Papacy AMA (w/ Pawel Glowacki)

追加: 2026-06-02

[00:00:00]Halleluah.

[00:00:04]Halleluah.

[00:00:07]Hallelujah.

[00:00:12]Halleluah.

[00:00:15]Halleluah.

[00:00:18]Halleluah.

[00:00:23]But as long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

[00:00:32]All right. Hello everybody. Welcome back to another live stream of Jesus Talks. I am your host Dari. If you're new here today, welcome. We are you are all invited to come join us on this beautiful conversation on this beautiful day. And as always again, I'm your host Ari. And today we have a very very special live stream. Today we're going to be talking about the papacy.

[00:00:55]Is this biblical? Is this something that Catholics made up?

[00:01:00]Did this really come from Peter? Did this all start from Peter? And we might even be talking about the schism. Why did all the apostolic churches, why did we separate? So, we're about to find all of that out today. And obviously, as you guys know, I like to bring in the best of the best. And today, I wanted to bring in my beloved brother Powell, who is amazing at this topic. So, I'm very, very excited. Brother, thank you so much for coming here and getting to talk to us about the papacy out of all things.

[00:01:31]>> Yeah, thank you for your invitation. You know, it's a pleasure to be here and to to talk about this very important topic for our our Catholic faith and, you know, for our Christian faith. So, thank you one more time for invitation, Harry.

[00:01:47]>> Of course. Of course. And so, as you guys can see, I already posted the link, the Streamyard link to come up. So when you guys So you guys have any questions relating to the papacy. I have a couple of questions that I will start us off with. Um and if there's something that maybe you're like, you know what, maybe you're Protestant and you're watching this and you're like, "This sounds crazy. I need more evidence. I need more proof about this." We have a beloved brother who knows all about that. So if you guys have any questions, please feel free to come up. Ask your questions respectfully. I do ask that you guys keep the live chat respectful or else you will be timed down and kicked off.

[00:02:23]We do not tolerate any disrespect towards myself, towards the guest or towards this topic even if you disagree.

[00:02:29]So any of our Protestant brothers and sisters, any Orthodox brothers and sisters that are very curious about this, want to know a little more, maybe want to challenge a little bit about this topic, feel free to come up. The link is pinned per usual. And um very very excited. But as always, we should start off with prayer because uh why would we want to start a topic like this without prayer? Prayer in our life is very essential and I encourage everybody to pray. So of course let's start off in the name of the father, son, and holy spirit. Amen. We'll start with our father. Our father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us, and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Amen. Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.

[00:03:23]Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.

[00:03:26]Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen. We ask all the angels and saints, specifically the patron saints of this podcast, St. Michael to please pray and intercede for this conversation to pray and intercede for um for the brother for myself. May it not be us but the Lord speaking through us. We also pray for all our listeners that this may edify everybody. We ask all this through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. Name the father, son, and holy spirit. Amen. All right.

[00:04:00]All right, brother. So first things first for those who maybe are not familiar why don't you tell us a little bit about yourself. Who are you? What do you do? Why are you so knowledgeable about the papacy? Why are you passionate about this specific topic brother?

[00:04:15]>> Yes. So you know I introduce myself very shortly. So my name is Pavl Glovatski. I am Catholic theologian. Uh I'm doing PhD in patristic studies at the Catholic University of Lublin in Poland. I'm specializing in um papacy studies. So I'm studying, writing, giving lectures about proper understanding of the authority of the road in the first millennium in antiquity.

[00:04:49]Uh I wrote monograph. I wrote a whole book on the papacy called from Peter to the pope. Um the papal the face of the papal power in the first name of the Christianity. Uh this book is was written in Polish. is not translated into English but uh I I wrote whole monograph on the on this topic with the forward of the eminence cardinal ludic mule the emiritus head of the congregation of the faith he wrote forward this book authorizing my studies and my discoveries also I'm uh the member of the American patristic society and international association of patristic studies and I had two debates with father Patrick Ramsey uh on the the the on the camel of the according to the John it was this debate with father Patrick Ramsey on the papacy and with the other Paul Protestant apologist so you can check these debates uh and and you know I also maybe say that why I I am so passionate about this topic because it's this topic was very is very important into my life as a Christian as a Catholic because years ago I thought that the concept of the papal primacy very similar to the Catholic one was not historical is very later Christian so I thought this it's notic biblical but after years of studies especially patristic studies the ancient documents I recognized that this authority of the bishop of Rome was very vital force in the first millennium and the Christians in the west also in the east believed in the papal authority the yura deino by divine right so I I now I strongly believe into into the the the papal authority and I am in communion with the holy father and with the apostolic sea.

[00:07:14]>> Wow. And um so obviously you're very very knowledgeable and very passionate about this topic. Now this is a topic that unfortunately Catholics do get um a lot of heat for you know especially from our Protestants and some of our orthodox brothers and sisters you know because they don't see a continuence in the papacy. Um, so I think so the first thing I kind of want to ask you and then the first question I want to ask you is if someone came to you and said show me the papacy from the Bible where would you start?

[00:07:50]>> Yeah. Oh very very good question you know. So our foundation as a Catholic is found our foundations of our faith are found in the holy scriptures.

[00:08:04]uh and this is so first of all I would say that um when we go to the holy holy scripture we see a plenty evidence of authority special authority uh which was given to the Peter by our lord Jesus Christ I I I have to be honest a little bit different approach I'm starting with the person of Jesus like I'm asking my interlocutor do you believe that Jesus was a truly son of David, the new Solomon who came to this world to bring back the kingdom of David which in second Samuel 7th chapter the God said this will be forever this kingdom of David and of Solomon built. So, do you believe that Jesus is a a true Messiah, a a really the son of David who will bring back this kingdom into full glory?

[00:09:06]You know, Christians would say, "Of course, I believe." And I I'm saying that okay so in the old testament in this Davidic kingdom the king was under the god has a lot of ministers you know and one of them one of this minister has the key to the house of David this is 22 20-22 you know chapter 22 20-22 and we see in this fragment of the holy scripture that the prophet are saying that oh we had Shebina who was this prime minister and now we will have a liar king he received the key to the house of David what he will open nobody will shut what he will shut no nobody will open so and this image of shutting opening is plenary authority that's saying that whatever he binds this this prime minister nobody has authority to say no to this. So this is the binding authority we would say even jurisdictional authority and I'm saying that okay so we have this off this office in the old testament in the Davidic kingdom and now that Jesus came 2,000 years ago and we see in the Luke chapter first no the throne of the the the David we see that people are singing that hosana to the son of David He the the the kingdom is coming of the David.

[00:10:43]So we see the Jesus who restoring the kingdom of David and in the Matthew 16 the chapter 16 Jesus as a true king Jewish king one to his disciples he's giving the keys of the kingdom of heaven know this image of the key and he's giving to Peter and saying whatever you bind it will be bound in heaven whatever you lose lose in earth would lose in heaven.

[00:11:15]This is rabbinicic language binding and loosening. It's very rabinic rabbinic language. And so we see that Jesus giving the keys to Peter and the symbol of the key in the first century Judaism you know the Jews will go to oh Isaiah 22. So you know we have new king who's giving the key like in the old testament to his new prime minister but it's not alike him it's a Peter so he's giving to him the plenary authority over his kingdom so the society of his believers whatever he will bind nobody will open so he he has the Peter received we would say jurisdictional authority over all the kingdom and this office is the highest as in the Old Testament and is perpetual as in the Old Testament. So if you believe truly that Jesus is the son of David, Jewish Messiah who will who came to bring the glory to the kingdom of David in the fullness as God promised in the Old Testament and as every Christians believe in it. So therefore you must believe not should logically you must believe that when Jesus giving to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven he instituted the office of a new Elia king. So Peter is a new Elia king with the highest authority in the kingdom. Uh so therefore you have the papacy an office and the person in in you know in very embriionic state but you you you have it. So I will start from from there.

