um probably spelled that wrong. the true and the false infallibility of the popes. So, you can download this. There's a PDF. So, if you get this book, that's where that uh that that quote is coming from. Okay. And then uh we're going to go back to this. So, let me go back to where we were. We were we were Swiss bishops. Okay. So, so any any questions so far? Um, about Well, actually, you know what? I don't know if I want to take questions. We're already at an hour and 9 minutes and I have so much more. The party is just getting started. So, this is why I'm ready to um debate any Easter Orthodox. It's right here. I don't need to prepare for this. I've been preparing for this for 20 years. I have all the sources and in fact I didn't even bring everything today. I I I can't fit everything into a um into a slide into a PowerPoint. There's so much more I could I can provide and we're going to keep going here. There's more. But I didn't have I didn't bring everything. I did not bring everything here. Um, but I will give you uh I will give you sources after to to for you guys to if you want to look into this further to to look at the theologians, our theologians of what we teach about this stuff, some books, recommendations. Um, would you debate Jamila White? Probably not. May I? Sure. Uh, James White, he's he's a waste of time. He's not worth my time. He doesn't have enough subscribers. Um, okay. Let's move on. The German bishops now, now the German bishops, same thing. The German bishops wrote to the pope uh and they um they uh they wrote to him and say, "Here's how we understand Vatican 1 as well. What do you say?" And this time we actually have a letter from the pope to the German bishops telling us his opinion. Now what you're about we're about to read this paragraph here is the straw man. So this is not what the German bishops believe. This is what somebody believes that's spreading um that's spreading uh uh yeah that's right. Uh so this is this is the error that uh the the that this person is spreading about Vatican 1 that they're saying here's the the error and they're about to respond. So the error is this is as follows. In virtue of these decisions, Vatican 1, the pope has appropriated to himself the rights of the bishop in every dascese. So that means he's usurped the power of the bishops, the pope. He's the universal bishop. And he has replaced the territorial power of the bishop with his own papal power. That's what the Eastern Orthodox think today. Isn't that funny? He's about to they're about to respond to this. Episcopal jurisdiction has been absorbed by papal jurisdiction. The pope no longer exercises as he did in the past certain definite def definite rights reserved to him alone. But now all the rights of the local bishops have passed into his hands. As a matter of principle, he has taken the place of each bishop and it depends on him alone at any time with regard to practical matters to take the place of the bishop in negotiations with the civil government. Remember we were talking about what Vatican 1 was doing uh with the monarchs. Now the bishops are only his instruments, his functionaries without personal responsibility. So they're powerless basically regarding the civil government. They have become officials of a foreign sovereign indeed of a sovereign who because of his in infallibility enjoys absolute authority more than any absolute monarch in the world. So basically what they're saying is they're saying that um this is not what the German bishops are saying. Again, this is what the error is that they're they're about to respond to. This is what the opinion of some people are after the council. They think the c Vatican one taught that the pope is now the bishop the universal bishop of the church. That means he's the bishop of every dascese. You guys have seen that quote from Pope Gregory the Great that Eastern Orthodox like to uh to bring up to us. They think that we are teaching this right here. That's what they think, right? So they're about to respond to it. So So that whole Pope Gregory the Great quote that they like to bring up, it doesn't really do anything against our position. In fact, it supports our position because here's how they respond. The German bishops say all of these assertions are beereft of any foundation and they contradict the wording and the meaning of the decisions of the Vatican council. A meaning clearly and repeatedly expressed by the pope, by the bishops, and by the experts in Catholic studies. It's almost like they're talking to Eastern Orthodox apologists. To be sure, according to these decisions, the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the pope is a potesta suprema ordinaria immediata, supreme ordinary and immediate power that was conferred on the pope by Jesus Christ, the son of God in the person of St. Peter. This supreme authority is exercised over the whole church and therefore over every dascese and every individual believer. Yet the decisions of the Vatican Council offer no basis for the assertion that the Pope because of them has become an absolute master. First of all, the area covered by the ecclesiastical authority of the pope is essentially different from that over which the earthly power of a sovereign monarch extends. And Catholics do not challenge in any way the uh the so I can never say this word so you guys see it uh of so sovereignity of kings and princess over civil matters well I don't know if you see it it's font 12 but pre uh preciding from that the application of the term absolute monarch to the pope in reference to the ecclesiastical affairs is not correct because he is subject to divine laws and is bound by the directives given by Christ for his church. The pope cannot change the constitution given to the church by her divine founder as an earthly ruler can change the constitution of a state. In all essential points, the constitution of the church is based on divine directives and therefore it is not subject to human arbitrariness. Just as the papacy is of divine institution. Remember I bring receipts. So also is the episcopy episcopacy. Remember I said the episcopacy is also a divine institution. The latter has its own rights. The latter meaning the bishops and duties in virtue of having been instituted by God and the pope has neither the right nor the power to change them. Therefore, a complete misunderstanding of the Vatican decision is involved if one concludes from them that episcopal jurisdiction has been absorbed by papal jurisdiction. That the pope as a matter of principle has taken the place of each bishop. That the bishops are only his instruments, his functionaries without personal responsibility. With regard to the last assertion in particular, we must reject it categorically. It is certainly not the Catholic Church that has embraced the immoral and despotic principle that the command of a superior frees one unconditionally from all personal responsibility. Do you guys understand what they're talking about here? Do you guys understand that this addresses the very apologetic against us that think that we talk that we believe that the pope is the bishop over everybody? He's not. He has a function where he is a universal bishop but he rarely exercises it. He is first of all the bishop of Rome. The bishop of San Diego, the bishop of Detroit, the bishop of Los Angeles, they are the popes of their own dascese. And the pope is not to overstep them. He's not to sit there and and breathe down their necks or he's not to micromanage them. That's their dascese. He doesn't get involved in in their dascese. But some folks think that we teach that the pope is going to overstep the uh you know bishop's authority right we don't believe that and this is very clear of what what's what's being said here finally the opinion according to which the pope is an absolute sovereign because of his infallibility is based on a completely false understanding of the dogma of people infallibility as the Vatican council has expressed the idea in clear and precise words and as the nature of the matter requires infallibility is a characteristic of the papacy that refers exclusively to the supreme magisterium of the pope. It is co-extensive with the area of the infallible magisterium of the church in general and it is restricted to the contents of the holy scripture and tradition and also to the dogmas previously defined by the teaching authority of the church. Consequently, the teaching on infallibility has not changed in any way the pope's administrative actions. This is from Denzinger 3112 to 3116. So, um Denzinger, if you guys want the the reference to this, you can read it from there. Now, we're going to read the pope's response. How does the pope respond? Pope Pas's response to the German bishops. You have increased the glory of the church, venerable brothers, because you have taken upon yourselves the task of reestablishing the true sense of the definition of the Vatican council that had been distorted by a wildly disturbed and deceptive circle or latter. Again, people went out from the council spreading error. And that error is here still today. It's in the Catholic Church. It's in the Eastern Orthodox opinions. It's there. It's still here. So that that has an effect to our day. You wrote so that the afor said letter of Bismar might not deceive the faithful and subverted by envy provide a pretext for intrigue against the freedom of the election of a new pope. The clarity and solidity of your declaration is truly of such a nature that since it leaves nothing more to desire, it can only give rise to our deepest congratulations, unless the cunning voice of certain newspapers should require from us an even stronger testimony. For in order to put some power back into the letter that you rightly rejected, they tried to attack the credibility of your document by claiming that the