A surgical deconstruction of ecclesiastical majoritarianism that exposes the intellectual fragility of using administrative headcounts to define spiritual truth. It masterfully weaponizes historical nuance to dismantle simplistic canonical narratives.
Installez notre extension pour rechercher instantanément dans n'importe quelle vidéo
Refuting "The Non-Chalcedonian Schism: A History" [PART 1]Ajouté :
Hello everyone. Those people who are tuning in right now and coming into the stream. Today we're going to respond to a live stream probably two months ago uh from Craig Truglia. it was on our church regarding our whether we have, you know, canonical succession, whether we're we have the marks of a schismatic church, uh, who really maintains the true apostolic succession after the Caledonian schism. They're going to be addressing his claims. It took a while to make this. We were pretty lazy on making this. Some people wanted to see it, but it really wasn't that many people wanting to see a response. Most people could intuitively see a lot of the claims were oversaturated from Craig. Um, so we took our time to to respond. Hopefully, it's going to be a fruitful response. Let's see if if Craig is willing to respond. But the reason why we're doing it now is Craig recently went on Cliff to Antiquity stream and now he's trying to publicize some of these arguments. And then that was taken by Orthodox Kyle and then Simple Orthodoxy responded to his video and then apparently Kyle responded back to that. So, if they're going to start relying on these niche arguments, uh, it's fitting that we we give a response.
Today, I'm with Subik and Daniel Kakish.
You guys know him. His channel is The Lion's Den. I'm going to put his channel in the description when we're done. Uh, same with Simply Canonical, aka Simple Simple Orthodoxy. I'll put his channel as well. And we have a new guest. His name is uh Moss. Moss, if you want to introduce yourself.
>> Yeah, it's uh it's great to be on. It's a pleasure. Uh, I go by Moss. Uh some of you may know me online. Um and yeah, I'm I'm really stoked to be here. We spent about 3 to four weeks preparing uh for this video. Uh a document about 75 pages long. This stream is going to be it's going to be really comprehensive, really extensive. Uh minute by minute, we're going to do a dissection of all the claims that Craig has made, all the slander, all the lies that he told on our church. And God willing, uh, all of it comes to light today.
>> Amen. What do you guys have prepared?
We're gonna stream the video.
>> Yes. So, I'm just gonna share my screen here.
>> Actually, Moss, if you don't mind, real quickly.
>> Yes.
>> Just so I could give a brief background uh to what uh Craig has claimed. Okay.
So, uh, Aen summarized it pretty nicely, but I have a few slides here. We're not going to do too many slides. I just wanted to do a few slides here and there for like some of the critical points that really just destroy Craig's entire argument. Um, but so Craig began to uh already describe himself as a sort of historian and scholar going through the facts here. So, you know, our task here is basically to as always defend oriental orthodoxy. So just so you guys know, for those who aren't so familiar, church cannons or church rules and laws for times like for example ordinations of bishops or uh for cases where bishops are allowed or not allowed to do things, these are rules that the church has set for certain conditions and cases. So here Craig has actually accused us of breaking all of the critical ones and therefore made our church invalid by those same cannons that we all hold to.
So think the first three can uh the first three councils like Nika uh Constantinople Ephesus they all had these rules laws and regulations that they set and some were major for example Nika said you shall make no other creed than this one right but obviously we never read these laws exactly to J Der himself will often say that when we read these canon laws some of them don't apply over time it's just it's the spirit of the law it's the spirit of the canon not the actual words. For example, a canon will be like uh bishops cannot ride horses because riding horses was like royalty and this was sort of a lack of humility in doing so. Obviously, that doesn't really apply today. How many bishops do you see even in horses or on horses? So, it doesn't make any sense.
So, off the bat, uh we are going to go into this uh and refute Craig and uh yeah, basically that's it. Mossi, if you want to share before, you know, we get into it.
>> I want to add something for this intro.
Uh, for people who have been paying attention on this channel for a bit, you guys would know I debated Craig Truglia a couple months back. Subdacon was there. A very, very fun debate. Let's just say that was one of my favorite debates I've done. Uh, it was so fun that I got copyright strike when I re-uploaded it on my channel. And, uh, Craig never made any of these arguments during the debate. I wish he did. He probably didn't have them at the time.
uh or he did have him but was I don't know didn't think it would land whatever it may be after the debate he tried to according to what he said on Twitter win some battles you know to to damage control the debate because he he thinks even if he quote unquote loses a debate he always wins in the end so we had a lengthy discussion on St. Ambrose's Christologology we did live streams back and forth on that uh he tried to argue St. And Gary the theologian rejected one nature. He got refuted by an Eastern Orthodox publishing company. He tried to debate me on afterwards on St. Proclas' homalies whether they teach two natures.
Subdacon was involved with that. We corrected him on what the text says. Uh he never issued any apology. He never issued any comments. He never removed any of the comments from the past. So now we have new arguments to deal with.
Uh this is really the context of our dealings with Craig. He's a cool guy.
He's a respectable person. and there's no hate going out to him at all. Uh it's been a little shaky back and forth with some of our responses. He's been upset that I pick his character, so we'll try not to talk about his character much here, even though he did slander in very dishonest ways. Other than that, we won't really mention his character. Uh so, let's get started. Do we have uh green on?
>> Yeah, just one second.
It was more fun to watch that people are saying. I hope so.
>> I mean, I would imagine >> Kyle thought so, too. He recommended it.
And honestly, for all of the EO viewers, watch it, please. I I if you think Craig did well, go for it. Like, go watch it.
I I analyze it.
>> I don't care.
>> This is This is going to address the his video he did. It's also going to address the one he did with Cleave.
>> Cleaver, whatever his name is.
>> Yeah.
>> And and the and Iran's >> Erhan brought up a point in one of their videos that uh we already replied to. So >> uh so it's going to be it's going to just address the question hopefully once and for all because I in my opinion as as a student of history I don't think there is a debate about this and I think any any uh question about it is revisionism.
You're you're absolutely right, Subdacon. And uh the viewers will see as we go through the stream. Um Craig relies on lies. He relies on misquotations. And we we'll get there.
We'll get there. Um but uh can everybody see my screen? I just want to check.
>> Put it right now. Now we can see.
>> All right. All right. So we're going to skip to uh the first 10 minutes is introduction. So we can skip about right here.
Now, in the Aryan controversy and there were schisms, there's some odd stereotypes out there. So, I'm going to counter those and push back a little bit and say the Nine side didn't create schisms. We don't have examples of this.
Like, for example, um yes, there was a second bishop Alexandria, second bishop of Antioch, but Malaysius and Athanasius, right? The Nine bishops um were the majority of their own senates.
We're going to find that's actually very important because that's a canical standard for vindicating who's the correct metropolitan or patriarch. All right, they had the majority of their own senates, which implies their elections were legitimate canatically speaking. The parallel episcy is among those who are elected by the minority, right? Right. Like Paulus of Antioch and it's all parallel to the bajardi choice.
So we're going to have to pay attention to this because this is what's trueian controversy. What is true after calcidon? This is very important.
>> All right. Uh simple. Do you mind uh responding to this short section over here?
>> Yeah. Yeah. So right off the bat he implies that election of bishop or whatever it is uh is always by the majority. So whatever the majority of bishops say, therefore that's truth.
Obviously, even from the Bible, it doesn't make sense. When the majority of Israelites made an idol and forced Aaron to make this idol, were they correct in this? Right. Um it was the majority of people in one in 1 Samuel when they asked for a king. Were they correct in asking a king just because there's majority there's numbers right off the bat? the majority of even Aryans were the so a lot of Caledonians especially Eastern Caledonians Eastern so-called Orthodox always complain against Catholics when they say you guys just say big church and then they use the same argument against us for some reason. Um so yeah, right off the bat that has nothing nothing to do with what is canonical is number or how many bishops there are.
>> Yeah, excellent point. I just want to expand on that a little bit. So, his standard, and you guys will notice his standard changes drastically over the course of this video. So, first he's saying uh that being the majority in one's own senate is a canonical standard for vindicating who the correct metropolitan or patriarch is. And he says this implies that their elections are legitimate canonically speaking.
He's saying the parallel episcopacy is among those who are elected by the minority parallel to the majority. So not only do the historic non-caledonian seas uh were they elected by the majority as opposed to the imperally enforced minority but the sole reliance on this standard and this standard alone is an absolutely flawed measure of canonicity for three reasons. Number one, it's a double-edged sword as it illegitimatizes instances of Caledonian episcopies as parallel. Number two, it's baseless as a as a measure of validity in the early church. And number three, of course, as uh simple brought up a little bit, the Holy Bible preaches against it uh and its sole reliance. For example, we look at Exodus 20 uh 23 chap 2 23:2 says, "You shall not follow a crowd to do evil, nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after many to pervert justice."
Now, take a m take a minute and think how this verse parallels the events at Caledon, the actions of Juvenile, St. Diosis and his trial, right? Who is this evil crowd? Who's following this crowd?
How is justice being perverted? And through what testimony is false witness for? Additionally, uh in numbers 13 to 14, we have 10 out of the 12 spies sent by Moses reporting in fear of the defenses of the land which influenced the Israelites to back down and of course transgress God's command. And as we know, this led to 40 years of wandering. Um uh simple talked about how in Exodus 32 the Israelites created a golden calf to worship and Aaron Aaron succumbed to the pressure of the majority which led to idolatry and disobeying God's commandments.
Additionally, you have 1 Samuel 15 where King Saul was commanded by God to destroy the Amalachites but he spared them instead. Right? He listened to his people the majority and what happened after this uh his kingship was rejected.
We also have several examples in the Bible of prophets uh being a minority who were steadfast in the face of the evil majority. Uh in Genesis 6:9 when Noah built his ark, uh he saved only him and his family. Uh but he was mocked and ridiculed by the wicked majority who of course as we know were wiped off from the face of the earth. In Joshua 24, uh Joshua made a covenant at Shakem where he gathered all the tribes of Israel telling them to choose for themselves who they serve. the gods or their fathers or god and he clearly stated that for him and his house he will serve the lord regardless of the choice made by the tribes of Israel. Uh even in 1 kings 18 when Elijah gathered all of Israel on Mount Carmel uh he was the sole remaining prophet of the Lord. He challenged 450 prophets of Bal yet the Israelites side with Elijah the minority. And this theme continues in the New Testament even when we look at Matthew 73 to 14. Enter by the narrow gate, for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in it by it, because narrow is gate, and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. Additionally, in Matthew 24 uh 9-13, then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for my name's sake. And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold.
>> All right. Would anyone like to add anything or should we continue the uh stream?
>> I want to add a point. Having majority of people can be a good sign, but like you said, relying on on that as the basis for canonicity is the most ridiculous thing ever. ever. Number one, no canon explicitly regulates it the way Craig is going to do the rest of this live stream. Uh secondly, the times when it is brought up, the make orb breakak principle is never rested on that. So like a good example, epistle 51 of St. Cyprien, he goes through how Pope Cornelius, he had the testimony of the clergy, had the testimony of the people who were then present. But the issue that that they they claim about Novaceius isn't that Novasius solely isn't a bishop because he didn't have the majority. It's that you have Cornelius was already bishop first. And I quote, "Whoever now wishes to become a bishop must needs be made from without."
Why? After the first, there cannot be a second. Whoever is made after one who ought to be alone is not second to him, but is in fact none at all. So you cannot rest majority as your whole principle. uh the the passages where we do learn that from they don't even do that when they do mention having you know the testimony of all the people the makeorb breakak principle is really if you are set up as the bishop and you have the judgment of god and of Christ those are the words of cyprien if anybody tries to be bishop while you yourself are still standing in that place it it can't work >> all right yeah great points uh let's continue the stream >> now I'm gonna say this in quotation marks We're going to get to depositions and there's a cananical way to do depositions. But the problem is there's no canon delineated whether or not let's say the deposition of ethnicius was correct or not. There is no canon on it.
But there is a tradition that's effectually can right because we've had many patriarchal depositions and recognitions so to say that form an authoritative tradition just like the sinlessness of the theos. There's no canon and no ecumenical council on that question but that's authoritative for us. So so is this question of how to properly depose and recognize a patriarch. So with polycrates of Ephesus and Victor of Rome uh the world recognized policies and the Ephesusian patriarchy and so this is a precedent in the second century we have uh St. Cornelius of Rome the pope and novation who's the real bishop of Rome because both claimed to be consecrated bishop of Rome but the majority of the Roman cited accepted Cornelius the world received Cornelius letter the world rejected innovation which was an innovation that went other bishops so we have a tradition there which vindicates the majority choice we have St. Athanasius versus the world as St. drums as Athanasius versus the world. But the reality is that whoever was against Ethanius never had the world's patriarchs recognizing him. But with Athanasius, he did have the world's patriarchs uh recognizing him before his disputed depositions. He never had a consensus deposition. You need all the patriarchs to oppose a patriarch. You can't just do it with one or two. And so particularly Rome, but also Jerusalem, they were very supportive of Athanasius and that kind of shielded him from the machinations of Constantinople. We also have Malaysius versus Pelinus, which is a good example where neither in the lifetimes ever got the consensus of anyone but Malaysius after death through St. Flavian eventually got the recognition of everyone which shows you which side was vindicated. The side where all recognized that particular patriarch and so >> yeah no problem.