[00:13:03]>> Yeah. And um so I know so I know a lot of people will probably say well okay like I I can see where where it started but it doesn't mean that it's continued on. There are people that said it just I mean there's no way that it continued on. So what what would you say in response to that? Because a lot a lot of people have trouble with that specifically >> to prove that it still continue on even after Peter >> up to today.

[00:13:29]>> Yeah, exactly. There are some people some scholars who are saying yeah Peter even they are saying that Peter was the first pope we granted but it stops when Peter died it stops. We don't have succession. But with this imagery of Peter as a new Eliah king, as a new prime minister, we have a perpetual succession because like in the Old Testament, this office was has succession and there was one prime minister, he died next prime minister and next and next and next or major domo. was also called the major domo or major of the palace and was next and next and next. So this was perpetual succession. This office was was there was succession of this office. So this office characterized with the succession and with the highest authority in the kingdom. So when Jesus instituted this office in his new kingdom going back to Isaiah, you cannot say that okay Jesus instituted but without uh succession because it destroys whole the picture of image of the kiss and the Peter as a new aliim like the most scholars recognize it. Even biblical studies of Protestant scholars nowadays most of them recognize this that Peter is a new. So if he is new alike therefore there must be a succession because if not we have um some problem with logic you know it's um so so it's it's flow from this imagery of a keys that there must be succession if Peter is a new liking it cannot stops you know Peter died and and thank you very much no it doesn't work like like this so this is first argument Secondly, we could say that Peter was instituted as a rock. You know, Jesus Peter is a ka and Jesus built his church onto this rock unto Peter. So Peter is a foundation of the church. Foundation of the church. And now we should ask okay so how long this society this society of believers of Christ this elesia or Hebrew kahal how long this church in the foot of the Jesus Christ will be last how long you know it will vanish uh when the apostles died or it will be last 100 years 500 years, 1,000 years. No, it will be last forever until the end when Jesus will come back in Palosia.

[00:16:31]So when we have the church is everlasting and Jesus establishing Peter as a foundation cornerstone of this church.

[00:16:43]So if church is everlasting at to the end and the Peter is foundation to this church therefore the the Peter as a foundation must be uh must be long as the church so perpetual unto the end. But how Peter will be the rock of the church in second century in the third in the 10th century? Peter died but his office his authority what Jesus gave to Peter was as a rock of the church keys of the kingdom binding and losing it was giving to next successors in the Roman church because the Peter was martyed with the pope. So if we truly believe sorry that church is everlasting and the Peter is foundation of this church the office of Peter his mission must be lasting as the church it cannot die in the first century because the church then in the future second century will be without his foundation and this is illogical you know so so there are some interferences which flow from this reasoning and we must grant it and we must accept it because if not we are destroying whole logic. So this is second argument and this is also the St. Ambrose he in his commentary on the psalm 40 30 he said where is the Peter there is a church where is the church there is no death but everlasting life. So where is the Peter that is the church is in the first century in the same in the fifth century where is the Peter so the bishop of Rome because Peter is mystically present in him in the bishop of Rome authority that is church of Jesus Christ. So this is the second argument and the third argument no the apostles has successors.

[00:18:50]We see in the acts chapter first, acts of the apostles chapter 1 verse 20 when the Judas is carried out you know uh he uh takes his life and the Peter you know gave a decision that there must be some some succession. So next must be fulfilled this the episcop the office of the bishop and the bishop takes by another. So we see that the the authority of the apostles were they they they authority was not vanished in the first century but they laid on the hands and they gave their authority to their successors who rule in the churches. So the same did Peter but in the Rome he lay the hands on the lionus on the uh Anacletus and on Clement and he ordained three bishops there. Um, so, uh, yeah, I would say this.

[00:19:58]>> Yeah, that's that's very good that you laid it out like that cuz that is a very common argument that we do hear a lot.

[00:20:04]It's like, all right, we congratulate you that Peter was the first pope, but it it ended there. He died. You know, there there's nowhere else where it tells us that like it continued, but you just laid it out and obviously we can tell that yeah, it does continue. Um and so regarding the fact regarding the um de laying of hands by the apostles um one of the one of the there's two things that I hear. One is from Protestants and the other from Orthodox. For Protestants I hear well they believe that their bishops that their supposed priest is valid because they do a similar thing of laying of hands. Now can you kind of explain why that's not the ca in their case it that's not the case for >> yeah if you could repeat because I I uh some interruption I I heard in the the voice if you could one one more time in the course repeat the >> protest yeah so protestants there are some protestants that do have bishops and and deacons and supposed priests now a lot of them will claim that there's also comes from the apostles. Now can you tell us why that is not the case?

[00:21:21]>> I understand this. Yes. So it because in Protestantism we have a variety of opinions on the Christian ministry. We have Protestants which are more loose in organization.

[00:21:38]They have pastors more. There are some Episcopalians or Anglicans who has bishops, you know. Um, but the the main thing is that if you want to have really a bishop and a valid Eucharistia, you must have a valid apostolic succession. So without without priesthood and without uh the the ukarist and the priesthood and apostolic succession you you don't have valid church.

[00:22:14]So when there are some Protestants who are interpreting the word of God that they have more apostolic succession but the uh it's succession of doctrine of true doctrine not the apostolic succession that the apostles lay hands there were successors bishops and they lay hands now they understanding that this is the the succession of the true doctrine they believe in the true doctrine so they have apostolic succession but the the the church fathers, early church fathers as Ios in Terulian do not understand this in the way in this way. True, Terulian said that there is the apostolic succession of a true doctrine of course. But where is this apostolic succession of true doctrine always in the bishops the successors of the apostles which they have this office of the the bishop Rick which were laying on the hands by apostles and successors. So there this you know apostolic succession of bishops and through doctrine they are going together. You cannot separate this saying oh we have apostolic succession of doctrine but without office it's um you know it must go together for the early church fathers they understand it. So these Protestants who try and disconnect this two ideas um of course they can try do it but it's a historical thinking.

[00:23:42]>> It's contrary to the early church fathers. And secondly there are protestants who you know ne negate and deny the freefold structure of the church. We have bishop prestors and deacons. They have only two-fold structure. Presbytery, Episcopo and the Aono and there are so but uh when we go one again to the early church fathers and how the church understand what she as a church received as a doctrine and the the the hierarchical order what she received from Christ and the apostles. The early church believed that this institution of the bishops, prestors and deacons and this hierarchy was instituted by God through apostles and therefore it's binding on the church and we cannot change it. We cannot change the structure of the church because it's given it's paradosis. It's a you know so tradition is paradosis and it flows from scripture and from early early third fathers.

[00:24:58]>> Yeah. Okay. All right. Now before we get to the Orthodox one, we do have a brother backstage.

[00:25:04]>> Yes.

[00:25:04]>> Who does want to ask you something. So we got the brother sturge which I will bring him up.

[00:25:10]Hello. You're muted by the way, brother.

[00:25:12]Um so just FYI.

[00:25:17]Yeah. Stare at your Yes. There you go.

[00:25:20]>> Now they can hear you brother.

[00:25:22]>> Hello.

[00:25:24]>> Good to see you. Uh I just had one question. It's a pretty simple one. So what do you do or what's the criteria for let's say the seat is actually vacant. not like um metaphorically or anything like there's no pope because this happened once I think at least for two years there was like no pope and >> what do you in a situation like that like how long is it for you to say like god has left the papacy for example >> yes it's a very good question thank you brother for it I would say this uh this two years what you said that there was no a pope, no bishop of Rome. It was during the 249 249 to 241 when the pope the bishop of Rome Fabian was killed, murdered and we have two years vacant of the sea of Rome and Pope Cornelius was elected to the bishop in the Roman church and we have two years.