doctrine of the consiliar definitions was toned down by you and therefore in no way corresponds to the intention of the holy of this holy sea. And now get this. It says, "We therefore reject the this cunning and calumnous calmous insinuation and suggestion for your declaration presents the truly Catholic understanding which is that of the holy council and of this holy sea." You defended the teaching so skillfully and brilliantly with convincing and irrefutable arguments that it is obvious to any honest person that there is absolutely nothing in the attack definition that is new. Now we get to Vatican 2. Vatican 2 Illuminencium. Vatican 2 uh takes on the uh the balance between the pope and the bishops because remember Vatican 1 was supposed to do what Vatican 2 is doing here. But the the the council was stopped and it was never officially closed. So Vatican 2 first thing they did is they closed Vatican 1 and they opened Vatican 2. And now they're gonna balance out uh they're going to balance out the uh uh the the the power of the papacy with the power of the the collegiate uh bishop just as in the gospel the lord so disposing St. Peter and the other apostles constitute the one apostolic college. So in a similar way the Roman pontiff the successor of Peter and the bishops the successors of the apostles are joined together. Indeed, the very ancient practice whereby bishops dually established in all parts of the world were in communion with one another and with the bishop of Rome in a bond of unity, charity and peace and also the councils assembled together in which more profound issues were settled in common, collegiality, the opinion of the many having been prudently considered. Both of these factors are already an indication of the collegiate character and aspect of the episcopal order. And the ecumenical councils held in the course of centuries are also manifest proof of that same character. And it is intimidated intimidated also in the practice introduced in ancient times of summoning several bishops to take part in the elevation of the newly elected to the ministry of the high priesthood. Hence, one is constituted a member of the episcopal body in virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the body. So, in other words, what they're saying is that in the past, the the popes and the bishops, the way they acted is they they held councils um uh and and they had a truly collegial uh manner of operating the the ecclesiology of the church, right? This collegial union is apparent also in the mutual relations of the individual bishops with particular churches and with the universal church. The Roman pontiff as a successor of Peter is the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity of the both the bishops and of the faithful. The individual bishops however are the visible principle and foundation of unity in their particular churches just like we just talked about right they're the popes of each of their own dascese fashioned after the model of the universal church in and from which churches comes into being the one and whole only Catholic church for this reason the individual bishops represent each his own church but all of them together and with the pope represent the entire church in the bond of peace love and unity And this infallibility with which the divine redeemer willed his church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals extends as far as the deposit. Um revelation extends and which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which Sir Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office. When as a supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren and their faith by definitive act, he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals. So basically uh is is reaffirming Vatican 1. Now it says, "And therefore his definitions of themselves and not from the consent of the church are justly styled irreformable." They're quoting Vatican 1. But now they're going to qualify that. It says since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. So God makes them infallible promised to him in blessed Peter and there therefore they need no approval of others nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. And we'll skip to this. And it says to these definitions the ascent of the church can never be wanting on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progressing in unity of faith. So in other words, if the Holy Spirit is is uh is going to allow the pope to decree something, that thing is going to be infallible. And if it is infallible, that means the consent of the church is behind it. So the consent of the church will be behind his decrees every time. Okay. Now, very recently, this is about a year or so ago, there was a document that came out called the bishop of Rome uh where you had a bunch of uh Catholic historians, scholars uh also with Protestants as well who who came together and they put together a uh this document. So, this is I'm going to quote from this document. This is not magisterial. This this has no weight of authority but at least it has something to do with giving us the history um gives giving us the history of of of papal infallibility by studying the historical context of Vatican 1, its proceedings with particular attention to the relatio of Bishop Gasser, the chairman of the responsible commission and its reception. Some theological dialogues have been able to clarify the meaning of certain terms relating to the dogma infallib of infallibility and to agree on aspects of its teaching. Infallibility is not independent of the church. And the statement that papal definitions are irreversible of themselves and not for the consent of the church was added or the purpose of excluding the tendency of some gallans and consiliarists who regarded approval by the bishops as necessary in order to give infallibility to any papal definition. The term consensus at Vatican 1 is to be understood in the jeritical sense of official approval and not in the moral general sense of agreement or acceptance by the church as a whole. So in other words, when it says they are irreformable in and of themselves and not from the consent of the church, what it's saying is is that the not from the consent of the church is not meant to be taken as a general sense of agreement. So the pope does need the the general sense of agreement of the church behind his decree. When it says not from the consent of the church, it's talking about jeritical. That's what this is saying. The interpretation that this is giving is exactly what I've been saying and we're going to get into that more. I'm not going to read all this, but it's on your screen if you want to read it. Um uh you can you can pause the video, you can read it, but I I do have to continue on because there's more to uh to get through. So now this is Pope St. John Paul II um to the great this is Utum. So this is in a cyclical he wrote in the '9s to uh really to all the Eastern churches and even to the Protestants who to say here look this this is what we teach about the papacy um and I'm open to uh to redefining how we uh we understand it right and this is what he said he says with the power and the authority without which such an office would be illusurary the bishop of Rome must ensure the communion of all the churches for this reason he is the first servant of unity. This primacy is exercised on various levels including vigilance over the handing down of the word, celebration of the liturgy and the sacraments, the church's mission, discipline, and the Christian life. It is the responsibility of the successor of Peter to recall the requirements of the common good of the church. should anyone be tempted to overlook it in the pursuit of personal interest. He has the duty of he has the duty to admonish to caution and to declare at times that this or that opinion being circulated is irreconcilable with the unity of faith. And we're going to see that that was a very that's a very petristic understanding. When circumstances require it, he speaks in the name of all the pastors in communion with him. He can also under very specific conditions clearly laid down by the first Vatican council declare excathedra that a certain doctrine belongs to the deposit of faith. By thus bearing witness to the truth he serves unity. And here's how this is what he says after that. He says all this meaning the infallibility that he declared ex cathedral and all the things that he said before and of him keeping watch and him making sure everyone's playing nice. All this all this however must always be done in communion. When the Catholic Church affirms that the office of the bishop of Rome corresponds to the will of Christ, she does not separate this office from the mission entrusted to the whole body of bishops who are also vicers and ambassadors of Christ. So the pope is not the only vicor of Christ. The bishops are vicers and ambassadors of Christ as well. The bishop of Rome is a member of the college. He's not over the college. He is one of the college. And the bishops are his brothers in the ministry. This is Pope uh St. John Paul II. This is his interpretation of Vatican 1. It's not the same thing as Eastern Orthodox interpretation. He has a minimalist understanding as well. Now, we're going to get into a theologian. I have so many theologians, but I'm only gonna get into one, and he he's going to suffice. Um, and then I can I'll give you guys s resources for more if you guys want to dig into more. He just passed away recently. God rest his soul. Richard Gillard. Um, he was born in Texas, but I I put this biography because I want you guys to understand that this guy is more than qualified. He received his master's and a PhD in systematic theology from the University of Notre Dame. For his uh dissertation, he researched the theology of the ordinary universal