>> Sorry I just want I want to go through each of those examples because this is hilarious.
>> Yeah definitely definitely >> for for Pelicrates and Victor uh you have the world only saying Victor you messed up for trying to break the the unity of the church. All of the senates had agreed with Victor according to they all agreed on that specific date. the that that very example fails. Number two, Cornelius innovation. I just read out the letter. Thank god he got into this. I didn't even know this. Number three, Athanasius in the world. This one is the funniest one. Why do you think Athanius went to the west? Because Julius's letter lists like 18 like that's an exaggeration, but like 10 or so eastern provinces that kicked their bishops out and sided with the Ucian faction. Like the Ucians were objectively the majority in the east.
That's why everyone from the east went to the west. And if you want to unpause, I'll get the quote. But last thing uh uh Mitus and Pinusy himself said during their actual dispute, there was no majority. St. Romans letter 15, he basically says that in the east uh Christ's robe is being torn. And in letter 16, he says they're all claiming some sort of communion with Demesis, but it's still such a big deal that you can't discern the truth in the east.
That that's the whole theme of letter 15. You can't discern the truth in the east. Uh, so you can keep it playing.
I'll go get the quote real quick uh from Julius's letter to the UCians where he lists all of the eastern provinces that pretty much got kicked out for by and we're standardizing policies in those locations.
>> Um, no, I I think this is a great point to pause. Simple. You want to cover uh some of these examples as well?
>> Uh, yeah. Um, I mean, we can go from the beginning. Um we have uh like a bunch a bunch of examples like for example if you go through um uh Aen already covered like Paulus and Novation and Athanasius right uh Craig even like when he blunders he says like you need all the patriarchs to depose a patriarch you can't just do it with one or two right this standard is not found anywhere in the early church for example we can list multiple like Paul of Samosada who was obviously deposed by his own Senade without the consent of the patriarchs of Alexandria and Rome.
They were they only were told about the matter or Macedonius of Constantinople who was deposed by another regional Senod orchestrated by the Aacian bish bishops and Emperor Constantinus 2. No consent there was no majority. Notorious was famously deposed at Ephesus without the consent of John of Antioch. But you do not challenge this deposition as invalid for this reason. The same thing with we can keep going on. Maximus 2 of Antioch was deposed. We don't know much about these circumstances, but we do know that a regional council from representatives from all the seas all coming together consenting it. They they all have to consent on it, right? like Craig must implies must be the standard and even like Pope Felix who initiated the Aacian schism when his senate in Rome attempted to depose three patriarchs so Antioch Alexandri and Constantinople Craig like probably wouldn't even bat an eye at this right St. Peter the Fuller, one of our saints, was deposed several times, once by Felix III, the rest by the emperors. But you know, these aren't invalid depositions, right? Because double standard. Aacius of Constantinople was also deposed by the same Felix that is Sinod, but I mean, you know, Antioch and Alexandria, they they didn't agree, but we don't care about that. Um, Peter Mogus is deposed by Felix. Like, you have this one person deposing all of these people, right? But we just forget about that. and Evaguras like cites all of these examples.
>> I I I just want to make sure I I can't I can't believe that Craig is making this argument because he he should know. So I just maybe I'm misunderstanding. So I want to ask you guys to make sure that this is the argument that he's making.
He's saying that the sea has to have a majority.
That's what he's saying.
>> I wish that was what he was saying. He's saying that in order to depose a patriarch, you need the consent of all other patriarchs. He goes so far like um the examples that he listed uh his his standard is changing uh time and time again. Like once he says, "Oh, we need the consent of the world." Oh, but now now actually we need just the consent of our own city. Um his his standard is is changing flip-flopping. But uh the most absurd one, the one that >> patriarch or to depose a bishop of a sea >> to depose a patriarch. He's saying we need the consent of everyone. We need Alexandria on board. We need Antioch on board. We need >> But there's there are so many examples in history that that's not what >> Yes, I I know it's it's completely bogus and uh uh simple. You want to cover some of the other examples as well?
>> Yeah. like more examples of this. We uh we have like >> how about John of Antioch not agreeing on 431 about that.
>> Yeah. Yeah. That I like Yeah. That that that was literally like uh the one of the examples as well like even with Notorious like he didn't agree with that. Like we and we just invalidate that.
>> We didn't Ntorius was out because of the emperor. Two years later John of Antioch signs.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> So, the deposition was invalid until 433 >> according to Craig. Yeah.
>> Well, he he he's not qualifying it and saying, "Well, unless it's a council, he's not like I don't understand."
>> Nope. He's not. And we actually have in history uh two examples of the standards from So, this was from the Acian schism.
We had an argument between Rome and Constantinople on the topic of the deposition of St. Aacius. So Rome was arguing uh uh St. Aacius was rightfully deposed because uh each acumenical council can only depose a heresy once and so uh St. Aacius was deposed according to association for a subscription of uticianism but uh the Constantinopleians the defenders of Aacius they were saying no we need a council to depose a patriarch. So these are the two viewpoints that we have.
Craig is disagreeing with both of these historic viewpoints. He's seeing we need every patriarch on board. We need the consent of every patriarch in order to depose a patriarch. Complete foolishness. Uh completely unfounded, completely baseless.
>> I I know where where Craig's getting this from to to to give him some kind of defense. Uh this is how Craig deals with papal claims after Calcidon. If you read Valentinian III's edict, not an edict, but basically a rule passed mentions Leo by name saying you can't do anything without your ruler. You you have the same passage in Socrates and Simeon talking about an ancient canon. You cannot depose anyone without the bishop of Rome. Uh it's repeated again at Nika 2. It's repeated by Peter Chryslogos about Leo. So all of these postcaledonian claims starting 440 onwards once Leo became pope saying you can't depose anyone without Rome. And what's Trugula's solution to this? Oh yeah, you can't depose anyone without Rome because Rome is a patriarch and you need all the patriarchs. So if you're missing one patriarch, you can't depose them. That's his thought process. It's a dealing with there's papacy in my tradition cope. And that's where he gets this madeup ecclesiology that has no precedence in the early fathers >> to go through to so we already talked about policies and Victor. Everyone was siding with uh Victor's own position on when to actually celebrate the feast.
They only sided with Pelicrity saying, "Victor, we shouldn't really cut him off from the unity of the church." Okay. For Cornelius and Novasius already went through that epistle 51 that the the problem is that Novacius is trying to take a seat. While he himself is there's already someone there. Cornelius is already there. It's a it's a second bishop. Well, there's already a first for Ethanius versus the world. He made this silly claim uh that it actually wasn't really Athanius versus the world.
You know, all the bishops were really with Athanius.
Why do you think he went to Rome?
Alexander was hijacked by Gregory.
Antioch is where the Yucians would convene their councils and Blackulus who was the patriarch at the time was proc.
Constantinople was hijacked by Ucius himself. The Yucians already convene a council at Jerusalem during the days of Ty. So they have control in Jerusalem.
And from Julius's epistle, we see multiple places where a bunch of bishops are running in from here because their own places kicked them out because of Yucian control. You have you have and Cairo, Ray, so Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine. So he himself said there's no explicit cannon laying out my position.
He goes to see well, you know, it's just embedded everywhere, but it's just Craig's own private reading of these matters. is just making up an ecclesiology to deal with the papacy that exists in his tradition.
>> And and uh simple already addressed the point uh about Paul of Samosada.
There was no patriarchs involved in this.
>> Yeah. Alexander and Ro and Rome specifically. They were like, "Hey guys, this is what we did." They didn't ask for consent from them for deposing Paul.
I I also want to bring up really quickly and we'll we'll keep justifying uh the the crown of the Syrians throughout the stream. Since Sephus was deposed by Justin in 518 without a canonical sinod or the consent of the patriarchs. All right. So I feel like with Calcedonians they'll do this double standard. They're okay. It's you know when we do it it's fine but you know s Sever he was evil.
He was evil.
>> Wait wait wait. Okay. Seis thank you for mentioning him. Zus 518.
Who are the patriarchs who Zus?
Who are they?
>> Zero.
>> I want Craig to tell me like Okay. The patriarch of Alexandria was who in 518 >> non-existent for the Caledonian side.
>> For the Caledonians, non-existent.
So our own patriarch of Alexandria did not. They didn't have one unless he was the ghost of Proterius. They didn't have who who are these unanimous patriarchs who are deposing everyone. And when did that ever happen?
>> And and sorry, go ahead. Okay. And Subdacon, you make a great great point bringing up 518. There's something very particular about 518 that I want to expand upon.
So um >> yeah just just another um thing about 518.
So this uh cinnid attempted to depose St. Seis as well as approximately 50 other non-caledonian bishops. But uh let me ask you a question subdacon and I guess the viewers. So if I'm the emperor, right, and I want to depose someone, is it not right for me to uh perhaps, you know, give a letter to my soldiers and, you know, inform the bishops that they are being deposed, inform Saint Seis that they are being deposed. This council didn't do that.
St. Seis and the 50 other non-caledonian bishops that were quote unquote deposed, not a single one of them were informed.
And uh Vulkar Mens uh amazing scholar he he uh makes note of this. It's it's insane. It's it's a joke of a council.
>> Okay. Um >> here's another problem they have.
>> 512 Severis becomes patriarch.
>> Yes.
>> Yeah.
>> Craig Trullia cleave to information. All of you guys, who is your patriarch of Antioch in 512, 513, 514, 5:15? Who is your patriarch of Antioch that you're in communion with?
Who is he? Severis of Antioch. You're in communion with Seus of Antioch.
So now in 518 when Justin just willy-nilly deposes him because you guys are papist in that year. When that happens uh you no other patriarchs do you happen to recognize the deposition of your own patriarch without that is unconical. I can't believe we're we even have to address this because it's so silly.
>> Yeah. Um I think Moss, do you want to address anything else? I think >> uh I do just want to quickly uh cover a little bit about or add a little bit on Athanasius versus the world. So Craig uh he tries to argue oh you know eventually right eventually each of the seas uh accepted Ethanius right but but for the most part this wasn't true. So in Constantinople alone we had four Aryan patriarchs in succession. Um in Antioch I believe we had eight uh uh Aryan patriarchs in succession. Um even in Rome, right, we know Liberius was tempted to his fall and apostatized. So he's trying to claim that Rome was this uh you know Rome never succumbed to Aryanism. Rome was always you know on on St. Ethan side. That's not true at all.
Even in Jerusalem which we don't uh actually recognize as a patriarch uh it was elevated to the status of patriarch at Caledon right but even in Jerusalem St. Sarah was driven out. He was chased out of the city. So, every single city of Craig's beloved penarchy uh rejected St. Athanasius. His his standard is garbage.
>> Thank you for saying this. Uh Aan, what's the name of the pope? Liberius, who was the one who signed it?
>> Liber.
>> Pope Liberius. Yes.
>> Okay. So, so Craig Craig is is his thing is blowing up in his face like the po the pope of Rome uh Liberius and and Antioch was Aryan and I don't know who else I think Jerusalem and Constantinople if Constantinople was even a patriarch at the time. Um if like you're saying mas they're all they all condemn Aanasio but it's Aanasius against the world. He's the right one and they're all wrong.
>> Yes.
>> I don't know. I don't maybe maybe he has trouble sleeping on and he's trying to justify it in his head. So he tries to you know.
>> All right. Let us continue.
uh so to say that's not a canon but authoritative tradition before kelson on that question and it was so well known there's a cinnid essentially among the Syrian church of the east in 424 of maropa and they recognized and took it for granted so to quote the cinnid as for what was defined by the western fathers i.e the five patriarchs in the Roman world that it is not permitted for bishops to hold an assembly against their leader nor to write charges or reproaches but that if they have to complain and do not obtain satisfaction the council in the presence of the patriarch they must appeal to his colleagues i.e the other patriarchs who will decide between him and them after having examined the matter. So here is a cinnid a local jurisdictional cinnid among the Syrians and they go well this is what the rest of the whole Christian world believes. Now they were to take issue with it because they didn't want their patriarch to be appealed to to the patriarch Antioch. But this shows you they're the minority in opposing this.
This was the rec recognized tradition of the whole Christian world. That's why these eventually went to schism. And so it's not just oh look Craig's an apologist making this up out of nowhere.
No, this is in the primary sources and they took for granted this is the majority view of everybody. So, Deacon, I see uh you're you're a little uh disappointed in this. Can you tell us what else that Senate says?
>> I hope my Assyrian church, the East brothers are watching this because the the Eastern Orthodox cannot open their mouths about us without mentioning the Assyrian Church of the East. They can't.
Every single video they've made against us, somehow they bash the Assyrian Church of the East somewhere in there.
The zen of 424 had nothing to do with the schism. Um they're in they're in communion for 60 years after this. And the only reason communion was broken is because of us. We broke communion with them. So the rest of the Roman world breaks communion via Antioch. Peter the Fuller was the one to do it. Has nothing to do with the senate.