[00:26:39]So no there is no authority because we don't have now bishop of Rome but in these two years where the bishop of Rome the sea of Roman was vacant the crian of cartage because there were they were persecuted he was persecuted uh by use persecution that's use persecution and the cipion of cartage you know go away from a cartage because you know to go away from his flock And there was some controversy and the then the church of Roman church the presbbiterat the presbbittors and the people. So the collegium of presbbiters wrote to him a a letter uh from the Roman church without pope.

[00:27:28]So when we don't have the bishop of Rome this during two years because it was the still this authority reside in the Roman sea in the the the officers collectively of the romancy nowadays we have cardinals so when you know when we don't have pope we are waiting for elected any pope Francis was died we waited for pope Leo now so oh this this authority it's it's in in a collegial way in the the college of cardinals and it goes back to the first and second century where the Roman church was um the Roman church at the beginning was uh organized and was leading by a college college of presiders and at the head of this college was a bishop of Rome. uh when so when this bishop of Rome died still we have a college of pres bitters and we are waiting for a pope so therefore there is no a problem that also god you know god uh uh abandoned us for two years now he's with his people with his clergy and the holy spirit you know leads us to elect a new holy father so yeah maybe I'm not sure that I asked I I I answer your question properly, but maybe it was helpful. Thank you for your call.

[00:29:01]>> Yeah, I mean that's some good info. Um, but what I was asking mostly is how long does it have to be vacant for >> you to consider possibly that the Lord left it like he abandoned it or is that not even a criteria? Is that impossible?

[00:29:25]>> No, it's not possible. You know there there there can be historical circumstances and there it was in the 14th century 14th century there was this great schism in the west where there were one alleged bishop of Rome he's saying that I am the pope and the second and the third later and there was some controversy who was the valid bishop of Rome we do not know uh but that the church must go through this controversy and the lord is with his people. So there is no criteria that oh if we have two years of sedakante of the holy sea the the lord abandoned us or even 40 years I would say even if there will be a time like we have by 10 years we don't have imagine there is for example third world war or some catastrophe and we don't have for a few years the holy sea the holy father was appointed by the college of cardinals uh the what the catholics pray, fast, go to the Eucharist and pray for the uh election of the new pope, new holy father as soon as can be because the lord even for this in interruption of a few years said maybe lord want to say something to us during this time when we don't have a bishop of ro but there is no criteria how much years must be the cardinalas always want to to do as fast as possible to have a next successor of of Apostle Peter.

[00:31:06]>> All right. Yeah, that answers my question. That's good to know.

[00:31:12]>> Thank you, brother, for your call. I hope.

[00:31:14]>> Of course. Appreciate it. See you, Ari.

[00:31:16]Good to see you.

[00:31:17]>> See you, sir. Thank you so much, brother, for coming up and asking questions.

[00:31:22]God bless. All right. So, all righty. So, let's get to another question that we had a question in the chat earlier.

[00:31:33]Um, so let's see. So, a question that in the chat earlier that they had was well, first off, I want to first off, I want to shout out AB who said, "God bless, brethren." Um, thank AB for popping by and listening. Um, he just had a baby as well, so uh >> Oh. So, so you guys are kind of I mean I think this is the second I think this is the second baby, but you guys are about in the same boat. I know he's been >> you guys are too. So, there you go.

[00:32:06]>> So, yeah. So, a question that we had in the chat earlier was how do you reconcile separation from the pope with the unity of the church?

[00:32:18]Mhm.

[00:32:20]Yeah, this is a good question especially during nowadays with the FS FSPX the society of the pest the 10th especially which will ordain new bishops.

[00:32:35]uh I think it it will be in July, beginning of July without approval of the holy father and they are saying that oh you know even if the pope excommunicate us by this move without his acceptance we ordain bishops we are in full communion with the pope we can be you know they are they are saying that the the the times are demanding doing it but you This logic this logic is not a Catholic logic. It's not Catholic epistemology. It's not Catholic ecclesiology.

[00:33:14]Because now like I would say great pope Leo the 13 in his encyclic satics cognito. It was written in 1896 29th June on the feast of the St. Peter and Paul. And in this encyclical, Pope Leo the 14 the 13 sorry the Leo the 13 said that you cannot you know ordain the bishops without approval of the holy father because now you separate the church and his officers from the foundation from the Peter you cannot separate the church from his foundation so from the apostle Peter and his successors you cannot do it because now you are destroying the unity of the church. Now you are destroying. And I would say it was very clear for the a lot of fathers this logic especially in the west in the 4th century. You have great father Optatus of Milv and he wrote um again the the the against donatists against Armenian the treaties in the 4th century and he said that in this treaties that we have cathedral Petra Peter why because we are in the communion with the pope ciritius the actual successor of Peter we have letter of communion with him and he said if you don't have this letter of communion with the holy father and you are saying that you are a bishop donatist bishop and you are not in communion with the bishop of Rome you are not in a true church of Jesus Christ you are es schismatic and this was said by the this fourth century of the church father not in the renaissance or in the medieval times fourth century of tatus of male left that that if you want to have if you want to be a valid bishop you must be in communion with the holy sea so he saw the bishop of Rome the center as a center of unity of the church he is the center focal center of unity with the church so when to you know destroy this unity. You are not with the communion with the successor of Peter. Then you know this is the schismata. There is the schism even for this early very early fathers.

[00:36:02]>> Okay. And then we have a question but I'm assuming you might understand this because I I would not be able to translate it. I don't know if you understand what >> yeah maybe if in this is in French but I to be honest I when I have some articles in French I'm doing by you know to Google translation or some application I I fortunately I'm not speaking in French maybe if you could just you know copy this and to >> yeah I just asked and it says um or at least it's just asking make her do his presentation of French. And so I'm assuming that that's what they want you to do that.

[00:36:45]>> So he he likes this. Okay. So thank you.

[00:36:48]Thank you.

[00:36:51]>> Okay. All right. Um so and so let's get into what the Orthodox believe because so I think we've tackled the bit of the Protestants, what they would claim, what they would say. Now another now from our Orthodox brothers and sisters they would agree that you know they would agree that Peter was the the first pope I assume.

[00:37:14]Um but they they obviously their patriarchy is very >> very different obviously because I mean they don't have like one specific head like we do. So can you explain can can you I I don't want to it's going to sound really weird. is probably going to sound very rude and I don't mean to, but like can you explain why I guess ours is correct and why theirs is maybe not correct? Because I know I do because I know we we accept that they do have valid bishops and they do have valid priests and Eucharist and everything, >> but why is it that why is it that we stick with one head?

[00:37:55]>> Meanwhile, their interpretation is kind of different. I hope you understand where I'm trying to get at. I in essence yeah yeah yeah I hope that I understand but I'll try to answer this thank you for this very important question I will say this yeah >> with Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters with Eastern Orthodox churches the Catholic church you know this is like 95% of linking we are very close to full communion to be honest I I believe I that's my expectation that in 2030 2000 2000 year 3030 uh so uh it will be seven seven years later we will be united with the Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters and I I believe it it's possible very because we are very close especially with the baromy with the pat of of Constantinople but the this very important question you asked the so first of all I would say there is No one eastern Orthodox ecclesiology.

[00:39:03]This is very important to understand. We not have we have a variety in the eastern Orthodox churches which which were which which are auto churches. We have uh not one ecclesiology.

[00:39:21]We have few ecclesiologies.

[00:39:24]First we have Ukraistic ecclesiology by Nikolia very prominent Russian theologian of 20th century.

[00:39:33]This is one kind of ecclesiology.

[00:39:36]Uh we have ecclesiology of or of Bukakov Sergei Bukakov uh who you know diminished the role of the hierarchy and he saw the holy spirit working mostly through the people.

[00:39:52]Nowadays when we have the schism between Constantinople and Moscow we have two different ecclesiologies.