magisterium of bishops. So, he knows his stuff. This is what he wrote his thesis on. And then he uh he worked for um as you guys can see, you guys can read this. I'm not going to go through all this. Um but he was a prominent theologian. Here's what he said. If the pope is not head of the church nor bishop of the whole church, he is the pastor of the universal church by virtue of his role as bishop of the local church of Rome. Moreover, he is the head of the college of bishops as a member of that college. Vatican 2 taught that it is to the whole college of bishops always under the headship of the bishop of Rome that supreme power and authority was given to seek after the welfare of the church as head and members member of this college. The pope can never be separated and opposed to the bishops. At the same time, neither can the bishops be constituted as a college without being in communion with the bishop of Rome, head and body. Many theologians now believe that all significant people actions exercised for the good of the whole church are by definition collegial. Uh I'm sorry that was supposed to say all significant papal actions not people actions. Um so all significant papal actions exercised for the good of the whole church are by definition collegial. This collegiality is made explicit when a pope convenes and presides over an ecumenical council. Yet they would contend even when the pope acts alone. He does so he does so as head of the college of bishops. His role as head of college of the college presumes that he is maintaining an informed communion with all the bishops. That communion with all the bishops underlies all people's act papal actions. I I did a a text to speech so so I don't have to type all this so forgive me but say papal act uh papal definitions not people at the same time it is generally accepted today and it was the opinion of many of the bishops at Vatican 1 that the pope is still morally bound to engage in such consultation. Vatican 1 did not wish to place juditical limits on effective papal action. At the same time, the council clearly presumed the pope would always act in communion with his brother bishops. To fail to consult the bishops would suggest the failure of the pope's responsibility as head of the college to preserve the unity of the college. This is a theologian's interpretation of Vatican 1. Catholic theologian who wrote his thesis on this topic who works who worked as a theologian emphasizing this very thing that we're discussing. So I think he would know a little bit more about this topic than somebody like Obby Petrus or Jay Dyer. He says also in the same book finally the council taught that the solemn definitions of popes were irreformable of themselves and not and did not require the consent of the church. This clause is often misunderstood and can give the impression that the pope can act as a king I was supposed to say kind of church lone ranger again forgive me um apart from the other bishops. This was not the intent of Vatican 1. It was not the intent of Vatican 1 for the pope to be a lone ranger. But it's not it's the intent of Ruby Petus and Jay Dyer and all the other folks. For several s for several centuries, a viewpoint had been lurking around in the church that held that when the pope defined something, it could not be considered binding until after the bishops had officially ratified the teaching. That's Gaconism. Vatican 1 rejected this position not because they viewed the pope as someone who could or would act independent of the other bishops but because they assumed that a pope would always be in relationship with his brother bishops communicating with them and seeking their council. All the council was saying was that it was not necessary to impose jeritical ratifications by the other bishops. It is surely a significant It is surely significant that before Pope Pius I 9th solemnly defined the dogma immaculate conception and before Pope Pius the 12th solemnly defined the assumption of Mary which are both exathedas both popes made a point of first writing to all the bishops and inquiring after the belief of the church on these matters. So they first pulled the bishops. The bishops brought back to them to the popes and they said yes we believe this teaching whether it's the act conception or the uh assumption of Mary and the popes looked at that belief of the whole church and they said okay now I know what the mind of the church is. They all believe this. So I'm going to decree the mind of the church. That's how things work normatively speaking. So either uh the Swiss bishops, the German bishops, Pope Pius the 9th, Bishop Gastra, all the majority bishops, Vatican 1, Vatican 2, uh Richard Gayarteds, uh who else? The the historians and scholars, the Bishop of Rome document, uh Denzinger, um who else who else do I need to bring up? uh all the other theologians that I have in my in my bag, there's about 10 of them that I can share with you guys that are just basically saying the same thing in so many different words. Either they're all stupid and they're all wrong and we've been fooled or we've been dealing with a straw man this whole time. And so if we're dealing with a straw man, then I don't need to go into the early church and show a lone ranger or an autocrat. I don't need to do that. I need to show where the papacy functioned collegially and that suffices to prove Vatican 1 and Vatican 2. Now we're going to get into the early church fathers and this is where the fun starts. So now we're going to prove what we have set. Here's the the the premise. we have to prove the papacy, right? Um before I do that, I do want to uh preface this a little bit. So, now we're going to get into what I think a lot of folks were waiting for, but um a lot of a lot of a lot of folks were waiting on what I presented as well. Um because we first have to prove what we believe is really collegial before we go into the early church and prove what we really believe. Um, so let me preface this by saying what we have to prove from the early church is not it's not that the pope uh can act alone or not act alone or none of that is is part of the dogma. That's just like an unwritten rule. Like this is what we believe. This is how things work. This is just an unwritten law. Uh this is a moral obligation. This is how popes act. This is how popes work. What matters is we go into the early church and we prove that this gift of papal infallibility existed. If I can do that, I have done my job. I don't care whether he did it by himself or not by himself. None of that matters more so than that this gift exists. So once I prove this gift and now we can say well how did this gift how did the popes function because if I show that this gift exists which I'm about to which about to show you so many fathers if I show that this gift of papal infallibility was the mind of the church fathers it's it's in the background of of of how they functioned of of how they acted of how they worked how they thought of how they how they governed that this this papacy has this infallibility if if it's in the background if I can show that and then the Eastern Orthodox are going to say, "Well, you got to show it to me where he acted alone." Well, now I can say number one, here is the gift. So, you can't deny that it's there. And here's what we believe about the gift that it's not so much about the pope acting alone because we just showed that we went through all these things to show that we don't believe that. So, now we have the gift and the gift is collegial. So the the gift is collegial, right? It's it's not something where the pope is decreeing things by himself. Now there's a good question here. Uh Bernardet, how is it how is this collegial position enough to prove Vatican 1? What about people's supremacy? Well, the whole point of what I'm doing is to is to contextualize people's sup supremacy? Papal supremacy is not a autocratic papacy where the pope is just, you know, stampeding over the bishops. Papal supremacy goes handinhand with collegiality. They work together. And so what I've been presenting here the whole time is the contextualization of Vatican 1 that it's not an autocratic papacy. It's a collegial papacy. Okay. So that that's that's the whole point of what I've been doing for the uh you know for the last hour and a half or so. I don't know if you you caught the whole show, but uh I would recommend you watch from beginning to end to get the understanding of a contextualized papacy. Um so we can we can say papal supremacy. Now don't get me wrong, the pope has the power to if he sees something off, you know, somebody's saying um something wrong, he has the power to correct that thing. And we're going to we're going to look into the early church and we're going to show that. We're not making that up. So now again, papacy, the papal infallibility gift has to exist. How does it work? Does it work collegially or not? We've shown that it does. And so I have to go into the early church and show that it's collegial. I don't have to show that the gift of papal infallibility is a autocratic um gift, right? It's autocratic in the sense that only the pope declares it, but it's not autocratic in the sense that he's the only one who believes it. He has to have the mind of the bishops behind his decree. Okay? So that's number one. Now we also have to show that the papacy was the center of unity in the early church. And that in order to be the center of unity, you have to have uh you have to have real authority for you to uh be able to function with authority. Imagine somebody h being the center of unity to make sure everyone's playing nice, but they have no authority to make sure everyone's playing nice. Um I I don't I don't I don't know how that's possible, right? You can't you can't do anything without having real authority. So now let's get into the