He says it led to their schism. No, it didn't. That's not that the point of that senate was that people are not like he said this is correct that people are not appealing to Antioch against their their pat that's that's giving the benefit of the doubt that it's a legitimate sit in the first place that's already up there there's a there's questions about the Senate but let's give the benefit of the doubt that it's real okay um so it's about not appealing to Antioch over their own patriarchy that's what the Senate is has nothing to do with what he's saying. That's a totally unrelated topic. I don't know how he's trying to tie it in.
>> It gets worse. So, sorry, Simple. I just want to add something.
>> Yeah, go ahead.
>> It gets worse. Um, if you know this this Senate uh or actually simple, you want to cover this part here. What else does the Senate say? Right. So he's trying to quote this as a sort of as if it somehow supports this position of consent to the patriarchs. But why isn't this the case simple?
>> Yeah. The the first thing is uh I don't know if Craig did this intentionally, but it's actually like uh it's usually called the Senate of the Disho. I think I I might be slaughtering >> the Disho is the name of the patriarch.
>> Yeah. So he when he said maropa I didn't know what it was but uh so it's actually like um sometimes cited as like more supreml because it it says by the word of the tr trinity no one is allowed to hold a cinnid against the catholicos nor to arouse quarrel schism divisions nor to write charges or complaints against him as was done. And then further on it says, "For no reason can one think or say that the Catholic of the East can be judged by those below him or by a patriarch like him." How is this consensus? I I don't I I I mean like I don't know. What did Craig say? It's like, "Oh, Craig is making this up."
Yeah, you are making this up, bro. Like this is this is very like you would say this is people that like I don't understand.
>> Um >> and by the way, the the Disho Senate itself makes that appeal to Peter. It makes that that type of Petron claim.
Just a fun fact, >> right?
>> Yeah. It's this this trend, you will notice, will continue, right? Craig is quoting something that directly refutes him. We we'll we'll see some of this comedy later on, but uh for now, I think we can continue.
>> Now, it gets even better than this. We have a source that is actually canatanical for oriental Orthodox today, the fetest, and it is the normal cannon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. It's based on a 13th century Coptic normal cannon. It is still canon law today as I said for the Ethiopian Orthodox. It has an introduction um written by the uh uh Salassi how you pronounce his name but like the king of Eth emperor of Ethiopia and it's cited today against the air trans. So the Ethiopian Orthodox still cite this document because it is their canon law. And what does it say? It says if a patriarch is guilty of some offense, no proceeding may take place.
That's their practice, not mine. Unless one of his fellow three patriarchs takes part in the accusation inquiry into the matter. So as we see it doesn't get to the same level detail of marata or that authoritative tradition we discussed but you clearly see a patriarch is judged by at least one patriarch in the example they give. Now >> all right uh simple do you mind covering uh why he's being anacronistic in his usage of the fetest.
>> Yeah. So the fth and the guest isn't like a strict law. Uh and I I asked a bunch of uh Habisha and Ethiopian brothers about this just to get Deacon Merritt wanted to come on unfortunately couldn't make it but he told me this isn't a strict law for use and application of every time it actually it's a no it comes from the Coptic Nommo cannon of Alam who which which has a bunch of errors and it's and it's based upon like forgeries. So there's a bunch of problems with it like it can't be used in every situation. Um, and the cannons pertaining to the treatment of the patriarch, which he's referencing here, are pulled from something called the Arabic cannons of Nika, which are pseudoraph uh pseudo epipographical compilations, which are originated long after Nika from the 7th to 10th century.
So they're dubious, but uh they project later ecclesiastical structures back in time. So it's reading into it. It's anchoristic. And then um the evidence of this is it the claim that it makes that the fathers of Nika commanded that there must be only four patriarchs in the world at one time. Alexandria, Antioch, Ephesus, right, and Rome, which aren't like the which obviously isn't the case.
So this is anchoristic. Um and the inclusion of these cannons in the feed and the gas does this uh you know make it so that the totality of Christians today recognize the validility of validity of the Roman papacy every time in authority or that we must ordain a patriarch of Rome every time because the canon says there has to be four. Of course not. Right. We don't hold to that like weird like pentarchy system that you guys do. Um >> um >> so it can't be strict basically. Sorry.
Go ahead. No, I want to say Sirill Mate's uh point. Doesn't this refute their 1960s claim? Yeah, they can't they they they can't make up their minds, these guys. We're 1965 we come around, but they're trying to talk about us from the centuries.
>> Yeah.
>> All right. Sorry.
>> Yeah, I was going to add um regarding the the Arabic cannons of Nika. I believe Subacin was going to do a whole formal debate on them on this. Uh everyone in in in every tradition makes use of these cannons. And in every single tradition, nobody completely fully relies on them. They are able to influence decisions that are related, but we don't hold them like completely 100% fully authoritative. Like simple made the claim, one of the cannons says like we need to have I believe it ties it to the four gospels like we need to have, you know, a sea of Rome, a sea of Ephesus. It's like a a modified version of the pentarchy. We don't hold that.
You don't hold that. It's present even in your tradition these Arabic cannons.
Um so this is like a ridiculous nonsequittor.
>> Yeah. and it was uh it was tied to the four elements as well. So, you know, another another thing to add there. But uh I think we're ready to continue now.
>> Let's get into the ecclesiastical history of Calcidon only ever so briefly. So, let's talk about the Oscar's uh deposition. This is really not the meat of the presentation, but it's going to come up, so I figured I'd cover it. He had a canonical deposition.
So, Caladon's show evidence of integrity. This is something I think we cannot seriously take issue with keywords seriously. People take issue with it, but it's because they don't like what it says. Now, if you recalog's minutes, it preserves debates from opposing sides. It it preserves criticisms of what's going on during the Senate. It preserves defenses of the Oscar himself. It even preserves the notes like you could it writes down them collecting the notes of the transcript.
So, it's sort of like not actually people talking, but people say stack the papers over here and put them over there, >> which means it was such a slavish.
>> It even preserves them accepting the on the basis of his letter.
>> All right.
um such a such a slavish recording of what happened there to you need a lot of evidence to say well no there's something really really inaccurate in these minutes because as far as an ancient source goes these look extremely authentic with the details they preserve things that are not um uh the details that are not really they don't make the Caledonian side even look good quite frankly it's sometimes a hostile witness is your most um witness and Calonian minutes definitely are like this now what else do they us >> here he he himself is bearing witness to it. The the best proof against Calcidon is Calcidon itself.
We're not making the claim like I don't know. He's trying to build this and then basically say look and the men show D scores rejected thrice summon. So you can't say like you know we tampered with it and D scores didn't actually reject the thrice summons. We'll give it to you. You know can the Calvin is telling the truth. Like you said one of the proofs for that is how it falsifies your religion in the minutes. It's as clear as day. But nobody makes the argument that what we see in session three uh you know it's completely tempered with. No, we just make the argument even in those thrice summons the one calling for the summons itself contradicts the very procedure that the apostolic cannons give you regarding what constitutes a canonical deposition.
>> Oscar is refusing summons three times canonically leading to his deposition.
And that's extremely important. All right. He was deposed.
>> Doesn't say he was under house arrest.
The soldiers didn't let him leave. He doesn't say any of this. Okay, >> don't worry, subdeacon. We'll get there.
>> What are the cannons? Here's apostolic cannon 74. If any bishop has been accused of anything by men worthy of credit, he must be summoned by the bishops. And if he confesses or >> I want everyone in the chat, because I'm I'm sure Moss is going to bring this up.
Pay attention to the first line. Men worthy of credit. That's very important.
If any bishop has been accused of anything by men worthy of credit, and Moss, keep that going. Everyone remember that. convicted, a suitable punch must be inflicted upon him. But if when he is summoned, he does not attend, let him be summoned a second time, two bishops being sent to him for that purpose. If then he will not attend, let him be summoned a third time to bishops be against sent to him. But if even then he shall disregard the summons and not come, let the senate pronounce such sentence against him as appears right that he may not seem to be to profit by avoiding judgment. All right? So you can see that at the three summons they could depose um the patriarch there or any bishop. We also have canon five of Antioch which applies the same to a priest or deacon. If any priest or deacon despises his bishop and separates himself from the church by gathering a congregation privately and setting up an altar, his bishop should summon him. If he refuses to submit even after his bishop summons him a first and a second time, the bishop must dismiss him from the clergy with no possibility of reinstatement to his position or rank.
If he continues to sedicious person cannon, my opinion is canon 74 of the apostolic cannons was the actual canon enforced. But oriental orthodox canon law still preserves this tradition and it's not a canonical isogesis on my behalf. We have this in the fth and a guest. If a bishop is accused by reliable uh and faithful person and he refuses to come, they shall send to him an envoy representing the bishops either once or twice. And if he refuses, they shall send an envoy for the third time.
If he does not come, the council of bishops shall order his deposition. So, of course, there should be no debate.
>> I'm just going to pause right here. Um I think this is a good time for us to cover to cover this summons argument. Um >> you want me to summarize it very quickly?
>> Yeah, sure. Go ahead.
Okay, if everybody reads canon 3 of Calcedon, uh it goes through Doris's deposition. Uh first, it's very suspicious from the get-go and that the officials aren't there. Uh the one presiding this is the Roman legates.
That's important to take note of. It's already shady from the get-go. The first summons to Dascorus is issued by Yibius of Durellium. They read out accusations from derelium from Ephesus 2 where he himself says the scores deposed me at this council. He himself says that and by the way at it wasn't until the later sessions from 9 through 11 is when Ephesus 2's decision started to be retroactively undone. That didn't happen yet. As far as session 3 is starting from session 1 to session 3, was not restored by any canonical means in the church. Not at all. Same with theoret he was only there. They said it because the emperor and Leah wanted him. The same here with deposed by Dascorus reads out accusations against Doris and on that basis issues the first summons. Who's the one who did the first summons?
Someone deposed by Doris. They went to go and Doris was he couldn't move. He he made it clear, you know, I need permission to leave. They're not going to let me leave. They go back. They get permission, you know. They go back and Doris basically says now he's ill. He's sick. When read his history of Dascorus 454, everyone knows what he means by saying that. But even forgetting that, the second summons, guess who does it?
Ucussius of Durellium. The third summons, guess who does it? Ucussius of Derelium.
After apostolic canon 74, the one that Craig cited. If there's any men worthy of credit who accuse a bishop, he is to be summoned three times. If he doesn't show up, you anaatize him. What's the cannon right after this cannon?
Apostolic cannon 74. It's apostolic cannon 75 says a heretic cannot be a witness against a bishop. As far as you see is concerned, he's a heretic condemned at Ephesus 2.
>> Can I uh can I actually bring this up on screen real quick just so people can see what we're talking about?
>> Of course.
>> Yeah, here we go. All right, >> let me remove. Perfect. Perfect. So notice apostolic canon 74 says the one who gives the thrice summons for it to work. It has to be by men worthy of credit. But what's the cannon right after literally the next cannon? A heretic is not to be received as a witness against a bishop. So can a heretic be that man worthy of credit who issues the thrice summons? Absolutely not. It's impossible for it for it to be a canonical thrice summons as long as it's of derelium doing it who's a heretic who his he wasn't reinstated until sessions after session three after dors was deposed. So you have a heretic being a witness against a bishop and this is your quote unquote men worthy of credit. It shows that this is not acting upon apostolic canon 74. It shows the ridiculousness of this council. How silly it is.
>> You guys want to add anything?
>> It's papism. It's papism because Leo Leo uh unilaterally >> abregated Ephesus 2 on his own. He has his own cinnid in Rome and he does it by himself. So they're accepting papism there and they're accepting it in 518 like I said earlier with the leellis of horistice just in deposing sever. So it's either papism or they're just making it up as they go.
That's >> And yep, perfect. And I'd like to add, we have precedents for this rejection in the early church, right? The same situation occurred with St. John Krostum at the Senate of Oak. He was summoned three times and deposed accordingly uh because he refused to attend and recognize the legality of the Senate and quote unquote his open enemies were judges. Um so let's pose a question to Craig here, right? How is the deposition of St. John Krrism at the Senate of Oak any different than that at Calcidon with St. Doris? Why is one canananical and the other not? Surely the answer must be that the witnesses of St. John Krostum were heretics. They were not reliable.
They were not faithful. Thus, apostolic cannon 74 does not apply. But unfortunately for Craig, this is much harder for him to demonstrate than for us because it was St. Theophilles of Alexandria who presided over the Senate of Oak and orchestrated the deposition of St. John Kristom. We both venerate St. Theophilles as a saint. Um, additionally there's another example that not a lot of people know. Uh, their Saint Uticius of Constantinople.
He was condemned, deposed, and summoned by Emperor Justinian. And at this point in history, Justinian was a full-blown Julianist. Um, so Uticius refused the thrice summons because of course he believed he wasn't being judged canonically and so he was deposed, condemned and exiled. Right? So you have your own saints summoning your own saints and deposing your own saints. Was this a canonical deposition truly?
What are you going to say? Right? You're arguing that St. Chorus was a thric and therefore he was canonically deposed.
What about St. Jean Krosum, what about your saint you take of Constantinople?