[00:40:03]First ecclesiology and the the the ecclesiology I mean the understanding of the authority of the protos in the hierarchy. So first pat what is his duties authority uh how was in the first millennium because the eastern Orthodox are saying first millennium he bishop of Rome great schism 2000 to 1054 and later the the constantople is a new Rome and now so what is his role of this proto and the the eastern orthodox are in schism because constant church are saying that oh he's very prominent he can give you the autofilly to the Ukrainian church he can he have appellet authority he can judge affairs uh his authority is a personal authority personal authority on the other hand the Russian church of Mascow holy senote they are saying that no the the bishop of Rome and the pat of constantinople is only primos Inter the first among equals his authority is that he's the first at the liturgy. His authority comes from the dipics from the canons not from his person. He cannot judge the affairs of other churches because his honorary his honorary authority and they are saying the Russian church and the the protos bishop the patriarch of Constantinople and the bishop of Rome in the first millennium was primos interstapolitan church are saying that no nowadays pat of constant is primos sena first without equals. So he has some authority but very important these two distinct physiologies uh uh they are agree that this authority of the protos never the authority of the protos or is it bishop of Rome or Constantinople never mind but this authority of this protos comes from the church from human is the ura authority not the divino. So it not comes from God. Not this is not that the and this Barthole pat of Constantinople about 20 years ago said very clearly or that 20 years ago that the the the authority the Easter churches don't believe that the bishop of Rome has the divine authority this primacy divine primacy which was established by God by Jesus it's it's authority uh from canons later in the church but not not the deino Um so I would say now because sorry that maybe it was too long but I want to you know show the trees and the forest and now why why is it Catholic position is right as I said because we believe that authority of the bishop of Rome is by divine right and this concept of the ura divino authority of the bishop of Rome His primacy was very vital in the first millennium. It was believed by the western fathers by the eastern fathers and even by the ecumenical councils itself.

[00:43:51]So we have Maximus confessor 7th century great prominent eastern fathers in his oppos he said that the authority of the the Roman sea the bishop of Rome comes from Matthew 16:18 to 19 that the orthodoxy of the Roman church is everlasting because what Jesus said to Peter so this is the divine authority and the same just Second example was said by the council of Ephesus the legged philillip in the third session. It was on 11th July. He said that I am the leget of the successor of Peter. Peter is mystically present in the celestine and he is judging. So the authority of the bishop of Rome was was um by divine right perpetual. He's the next Peter. He's the Peter of our times. We could say the bishop of Rome is Peter of our times because Peter is mystically present in him and whatever bishop of Rome judges is Peter going doing this through him and what the council fathers and very important what the council fathers the council of Ephesus prominently they were easterners what they said they do not they do not attack this they do not negate this they do not contradict this they applause and say amen to this uh explicitly not by so they agree with this. So we see that the might of the church east and west in the 431 was that the bishop of long has the special authority by divine right and no eastern Orthodox theology. No eastern is Moscow or Constantinopolitan or others do not recognize this the divino authority of bishop of Rome or bishop of Constantinople.

[00:45:53]Wow. And I think it's it's I think it's very interesting that you pointed that out because they do like to use the whole I know that's probably one of their favorite things to use is oh first among equals and and all that and so but that's a huge thing that they because even our oriental um Orthodox brothers and sisters use that as well and uh so so yeah they they they they just don't they don't want to submit man. they don't want to submit them to Rome, you know. Um, so I I I would love So do you believe So you so you do believe that one day we will there's a possibility do you think Okay, let me ask you this. Do you think that it's that it's more possible to be united with the Eastern Orthodox than the Oriental Orthodox or do you believe it it'll be the same?

[00:46:45]I would say this with oriental orthodox a lot of people don't know this but during the John Paul II uh the exc we do not say that they are monophysists they they believe in one they're monophysites we don't say this now nowadays so the the >> yeah I don't I don't want people I don't want people to like to be Like why is he calling us? Because they're very like they're very clawed out when you when you call them monophasites. I want to clarify. He meant me aides. But yeah, they are. Yeah, I know what you're trying to say though. So continue.

[00:47:25]>> Yeah. So they are very we we say this excommunication during theon it's not applicable to applicate this to apply this nowadays to these churches and we are very close.

[00:47:41]I would say we have very maybe different aspects of christologology. We emphasis so there are different accent different emphasize of different aspects of Christologology but we in in substance we are very close or we could say we in agreement.

[00:48:01]So we are very very um very close each other but I would say that especially with the Eastern Orthodox churches u we and especially with the Constantinopolitan church we are like you know 95% of agreement and I believe that during this next years 10 or maybe less or more we will be united with the theatak of Constantinople will be united to the bishop of Rome and will be together. So the schism will be uh healed after 1,000 years. Uh so I would say that we are more close with Eastern Orthodox brothers than with the oriental Orthodox because we share 1,000 years of history not only first five centuries um first five centuries but still with cops and others we are very close but one one one again I want to one thing to say that in the Catholic church we have a lot of rights Byzantine rights uh in the Indian rights, the Coptic rights, Egyptian rights. So we have you know the people from Egypt from you know around the world uh who are in union with the bishop of Rome and and they have their liturgy like the the cops or like the oriental orthodox which are not in the communion with the bishop of Rome very the same you know tradition the same liturgy but they are this these Catholics they are with unity with the bishop of Rome so this is possible uh and and you know the church the bishop of Rome is very ecumenical and want to heal this schism because the Jesus in chapter 17 of gospel of John in his prayer uh he he prayed to be one that his disciples will be one like me I and my father are one. So we must do every labor what is possible to restore the unity. Not only just to see problems with other traditions but also see problems with us and what we could change in Catholic church in me in as a person and then when I change and I will be open more to the Lord then he will use me to heal he will use the Catholic church in a more even solemn way to heal the schism.

[00:50:46]Okay. And then um we do have a question from the chat. So they are asking this.

[00:50:53]So if Vatican 2 can be rejected because it taught errors, doesn't that undermine the authority Vatican 1 attributes to the church? How does the SSPX reconcile this pastor?

[00:51:07]I >> pastor Eternis of 18th July 1870.

[00:51:13]the constitution of the the the the accepting the papal infallibility and jurisdiction. Oh very good question. I would say first of all we cannot reject the Vatican secundum.

[00:51:26]It's impossible in the Catholic tradition in Catholic thinking Catholic theology to reject second Vatican council. This this impossible the cardinal Geraludic Müer which was the prefect of the congregation of the faith and one of the best theologians Catholic theologians nowadays. He said clearly is it impossible to reject the Vatican the second Vatican council? Why?

[00:51:53]Because it was open by the Holy Father, Bishop of Rome, together with so many bishops around the world. There were never in the church history such a council with so a lot of bishops from around the world. We could say this council was truly authentical council.

[00:52:15]uh because it was so variety of bishops and so much a lot of bishops never was in the council so much bishops with the holy father in the second Vatican council previously never it wasn't happened like this so if we say oh they are they were wrongs the the documents are wrong we must reject this council we as Catholics are saying that uh the holy father in his ordinarium magisterium ordinary magisterium in union with the successors of the apostles college of bishops which and so the bishop of Rome as successor of Peter together with bishops and success of the apostles which are leading by the holy spirit they are wrong if we could say this they are wrong we rejecting the catholic ecclesusiology we are so we cannot you know reject the vatican and the second question How does the SSPX reconcile this with pastor terms?