fathers. St. Bonafice is a pope in the fifth century, early fifth century. He wrote the universal ordering of the church at its birth took its origin from the office of blessed Peter in which is found both its directing power and its supreme authority from him as from a source at the time when our religion was in a state stage of growth all churches received their common order. This much is shown by the injunctions of the council of Nika since it did not venture to make a decree in his regard recognizing that nothing could be added to his dignity. In fact, it knew that all had been assigned to him by the world by the word of the Lord. So it is clear that this church is to all churches throughout the world as the head is to the members and that whoever separates himself from it becomes an exile from the Christian religion since he ceases to belong to its fellowship. So it's a center of unity. It's it's you have to be in communion with Rome according to the pope of Rome at the time who was in communion with uh oriental orthodoxy. Well, not there was no orthodoxy back then, I would argue, but you know who would eventually separate from the church and become orthodoxy. So this this is according to Eastern Orthodox and oriental Orthodox, this is not a bishop of a Catholic church. This is their bishop. This is not our bishop. Right? Yet where would they say where would this language fit anywhere in their ecclesiology today? It doesn't. There's no such thing of a bishop that you have to be in communion with in order to have, you know, to be in the true religion. Um, now let me let me preface this real quick. I I I want to give credit where credit is due. So, a lot of these quotes I got from two sources. I want you guys to you probably already know these sources, but this is one of them. This is papacy book by uh your the one and only Eric Ibara. So, I I recommend getting this book. It's a very big book. Um, and then, uh, I I want to, um, bring you guys to your attention to an Eastern Orthodox, now Catholic gentleman, um, who's one of my favorite apologists in in in this topic. Um, he has a blog called Benjamin John's. It's a Substack. So, if you put Benjamin John Substack and this is one of the best articles I've ever read on the papacy. It's super long. It's like he wrote a book, but he made it into an article. I mean, look at look how long this is. You could have made this into a mini book. Really? So, um, you this is excellent. You you guys all need to go and read this, right? Very, very great article. A lot of the things that I'm quoting here comes from these two these sources. So, I want to give credit where credit is due. They've already done all the work for me. I don't this is not my expertise is not in the um going into the well actually I I also do that but mostly I'm all about proving what we really teach on the papacy and then I go into the early church like I'm doing right now to show you to prove the case. Okay. So, uh but these gentlemen here are a million times better than me at doing that. So, uh these are the guys to go to. But I I did present some of the stuff here. Now, let's let's move on. Uh, St. Siril and Pope St. Celestine. No, let me let me preface this. So, if you don't know the story, let me just um Yeah, I'll I'll link it to the chat. Um, I'll definitely link it to the chat because I I want uh Ben, his name is Ben um to to be very well known. I'm going to have him on my show. I already asked him uh before if he wants to come on. He said he he would. And so, I'll have him on the show. We can discuss this stuff in detail. Um but let me let me just preface the story of uh St. Siril Notorious and uh St. uh Celeststeine, Pope St. Celestine. So here's here's the background. Uh there's this new patriarch of Constantinople. His name is Atorius. And he starts preaching homalies about how Mary is not the mother of God, she's the mother of Christ. Um and St. Serial hears about it who was a patriarch of Alexandria and he gets assured by it and he writes to the pope and saying, "Hey, uh there's this guy, the new patriarch Constantinople, who's writing this and that. What do you think we should do with him? Do you think we should commune with him or not?" He asked the pope, "Should should we be in communion with him or not?" So he he writes to the pope to to to see how we can settle the matter. Um and the pope writes back and says well first of all the pope holds a cinnid a Roman senate. He he holds a Roman cinnid and he with his brother bishops the the western bishops in in Rome and the pope they decree that uh they're going to give Ntorius 10 days to repent or else he's going to be driven out of the church universal. He's going to be excommunicated not just from Rome but from the whole church. Okay. So now I'm gonna uh show you the quotes. Okay. Okay. So the authority of RC. This is the pope writing to um this is the pope writing to uh to the cinnid the authority of our I'm sorry. This is the pope and the cinnid writing. the authority of our sea having been combined with yours and acting authoritatively in ourstead. So he's writing this to St. zero will carry out this sentence with the due severity that is that unless within 10 days after receiving our admonition notorious anathematizes his heterodox doctrine in writing. So he has 10 days to do this and positively declares that he holds that faith with regard to the nativity of our Christ of Christ our God which both the Roman and the church of thy holiness and all Christians in general hold. Your holiness is to provide for the church there Constantinople and he is to understand that he is in every way separated from our body. So just to give you like a summary of what he's saying he's saying uh the pope is writing to St. is saying give this guy 10 days if he doesn't repent you're going to excommunicate him and we're going to talk about the language of the excommunication that's very important um and then he he also writes in historius Pope St. Celeststeine writes in this story. He says um if he persisted in his stubbornness on of perverse disposition and did not preach the things which uh Syro their brother preached together with him. the clergy of Constantinople and all should understand that he was separated from the college of bishops with whom he could not hold communion and that he was clearly to understand that if he did not preach concerning Christ our God the things which both the Roman the Alexandrian and the whole church Catholic church holds and which the most holy church of the city of Constantinople held firmly until his days and condemned openly and by written acknowledgment the profiduous novelty which tends to put us under that which the venerable scripture joins within 10 days from the receipt of this admonition he would be cast out from the communion of the universal church and he also says I'm not going to read this part because this is the important part right here pop uh writes to St. Sir, he says if he Notorius persists, an open sentence must be passed on him. And here is the key and this is the point I'm trying to make. And so appropriating to yourself, so he's writing this to St. Sir. He's like, I'm giving you my authority. He's appropriating to yourself the authority of our sea and using our position you shall with resolute severity carry out this sentence. So he's saying the pope is saying to St. Siril give him 10 days and if he doesn't repent you will excommunicate him by the authority of my sea Rome. Not your sea Alexandria but my sea. So Rome alone is excommunicating him from the universal church and so he's being kicked out of the church. He has 10 days. Now where does the collegial aspect come in? The collegial aspect comes in is that the whole church is in agreement with the pope from Alexandria to all the east and all obviously the west who are with the bishop of Rome and Constantinople notorious you know who's the patron of Constant Constantinople he's alone right and so the whole church is really against him but the mouthpiece of this situation is the pope now and he says that either he shall within 10 days count it from the day of your notice of your notice. Condemn in writing this wicked assertion of his or if he will not do this he will know that he is in every way removed from our body. We have written the same to our brothers and fellow bishops John Rufus juvenile and Flavian so our judgment about him or rather the divine sentence of our Christ may be known. So he wrote the letters to everybody saying he this guy has 10 days if he doesn't repent he's not he's no longer part of our our church. St. Sirill had no problem with this ecclesiology. He went to the to Notorious and he said and he wrote to him and he says, "You got 10 days, bro. If you don't repent, you you're gonna get excommunicated by me, by the power of the bishop of Rome, and the sea of Rome, I should say." And so there it is. There there is the the the ecclesiology that I've been uh presenting. Now, I'm not done yet. There's a lot more. I've been presenting the ecclesiology of the pope speaks in the name of the church. The pope speaks in the name of the church. Collegiality. So it's not the pope alone. So now now how why is this so effective? Why why don't the uh orthodox want to debate this topic? Because this is their reputation. Their reputation is oh it wasn't Rome alone. It was the all the bishops who were behind it as well. Yeah, that's what we teach. That's not contradicting to Vatican 1. That's what we actually teach. So, uh, that proves Vatican 1, that proves Vatican 2, that proves the papacy. That's how we understand the papacy properly. So, their their their whole rebuttal to it is collegiality as if collegiality disproves the papacy, but it contextualizes it as I did here. So if you contextualize the papacy into a collegial manner, now your reputation it goes like this and it falls. It