>> All right. So notice notice the argument Moss just made. It's very easy for us to show especially how this thrice summons issued against the scores is a showdy one because it's supposed to be by men worthy of credit. You see was a condemned heretic. His his deposition wasn't even reversed by any collegial process until later sessions. So we have a very easy route. The next cannon says a heretic cannot be a witness against a bishop. Yus was the witness who issued for the thrice summons. Therefore, it doesn't work because he's not a man worthy of credit. They have an issue now because they reject Chrissum's deposition, but they believe the one who did it was a man worthy of credit. So, if even even in this case, not even using this apostolic canon 75 argument, they think that you can't just apply apostolic canon 74 as is because even in that case, Theophilus they respect, they highly rever Constantinople 2 treats him as an authority. So they believe Theophilus is a man worthy of credit and even in that case they still think Krasam wasn't deposed. So now what happens when you don't have a man worthy of credit, right? They're they're picking and choosing.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Switch it.
>> All right.
>> The Oscars wasatically deposed. He was no longer patriarch. His deposition was accepted by all patriarchs in Calcidon.
He met standard and his own senate. This is important. And his own senate because they didn't fight to the death resisting his deposition. But they were willing to die to not sign the decree of the council until they went back to Egypt.
All right. They were willing to die until they could replace the Oscars, not to sign that decree. So they weren't in opposition to the deposition. They were in opposition of signing the decree prematurely. So this gives a good understanding of what the church in Alexander understood to be legitimate or not.
>> So what was the Egyptians in its dying words? What were they willing to die for?
>> Hold on.
Okay.
>> Something about crash.
>> They they didn't sign. Some of them signed, right? Some of the Alexandrian bishops signed. A minority of the Senate of Alexandria signed. The majority did not.
Why?
Why? Ronald McDonald.
When when they get back to Alexandria, who do they elect? Those same bishops.
They elect Timothy.
Yeah.
not Proterius who the emperor tried to force on them. So then why didn't they just sign along with the minority ones?
Why?
Good question. And uh we we of course uh we know so St. Dascorus was accompanied by 19 bishops, right? So we know 19 attended uh the council of Calcidon with him. Four deserted him at the first session. uh and scholar Timothy Gregory he states this represented a larger movement of opposition. So this has nothing to do with Calcidon. Four bishops deserted him at the first session. 13 bishops stood with him to the very end even after his deposition.
And this was at the point when it was obvious to everyone that his case was lost. Right. So Craig is about to read this. Uh we we'll let him read this.
These are the quote unquote dying words of the bishops. states this in the council quoting them. But since the most religious bishops of our dascese happen to be very many while we being easy to count are not able to represent them meaning all of them we entreat your preeminence in this holy great council to have pity on us and wait for our archbishop so that we may follow his decision according to ancient custom but if we do anything without the approval of our leader the whole Egyptian dasis will attack us and acting as acting uncannically.
All right. And so, >> so we see that uh by the end of the sinned, these bishops were on the floor.
They were begging. They were begging for their lives. And and contrast this to the very first senate just one or very first session. Just one second.
>> You want me to put on the on the screen the slides?
>> No, I'm just looking for uh for the quote of the bishops. Yeah, here we go.
So in the first session, these same bishops accompanying the scores cried out saying, "A Christian fears no one.
An Orthodox fears no one. Bring fire and we'll show you." So So how could these same bishops who were so uh so um firm in their upholding of the faith, how could they succumb and beg on their knees by the end of the Senate? Well, it's clear that there was extreme pressure uh uh placed upon them.
Uh let's continue.
>> Oh, it continues. The most godbeloved archbishop Anatolius, they say, knows that the custom that has prevailed in the Egyptian dasis is that all the bishops obey the archbishop of Alexandria. We are not disobeying the council, but we shall be killed in our native land. Have pity on us. You have the power we submit. We do not disobey.
It is preferable for us to die at the hands of the master of the world. I emperor of your preeminence and of the holy council. them there in Egypt. Let us have an archbishop and we shall sign an ascent to Calcidon.
So, as we can see, the Egyptian Senate in their words, in very believable words, feared domestic violence more.
Clearly, they've thrown themselves at the mercy of the side they think that's actually going to let them go and not kill them. So, who's what what do we know to be the consent the Egyptian cited? Consent that's derived by being uh fear of death in Alexandria or the consent they gave to leaving Kanan, getting a new patriarch and then accepting the council. Obviously consent that the consent that's more legitimate is to the less violent side. Now obviously there is more than a small degree of intimidation in Continental itself in Calcedon because that's what's coming up those words. But there is no less in fact much more back in Egypt.
And so the question is all right there's intimidation of both sides. How do we know what people are really consenting to? The logical answer to that question is the side they're less afraid of is the side that they're giving more authentic consent to. So it's the Calcidon that the Egyptian Senate gave more.
>> I don't know if I can hold like Whenever Calcedonians talk about violence, it's just hilarious to me because right after Calcedon, they kill 30,000 like Coptic Christians without batting an eye.
>> Go ahead.
>> So, this is just based Well, that's the most logical because I think it is.
Okay. No, he by the way, the point I said earlier about the minority of the Egyptian Senate signing the Caledon, notice he didn't mention that. He never said it at all.
>> Yeah. So it shows it shows like there's a lot a lot of holes in in his presentation right now. He's just basing it off of something that he thinks is logical. So then that's it. Craig thinks it's logical. It's logical. It's right.
>> Yeah.
>> What do you guys say? Sources. What's your source? Trust me. Whatever that mean is.
>> Yeah.
>> Come on.
>> And you know you're saying it's the minority. uh there were over 90 uh bishops under the di under the jurisdiction of Alexandria during this time. The 14 chosen or sorry the 19 chosen to go with St. Dascorus were disproportionately from lower Egypt which was uh an area that already had opposition already sided with the family of St. Cro. Uh there's there's a little bit of politics there. On top of that, I want to mention four bishops uh didn't even end up going to the fourth session. They refused to go because of the uh the the sheer disrespect that was um that St. Dascorus faced. Um Otto Otto, he's a historian, a church historian. He described St. Dioscorus as a man who behaved like like a man in the collection of howling old women, right?
Um and scholars unanimously unanimously they agree that St. Dascorus at this council was a convenient scapegoat. His guilt cleared all other participants at Ephesus 2. And that's why that's why he was a minority. That's why the bishops who attended Calcedon were so willing to sign on his condemnation. We have a quote from Theasius of Kaiseria. So when he was accused for his role in Ephesus 2 in order to defend himself, this is what he said. He said, "I was named in the Sakura, but I did not know why. I only know that I did not prevent it and that I did not have sufficient authority by myself to insist on the reading. So I was not responsible." So what's he doing here? He's putting his hands up in the air. Well, you know, I wasn't in charge, but I didn't stop it, so I'm innocent.
And and the Calcedonians were fine with this, right? They they were fine with this. They uh every single bishop that was uh uh condemned or accused at Calcedon was pardoned and reinstated during the fourth session. Every single one. They were all confronted with a choice between loss of their uh bish bishop loss of their position or the benefits of leadership and a large and rich sea and the support of emperor marcian and the support of uh empressia.
Those were the two choices they were given. Juvenile of Jerusalem for instance who we know was very vocal in Ephesus 2. He he was a political animal.
He won uh the elevation of his patriarchies, right? Anatolius as well uh in canon 28 his uh Constantinople was made second I believe over Alexandria.
So all of these bishops who who attended Ephesus 2, who participated in Ephesus 2, they were all reinstated. They were all pardoned except for one, right?
Um and I I want you uh viewers to compare this to some of the hagiographies you hear at church, right?
Some of the lives of the saints, some of the stories we hear about uh emperors uh persecuting our saints, giving them the choice, you know, conver uh denounce your faith, right? Uh give up Christianity, you'll have all the riches in the world. And they refused, right?
Parallel that with Saints.
Anyone like to add anything?
>> You got it pretty much. It's pretty. Did you Did you uh uh Sorry, I might have missed it. Did you cover Proterius being cover chosen by the civil authorities?
Right. Not by the Egyptian.
>> Not yet. Not yet. Get there.
>> Okay. Okay.
>> After Calcidon, they elected St. Proteius of Alexandria uh to the Alexander patriarchy and they accepted Kalan. That's what occurred. All right.
Almost no Egyptian bishops actively opposed Calcidon. Now you'll have Roman Catholic apologists or antal apologists and they'll claim um Calcidon was never really fully accepted. Let's quote Timothy of Alexander, Timothy the cat.
He says all the bishops, so this is quoting a non-caledonian. All the bishops were dying faith in our Lord and dividing him into two natures. The Oscarus was the one true archbishop who had zeal for the blessings of Christ. So he admits the senates all accepted Calcedon.
He says all the bishops. Now it's a bit of an exaggeration. There's like one or two because the ones that consecrated him that didn't. But he accepts that the Egyptian Senate accepted Calcedon. So this should put that idea to rest.
Calcedon lacks consensus.
>> We have proof that it had consensus. We have the people against Calcidon um accepting that consensus.
>> Please pause.
>> Okay.
Craig is white. All right. So, so when he when he reads our fathers, all of the all of Judea and Samaria and Syria came out to see him. All of them came out to see him.
So for for he's saying all the all of the the bishops, he's not talking about the Alexandrian ones. You read your own council. The minutes are showing that.
Stop. like he's trying to be a lawyer and legal and white and western about it. That's this is not how you read petristics. This is not how you read the fathers. So this is not orthodoxy. What do they call it? Ethos or news or I don't know the words that these guys.
>> Yeah. News.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. This is this is not how this is done. You're doing it wrong.
>> And uh I I'd like to quote St. Timothy Allerius here. uh we will discuss his story shortly because he becomes very relevant but you know because uh Craig is saying oh the whole world was against uh uh Alexandria right so he calls St. Theoscorus the second Joseph of Arithmia caring for the body of Christ. He says all the priests were scoffing at our Lord. So too his utterly devoted and loyal chief priest of Alexandria at the hour of rebellion. When all the bishops were denying faith in our Lord and dividing him into two natures, he was the only true archbishop who had zeal for the blasphemed Christ. Right? So that that's just, you know, sort of puts into perspective the uh the uh the things that St. Yusorus were facing. And I I'd love for you to parallel this with St. Ethanius. It's it's the Orthodox versus the world, the one versus the all, the minority versus the majority.
So that said, Timothy the cat, as I was referring to before, was a consecrated non-calonian and patriarch as St. Protous was already patriarch by two bishops, Ucius of Pelium and Peter Iberian. the latter night.
>> This is not true, but we'll we'll get there.
>> Even in Egyptian, there was no patriarchal acceptance of his bishop.
And this violates the cannons and as we talked about before, precedent because we lack patriarchal acceptance of him, which we had for all the other undisputed patriarchs and and the history of the previous schisms, the side without this was the side in schism. So that being said, let's look at the cannons themselves.
>> Okay, I I think this is a good point to pause for now uh and sort of discuss Proterius and St. Timothy, right? So first he brings up the belief that um uh St. Timothy was only uh uh ordained by two bishops and oh this is an issue whatever right so we have uh St. Zechariah of Militin recording since two bishops two Egyptian bishops were present it was necessary that some other bishops should be found and on making diligent inquiry some of the people heard of Peter the Iberian who had left Palestine and was sojouring there in Alexandria. So it was two Egyptian bishops present and and then St. Peter the Iberian was found. The belief that St. Timothy Allurius was only consecrated by two bishops comes from Guerrero uh who relied solely on Evagrias Scholasticus the Caledonian. Uh Pauline Allen the scholar stated that Evagrias's Caledonian uh theological uh stance influenced his select selection of information. Uh Evagrias Scholastic uh Evagrias Scholasticus was trying to defend uh Cedonian aligned political agents against negative reputation. And this is these are the words of scholar Pauline Allen. And this of course extends to St. Timothy's consecration.
But even then, if we are as charitable as possible and rely solely on the Cedonian account, Evagrias notes that Peter and Ucius were present, but not that they were the only ones present.
We have canon 4 of Na. It states that it is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province. But should this be difficult either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance three at least should meet together and the suffrages of the absent bishops also being given and communicated in writing then the ordination should take place but in every province in the ratification of what is done should be left to the metropolitan so this implies clearly greater reception of a patriarch by default it should be consensus if an emergency at least three people should be present and what we have is just two and one of them is not even an Egyptian so clearly Timothy the cat is not um canonical I mean that's that's absolutely clear we also have the same in um canon six of na um which states and this is to be universally understood >> that if anyone be made >> he said who who does he think ordained Timothy >> he thinks it was only two bishops he thinks it was and uh St. Peter the Iberian even though we know it's three uh because St. Zecharius records that it was three.
So why so he he's he's saying two and two and one wasn't an So why what what is okay what is he basing this off when he's saying that >> no not even trust me uh Craig Craig is pulling uh almost all of this from Wikipedia and I I will show I will I promise you I will show this later too uh but uh Actually the claim comes from Avagadagas or the claim comes specifically from griller's interpretation of Avagadrias.
>> Okay. And he thinks that the majority of the Senate of Alexandria ordains Proterius.
>> Yeah. Which we will show is is absolutely not the case.
>> Okay.