[00:53:17]This is you know this is the case before the Vatican council second Vatican council a lot of popes and are are said that you must be obey what the church teaching in his ordinary magisterium bishop of Rome or bishop together with bishops in union. So not in in an infallible note I would say but in his ordinary magisterium when the bishop of Rome are teaching something with the bishops you cannot say just oh you're wrongs you're heretics we are reject this because it's not Catholic epistemology not Catholic ecclesiology and the popes before the second Vatican council Leod the 13th pas 1211 they're saying that this is you cannot do This you cannot do this because if you reject the second like this logic if you reject now the second Vatican council reject this authority of the bishop of Rome who and this there is a lot of bishops of Rome who accept this council it's not just one bishop of Rome accept this council open but next popes accept this councils and said that this is a solemn solemn council and valid of the Catholic church. You cannot reject the valid council of the Catholic church. You cannot do this as a Catholic because if you do this you reject the Holy Spirit. You reject your belief in the authority of the church and this is illogical. There's there's no logic. So there is no possible to reconcile this kind of thinking what SSPX are doing. uh this air which they breathe is irreconcilable with pastors and with Catholic ecclesiology and epistemology before Vatican secundum and after >> okay that was a good answer. All right.

[00:55:12]Um let's talk about let's let's talk about the the the um let's talk about the one thing that everybody seems to misunderstand.

[00:55:22]Um, can you explain what is papal infallibility? Does this mean does this mean that everything that the pope says is infallible?

[00:55:35]And when and when should we not know what to take seriously, not take seriously because this is a this is something that is very problematic for a lot of people unfortunately to understand and they don't they don't.

[00:55:50]So, no, you're you're okay. You're okay.

[00:55:53]But yeah, I would love for you to um to be able to explain to us what is people infallibility. Does this mean that everything that the pope says, does this mean this is all doctrinal? Like, >> you know, just go ahead and lay it out for us.

[00:56:06]>> Yeah. Yeah. I would say this it I would answer this question in a way which a lot of people do not hear this and do not think about this of this answer because a lot of people are saying oh there was you know excedra you know as a universal pastor of the church binding of the people consciousness of the people in the faith and morals he could use his this infallible this infallibility which was given to him through Peter Yeah, this is true. All true. Pastors, all true. But in essence, what is about paper infallibility? What this dogma teaching? In essence, sorry, the papal infallibility is in reality are teaching about the concept of uh papal representation.

[00:57:08]I would say what does it mean papal representation?

[00:57:11]that it means that the bishop of Rome could represent the whole church because we must remember first pastor atos said that the church is infallible because Jesus Christ gave this infallibility to the church. This charism of a charisma of veritas. This charism of truth Jesus Christ gave to his church. The church cannot lead to the error cannot lead souls to the damnation never. And the church is protected by Jesus Christ. So the the pastor at first said that the church is infallible and the bishop of Rome is infallible in a way like the church is infallible in this infallibility with the church received infallibility from Jesus Christ. So to understand the the paper infallibility, you must first understand what does mean to be infallible by the church and this this dogma are saying that the pope during when he um passed some criteria he could speak authoritatively through the whole church.

[00:58:29]So in him he's the representative of the church. when he's saying something in a way that not just he's saying that oh tomorrow will be rain or I or on the plane the the uh interviewers asking the pope oh what do you think about this and pop oh in my opinion this is this oh this is infallible teaching no this is the opinion of the pope of course uh but there when the pope passed some criterion like speaking excra etc Then he represent the whole church. And when he represent the whole church, you know the the always the church will go what the pope binds or what he passes as a dogma because this is the faith of the church. So you the pope and the church are going together. So the paper infallibility is not so much about the pope as infallible because one of the uh council father in the Vatican first Vatican council said we cannot he said this during the acta during the sessions he said the pope is not infallible and he was not a protestant he was Catholic he said the pope is not infallible the god is infallible pope is not infallible Pope can during some aspects can say something or in a definite way and now this sentence is protect from error because Pope as a person is fallible only God is infallible but the pope but the God can during some times you know protect his servant servant the servant of servants of God he can protect his his pastor the highest pastor of the church the bishop of when he passes some judgment and this judgment is to resolve the controversy or dogma uh then Jesus protect his servant from the error like the same Jesus Christ when the we have ecumenical councils and there are some the councils have solemn definition some some you know publish some dogma or some degree then Jesus Christ do the same protect his church guarded at the ecumenical councils we have representation of the whole church go he protect from the error the same with the pope who can be a representative of the whole church and be protected from error and this is idea which was also So we have some roots in the patristic area in the first millennium. Second millennium is much more emphasis on this much but but it it goes back to be honest to the first century and when Jesus said to Peter what you will uh bind on earth it will be bound on heaven. in a Greek when you go to the Greek co you see that the the structure of this sentence is that first there is uh bad binding in heaven there is a decree and later Peter are giving his his resolution. So the Jesus protects Peter whatever he binds on earth will be bound on heaven. So it it cannot have uh mistake. It cannot have error which can dain the souls. It must he protects. So Jesus said I will protect you. But he said this in a Palestinian Arabic language I will protect you from everything. So uh I will so this is this paper infallibility of Peter and also Jesus said in Matthew 18:18 whatever you as a plural the apostles especially gathered at the ecumenical council we have first a communical council in Jerusalem 49 AD they said what the apostles said we decide and the holy spirit with us so so this is assistance of the holy spirit and so you know it's very connected maybe I I don't know that I answer a question but but I I try to show another aspect of this doctrine.

[01:03:05]>> Okay. Yeah, I like the answer. So I it sounds good to me.

[01:03:11]All right. U we have another we have a question from from my beloved sister Liz >> and she wants to know >> do you think we need further clarity of Vatican 2 on behalf of the leoty?

[01:03:28]Mhm. Okay. So, uh there was some clarification of the Vatican council. We see after the council there was some a lot of questions about what the church documents mean and the congregation of faith when the head of the congregation of faith was Joseph Ratzinger. He answered on this this clarification what to mean the Catholic, what to mean church and a lot of things. So the church answers to with a time to and give some clarity. When was the time without this clarity and the people are not understand correctly the the second Vatican council? I would say now do you think we need further clarity? I would say we will see but I I think now because the pope you know now the the holy father Pope Leo the 14th in his general audience on Wednesday he gives his homalies on the documents of the second Vatican council the previous Wednesday he comment on the sacrosanum continuum the decree of the liturgy and so so the pope Pope gives some clarity to the maybe documents that maybe not clarity because the documents are are are in a way they are clear. He the pope did not give some clarity to documents but they repeat what they teach and said that you must you know agree with this you want to be Catholic you must accept Vatican council and his decrees. So I think there clarity maybe not but if there will be a time and maybe some disclarity of on of this topic maybe it will be more and more and more and will be chaos in the church then the church will answer and give some clarification on some topics but I think nowadays it's it's not so um need needful but but if the church will do it at a time at the right Okay. And um Okay.

[01:05:45]So, okay. So, this is what a brother was kind of commenting. He says, because this the explanation you gave earlier.

[01:05:53]So, the man himself isn't infallible, but the Petrine office is protected from error when teaching faith and morals for the whole church. Excellent explanation.

[01:06:03]Thanks.

[01:06:04]>> Did he get that right? Yeah. Yeah. The the office office not the of course but one thing we must say that >> the the the Vincent Gasser in his he commented on this. He said this infallibility is also personal in a way that the the bishop of Rome as a person when he use his judgment he is as a person protected from error not only his office but also as a person yes he's protected as a person he cannot as a bishop of Rome as a person uh in a in a fallible way proclaim a dogma which is false is contrary to the deposit of of faith It is impossible. God will intervene you know and do not so so mainly this is the office of course but in a way we cannot just you know sometimes separate office from the person to in total opposition because office yes main way is office but also this office is plucked to a person or person is plucked to this office. So also this is to the person but not a way that he is infallible in always and he's you know whatever he said he is the prophet of god the oracle of god absolutely not because this is the negative uh protection from error as a person but mainly his representation he represent the church and as the church is infallible and when the pope on this um speaking excadra he represents the church and he binds a church to believe in something. Therefore, we have this infallibility stem from the church also.