doesn't do anything. And so now they have no reputation. They cannot say anything. They can't. And this is why they'll use excuses to, oh, you're not platformed enough. You don't have enough subscribers. Since when was that a thing? I was called to debate like 5 years ago by these people and all of a sudden I'm not platformed enough. I don't think that has anything to do with it. I think they just don't know how to answer this. It's irrefutable. You cannot refute this. So your your whole your whole aspect is collegiality disproves the papacy. My whole aspect is collegiality goes handinhand with the papacy. It complements it perfectly. And so you can't use collegiality against us. Now um this is from the actual council of Ephesus third ecumenical council. Philip the Presbyter of the Apostolic Sea said, "There is no doubt and in fact it has been known in all ages that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom of from our Lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race. and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed Pope Celestine according to due order is his successor and holds his place and us he sent to supply his place in this holy senate which the most human and Christian emperors have commanded to assemble bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic Church. So what this proves the context here is that the bishop of Rome is judging a bishop of Constantinople, patriarch of Constantinople. He's like second in rank, right? And the and the and the bishop of Rome, the pope is judging him, saying you don't have the right faith. So when we read by Pope John Paul II and he says that the pope's job is to keep watch make sure everyone's playing nice and he says he he can't keep watch without having true authority where I I told you that I'm going to give you an example of that true authority and here it is and and this is in the council itself. So this is in the Eastern Orthodox and oriental orthodox ecumenical c this is in the actas no one batted an eye. No one said, "What are you talking about? This is doesn't exist. This is Vatican 1." None of this none of this was contended by anyone. In fact, uh, St. Sir stood up and said, "Amen" to all this. You, he says, "You've heard it here." And so, another thing I want to point out is the word forever. Because the other thing I wanted to talk about is the um the the fact that I talked about the the uh the gift has to exist. The other thing has to exist is this perpetual office. The perpetual office is there in perpetuity. And so if if the fathers teach that the bishop of Rome's office is perpetual where he says forever, it's in the council. That means that the Catholic Church by default is the only church that could be the true church by default. Because if you don't have the bishop of Rome and the fathers say it's forever, then you don't have the early church. You don't have the same church. You just made up something else. You can't just replace him with the bishop of Constantinople, patriarch of Constantinople, or the patriarch of Antioch or or whatever the Orientals do. You can't just replace it or you can't just throw him out because it says forever. Right. Again, the Philip Presbyterian le of the apostolic sea said, "We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable cinnid that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you, the holy members by our or your holy voices, you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy exclamations. For you your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles is blessed Peter the apostles." And they apply that headship to the bishop of Rome. So again, head in members. Head in members. Head in members. That's what I've been preaching. That's what they teach. This is what we teach. It's not a contradiction. This is what we actually teach now. We go to uh Pope St. Leo the Great. Right? And this is going to show um the the idea of a papacy where you have the headed members again in Pope St. Leo the great on the return and this is after the council um this is after the council of Calcedan which is the fourth ecumenical council. This is he's writing after this is letter 120. On the return of our brothers and fellow priests, whom the sea of the blessed Peter sent to the holy council, we ascertained, beloved, the victory you and we together had won by assistance from on high over the blasphemy and notorious as well as over the madness of Udicus. Wherefore we make our boast in the Lord, singing with the prophet, "Our help is in the name of our Lord, who has made heaven and earth, who has suffered us to sustain no harm in the person of our brethren, but has corroborated by the irrevocable ascent of the whole brotherhood, what he had already laid down through our ministry to show that what had been first formulated by the foremost sea of Christendom and then received by the judgment of the whole Christian world had truly proceeded from himself that in this two the members may be at one with the head. I'll skip over to the green part. You guys can read the rest. Moreover, the truth itself shines more brightly and is more bravely maintained when what the faith had already taught is afterwards confirmed by further inquiry. And still further the good name of the priestly office gains much in luster where the authority of the highest is preserved without it being thought that the liberty of the lower ranks has been at all infringed. the authority of the highest being himself, the pope. But he's saying that the lower ranks, the bishops, everyone else underneath him, that their liberty has not been infringed because they're all on board with him. So what happened with the with Calcedan? Before Calcedan happened, uh you had this this guy named Udicus who was preaching a heresy, a chronological heresy. So the pope writes the pope of Rome the bishop of Rome uh Leo the great he writes a tome uh against Uticus his his his christologology he's writing it against his christologology he says this is the real christologology this is the orthodox christologology and he gets all the bishops to sign off on it before the council. So this is like a form of in a sense an ex cathedral. So he gets all all the bishops to sign off on this saying he's saying, "Okay, this is the this is the this is the law of the land. You got to sign this if you want to be part of the church." That's what Leo tells the bishops. And so they all read it and they all sign it. Um and then there was a council in Ephesus uh 4:49, which is called Ephesus 2, which we don't recognize. um that pretty much ignored the tome, didn't want to read it, and then they kind of went on their own um to uh to go against Leo, right? In so many words. And so Leo enolled the council. He enolled it by with his authority. He goes, you know, this is null and void. And of course, without a but without the bishop of Rome, you can't have a council. That's what the father's taught. So he enols it and then the emperor uh wants a council to be held and he writes to to Pope Leo. He says you know I want to hold a council. Pope Leo wanted the council to be held in Italy. Emperor said no. It was held held in Calcedan. So they hold a council where the tome is now what the orthodox would say being judged. But that's not what's happening. It's not so much as being judged because all the people in the council have already read the the the tome and they've already signed off on it. It was a it was a small portion of bishops at the council who had a problem with the tome. And so annoyingly the the the person in charge of the council who was I think it was a secular imperial like ruler um was in charge of like administrating making sure everyone's playing nice. uh he kind of set like a little side classroom for them to to learn what this tome is about. So they were taught what it is and then they came out of it saying, "Yeah, we agree with with everything in the tome now that we understand it properly." So this whole thing that the tome was judged is is is a false understanding because all of them had already signed off on it. They've already read it before the council, right? So remember when they were signing off on this, they didn't think there was going to be a council in the future. They're like, "Oh, the pope wrote a c the christoologgical um treatise and he's refuting a heresy. We're going to sign off on this. We're going to put our name to it." And so the pope is decreeing it, but it has the mind of the church behind it. Before the council was even thought of, you have this Vatican 1 type of ecclesiology right then and there. Just the same thing as with uh Pope's uh Celestine, he gives St. Cirill this instruction to excommunicate uh Ntorius before the council of Ephesus was even talked about and he went St. And but the mind of the church was behind this excommunication. The mind of the church was behind the tome of Leo. And so this is how things work. Whether it's the act of the pope doing things alone, he still has the consent and the mind of the church behind his act. Or if it's an ecumenical council, then both the head and members are now judges, official judges, not just the pope and not just the bishops. So in either case, just like Gayarteds we read, in either case, it's a colleial act. It's not it's not the pope. It's not only the pope who believes what he's saying. It's everyone who's on board with it and the pope. Does that make sense? Because this is very important for you guys to understand. And you see how improving Vatican 1 papacy by going into the early church and contextualizing Vatican 1 and contextualizing the early church and it's not just well it was collegial or consilier so now we you know we refuted Vatican 1 that was an autocratic uh it taught an autocratic papacy. No that's that's not that's not at all what it is. Okay. So, let me know if you guys understand