>> Without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Senate has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If any if however two or three bishops shall from natural love a contradiction uh oppose the common suffrage of the rest it is reasonable in accordance to the classical law then let the choice of the majority prevail. So what is the answer majority of the senate decides legitimate bishops right? You can't have a minority decide this cannons are very clear but now let's get into see it's not my is Jesus the fth and a guest talks about patriarchal elections and in fact gives much more specific details as to what's appropriate. Ethiopian canon law says the following. The election of the patriarch shall take place only in the presence of the bishops in the metropolitan who is the archbishop. If there is a dispute about his election, it shall be settled in accordance to the advice of the majority. So how do we determine who is the right patriarch if there's a dispute? The majority decides.
It also states the people must know the name, the face, and the character of the person who is to be appointed. It is not that only one of them knows him. So essentially we can have secret elections. Um there's also more detail.
uh for example it talks about how um the one appointed first is the patriarch uh if there was two elections and and things like this um but I think it's suff if I say the the majority determines who's patriarch in the >> you can't you can't have secret elections what about the ones that were having happening in the catacombs what about those ones they weren't secret >> who knows and uh to talk about these secret these secret elections um I believe since the sixth century. Every single Greek Malite patriarch of Alexandria was ordained where? In Alexandria? No, they were ordained in Constantinople and shipped off to Alexandria. And we'll get there, but uh for now, I think it's it's the perfect time to cover this Proterius, right?
Because he's claiming Proterius was the majority. He was the choice of the Senate. He was the choice of the Egyptians. Everybody loved him. And St. Timothy was this fringe secret bishop, right? Uh simple, if you're still with us, uh do you mind covering the section on Proterius?
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Anything on screen?
>> Uh >> no, I don't know.
>> You you can I mean, okay, we can we can stream this uh this little Oops. Sorry, guys. Sorry. My bad. My bad. Um these are these are the cannons we're talking about. So this is canon six of Nika that he butchered and uh canon 4 and then the Cedonian cannon 25 that we'll get we'll get into a little bit here. Yes.
>> But um the uh the idea is okay um so Proterius who he says was chosen by the majority. He was actually chosen by the civil authorities. So the emperor the empire not by Egyptian bishops not by the church not by the senote of Alexandria. He was chosen by them contrary to the canon law he was holding so closely to and forced in as the new patriarch while Dascorus by the way at this time still alive and uncannonically deposed as we were going in further like to this day >> sorry >> I want to pause sorry the entire argument it's a cascade that already presupposes from the very beginning it's a domino effect like every every other thing we're going to talk about the future regarding Alexander succession is presupposing discourse's deposition was canonical which he doesn't defend just cites Apostolic Ken 74 and calls it a day right he doesn't deal with the reelli I'm calling for he doesn't deal with the sim devoke it's all building on this as long as Dascorus is still alive you are wasting our time Craig you have that's that's the whole major that of their argument they have to demonstrate Dascorus was canonically deposed and then you can talk about proteras and whatnot afterwards. But as long as he's the bishop, as long as he's alive, call it a day. There's nothing to talk about.
That's the rule laid out explicitly by Cyprien H of Barcelona. Everybody in the third century regarding the novationist controversy. Anyone who talked about the novationist controversy, their issue was that there's a law of a singleness of priesthood. You cannot be ordained while the bishop is alive. That's that's the that's the a priori rule. That's it. So, all of this is presupposing Discor's canonical deposition.
>> There's a there's a good question here in the chat from Happy Orange Cat. Uh, are the EO guys authorized by their clergy to be doing this online stuff?
Probably not for the most part. If there are some of them who are, hopefully, but the most part, no. Uh, and especially that guy Cleave, who's a catechiman and refuses debates because he says he's a catechiman, but then he goes and he says whatever he wants and then he hides behind everybody else. So, how about this, Cle? How about know your role and shut your mouth and just go and learn in at the kateesus and don't talk about the other people yet. How about that?
>> Chill chill subject and he's going to make you debate someone else. Relax.
You're gonna get you're gonna get crushed by David Erhan just like he crushed Aeen according to five AIs cited by Orthodox Shahada. Anyway, >> all right. Simple. You want to continue for us?
>> Yeah. So, Proterius is their amazing martyr/ saint who was forced in by the imperial authority. Now, um when St. Micarius the bishop of Tiko reminded Proterius with the warning words of Pope Dioscorus to prevent him from trying to go with Calcidon and go with the flow. He hesitated. So Proterius got scared at first but then he killed St. Marcius anyway and St. Marcius became the first martyr at the hands of Calcidon. So this guy Proterius kept going through right. So St. Timothy was consecrated when he was because Emperor Marcian was dead at this time as well. Um and St. Timothy right had uh the support of the clergy, the support of the people of Alexandria and the support of the entire force of the monks and the church right or the the church in entirety. So St. Timothy is the so-called non-caledonian or you can say Ephesian because we hold to Ephesus and Proterius had the support of the governor, the emperor, the Roman soldiers and the empire. So Craig, who was the majority here? Okay. Um, and furthermore, uh, St. Timothy held a a council in Alexandria in 477 in which they condemned the council of Calcedon.
By the way, for all of those who say, "Oh, you didn't have any councils." No, we had a council right after Calcedon a a few years later in Alexandria. How could we even hold a council? How can St. Timothy hold a council if he's the minority? Like, who's like, St. Timothy will call a council, be like, "Why are we listening to this random dude?"
>> Right?
>> They had AI. They had a >> I guess >> and I just want to sorry I just want to add something. So St. Timothy was imprisoned several times uh during his uh his rule or during his episcopacy. Um so the governor of Egypt during this time was a man named Dionius. And so when St. Timothy was consecrated, Dionius was in upper Egypt. So so they were safe to consecrate St. Timothy.
Once Dionicius returned and he heard of the enthronement of St. Timothy, he imprisoned St. Timothy with the whole Roman force and carried him off to a place called uh Cabaras.
Uh when he was imprisoned, uh clashes between citizens and Roman soldiers became severe and many were slaughtered.
To end the conflict, the governor restored St. Timothy to his city and to his church uh making him coexist with Proterius. So the people loved St. Timothy so much that the Caledonian governor had to reinstate him. He had to have two bishops coexisting at once. Uh um simple. Can you continue?
>> Yeah, but that's that's a huge point because he said earlier the ones who the people are scared of and the logical thing >> uh the empholders are putting it. Kai uh just texted me saying AI says that Proterius was the rightful.
>> Oh, >> okay. End the stream. End the stream.
>> I I can't wait. We'll keep talking about Proterius for sure.
>> Uh so Proterius, they love Proterius, right? Uh Proterius. So Mossi was like he he put in a really great point. Uh everyone loved Timothy, right? But everyone separated from Proterius the Calcedonian patriarch in disgust. They hated him. He was so unpopular that shortly after St. Timothy was consecrated. Some record and you know I uh this is disputed but some say that the Egyptian people hated him so much they killed him. Right? And uh you know this account is contested because some people just say like oh Proterius is a martyr who got killed by the Egyptian people. I mean I I personally like to take the take that uh from Evaguras, Michael the Syrian and and Zachcharias Rector who says that he was killed by a soldier instead because he was threatening the Romans as well.
Proterius was not nobody liked Proterius. Basically this this guy's a saint in their church. He paid all of so in the end he pays mercenaries with gold to kill faithful believers. So, so-called non-caledonians or just the Orthodox and filled their hands with blood, but they ceased because a certain soldier had enough of it of killing the innocents and he invited Proterius to show him everyone that he had killed like as a fun event and then killed Proterius and then everybody was in joy after hearing this and this is all recorded by Zachariah of Militin, Michael the Syrian, etc., etc., right?
So, Evaguras also and he's a Caledonian, right? He says that Proteius was extremely extremely wicked. He uses force. He forces himself in to gain acceptance for him and Calcedon. Banishes anybody. He exiles everybody who opposes him and uses civil and governmental powers to seize their their property. The armies employed by Proterius. Again, this is a calcatonian so-called patriarch committed heinous acts including widespread let's say like YouTube friendly words grape and denial of basic resources in an attempt to starve the populace into submission.
They were basically uh you know that hor like the horrible tragedy with the Eastern Orthodox Church uh during the time of Russia under Stalin. Okay, pro imagine Stalin a bunch of years earlier that was proter. Okay. And even under all of this abuse and persecution, all of the Egyptian church refused Proterius. Why would we care? We're the church of martyrs. Bring it on. So Proterius like he was even angrier. He armed them. Many died against Proterius, right? For example, like uh uh John Rufus describes him as the new Caiaphas, right? A man without virtue, a hard-faced wolf who had relied on soldiers to keep his position, who rejoiced in Dioscorus' death and deserved his own faith of getting uh killed by his own soldiers. He so if you are a Coptic Orthodox who goes to, you know, uh who who attends church even once, right? You'll you'll see sometimes in a cynicium, he's responsible for the death of thousands of martyrs that we venerate today. And it was in extremely unpopular in Egypt. Only the only reason that Proterius was imposed in Egypt was because of the soldiers, right? Everyone wanted >> Yeah.
>> Sorry.
>> Keep going. No, no, finish the point.
I'll say when >> Yeah. Yeah. Uh even his own people, his own clergy, they wanted to they were like enough. We can't handle this anymore. Just reconcile with St. Timothy a after his death. Like after Peterius died, they had they tried to reconcile with the non-caledonians that they hate so much, right? But the citizens of Alexandria at this point, they were done with it. They refused because they had killed so much of them. And so the clergy went back to Rome and they stirred up Leo against St. Timothy because they had to impose it again. And then I'm I'm almost done here. Th this is this is horrible. So brace yourselves here. the the it's recorded in one of the scholars seir ash that kosma the melkite patriarch of Alexander had a litigation with pope khalil in the in the 8th century in front of a Muslim judge saying I hold the faith of Marcian the prince god speed speedily raised up marcian and the patriarch Leo who agreed with notorious and his followers intent and everywhere took possession of the churches over which bishops have ruled up to this day but our bishop at Alexandria Again, this is a Caledonian talking. Proerius was slain by the Alexandrians. And therefore, the prince commanded that an army should be collected, sent it to Alexandria, and told the soldiers to slay with the sword. And so, they killed 30,000 in one hour. 30,000. Does this guy sound like a saint to you? Is this is this someone you want to venerate? Like Cedonians, does this guy killed 30,000 people? One hour. I I I want to ask Craig why if that's the case uh like if if the case is Proterius is who everybody wanted and majority and these guys always had the power the Caledonians always had the power so why are the Egyptian Christians 99.9% Coptic Orthodox >> who knows how's No, no, no. You go ahead. Go ahead.
>> Very quickly, u number one, them wanting to compromise. Who does that when they're the winners? That's number one.
Number two, killing 30,000 is a benchmark of what the majority position was. Are they killing their own people?
When you want to kill 30,000, are you going to kill your own side? No, you're killing 30,000 people who disagree with you. Um, so the the whole thing with Proterius is he needs the empire for the whole thing. Every side can bear witnesses. He needs the empire to quote unquote stay in place. Everyone is showing their complete loyalty to Timothy and Dascorus while he was in exile.
>> They waited until his death in order to ordain Timothy. Not because, you know, they want to cause a a schismatic sect, but it's because Proterius is the one who was ordained while Dascorus was alive, not vice versa. I just wanted to add that very quickly.
>> All right. And I just want to conclude this story of Proterius with two final quotes that directly refute the claim that Craig is making. So first is by I believe WHC friend. Proterius was not the master of his own house. His following was largely ma made up of nobles and officials. The great majority of the Egyptian church and people had separated themselves from him in disgust. Second quote from Evadagrias.
The mass of the church resolutely refused to accept Proterius. What can we say now? His own scholars saying this, right? What can we say now? Where is Craig getting these ideas from?
But I think um we're ready to continue the video.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Let me put it up real quick >> because you could say, well, Kan was so terrible it required violating the cannon. So, I don't think this is a very compelling argument. It's already a kind of a desperate pleading sort of argument is you can't you don't have the cananical upper hands your own cannons say you're in violation. So then you say well we had to break the cannons because was so wrong. So ever so briefly I want to give maybe a good reason thought about why Calstan should be understood to be consistent with the council of Ephesus with St. Seril with St. Celestine of Rome and others.
>> So are regular irregularities justified due to the heterodoxy of sorry >> I would say he should have brought all this stuff up in the debate because that was the debate topic. Let's keep it going.
>> All right.
Now in this video we are covering ecclesiological history mostly. So only a brief discussion the context behind Leo and Calstan's christologology will be offered here but it's worth noting that the council of Ephesus and precalonian saints have diaphysite or two nature language. The west views diaphysism as sufficiently anti St. Ambrose's diaphysism is even in the council of Ephesus decree it >> and you can see the actual citation to the council of Ephesus. Let us preserve the recognition of the godhead writes Ambrose and the flesh. The son of God who speaks in each is one because each nature is in him. Note in him how the glory of God and how the sufferings of man that as God he teaches divine things and that as man he says human things because he spoke in my essence. St. Ambrose here is verbatim quoted in the second to home of Leo. That's letter 1654. And St. clearly understood this as western lingo communicating the same christologology because here we have a western saint saying each nature is in Christ and he spoke in human essence after the incarnation and he takes no issue with essence and nature being used synonymously of two natures being mentioned he saw this as sufficiently anti-intorian that sil included this in his floral that's in the council now here is some additional context you might have not considered >> I've dealt with this so many times I'm tired of it I have a video on my channel responding to David Erhan's attempt to refute my floral in that you'll see my best case for St. Ambrose's christologology. St. Seis cites the exact quote Trugia just cited it contradicts Leo. Ambrose says the same says Leo says it is not the same nature to say I and the father are one and the father is greater than I. The Latin word is yadam. So it contradicts the tome the very passage you just cited. That's number one. Number two, each nature is in him is not equivalent to him is in each nature. It's not the same.