[01:07:57]>> So, this is the same infallibility of the church and the pope. So, so would you say so for example, so like if Pope Leard let's say he had an interview right and and they asked him you know what team do you go for and he says you know what I believe the Chicago Bears are the are the best team ever he's not speaking infallibly there right so so this would be so so this would be because it doesn't have anything to do with the faith and morals so therefore that's not binding it's he's not saying So he's not saying like, hey, you have to believe, hey, I believe the Chicago Bears are the best team ever. Because again, he's from Chicago. He's like, he's like, I believe they're they're the best team ever. That doesn't mean that the whole church has to believe that the Chicago Bears are the best, right?

[01:08:46]>> Yeah. We will have Chicago order, you know, like Franciscan Jesuits and Chicago.

[01:08:56]>> Yeah, you have right. So when imagine that pope like John Paul II did it with about the uh woman ordination and his decree of John Paul II was I as the with using my highest authority as a successor of Peter you know that he said in 1994 I think was John Paul the second that it cannot be possible that a woman receive the holy ordination uh because of of what what uh the the positive faith teaches us. This is only to to a man like Mary Mary Holy Mary wasn't a priest. She she she wasn't a priest but he was but she was the uh the greatest creation. So women women is the greatest creation of God. It's very important. Not a man women is the greatest creation. So it's far much more but holy ordination only to men and he used very high language and some people are saying oh papal infallibility maybe but the the rating there was a question to to to holy father is he using his papal infallibility mode and the the rating answered from as the representative of the holy sea said no this was the uh from his ordinary magisterium but very high. So I would say this the pope can speak very highly very but he must to be this infallible uh this dogma or this this this what decree or the sentence >> there must be consciousness of the bishop of Rome to bind the church all the church and forever you know so must be this conscious that the bishop bishop of Rome must in the consciousness though this is not just my opinion But I bind this the church I I resolve this dispute forever.

[01:11:01]Uh and the church would recognize this during the next years. So this also very important to remember that one of these reasons is that this must be that the bishop must put this in a very clear way that this is his mind to bind the church forever to this doctrine. Not that you must believe it now but forever as a dogma. So this is also important.

[01:11:28]>> Yeah, cuz I and I and I use that and it sounds like a silly example, but I use that because I want people to understand when the pope is actually speaking infallibly when he's actually binding it, when he's clarifying something. So, for example, like um so if the pope came out and he clarified that a marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

[01:11:54]So, so, so and let's say this wasn't an interview. Let's say this was something like like he came out and he clarified cuz for some reason maybe somebody thinks that like you know that the marriage shouldn't be between a man and a woman. So, he could come out and and clarify that. And so when he does that, that would be ex Cathedral because he's clarifying, hey, we believe that a marriage should be only between a man and a woman, right? So, so does it also cuz I guess my next question would lead up into because I know sometimes he he gets interviewed a lot and um we see a lot of these interviews and so a lot of us sometimes get like confused about like how do we know when he's actually speaking infallibly in those interviews, you know? So when he's speaking incredibly, you get because I've seen a lot of people try to mis try to misconstrue his opinions that maybe he gets asked about about certain things.

[01:12:45]So for example, I know he got some heat over like immigration and all that different stuff and people had no idea is he speaking infallibly or is he speaking like like is he speaking just like personal opinion? So would you say does so does it have to do like also with like the place that he's saying it at?

[01:13:04]Like would you also say maybe that would count that would account into when he's speaking infallibly? I I don't know if I'm making myself make sense, but I I want to I really want to clarify this for the audience because I know there's people that are listening that maybe get confused about this.

[01:13:21]>> Yes. Yes. Yes. I would say um that uh it's important where in which way the pope is speaking in which way in in cyclic or in with his interview uh you know this is very important to recognize what kind of document pope published of the or the holy sea or he's saying like Benedict 16th he published his book on the Jesus and he said that his opinion as a Joseph rating not statement or from the pope as you know so I would say this we shouldn't as a Catholics we shouldn't focus much on infallibility you know does oh is he speaking infallible doesn't matter because as a Catholics we must be obliged and accept he's not only his ordinary majististerium so ordinary teaching when he's speaking uh not in this infallible way. No, we could say that what he is teaching in his ordinary magisterium uh which could be also infallible but this is a whole other topic but nevertheless we when the pope is teaching something or saying like the lumenent said we must in a pious belief of the holy father accept this can't just it's lentium reject this because this is not not excited a statement from the holy father Now when the pope is teaching he's saying something we that we as Catholics believe that the pope the the Holy Spirit leading the pope even in his ordinary magisterium when he's teaching in his encyclical in his it does not mean that he cannot make a mistake because there are a lot of examples of the popes they said something later the the popes said oh we should maybe there was this was mistake. Yes. But we as Catholics are obliged to listen our father, holy father because we are the family and imagine when we are a family and we have the father in the family and father are teaching saying something to kids and what the the kids are doing they are not doing oh is infallible infallible way you are speaking how can I you know uh know that you are saying this uh maybe you are wrong I accept you as a father but I accept I do not accept your your sentence or your opinion or your or your order that go to the shop and buy buy help your mom and I said oh no I do not accept this I accept your authority as a father but I do not accept your your sentence it's you know no if I accept my father I would say oh yeah okay I I do whatever you want to make me father because I love you I'm your child you have authority spiritual authority uh you know there Of course limits like like limits like when the father said oh go and sin I would say oh no no no I don't don't do it. Uh so there are some limits even to the papal authority and and we see in the history there are limits like the there are popes who said some things but then the church are saying oh whoa wait we should maybe uh in a softer way do some things. M >> uh but the church are doing this together with pope not I as a theologian or layman or even as bishop I go and I said oh the pope is heretical I do not agree with the pope who am I to said this >> you know this is the pride this is the pride the sin of pride and the sin of pride leads to to to not heaven but to hell >> this is very serious way so so yeah >> yeah that's a good we do have somebody back here who wants to challenge you.

[01:17:29]So, um we'll bring them up here and and uh looks like they want to challenge you. Let's see what happens. All right.

[01:17:37]>> Yeah.

[01:17:39]>> Hello. How are you, my friend?

[01:17:41]>> Hey. How are you?

[01:17:42]>> Good. I'm good. Good brother.

[01:17:45]>> Hey, Powell.

[01:17:46]>> Oh, hi. Hi. How are you?

[01:17:49]>> Good. Good. So, Powell, can you tell me why Peter is the most important apostle?

[01:17:54]Uh and why is does Rome have uh have the is the head of the church if there is a church that was established before the church of Rome was established?

[01:18:06]>> So the second question why the Roman church is the head of the church if if you could uh >> yes repeat.

[01:18:12]>> So so so you're claiming that since you're going to say that since Peter is the rock and in this rock I'll build my church that he has full authority over every single Christian that ever exists forever. And you extrapolated an argument that there is some person who's gonna inherit this and I'm going to give it to him. Right? And that person is is that correct?

[01:18:36]Maybe I would say this. All right. the when Jesus established the Jesus established this office of patrine office uh and he gives some special authority to Peter which he does not give to other apostles to being rock of the church I mean the keys of the kingdom the shepherd of shepherds so there was some special authority we would say in the person of Peter due to the institution of lord Jesus Christ and Now when Peter go to preach our lord Jesus Christ to whole the world uh he also institute in the antioch before Rome his sea. So we as Catholics believe that the sea of antioch is the sea of Peter. So the bishop of Antioch is also the successor of Peter. But this very important thing that Peter at the end of his life due to the providence of God to Rome and together with Paul they uh shed their blood for Jesus Christ in Roman church and like Tertullian of Cartage said they consecrate this church by his blood and teaching. So the Roman church received from Peter and Paul, especially from Peter, um some special charisma and Peter also established uh his successor together with Paul in just just one one one thing one thing and I will just one thing. Yeah. So uh and the church recognize during the centuries two things that the antioch was the sea of Peter like the revenant church but the church of Rome and the success and the bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter received plenty the full of authority of the apostle Peter full of power which is universal.