so far cuz I'm going to move on to the next uh father. All right. So, hit one if you guys understand or hit two if you're asleep. I guess you can't hit two if you're asleep. Everyone's going to hit two now. We're at two hours and six minutes. So, have some more church fathers to go through and then and then we'll be done. 1.5. I like it. Mango bingo. All right. So, now the formula for mistas. Yeah. Yeah. We talked about that uh earlier that and that's the same thing Pope Pius the 9th did with the immaculate conception 1854 who was the same person who who actually was at the council of Vatican 1 who affirmed it who consented to it. So formula form is this. Our first safety is to guard the rule of the right faith and to deviate in no wise from the ordinance ordinances of the fathers because we cannot pass over this statement of our Lord Jesus Christ who said thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church. These words which were spoken are proved by the effects of the deeds because in the apostolic sea the Catholic religion has always been preserved without stain. Always been preserved without stain. There's the gift of infallibility. the papal infallibility gift. It's always been preserved without sin. We condemn too an anathematized Aacius formerly bishop of Constantinople who was condemned by the apostolic sea. Again, bishop of Rome condemning the patriarch Constantinople who was second in rank. So much for the pope not having authority to do that. their confederate and follower or those who remained in the society of their communion because Aacius justly merited a sentence in condemnation like theirs in whose communion he mingled. No less do we condemn Peter of Antioch with his followers and the followers of all mentioned above. Moreover, we accept and approve all the letters of blessed Leo the the pope which he wrote regarding the Christian religion. Just as we said before, following the apostolic sea in all things and extolling all its ordinances. And therefore, I hope that I may merit to be in the one communion with you which the apostolic sea proclaims in which there is the whole and the true and the perfect solidity of the Christian religion promising that in the future the names of those separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is those not agreeing with the apostolic. So if you don't agree with the apostolic sea, that means you're not part of the Catholic Church. Shall not be read during the sacred mysteries, which is which are the dipics. But if I shall attempt in any way to deviate from my profession, I confess that I am a confederate in my opinion with those whom I have condemned. However, I have with my own hands signed this profession of mine, and to you, Hormistus, the holy and venerable pope of the city of Rome, I have directed it. So this is signed by a bunch of Eastern bishops. A bunch of Eastern bishops just affirmed this. A bunch of Eastern bishops affirm this. What Eastern Bishop today would affirm something like this? The Eastern Orthodox Church is not the same church as the first millennium church. Don't be fooled. St. Maximus the Confessor. These confines of the inhabited world and those throughout the world who confess the Lord in a pious and orthodox manner look straight to the most holy church of Rome towards her confession and faith as to a son of perennial light receiving from her the bright splendor of the holy teachings of the fathers as they were explained piously and in all purity by the six holy councils. the five ecumenical councils plus the Lateran Council which were inspired and dictated by God in proclaiming very clearly the symbol of faith for ever since the word of God condescended to us and became man. All the churches of Christians everywhere have held all and hold the great church there as their sole basis and foundation. Because get this, according to the very promises of the Lord, the gates of hell have never prevailed over her, but rather she has the keys of the Orthodox faith and confession. She opens the genuine and only piety to those who approach her piously but closes every heretical mouth that speaks injustice. So uh St. Maximus the confessor says that the church of Rome is divinely instituted by Christ. So if it's divinely inserted by Christ and is never erred and that she shuts all the mouths of the heretics. Um again where is this understanding today? If it's divinely instituted it has to remain today. It can't it can't go away. Can't just vanish and say oh no it's a her it's a it's a heretical sea. Well who are who are you to say it's a heretical sea? The whole point that you cannot say such a thing because God has set up this this sea of Rome, this this bishop of Rome. He has set up the seat in order for divisions not to arise. And we're going to get into that and what that means. I'm not going to read this whole thing. I'm read the green. Um but this is Pope St. Agatho at the sixth ecumenical council. This is a letter uh that he wrote that the six ecumenical council accepted. So this is official. It says, "And therefore I beseech you with a uh contrite heart and rivers of tears with prostrated mind dain to stretch forth your most clement right hand to the apostolic doctrine which the co-workers of your pious labors." The blessed apostle Peter has delivered that it be not hidden under a bushel but that it be preached in the whole earth more shrilly than a bug bugle. Okay, now here we go. Because the true confession thereof for which Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all things was revealed by the father of heaven. For he received from the redeemer of all himself by three command com commandations. the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the church under whose protecting shield this apostolic church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error whose authority as of the prince of the all the apostles the whole Catholic church and the ecumenical senates have faithfully embraced and followed in all things and all the venerable fathers have embraced this apostolic doctrine. Okay. So again, this is the gift. It has never turned away. This is the gift of infallibility. Um he goes on here, by the grace of almighty God. I'm sorry, let me let me go back. For this is the rule of the true faith, which the spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the apostolic church of Christ, has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy, which it will be proved by the grace of Almighty God has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition. Now get this. Nor has she been depraved by yielding to the heretical innovation. But from the beginning, she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, the gift of infallibility, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Savior himself. Matthew 16. This guy has the Peter syndrome which he uttered in the Holy Gospel to the prince of the disciples saying, "Peter, Peter, behold, Satan has desired to have you that he might sift you as wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith fail not. And when you are converted, strengthen your brothers, brethren." So here a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church and council in the Eastern Orthodox Church says that this gift exists. This gift of papal infallibility exists. So again what I have to prove is the gift and here it is. That's what this papal infallibility gift is. It's right there. Now St. Theodore Studight says, "The iconoclasts have separated themselves from the body of Christ and from the chief throne in which Christ placed the keys of faith against which the gates of hell, namely the mouths of the heretics, have not prevailed up to now. Nor shall they ever prevail, nor shall they ever prevail, nor shall they ever prevail according to the promise of him who does not lie, Christ, divine institution, papal infallibility. Therefore, let the most blessed and apostle apostolic pope Pascal who is worthy of his time of his name rejoice for he has fulfilled the work of Peter. Wow. This is not just uh Peter syndrome. This is not just flowerly language. This is a real teach. This is the background of these father's mind is that Rome is a necessity. That Rome cannot fall. that Rome, where she goes, that's where the truth is. And so, as a as a layman, God did not set up a church for me to sit there and study church history to determine which one's the right one. He made it very easy for us. He gave us this permanent sea of Rome. And whoever is in communion with Rome is in communion with the church, which is what these fathers say. And whoever is in communion with the church is in communion with God. And so that my friends is how you determine where the truth is is you study the papacy. That's all you need to know is the seat of Peter. If the fathers say it's permanent, if they say it cannot error, if they say it's the head of the church, if they say it's a divine uh divine institution, the Christ instituted it. If they're saying these things and this office does not exist anywhere else but the Catholic Church, then the Catholic Church is the only real true church. It's that simple. That's it's that simple. Doesn't take a genius to figure this out. St. Upatus, you cannot then deny that you do not that you do know that upon Peter first in the city of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedral chair on which sat Peter, the head of the all the apostles, for which reason he was called Cphus. that in this one cathedral unity should be preserved by all, lest the other apostles might claim each for himself separate cathedrals, so that he who should set up a second cathedral against the unique cathedral would already be a schismatic in a and a sinner. Well, then on the one cathedral, which is the first of the endowments, Peter was the first to sit. So, think about this. I