Two in him is not the same as him in two, right? This is just simple, you know, kindergarten ordering. Okay? And number two, next point I want to make, serial himself says, two natures are in a man, in him. And then a paragraph later says the two are no longer two. So it tells you nothing about how he conceives it after the union. And I've already showed many times St. Ambrose explicitly teaches one nature. Why? He uses a monophysite analogy talking about giants using a monophysite word from a contemporary translating Plato teaching a monophysite union. Okay. So menophysite language monophysite analogy about a monophysite passage in Plato talking about a giant of twin nature which he uses in the in the genative singular and said una sit. So Ambrose's Christology here guess who appealing to him as douhites thetorian party at Ephesus. They had their own dossier and it got rejected by the Ephesians. What's cited at Ephesus is not what you find at Kelson. Two natures in him is not the same as one existing in two natures.
And I was uh turned on to this by a friend of mine. Now in the Oxford University Press early Christian writings uh volume 3 series, it says the following in the introduction. Sirill also provided Celeststeine with a dossier of notorious writings. By mid 4:30 at the latest Celeststeine had tasked his arch deacon Leo right the future bishop of Rome with evaluating them. So whose job right whose job was it to inform Celeststeine whether to oppose notorious or not? St. Leo of Rome. Well when have you heard that from the oriental orthodox side? So Leo is the one who's concocting the Christology in opposition to notorious. How did Leo do this? Leo in turn requested John Cassian another saint to examine the text from the stories produce a document to advise Helstein and the Roman church about the matter. In his on the creation of the lord against notorious Cassian firmly rejected notorious position as the first Latin text to assassintorious theology this treatis had a profound influence in August 430 a cinnid met in Rome under saline that formerly condemned Ntorius and so what does this document actually state in that then they condemned ntorious was this document >> you bet it was quoted in the >> pause right here pause right here I love when people go to John Cassian it's like the my favorite thing that people do number one I want him to demonstrate the sort sources that it was specifically celestine tasking Leo with dealing with notoriism. That's number one. Number two, even if it's demonstrated, you yourself said Leo just delegated it to someone else. When you actually read on on the incarnation against notorious, it falsifies your worldview. It says Christ was preuse of double substantia prior previously and he became of one power, one virtue in the land. He says you cannot claim a distinction between God the word and his flesh because the two exist in unam substantia one substance to the point Roman Catholics themselves say if Leo had read what Cassian himself just said he would have freaked out so let's let's let's talk about that hopefully you can on this video true what Cassian actually taught what he's about to site is Leorius's confession which is not John Cassian so notice the shift he did to make his argument It went from Celestine to Leo to Cassian to Leaporius. Are you serious? You're going to jumping to four people in order to show you know Ephesus Dioysism. Even if I grant you the best possible case, Leaporius's confession is Calcedonian.
Look how many jumps you did. You went five actually. Sirill task Celestine Celestine task Leo. Leo task Cassian.
And then Cassian cited Leaporius's confession. Do you not hear yourself?
This is way too far to to bear any witness on what Ephesus teaches even if I grant it to you. But if we actually do look at Leapores's confession, it teaches one willing Christ and that the two become one without loss of their natural properties. And that's why he says they're not redactas in one substance. He says the two nura are not redactas in one substance. It doesn't deny that there's a union in one nature or one substance. It denies that they become reduced to it. Which is why Cassian in book three says there's one substance over and over and over. Watch my recent video if you don't believe me.
This is the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. As for the last part, inseparable of twin substance. Thank God he didn't use the New Advent translation which says existing in two natures. Cuz I would have laughed if that's what he put. The Latin doesn't say that. I said he said giant inseparable of twin substance. It doesn't tell you whether it's two after the union the way Augustine would have meant twin substance or whether it refers to the preaming of what constitutes a twin substance. You find it in lactantius orius produces clemens that it refers to a singular reality and all that's important. All I have to demonstrate I don't have to demonstrate anything about Leaporius's confession. The only thing I have to demonstrate is what Cassian thought it meant. And in book three he says there's one substance in Christ which no Caledonian has ever dealed with. And I I recommend everyone watch my recent video the church fathers always taught one nature. Check my section on St. Ambrose. Check my section on John Cassian. You'll see this spelled out verbatim.
You want to continue my friend? Um, >> a man named Leaporius who was a historian before historius when he repented of his uh of his adoptionism, he wrote the following which casting quotes and approves of and confessing both the substance of the flesh and of the word, one and the same God. Far be it from us to believe in such a way that we suppose that two natures are reduced into one substance. Repeat, far be it from us to believe in such a way that we suppose that two natures are reduced into one substance by a kind of fusion.
And thus the word and flesh became one in each other so that while remaining in their perfection naturally both substances without prejudice to themselves both communicate in divine humanity and participate in human divinity. We faithfully without any doubt believe that one and the same son of God always inseparable of twin substance even called a giant in the days of his flesh.
>> All right. So >> Ambrose but here we see again very clearly >> nature's being used and substance being used in the plural twin substance is a plural as I covered in both Plato and in Ambrose. Cassian is quoting a proven leeorous recantation of proteinism and just so you're aware >> in Plato it's referring to two substances becoming one. Did he not pay attention to my rebuttal? I have it on my my own video. It's Plato making an argument that two substances mix and he verbatim says they become one third kind of substance from two the very same word in Ambrose but keep it going whatever whatever makes him sleep at night >> St. Augustine Aurelius signed the same recentation. So it's it's it's not like just Leaporius. Saint signed this in the bottom and uh it's quoted by a saint and it's what was used in order to concoct the anti-istorian position of the Roman church by John Cassie. Now it commended Laorius back to the Gish clergy as repenting of his adoptionism. Laorius is using the term twin substance from Ambrose's repeated interpretation of the giant. Laorius and Cassian explicitly deny that twin substance is one substance. I'm going to repeat this.
Leaporus and Cassian explicitly deny that twin substance is one substance.
That's a quote from what we just read.
but rather to quote it two natures. I'm going to repeat that.
>> And keep it going while I get quotes is one substance but rather two natures.
This is explicitly quoted in the document that was that was put together in order to inform the Roman cited to denying the stories before council of Ephesus. This is the context of St. Celestine's christologology.
So this begs the question is Calin's clarification legitimate. Leaporous recantation is the basis the west rejecting historianism signs to eths. As I just said, Leo's Christologology was seen as a continuation of this. After all, Leo is the one who put this together with Cassium. The West had already flattened the usage of the term nature. As we could see, they use nature and substance synonymously um before Ephesus, which in my opinion gives like a theological expiration date to language like the natural and essential union, right? Because how can you talk about there's a natural union, there's one nature. I mean, there's a proper way of talking about that really. But how do you talk about that when you already start using the term substance and nature synonymously? You almost need the new word. And this begs there to be a terminological clarification.
>> Pause right here. Pause right here.
It's fitting this guy gets another lesson and maybe he didn't hear me during my debate and didn't hear me during my rebuttal but while my PDF is uploading just to talk about this point very quickly. Do you know what the Latin word for hypasis is true? It's substantia literally. Sub means under, stansia means standing. Which is why Marius Merkar who's actually the Latin authority on Ephesus cuz he's the one who translated Ephesus for the west when it came to the 12th saying you cannot divide the hipstases. It says you cannot divide the substantias in the Latin. So that's how the Latin west viewed these terms. Yes, nature and substance were synonymous because in the in the east it was feces and hypoasis which is what was synonymous. So in teaching two feces at Calcidon, you're teaching two hipposas.
In teaching one feces at Ephesus, you're teaching one substantia in the Latin West. And while my slideshow is still processing, I don't know why I'm going to show this all from Plato, from Ambrose, from Cassian himself that they're teaching, they're using words, a twin substance phrase is about one substance. And Cassian himself with his own mouth says there's one substance in Christ verbatim. You want to keep it going while my my presentation is loading? I'll tell you when to pause. So when you take his confess of one nature after the union in the western theological vocabulary which we just saw that would mean one substance after a union and this is something explicitly denied in Celestine's day by John Cassian. So other terms like >> okay it's up.
I'm glad he said that. Let me find out exactly which slide I start talking about Cassian then I'll go quickly to Ambrose very quickly so we can still talk about the other things. Slide 33.
Here we go.
So let's see what c what Cassian rejected since we want to lie on his name.
Let's read together.
So this is what he cited. Remember Leaporius's statement. It says he's twin substance and he's saying look this rejects one substance in Christ. Let's see mouth. Cassian says whatever was previously of double substance became of one power preuse in the land. That's number one. Number two, this is in on the incarnation book three, two books after Leaporus's confession. What else is there except that we believe that God and Jesus exist in one and the same substance? The substance of God and Christ is altogether inseparable. Admit also that the person cannot be severed.
Then he says one son of God from both realities. So when he's using those words Christ and God in the context he's using historious as terms against him.
What you're saying is Christ. what you're saying is distinct the other nature God. They are one substance that was previously of double substance. So that's Cassian's own words. Let me go very quickly to St. Ambrose's Christology on the twin substance.
This is going to be slides from slides 51. Here we go.
Here we are. So he he uses the same giant analogy of twin nature. Why is this an analogy? Because Pho the giants speak being spoken of in the Bible are angel human compounds. They're mixtures. There's a new type of species resulting.
And for Pho that would lead to a mafouse according to him. Whatever constitutes in the same place, whatever is brought together in the same place constitutes one fouse. And Lactantius makes the same point that the angels and the men together made a mixed nature. It's a mixed nature of the giants.
And this is this is Plato Calcidius.
He's translating Plato and he uses this word Gemini by former the same phrase in Ambers. Why is he using that? For a tertium naturus comes estite analogy in Plato's own monophysite teachings talking about two substances making a third substance. And this is Plato's own words without this extra phrase that Calcidius added. Remember Calcidius is a contemporary of Ambrose. He compounded a third kind of substance from both middle between them and he constituted a mixture in the middle. He blended them into one which is exactly what Lactantius repeats himself. He he bore a midway substance between God and man and blended from both natures. One from out of two. That's the phrase in Ambrose and that's how it's interpreted by Cassian.
And to make it all the wor better, the phrase that's in Ambrose isn't even Plato's own words. It's Calcidius interpreting Plato's own words. It's a word that Calcidius is employing to explain Plato Plato teaching one nature from out of both. So don't lie about Cassian and don't lie about Ambrose and don't make these ridiculous arguments that Sirill he talked to Celeststeine.
Celestine talked to Leo. Leo talked to Cassian and then Cassian you know he talked to Leaporius and Leaporeius teaches two natures after the union. So Cassian teaches two natures after the union. So Leo teaches two natures after the union. So Saline teaches two natures after the union. So Sirill teaches two natures after the union. Now Ephesus teaches it. Do you see how ridiculous this is? The type of jumping to conclusions you have to make that are built on fringe exogesis that's refuted in five minutes. It's ridiculous. He builds his ecclesiology this way, his metaphysics this way, his interpretation of any historical event. He's been refuted on this in debates. He's been refuted on this in rebuttals. And he doesn't answer any of this. Sorry if going on that tangent. If we want to continue back with the video.
>> Yeah, people are going to think this is another threehour Aen christologology video. No, you're good. Well, you're good again.
>> Had to be used. But even the term hypotheasis itself was given this treatment because hypoasis was used originally just to mean substance or essence. But then it was developed and clarified to mean particular essence like a particular person. That's why we could have the fullness of deity, the full essence of God, but in a particular person in a particular hypistas, right?
So they developed the vocabulary even past Nika because there was like this expiration date. how we talk about these other theological concepts without differentiating between essence and nature and substance and uh hypothesis.
So, of course, you could be making the wrong clarification. And so, I'm not going to solve this today, but I will ask the audience this. Just use your common sense. Is the side not in schism or capable of making the right judgment call about the clarification? Or is the schismatic side making the right clarification? The right?
>> What even like what even is this? Like, I don't even understand. Yeah. Okay.
What we Okay, you're schismatic and we're not in schism. Like, what what is this, bro? What is this point? I don't understand.
>> Call on a clarification. Um, I'm gonna I'm gonna say the schismatic side's probably wrong. That's my opinion.
>> Then you're wrong.
>> Now, let's get into the Hinatakan era ecclesiology and let's talk about some non-caledonian patriarchs after the cast. Now, the non-caledonians in Egypt had a regular elections after Timothy Salakilos.
He was the undisputed Cedonian patriarch for about 20 years.
>> Undisputed because >> undisputed.