[01:20:47]this Antioch bishop of Antioch do not receive this universal responsibility uh of Peter he is the successor of Peter in some way but he does not receive his fullness of authority and this we see clearly not in the holy scripture because this is after the scriptures were written but in the history of the church so we could say in the holy tradition which is leading by the holy spirit it. And now we are going to the patristic times and just at the end one one thing sorry brother one thing like of Leon in his at the you know 180 in his work against heresies he in the chapter 3 uh book three chapter 3 two and three verses he said about the Roman church he said this And he as a disciple of the apostles he said that with this church Roman church because of his special authority you must be in agreement you must agree with the holy the church of Rome because of this Peter Paul >> yeah so if it's okay I would like to have a discussion rather than uh than a long explanation. So, so you're saying that Peter and Paul were together and and you're giving them kind of an equal thing that hey, Peter and Paul, I'm going to give you and I'm going to give you apostolic succession which I don't believe in. But now, okay, Peter and Paul established the church. There's a successor for Peter. Who is the successor of Paul?

[01:22:28]Uh, okay. So, now I would say this, the this is very very also important. The apostle Paul do not uh when he laying hands together with respiters we have like you know Timothy and Titus in creed in Ephesus he established the hierarchy but he does not you know laying the hands and said you are my successor my personal successor uh we don't have su in the church as successor of Andrew of Paul or John we have only see in the history of the church which are we as believe leading by the holy spirit we only see that only one apostle have success one one apostle have his successors as personal and this was successor of Peter's and it was in the believe it was in especially in Antioch Alexandria and in the fullness way >> but didn't correct Peter >> uh sorry >> didn't Paul correct Peter once and Even James one time in one in in Acts he said I judge and this is Acts 15. Therefore I said that was James.

[01:23:42]>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. He he judge and this is very important. I would say this and two things. First of all about Peter and Paul. When Peter and Paul go to the Roman church. There was the church in Romans. But Peter and Paul gives the apostolic uh apostolicity to this church and Peter established a successor there.

[01:24:03]And we have sources from the second and third century from east and west. We have the sources which saying that Peter established a successor in the Roman church. So we have historical data to verify that oh from historical perspective the Peter uh uh appoint his successors not Paul. Peter uh to did it to of course together with Paul but but this was success su he was successor of Peter in a special way and about James from acts 15 he said I judge a man because James where was the council of Jerusalem it was in Jerusalem who was the bishop and this what I would say >> very good thank you Paul so so that's my segue so the church of Jerusalem was the first church establish It was established in 30, right? In the year 30. The church of Jerusalem was by by James, right? So now you have no church of Rome. So where is the papers there?

[01:25:08]>> Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. So now the authority of the papal office was in the person of the apostle Peter. So uh where the Peter goes he this papal authority you would say or papal office residing in the person of Peter and we as Catholics believe it was not in Rome there because Peter do not go to Rome you know but this office this authority what Jesus did to Peter was in Peter as a rock of the church and Peter at the end of his days go to Rome uh to appoint his successors and gives It gives life, death for Jesus Christ.

[01:25:52]And the church recognized this act in the second, third and fourth century, especially in the fifth century that that this Roman church receives some special charisma of Paul, but especially of Peter that this is the patine church in a in a par excellence.

[01:26:13]Uh so in James was at the beginning like you said he was the the bishop of the Jerusalem and this a lot of Protestant scholars, patrologists and biblicalists the the they believe that James was some kind of monarchical bishop in Jerusalem and therefore he said I judge because you know the he was the bishop in this city but uh and the bishops as the We believe successors of the apostles they have authority to judge and in the holy council Ephesus and hedon when there was the the we have the decree and each bishop must said that I agree with this because he has office of the apostles.

[01:27:00]So you know this is not tension with with authority of Peter or James successor of Peter or successor of the apostles they must work together because they have together some authority uh in the church as we believe >> but Pel here's the thing right now now you have to be intellectually honest I know you're biased right but intellectual honesty is important >> but why I am biased you know >> you're biased because the papist rules everything so so now if you're claiming >> but brother Just one thing, one thing I'm not biased because I was uh I did not believe in a Catholic concept of papacy when I was studying history. I was against it. I said I thought that it was wrong and >> now you are the >> Yes. But you cannot say that I am biased because >> Okay. Your claim is that that your claim is that the church of Jerusalem is under the jurisdiction of Peter. Now, when James assigned the bishop next after him, who assigned the bishop next after him, none of them, not even one letter shows that they're under the jurisdiction of Peter, right? So, so they're they're kind of doing their own thing, right? And in fact, you would want to see you would want to see in the letter, hey, I established this church, but remember guys, you're under the jurisdiction of Peter who is in Rome. He would have he would have stay some the first the second the third the fourth bishop all the way to 452 none of them thought that they were under the church jurisdiction of Rome except you. So how do you prove that? But yeah, but you know this is I would logical fallacy because this argument from silence I would say oh we have very important cannon of the new testament why we we canonize the the the holy bible in the fourth century of the new testament at the end not in the first second century and and this is the same with this what you ask we don't have we have very uh tiny informations from the first and second century more most of the documents are lost. But we cannot uh we cannot uh think and demand that we see in the first or second century from the successor of James in the Jerusalem they will write to Rome and say yes we you are the holy father highest authority you know this is but why why they should do this you know why why they should in in this way do it I would say it's It's de we demand more what the evidence could give us and what evidence give us in the first century rather we have letter to the Corinthians from Clement of Rome and when you go and read this letter and you study this letter in the first century Clement bishop of Rome in the name of the church who wrote to Corinth Greek church in the east it was not his jurisdiction I would say it was just Greek church in the He wrote to this church and he said you must obey my words as Christ. If you do not obey my words, my commands you are sin. And he speaking through them as his supervisor as having authority jurisdiction over them and they recognize it and accept this. So we have in the first century a letter from Rome to the Greek church to the Corinth uh writing in a solemn papal way and this is not Catholic are saying biased Joseph Lightoot who was Protestant one of the best Protestant scholars of the 20th century he said this this is the about this letter uh in this in this way there was papal tone and they accept it. So we have evidence from first century uh of that Greek church accept the uh papal intervention.

[01:31:00]Uh but why we should demand that we will see this from Jerusalem, from Constantinople, from Alexandria you know the the the as you know in the first century the communication was very hard uh you know so we cannot expect this like now you know but examples So P uh okay so even if I go like let's go very basic right so you're telling me okay it's an argument of silent communication is very hard but they were still under Peter that's so hard for me to swallow but I'm going to give it to you okay now >> they were I'm saying but sorry that you that under the church of Jerusalem was under the Peter >> under under the pope of Rome >> under but okay one one one thing we cannot read church history in a historical way. So what do I mean by this? Of course I believe that Corinth was not was under the the Rome or Jerusalem was under the Rome but >> the Roman church in the east intervene very in a rare way because church have a rule of subsidiarity.

[01:32:16]When there are problems they these problems must be resolved in this church where there are problems. If we problem in the bishop we go to the artsy bishop or to the metropolitan. If there is problem don't resolve we go to the patriarch. It does not mean that there is a problem in Jerusalem church and we go straight to the bishop of Rome. This is not the Catholic way and not patristic thinking. We have subsidiarity.

[01:32:43]But if on the ecumenical level of the highest level there is a problem which is not resolved then bishop of Rome as the universal pastor steps in.

[01:32:55]>> Wow.

[01:32:56]>> They even have a different canon.

[01:32:59]>> They have a pan 151 prayer of manaza second first Ezra's third makabes. So even >> but I want to be respectful of your time. I I just wanted to come up. Thank you >> question.

[01:33:11]>> Yeah.

[01:33:12]>> Yeah. and Ari will take it from here.

[01:33:14]Thank you.

[01:33:14]>> Of course. God bless you.

[01:33:15]>> Thank you so much for coming up. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Wow.