want you guys to think about this because this is very important. St. Obtatus is saying there's only one cathedral, one chair where you have a head. You can't have two chairs, which I would argue that the Oriental Orthodox have three chairs, maybe three, two or three. They have more than one. It doesn't work. Uh, Eastern Orthodox basically teach that every bishop has a chair and they're all equal with each other. And this guy here is saying who's a saint that you can't have more than one chair because if you have more than one chair then unity has been destroyed. Why? Think about this. Christ set up 12 apostles and he gave Peter the headship. And a lot of the fathers and we're going to take a look at some who say things like that Christ gave Peter headship so that divisions may not arise. So let's unpack that real quick. How could somebody having headship prevent divisions from arising? Because the person who has the headship has to have real authority and the p person who has the headship has to have actual infallibility the gift to teach infallibly has to because if Christ set up one chair to be the head which we see that it's a divine institution if Christ set up one chair to be the head and this head does not guarantee us to the truth then Christ set up a failing chair. that that's where that goes. Forget the whole five patriarchs thing. Forget cidality. Forget all that. It's saying it's one chair. It's not saying five chairs or two or three. In fact, it says you can't have more than one. So if it's only one chair then the headship the head of that ch of that church has to have real authority has to have real teaching power from God has to have a gift of infallibility so that when there are divisions in the church when 500 bishops think one thing and 500 bishops think another thing we don't have a majority now that headship steps steps in and tells you which side is where the true church is because what side the headship chooses that cathedral that's that's the side of the truth that's where the lay people should go the center of unity is a teaching of the fathers the pope being the center of unity this is very important St. Jerome says, "But you say the church was founded upon Peter, although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the church depends upon them all alike. Yet one among the 12 is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism." We just talked about this. How can you have no occasion for schism if the headship has no authority? Like the headship has to have authority. They have to have authority. Real authority. It can't just be this honorary role, honorary authority. It has to be real. He has to be able to step in and excommunicate notorious. He has to be able to step in and say, "Udicus, you're wrong." He has to be able to step in and excommunicate aacious patriarch of Constantinople. He has to be able to do these things, be able to have the ability to do these things in order to make sure unity is there. Because now if you have an equal chair to him, now I'm confused. Now, which one is the right one? It's like having that three Spider-Man meme. Um, and I think that might be the end of it. You're like, hallelujah. Um, let me see. I think that was it. Yep, that was it. Okay. So, uh, 2 hours and 23 minutes. At least I made it all in one part. I don't want to make didn't want to make this into different parts. So, any any thoughts, any questions? Uh, does did all this make sense? Did all this make sense? Did you guys understand? Uh do you guys have any questions? Go ahead. And this is the time to ask. Um while I'm still up. Exactly. Yeah. Imagine walking into work and saying your boss is only your boss by name only. Right. Oh. Oh, I do want to answer one question. Um I do want to answer one question that uh comes up all the time. Well, not really comes up but just listen to this. Okay. So, uh how can we say that the church has always won if there's been all these divisions, right? Because Christ made Peter the the head so that divisions may not arise as St. Jerome Jerome says, St. Apoptus says, uh St. Cyprien says, St. Augustine says a lot of the fathers talk like this, right? That that there's one among the 12 that is the head so that divisions may not arise. But then you say, well, you're talking about all these divisions in the church. So, how did that work? How can the church be one if all these divisions have arisen? Well, I would argue the church has is one. It has always been one and it will always be one. We got this Assyrian guy here uh snoring as all Assyrian guys do. Um so how how can you have oneness? And I'll answer this by saying the church has always been one and it will always be one. Why is that? Because where the bishop of Rome goes, which is the person that sits in the cathedral, where the bishop of Rome goes, which is the person that is the head That is where the one church is and he's followed by the bishops. Not all the not all of them. So, you know, that's where you have divisions. Some some bishops uh sever communion with Rome. And so, when they sever communion with Rome, they're no long they're no longer part of the true church. The true church is the bishop of Rome and the bishops in communion with him. That's the true church. Besides the books that you shared on X, there are others regarding the autocratic collegial question. I'm not sure I understand. Maybe if you can rephrase the question. Um, I don't know if you're asking if there are others. Can you link the papacy article in description? Yeah, I'll link it in the in the I'll put it in the comments, too, but I'll try to link it in the description as well. Um, would it be possible to make these slides available? Sure. Yeah, I can send the I can send them to you if you contact me um I can send them over to you. I don't have a problem with that. I I'll correct the uh the people to PayPal um before I send them out. Um that's right. Anyone who leaves the Catholic Church because they don't like a pope is making a great mistake. Absolutely. You guys have any questions before um I end the stream because I I don't have anything else. I mean, I have so many so much more, but I don't really want to go into anymore. It's been two and a half hours. So, you guys have no questions. I I'll wait about a minute or two to see if there are any questions before I go get some of those Z's that Shimonian is uh is getting as well. Did the clergy of Rome in the 3rd century imply that only the bishop of Rome could solve the issue of the lapsed? Uh well the popes in the in all the centuries uh they speak in in such language where they believe that their their stance is the authority of the church and so you're either on board with it or you're out of the church. Pope Leo was like that. Pope Celestine was like that. Um so yes, but I'm not sure what you mean by the lapsed. Um I don't know if that's like a a heresy in the church that that you're talking about. Um okay. How do you respond to the enorius objection? Asking for the audience. Uh the Anorius question again if you if you see what we just went through what what is papal infallibility? Papal infallibility is the pope binding the whole church to a teaching. That's what papal infallibility is. What was the teaching that Anorius tried to bind somebody? He didn't pick a side. He didn't actually pick a side. He wrote a letter back and he was he took a neutral side. He didn't actually pick a side. But even if he picked, let's say he picked a side. Let's say he picked one. This wasn't a letter where he's saying everyone is to believe this. I'm binding everyone to this belief. Remember papal infallibility the requirement the letter whatever the pope is writing the encyclical whatever it is like the like the to of Leo it has to be where the pope is taking that letter and is saying you have to believe this in order for you to be part of the church that's what people infallibility is it can't just be something where the pope writes a letter to another patriarch answering a question of theology ology which he actually didn't even answer. So there there's no there's no decree there. Uh I don't think Pope Anorius situation does anything for anyone. It doesn't help anybody. Um, and that that's not even we haven't even talked about whether an audience is an actual heretic or not because if you actually read his letter, he completely misunderstands the the question that he's answering in in in some of his letters where he actually is addressing the question, not the one where he's writing. Uh but he he talks about how the pope the pope uh how Christ uh has two wills uh has one will not two wills and what he's talking about there isn't the same thing that the east heresy is about one or two wills he's talking about Christ having one will because he doesn't have the two sides saying do good and do bad that we have you know my flesh causes me to sin and wants me to sin but you know my my spirit wants me to do good, but I can't because my flesh wants me to do bad. He's like, Christ doesn't have that. So, he has one will, but that's not the question they're asking you, buddy. So, he's misunderstanding the question in the first place. So, that that that doesn't fall under papal infallibility, not even close. If that falls under papal infallibility, then there's a lot of papal infallibility out there um from the popes, which we don't recognize as infallible. Um, so Pope Anorius doesn't do anyone anything. Uh, any other questions? We need a part two. We're We're going to do another part two, but the next part is going to be only church fathers. We're going to get into more details. I wanted to at least include some church fathers into this. Um, but yeah, we'll do a part two. It won't be just me. It'll be with other other folks. Uh, Elijah Bara beats Inter Milan or not. That was a crazy game. I I watched that. That was insane. Uh