Let's continue. Timothy the cat was never fully recognized and in fact when he was made a patriarch supposedly by basilicus even basilicus had reneged on this. So we had Peter Mongus another nineonian consecrated in secret without a senate um and he accepted the bishop rick you know what let's let's cover this very brief point right so he's saying Timothy Salofakolio I don't know if that's the proper pronunciation he was undisputed right while St. Timothy the cat or St. Timothy was never fully recognized.
So we take a look right um St. Jean of Niku he relates what occurred after St. So Timothy was exiled several times um first uh upon his enthronement second uh he was exiled to Gangra where he spent the majority of his patriarchet uh in Gangra and this is by the way the same place that St. of course was exiled initially. So there he was writing letters to his flock strengthening their faith and resistance against the Caledonians. In fact, St. Timothy's letters were so effective in restoring orthodoxy among the Caledonians that he was exiled even further to Keren which is in Ukraine. So he was exiled after he was exiled because he was so uh influential everybody loved him. So St. Jean of Niku which is a historian for the Coptic church. He relates that uh the governor of the city who used violence to the holy patriarch Timothy was eaten by worms and died. And the inhabitants of the city said to one another, "All this evil that has overtaken him is due to the judgment of the glorious and most high God because of what has been done to the patriarch Timothy, the servant of God, in order that all men might learn that God dwells among his chosen." um in christologology in the council of calcedon by father uh Shenuda uh he says that 10,000 Orthodox believers were killed by Roman soldiers during St. Timothy's initial arrest. Uh additionally so we we mention or Craig mentions uh Basilicus. So Basilicus was an emperor who initially sided with non-caledonians. He sided with the Orthodox believers. uh but he he uh later uh changed his mind. So when St. Timothy was restored by Emperor Basilicus and returned to Alexandria, crowds of Alexandrian citizens uh went to Constantinople to welcome him. So he was taken to the royal palace. large numbers of people came to be blessed uh receive healing by his hands and an encyclal of basilicus uh if if anybody knows this was sent out throughout the empire which condemned the tome of Leo and Calcedon. So this is by an emperor.
It was it was in cyclical uh in the I believe the 470s uh that condemned Calcidon and it was signed by 700 bishops. What happened to being the majority Craig? What happened to the majority of bishops subscribing to Calcedon? 700 bishops signed on this encyclical encyclical of basilicus which condemned the tome of Leo and Calcidedon. And this includes St. Peter the Fuller of Antioch and Estessius of Jerusalem and the Senate as well. And it's important to note unlike the Calcedonians in the tactics they employed, the encyclical was signed in the east without compulsion. There was no pressure. there was no threat of violence. Uh the bishops of Asia Minor for instance uh stated that if they are threatened with violence or exiled in the future, they're willing to despise such persecution for the sake of the true faith which the encyclical promotes. This was in the 470s.
Everybody f 700 bishops signed on to this encyclical in the 470s.
>> This meets every sing >> I was just gonna to strengthen your point.
>> Okay. Within 20 years of Calcidon, everybody everybody in the east 500 to 700 bishops anmatized it. So what happened to the majority? What happens now? Are you going to say, "Well, well, we had the majority prior." So now 20 years later, it doesn't count anymore.
Okay, we had the majority prior to Calidon 20 years before Ephesus. We had the majority right after Ephesus 2. So it just becomes anacronistic and circular. I like when we had this majority in this small era. Let's ignore when we weren't the majority here. Okay, we were majority again when when we murdered everyone else. Right. It becomes ridiculous, >> right?
>> That's actually an argument he talks about later on in the video.
>> Yeah.
>> Well, this whole thing meets every single one of Craig's self-imposed criteria on validity of truth and whatever he's trying to say, right? We meet the standard. Now, does this mean, oh, now or or at least in this period of history, we're the Orthodox Church, but uh after we get persecuted, we're not because we're no longer the majority. Is this what he's trying to say? It's very questionable standard.
>> Let me make a point as well. Kan was never accepted by everyone. How do I know that? From their own sources, Jerusalem and Alexandria, the majority of both senates rejected the council.
They kicked out juvenile for this purpose and they didn't recognize partiers for this purpose. From their own sources, Alexandria and Jerusalem from the very commencement of Caledon never adhere to it. Within 20 years, everything toppled over to non-caledonian.
So, we actually had everyone for a point. You never had everyone, >> right? And Craig mentions this so-called Timothy Salofacolio and he says this is the real bishop. This is the real one who had uh the full support of the Senate, the full support of the Egyptian bishops. Let's um let's take a look at this claim. So this is from Meanderov, which is I believe he's EO, right? He's an EO authority. He says his successor another Timothy called Salofa was elected and installed under the protection of what? Of imperial troops.
He says he was personally moderate and charitable qualities which were sometimes recognized even by the menophosites. He made ecumenical attempts at reconciliation. And take a listen to this. He went to the point of restoring the name of theorus in the diptics. This this is a calcedonian. He restored the name of uh Dioscorus and the diptics. But still the vast majority of Egyptian Christians after what they had considered was the humiliation of their church at Calcedon and the bloody repressions suffered from the imperial troops would have nothing to do with him. Calling him despicably the emperor's man or in Semitic tongues a malite. Is this is this the universally uh recognized patriot Craig is telling us about his own his own authority? John Mayander Mayander tells us otherwise. I don't know. What does that sound like?
He was extremely unpopular. He was not elected by the Alexandrian cinnid and he could not compete in the slightest in terms of popularity and in terms of acceptance by the bishops against St. Timothy who of course remained the true patriarch even in his exile.
Sorry. I don't know if it's just me.
>> The Caledonians got into your mic, buddy.
>> I'm waiting for him to get to the Henoticon part.
>> We're almost there. We're almost there.
>> Your microphone is still not good.
>> I just ate, but I'm still hungry. So, barbecue chicken is coming up.
It's better now.
>> Yes.
>> Yeah. Yeah. You're good. You're good, man.
>> Okay. I was just going to ask very quick, Moss, as if you were Caledonian to answer this very quickly.
>> Um, who ordained Proterius?
>> Who ordained Proterius? We don't actually We don't know the names of the bishops. Uh, we don't know if there were bishops. We We just know he was chosen by soldiers by or sorry, by imperial authority. Uh, and he was previously a deacon. That's all.
>> That's what I'm trying to tell you guys.
Pro Serious. That's how he cuts in. Paul the Jew gets in like that.
>> Yes.
>> I'm ask another question there. Timothy uh I never know how to pronounce his name.
>> Sali. We don't know. We don't know.
We'll make >> We'll call him Sally. Sally >> who ordained him?
>> No idea.
No idea.
>> And which which which cannon lets you just you know you can uh uh or you can be ordained by nobody's uh be pressed in by the empire. Which cannon say that?
Oh, actually I recall the cannons explicitly saying that can't happen.
That was the main critique against the Aryans that they they were being put in by the emperors and canon law forbid that.
>> Yeah.
>> Am I wrong?
>> No, you're absolutely right.
>> All right.
>> Of which, which is a suburb of Alexandria. And there's actually letters.
>> Pay pay attention to this here. This is uh probably the most embarrassing part of this stream without a reneged on this. So we had Peter Mongus, another non-Chadonian consecrated in secret without a cate and he accepted the bishop Rick of Rakote which is a suburb of Alexandria. And there's actually letters um he receives from his allies that call him the bishop of Rot. So we accept that he wasn't patriarch Alexandria because he himself accepted that he wasn't he accepted that he's the bishop of Rot and so he would be later translated or moved to the patriarch of Alexandria. And how did that occur? John the Castedonian was consecrated uh bishop of Alexandria. What do you say?
Exiled. I >> think this is good enough. Um either one of you simple or a uh >> no no please please say it.
>> Okay.
>> Repeat repeat what he said. Play play one more time.
>> Let's play it back a little bit.
>> Accept that letters um he receives from his allies that call him the bishop of Rakote. So we accept that he wasn't patriarch Alexandria because he himself accepted that he wasn't he accepted he's the bishop of Rakote. He was he wasn't the patriarch of Alexandria. He was the patriarch of Rakot.
>> So before the end of this >> before we expose him let's just um uh talk briefly about after St. Timothy's death. So after St. Timothy's death St. Peter Mongus was consecrated and this was while uh so while Timothy Salopanolius was an old man uh Zacharius rtor records that in Alexandria not one believer would consent to hold communion with him. Right. Uh and get ready for this. So Craig is saying about St. Peter Mongus that he was elected in secrecy without a cinnid and he was consecrated as a bishop of a suburb uh a suburb called Bot rather than a patriarch.
>> Could someone tell me u what's Coptic name?
>> I'm too excited. Just say it. Just say it.
>> What's the Coptic name for Alexandria?
What do we call Alexandria and Copic?
>> I think it it rhymes with bakot. I'm not sure though.
>> Really? Really?
Craig knows nothing. He knows nothing.
He didn't do >> What did I tell you guys? He's what?
What is he?
>> He's white.
>> If he just did a Google search, you know, all it takes is a Google search.
Oh, he's a bishop. Like, where did he get this information from?
>> Where? We don't know. I I tried looking on the Wikipedia. It's not there. You know, I tried searching for a sources. I couldn't find it. Rakot is the Coptic name for the city of Alexandria. In some of our Coptic manuscripts, we uh uh St. Ethanius is called the Archbishop of Rakot. For instance, we have something called um uh the discourse which St. Ethanius, Archbishop of Recult, pronounced concerning a passage in the Gospel of St. Matthew. We also have another manuscript, the discourse which the holy patriarch Aba Ethanius, Archbishop of Recot, pronounced concerning the soul and the body. If this doesn't convince you that Craig is full of nonsense and should not be taken seriously as a YouTube historian, I don't know what to tell you.
>> He's not going to hear the end of this.
>> Let's see.
>> Unless you're bad. Go ahead.
>> Yeah. on the on the point of um this is what I respect from the calcian. Time to be nice to Craig. Um they try to make it easy. So they they'll put a simple cannon like apostolic canon 74, right?
The thrice summons or or or something like you need the majority of your cinnid from from the senate of Antioch to make it easier for for for listeners.
I I would like to put my own cannon up which falsifies Proterius and this Timothy Sally guy. Um, it goes by Apostolic Cannon 30 or 31. If I can share my screen or >> I I have it up. You want to share my >> Yeah. Yeah. Put it up. Put it up. But I just want to read it very quickly. Uh, >> okay. For our simple minded >> for our simple-minded viewers, >> a very easy way to to to, >> you know, figure out this this position is bogus and this is very easy way to tell their schismatic.
>> Go ahead.
with uh you you want to so with apostolic canon 31 it says if any presitter despising his own bishop shall collect a separate congregation and erect another altar not having any grounds for condemning the bishop with regard to religion or justice let him be deposed for his ambition for he is a tyrant in like manner also the rest of the clergy and as many as join him and let layman be excommunicated Let this however be done after a first, second, third admonition from the bishop.
>> And you know the cannon prior. Does anyone know the cannon right before? Let me show it as well on screen. Someone read this out for me.
>> If any bishop obtained possession Oh yeah, we'll get there. We covered this plenty. If any bishop obtain possession of a church by the aid of the temporal powers, let him be deposed and excommunicated. and all who communicate with him as well.
>> We'll get there apparently.
>> It speaks for itself. It speaks for itself.
>> Yeah.
>> Um I guess we can continue now.
>> Yeah.
>> And so he would be later translated or moved to the patriarch of Alexandria.
How did that occur?
>> He was moved guys. He was moved from Rakakota to Alexandria.
>> John Natalia the Cedonian was consecrated from Alexandria but he was exiled by the Roman Emperor Xeno. all these stereotypes that oh the Caledonians were persecuting the non-caledonians kicking people out. The first canananical person that was actually um persecuted by the church is not a non-caledonian. It's a Caledonian.
John of >> Did I hear that right?
>> John of Tela.
>> No, no, no, no, no. John of Tela. He's it's uh we'll cover him shortly, but >> John of Tela.
>> No, I want to say very quickly >> I was like what what does he mean go from Rico to Alexander? Like did he like get up from his couch and sit on the chair?
>> Take a listen to what he sees.
>> I hope he says later John of Tela was Caledonian.
>> No, >> he just he just he just dismisses him.
>> That was actually um >> so the first canonical person that was persecuted.
>> It's not an Caledonian. It's a Caledonian Jonatella.
Can you believe that >> no it's Jonatellia but he's saying the first person persecuted was a calcedonian not a non-caledonian >> so that's kind of anominous but it's the truth now that being said >> but it's the truth >> he did consent to his translation to being bishop of Nola in Italy and the eastern patriarchs then accepted Peter so like Peter Mongus does get regularized I'm not >> this is a bullet but uh Craig doesn't realize >> great bastion of orthodoxy but this is how this didn't become a greater issue the canatical patriarch just accepted what occurred and the non-anical bishop with a nonanical translation got everyone's acceptance and that regularized him and not to >> what >> uh anyone who's been orthodox a long time would know that there's with even with parish priests and stuff um we've seen this with father Peter hears with his um cananical release when there's these canonical regularities eventually things could be regularized over time um and through everyone's consent and this is actually what occurred with Peter Mus >> so um simple do you mind covering this uh sort of situation with John Tela and why Mongus was canonical.
>> Greg is saying that >> it seems so. It seems so. Yes.