[01:33:20]Have you ever been challenged like that before?

[01:33:23]>> Oh, a lot of times.

[01:33:25]>> So, you're used to it. So, you're used to it.

[01:33:27]>> Yeah, I'm used to it. But it's important to a lot of people have the problem is not with the because I have a little time just five 10 minutes.

[01:33:37]I would say just one thing about what was this question and other people thinking >> a lot of problems about seeing the evidences of papal authority in the early church. These problems are not in the evidences not in the historical datas. The problem is with demands what de our demands what we want to see or what we demand to see. If we demand that oh I accept and I will believe that bishop of Rome has primacy in the early church. If I see that every bishop write a letter uh wrote a letter to the holy father and said I submit to you if they did not I don't believe it.

[01:34:22]I would say but why would you demand this? Why would you demand this that in the second century during this time the bishop of Jerusalem or first century must write to pope if he did not there is no pope I mean you know the problem is if our not with the go to the historical data what we have and see oh we have in the first century and this is we should be said oh my goodness it's we have a luck that we have the the letter of clement because most of documentation of the first and second century are gone We don't have it and we are very lucky that we have this document from the first century and we should focus on this document from the first century or document of second century or third century and not to argument of silence that focusing on the documents which we do not have you know.

[01:35:12]>> Yeah.

[01:35:14]>> So um so yeah guys we're going to wrap it up and it looks like people already want you to come back again. So I'm definitely going to do we should definitely do a part two brother. I think that I think that would be great.

[01:35:25]Um, thank you guys so much for watching.

[01:35:28]I hope you guys enjoyed it. I hope you guys were edified. I hope this gives you guys more resources and more um strength to be able to share about this because I know we discussed a lot of different questions and um which is what I wanted to do is I really wanted to edify because this is a very hot topic that a lot of people struggle with explaining.

[01:35:47]Even Catholics ourselves, we're not always the best at explaining the papacy. So, it's nice to hear from people who actually know who actually know about it and are able to explain it and lay it out the way that you're doing. So, brother, I want to thank you so much for coming on here, for dialoguing with us, for answering everybody's questions, you know, even accepting a challenge at the end. That was fun to see. I love I love to see the interaction. The audience was on your side, by the way. Everybody was rooting for you and so everybody was telling me that like, you know, like you were doing really well. Um, so I want to thank you for that. But I I want to let you to end it off. I would love for you to uh leave us with any last words like where can you find your work? You know, if you have any work out there, any social media, any public social media that you want to share, anything like that, I'll give you the chance to do so right now.

[01:36:37]>> Yes. Unfortunately, right now I not have some no public maybe some blogs or or something, but I would say that watch my two debates. I highly en encourage and recommend to watch it. One debate, you know, type in the YouTube the the Pavl Glovski and Father Patrick Ramsey did the Easter church.

[01:37:02]>> Oh, you debated him. Okay.

[01:37:04]>> Yeah. I debated Father Patrick Ramsey.

[01:37:07]>> Three hours. Three hours.

[01:37:09]>> He's a heavy hitter in the Eastern Orthodox world. Yes.

[01:37:12]>> Wow. That's >> Wow.

[01:37:14]>> Yes. So first I would say to all the people from the chat and audience and listeners and viewers watch the debate.

[01:37:22]This is on the canel of according to John the my debate with father Patrick Ramsey. Did the eastern church believe in papal supremacy be before fatian effort fat schism. Uh this three hours this is three hours debate. We go you know in the in the substance of the documents and there is a lot of very good debate very respectful very very highly knowledge. So watch debate my debate with father Patrick Ramsey and second debate I had I think two years ago with the other Paul Protestant apologist about did the church believe in papal supremacy in the first five centuries and we have two hours debate uh with the other poll uh so check this debate watch it and you will gain a lot of knowledge information sources And you know there's very good debates about papac in the early church. So I encourage people to watch it and pray for me for my ministry that I will successful in a successful way and my PhD dissertation which next year I will defend and I'm writing of course in a papacy in the early church. So pray for me for my dissertation, for my family, for my wife, for my daughter, uh that I will pass a test as a father uh and for God's help and grace. Pray for me uh for the that that Holy Spirit will lead me in in in doing his will, not my will.

[01:39:05]And and we will see somewhere in the future. Maybe here, maybe somewhere.

[01:39:09]Yes, absolutely, brother. Um, you're welcome here anytime. So, you already know this. Um, people are asking there is is it online? The debate that you had with Father Ramsey, is that online?

[01:39:20]Because I'm trying to look for it and I don't.

[01:39:21]>> Yes, >> I will check that. Just one one minute.

[01:39:26]>> If you can send it Yeah, if you can send it to me, that'd be great. That way I can um I can have people check that out because I know some people are very curious to see >> to see that. Oh, >> because you know Patrick Ramsey, father Patrick Ramsey is an Orthodox scholar.

[01:39:43]>> He did his dissertation ecclesiology.

[01:39:45]Oh, I have this Byzantine debate. Uh, yeah, I will send a link. Just wait a second.

[01:39:52]>> I will send you a link. Uh, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

[01:39:57]>> Because I only see I only see a debate review that you did with William, but I don't see the >> Yeah, I sent in studio chat a link. Do you see this? Let me see. Okay. Let's see.

[01:40:09]>> Private chat I sent to you.

[01:40:13]>> Ah, okay.

[01:40:15]>> Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. I'm going to share right now to the chat so that way people can see >> this.

[01:40:20]>> Wow. Okay. Wow. You're kidding. It is three hours.

[01:40:24]>> Yeah. Three hours. I'm just three hours with top eastern Orthodox scholar about papal authority in the east in the first millennium. We did wonderful debate, wonderful discussion. And second debate I will send you also. It's with uh the other Paul Protestant apologist.

[01:40:43]>> I think that one I think that one Paul Fy or FY or whatever his name is I forgot. I don't know.

[01:40:49]>> Yeah. Paul Fy Fy the other Pav Glovatki the pope universal control up to the fifth century. The gospel truth. Yeah, you have it.

[01:40:59]>> Okay. Yeah. Yeah, I got the link already. So, I'm posting that in the YouTube chat so people can check that out. So, if you guys want to check that out and uh, you know, and and want to see pal annihilate these people, then hey, you know, >> respect. I guess I should I should I probably shouldn't say that because Father Ramsey, I'm sorry, but like if you want to see Powell, you know, win, then then there you go. There are the two debates that I linked up. Um, but anyways, but other than that guys, I think we will conclude. I will definitely try to set up another one because it looks like you guys do want them to come back. Maybe we can just do just an open panel where people could come up and ask any and every question they want to throw at you from papacy. I think that'd be fun to do. Um, again, I appreciate the time, brother.

[01:41:46]Congratulations on your new baby, by the way. So, guys, please make sure to pray for him and his new baby, >> new father, right? Your new dad. So, so yeah, definitely pray for him and congratulations. Thank you so much for coming on here and it was truly an honor and it was truly a blessing, brother, to have you on.

[01:42:04]>> Yeah. And thank you one more time, Ary, for your invitation and dialogue. And I hope that this this dialogue, this discussions will uh, you know, provide a lot of God's fruit in the souls and hearts of the the listeners. So, thank you one more time and hope see you in the near future faster than in heaven.

[01:42:27]>> There you go. Yeah, absolutely guys. All right. Thank you guys. You guys know what's happening. Keep up with me. I had a lot new stuff coming on, new dialogues, new people next week that I will be having on backtoback.

[01:42:39]Incredible, incredible new guests, incredible new dialogues, some debates that are coming up that I'll be moderating. So stay tuned for that guys.

[01:42:48]Thank you guys so much for watching and um so yeah, so thank you guys so much and God bless and up until the next time. So let's let's go.

[01:43:14]Hallelujah.

[01:43:18]Halleluah.

[01:43:23]But as long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.