I think Barsha's gonna pull it off. Um yeah, I think Bara's gonna pull it off. Let me see. And Vigilius again for the audience. Okay, so Vigilius this is like you know these are loaded questions. Um, now I'm assuming you're talking about the where he's going back and forth, flip-fpping back and forth about uh the condemnation or not condemnation or or whatever. Uh, so understand that Pope Villius's point when he's doing this, when he's condemning and not condemning is he's really torn between Calcidon, which he's trying to affirm. He's trying to affirm calcedin. And Calcedon uh like for example, what's his name? Um Ibas. He he was uh brought back into communion with the church at Calcedan. So he's like, "Yo, this guy was brought back, so why why should we condemn, you know, this or that part of his writings or something like that?" The the the things that he's talking about have nothing to do with people infallibility. People infallibility has to do with the um revelation from Christ, the deposit of faith, scripture and tradition. So is the immaculate conception in in tradition in scripture? Yes or no? If it's yes, then we believe that he can decree it. Uh so it has to do with the direct object and subject of the faith. So it has to do with the actual uh teaching, right? So for example, is Christ God or not? If if he's God, then he can decree it. If that's what's always been taught, then he can decree it. Uh is Mary God or not? The answer is no, because it's never been taught that she was God, that she is God. So if she's not God, then the Pope cannot decree that, right? that's not in the deposit of faith. Whether someone is condemned, whether someone's writings are heretical or not, that does not fall under infallibility because the pope could read something somebody's letter and completely misinterpret it into interpretation of orthodoxy even though it's not orthodox. But it doesn't mean he's a heretic by thinking a heretical writing is orthodox. He's just giving it the benefit of the doubt or he's misunderstanding it. He's reading it in a certain sense to where you can read it in an orthodox sense. And so that's what the pope did. Again, none of this falls under papal infallibility. Now, another thing we have to understand is there was a patriarch who did not like uh Justinian or Justinian did not like him. He got rid of him. Then he got rid of the patriarch and he replaced him with someone he likes. But he didn't do that with the bishop of Rome because he couldn't. So why did he do that with another patriarch? I believe he was a patriarch of Alexandria. He got rid of him and he replaced him with someone he likes because he wasn't on board with his teachings with with what he's trying to accomplish at the council. But think about how many uh how long he gave the pope to come to terms with the council. He did not just get rid of him and replace him. In fact, when he did uh remove him from the diptics and so to speak excommunicate uh remove him from the church, he says we uh remove you from the dipics and we excommunicate you uh to the pope, but we're going to keep we're going to continue on with the communion with the sea of Rome. So, it was important for him to keep that unity with the with the sea of Rome. even though he's getting the bishop of Rome trying to excommunicate him. Think about how what he did to Vigilius. Pope Vigilius in order for him to consent to the council because Justinian understood that you have to have the consent of the bishop of Rome before you decree before you have a council. He understood that. And so even when Vigilius did not consent to the council because the council had writings from Vigilius, remember how we flip-flopped back and forth about the three chapters? Because they had at one point a condemnation of the three chapters. They used that even though he changed his mind, but they used the original to say, "Well, we have his consent." So they didn't just move on without him. They moved on with his consent, the previous consent that he did that he had and they put that in the decree. Now, we are going to when we do a part two, this is this is one of the things we're going to be uh discussing because we're going to be showing that the the Byzantine history of 553, Constantinople 553 that we're talking about, the Byzantine history is not to smear the name of Vigilius. The Byzantine history is to say that Vigilius was one of the homeboys. He was always on board. Nothing there was nothing wrong with him. In the actual actors of the council, they don't smear his name. They try to remove all the the stuff where it smears his name. So, he's not like this. He's not looked down upon. Let's let's so to speak. How many times did popes use papal infallibility in the early church? Uh this is debate debatable. I mean there's no there's no number. I would argue uh I would say at least you have the letter of Agatho I would say falls under that. I would say Pope Leo's letter falls under that. Um but the point is isn't so much how many times. The whole point I'm I'm talking about here is that whether you have papal infallibility or an ecumenical council, those are two different modes of teaching, but they come from the same source. It's Christ Holy Spirit. Doesn't matter how it's functioned. The point is is that where you have the bishop of Rome, whether in a council or in a uh in a letter or decree where he's binding the whole church to a teaching, whether you have one or the other, the bishop of Rome is what guarantees where the truth goes. As far as like where he goes, that's where the stamp of the Holy Spirit is behind him. Again, not go alone because he's always going to have his brother bishops behind him. But what I'm saying is where he decides to go whether it's one nature two natures one person two persons uh whatever it is the the options in front of him wherever he goes that's where the the truth is okay so the the that's the point that's that's what I want you guys to get out of this that's why I say this teaching of Vatican 1 is in every in every century regardless of how many people infallibilities there are or not what's important is that Vatican 1 taught that the bishop of Rome's office is permanent and it's divinely instituted and it's the center of unity. It has real authority and it can teach infallibly. All these things you find in the early church all over the place and I only gave you a few examples, but I we have a lot more that we're going to be doing um in another part. Um I didn't want to break this PowerPoint into two parts. I'm glad I got it all out of the way, but we are going to have another part uh with the pitchistics. Uh any other questions? And and I hope I answered your question uh both Mango Bango and Bernardet. I hope I answered your questions. Um, it's hard for me to answer these uh without having the sources in front of me and to go into them. But what I am planning on doing a show on 553 um and to go into the actual council and and to show you guys that when you put it in context, it actually shows everything I'm telling you today that the head and members have to act together or else you don't have a thing. you don't have a counsel that you don't have an actual Holy Spirit stamped approval so to speak no matter if it's paper infallibility or committed council you have to have the headed members together any other any other questions it's been two hours and 40 minutes probably the longest I've ever done a show and um just waiting for any other questions. If not, then we can end the stream. Let me go up and see if anyone asked a question earlier um while I was talking. Um [Music] Um, let's see. They don't have any other. No, I don't see anything. Um, let me see. There's a new comment. Yeah, I don't see any of the questions. Um, going once, going twice. All right, we're going to end the stream. So, thanks everybody for uh for tuning in. I know it's been um it's been a long show. Thoughts on the Malitian schism? Um I'll hold off on that. I will answer that on part two because that's that's going to take a long long long long time to unravel. Um but that's a great question. I'll keep that in mind. and I'll answer on on the next stream because it's going to take like 15 to 20 minutes just to answer this question. Um, but I appreciate everyone's uh patience uh for tuning in. Um, if you guys have any other questions that you want me to answer on the second part, please put them in the comment. Don't forget to comment, don't forget to like, don't forget to subscribe, don't forget to share this. And anytime you uh have an Eastern Orthodox or or in Ororth orthodox tell you that, you know, talk about the papacy, I wanted to make a video for everyone to have to where you can just give them this video and let them watch a three-hour video of what we really teach. And then once they learn that, which they're probably not going to watch, but once they learn that, then they can refute this rather than refuting what it's in the figment of their imagination. Um, so share this with every ortho bro or whatever. Um, and that's going to tell you whether they understand the teaching or not. Because if they're arguing with you and you show them this video and they're still arguing with you, that means they didn't watch it. Cuz you guys know if you watch this video, you can't come out of this thinking the Catholic Church teaches this autocratic lone ranger. You just can't. It's it's a bishop of Rome that acts with his brother bishops. He's one of the college. Um so, uh so anyway, God bless everybody. Uh if you guys have any questions, please put put them on the comment and please don't forget to leave a comment. I don't care what you say, just leave anything because that helps the algorithm and people find this uh find this channel um and find this uh the stream. So, God bless everybody and have a wonderful night.