>> Yeah. He just argued he was regularized.
>> And he he made the point >> is now valid.
>> Yep.
>> And he he used the father Peter here as a justification. It got regularized. It got solved at the end of the day.
>> His name.
>> But I mean, subdeacon, what else can he do? He'd be denying history to say otherwise. Of course, we know Peter Mongus was recognized. We know he was accepted as patriarch, right?
>> Well, we we believe that.
>> Of course.
>> Yeah.
>> It's it's at least a a glimpse of honesty, right? Uh but simple, do you mind covering for us uh this whole section of John of Tela and why this is so detrimental?
>> Yeah.
So, he mocks the persecution our church has faced, which like basically we've gone over and over and over. So, yeah.
Our persecution is super funny to you.
like you definitely you didn't do anything right and then he outgraciously attempts to argue that John of Tela was the first persecuted patriarch and he was calcedonian but every single patriarch non-caledonian Ephesian orthodox patriarch like theoros from the time of Calcidon to the time of John Tlea was exiled right they exile the skoros they exile seis they like it's literally like the go-to calidoian move you don't like this guy he's gone on that's search it up you like Wikipedia search it up from the time uh we've had of calcedon to the John he was exiled so John of Ta was the in only patriarch of Alexandria who accepted his deposition and abdicated recognizing that the true patriarch of Alexandria was St. Peter Mongus, how like if you're a Calcedonian, you're like, "Okay, this is the true pope. I'm gone. I'm dipping."
Your own pope said the non-caledonians, their pope is right and I'm wrong. What else do you even say that you're saying this parallel succession that it's fake?
Our Coptic parallel succession is fake.
When your own pope says we're true, has this ever happened in the in the history of the church? Our pope just says, "Yeah, yeah, you know what? my my uh my seed is is it's good. I'm I'm done. I'm I'm gone. Like if he the so most of the the online like uh Cleave like Subdacin mentioned earlier, they just do this like he was rejoicing. He was like, "Oh, my title's so rage batty." They keep saying you're unconical. Uncononical.
But they don't even know. How do you mend this issue? Your pope said on the Coptic Orthodox Pope, the non-caledonian pope is right. And then he left. He literally left. I don't like that. I don't know if I was if I was Eastern Orthodox, I I don't even know what I would do after that.
>> Yes. Subdacon, I have a question for you. Has something like this ever occurred in history where a patriarch just said, "Okay, I'm done. Kalas, I'm moving to Nola. I'm going to be the bishop of Nola. I can't handle Alexandria. St. Peter Mongus can have it. Let me go retire in Rome." Has this ever happened?
>> Ironically, it happened with them.
>> It has. So, so with them they have a guy uh I think early 20th century. He switches from being like patriarch of Constantinople to patriarch of Alexandria or he goes back and forth.
They have a guy like this in like the early 1900s. They do this stuff all the time because they're so like yella it's all the same. It's all the same right everywhere. They can just go wherever they want, you know? Uh but it's only them who does it.
>> It's it's absurdity and it's a violation of the cannons. We know that you're unable to transfer dioxys. It's forbidden. I believe it's forbidden in calcedon. It's forbidden I believe in na.
>> Yeah. Well, not nice the there's a senate after Antioch I think it is.
>> Yes. There's several.
>> Um so uh they of nicomedia does it >> and this is why there's a movement to stop this kind of thing. But these guys, they never stop it from the be there when for more than whenever they started until now, they still do this kind of stuff. I want to get that guy's name.
One sec. You guys could.
>> No problem.
>> Can I um >> Go ahead. Yeah.
>> This is more of a question. This is how I'm looking at it. If if their side abdicated and left us in Alexandria, doesn't that just retcon the past hour of Craig's video? Like doesn't it now doesn't now just restart now and now we we see whether Peter Mongus was connected.
>> Exactly. Exactly. Yeah, that's true.
That's exactly right.
>> Yeah.
>> Now what? Okay. So then let's stop alternate timeline. That's done. The '9s Mortal Kombat series is over. We're starting the 2021 with Craig.
>> Yeah. What what is he fighting for?
>> The side was a true one just for you guys to give it up after all that fighting.
>> Yep. He's going to skip to 518. That's where he's going to skip to. This is the uh this is the point in history where the uh Alexandrian parallel line is revived as well as the >> Antio one. So there's two parallel lines.
>> Yes, there's two of them. It ends and then a new one begins under Justin and Justin >> and we'll we'll get there.
>> Okay. Merius IVth.
>> Merius IV was both patriarch of Alexandria and patriarch of Constantinople. And he was patriarch of Alexandria after he's like, "Ah, I don't want Constantinople anymore. Let me go to Alexandria." Now, this is Patriarch Merius IV in the in 1871. He died in 1935.
So, yeah, early 20th century, he was patriarch.
>> Thank you so much. Um I guess we'll continue now.
>> And so that being said, the patriarchs during the era were generally undisputed. All right. Um or actually right before well yeah they were canically regularized when there was an issue. Um with the exception of Rome who didn't accept any of these people. All right. So they never got the full patriarchal acceptance perhaps providentially so and they were tolerant of each other until John the second of Alexandria excommunicated St. Favian II in sever politic to depose him. So the first strike is the first time the government persecuted one of these sides. It was the Caledonian side that had >> first time the government uh >> oh man >> their canatanical bishop persecuted. The second strike is that even when they kind of made a piece between each other, it was the non-caledonian side that broke the peace. Again, these these are just facts. Um >> these are just facts.
>> There was this I would say not even an uneasy but like an easy like >> there was no calcedonian side Craig.
>> Correct. Yes. Flavian II condemned Calcedon.
>> Yes, >> there was no Calcedonian side. Go ahead.
>> And I'll actually uh I want to add on that. So why why was Flavian condemned?
Why was he deposed? Why was he uh replaced by uh St. Severs? Well, we know why. It's because he only condemned um Calcidon in name alone. He wasn't convinced in his heart. That's how uh high the standard was to be a patriarchet to be a patriarch in the henoton era. You had to you had to affirm the orthodox faith through your heart and with your words. So and also this saint this flavon is venerated by the calcedonians. They call him a saint despite him through his mouth committing top tier uh elite teaya and condemning his own sinnate condemning his own faith. They call him a saint but um >> CBS of Nicodia part two >> I do want to continue um on this. So he's saying okay during this Henoticon era there was peace right there wasn't much fighting uh each of the sides I guess each of the sides were peaceful.
Now Craig why do you think this is why do you think there was relative peace during this era? Subdacon do you mind answering this question?
Why was there peace?
>> Why was there relative peace during the Hinoticon era? What's so special?
>> Because because they recanted of calced.
>> Yes.
>> If you if you read the there's two versions of it. Uh the only difference between the two ours and their version is that there's an ending that they have that's longer to just say and the Egyptians returned to the church to make it sound like it was us who who had left. But that's the only difference.
And then the other our original version doesn't have this extra part because that's silly and stupid to say. So um if you read the henoticon the substance of it the three chapters are condemned explicitly. Uh and it says anyone who uh anyone who says Christ is two and not one any time anywhere even if it was at calcanon says this is anathema.
So they recanted and we entered they entered into communion back with us. That's why Rome calls it the acacian schism because they schism ain't aacious. Okay. These guys they don't venerate anybody from that time. Them venerating Flavian of Antioch is uh illogical based on nothing.
So because because Flavian the second of Antioch condemns Calcidon. So what are you venerating him for? Just because we deposed him. So you want to venerate him?
>> No. His name is Flavian. And we actually killed the first Flavian, right? Except Calcedon said we all killed Flavian. All >> it's like anybody, even if they were against them, even if they don't agree with them, even if they're a bad person, if they're deposed by us, these guys venerate them.
>> It's It's crazy. Anyways, so so uh the henoticon is simply a reunion in the sense of their side repenting. It's that simple.
>> So deacon, you're precisely right. And it's it's unfortunate that there's a misconception that it was a it was what's the word? It was a negotiation or it was a middle middle spot between the Caledonians and the Orthodox. This is not >> cease to exist.
>> Yes. Exactly. The the henoticon is an orthodox document. Entirely entirely orthodox of course Roman as in the east there were no >> exactly the document itself was orthodox.
>> And so if you were to sign on to this document you're contradicting the faith of calcedon the faith of >> the pope of Rome condemned it. Right.
>> Exactly.
>> So how can how can Craig say that he's accepting it if the pope of Rome condemns it? and who's who's in comm who he venerates.
>> So is condemning this >> and then uh on our side >> uh the the patriarchs in the east and the churches in the east who are pushing this are pushing it in light of Rome is not on the same page. Rome is not in communion. Rome is against it because Rome is upholding calcidon and this is not. That's why after 518 when they drop it, they dropped the the henotakon in 518 because of the labelis of Ormmystus.
They drop it. So when they drop it in 518, we continue to keep it. 536 uh Theodosio of Alexandria cites it in his confession of faith to seis 536. They don't use it anymore after 518.
>> Yeah. They have to they have to become papist again.
>> Yeah. Um let's let's summarize very quickly majority from the very conclusion of calcedon who can we say rejected calcidon my brothers who can we say with with utmost certainty didn't accept the council >> any so we can say uh Jerusalem um we we didn't touch on this much but juvenile was chased away he was chased out of his city he was not accepted uh we can also say Alexandria of course we know we covered uh docorus and proir that's from from the immediate uh u exact outcome.
>> So that's two cinnids rejecting it.
Good.
>> Yes.
>> Now in this hinoticon era how many sinnidates are rejecting the henoticon?
>> Everyone but Rome every single one. And even before again we don't have to skip all the way to the henoticon in the 470s uh under the emperor basilicus we mentioned 500 bishops right we convened Ephesus 3 I don't I I don't remember how many bishops attended that council but they all affirmed the orthodox faith right so it it's so ironic to me that the times in history uh in in antiquity where there was peace where where persecution was was rare was when all the churches were united under Orthodoxy. Is that is that a coincidence? Right. Craig is trying to go ahead >> and notice the theological implications.
I I always love to tie this for Craig.
He says verbatim in this stream the Ephesian language at an expiration date.
Are you kidding me? The your your arbitrary expiration date is why 30,000 are being murdered. your arbitrary expiration date is why there's all these problems in the church even though they they concede he said it to me in the debate that the one nature christologology itself is orthodox that's why he held it the number one the the the finger if you remember that subdacon in the thumbnail he's holding up a number one finger for the one nature after all that and then we find times of peace for christoologgical articulation you accept and you're still calcedonian are you serious what's going on here >> I I Just want to reiterate one more time for the audience to know. The henoticon era marked the end of the parallels.
They ceased to exist by this period.
They ceased to exist. Why? Because the church was reunited under orthodoxy.
Um if anyone wants to add anything before we continue.
>> Yeah, this is like two reset points. We had Peter Mongus is the former abdication. Now we have the hinoticon.
every like two times were justified and you're conceding it now. He has to restart his argument. He just wasted the entire stream. Why don't you start from this later point when the schism and the rival patriarchists are actually solidified? He's conceding his side out.
They went to non-existence and then they had to reestablish rival patriarchets.
So he has to keep creating this burden.
The escort was canonically deposed. Then he has to create another burden. Well, Peter Mongus was canonically deposed.
Then for for the Antilken line, well, Seis was conly deposed. The burden becomes greater, greater, greater, greater, greater, and his interpretation of the primary sources becomes dumber, dumber, and dumber.
>> Let's continue.
>> All right.
>> Let live attitude that even communes um until um John the second of Alexander excommunicated St. Flavian until Seis deposed him. Right. Otherwise, he was not bothering anybody. Now, hyper Caledonians broke this uneasy truce of the Hinatakan, but even then they were able to selectively accept Caledonian communion. So, they're kind of inconsistent. We'll get to this in a second, but I just want to bring up that the days of peace between these both sides wasn't as long as the whole era.
At best, it's 25 years. Um, so that's worth pointing out. So, let's talk about the non-caledonian saints, which were communium Caledonians. Now, St. Fi of Antioch was a Caledonian, wasn't John the first of Alexandria, non-caledonian.
And I just in case because it's kind of hard to find a line, I actually put his saints like >> how was Flavian a Caledonian, Craig?
How? So he says anathema.
Flavian says that. Okay. How is he a Caledonian?
>> It's his heart. Bro, >> by the way, Sab Deacon, this isn't just our side saying this. Uh this is recorded by uh the chronicle of Theophain, the Confessor. I'm 99% sure Theophes is a Caledonian. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> This is this is what he says. After holding a cinnid of the bishops under him, he wrote a lengthy letter in which he supported the senates of Nika, Constantinople and Ephesus, but remained silent about that of Calcedon. He renounced Theodoris and Theodore and subjoined four chapters wherein he appears not to be in agreement with the Senate of Calcedon, and in particular rejects the phrase in two natures.
>> Uh-oh. You venerate this guy. uh Theophanes continues saying, "Some say that these chapters were the work of Akacius of Constantinople, but Flavian wrote a private letter to Anastasia supporting the latter's purpose. He he he performed Tea.
He he said these words. He rejected the two natures. He rejected Calcedon with mouth alone. Yet he was still condemned.
He was still deposed. He was still replaced by St. Seis. You call him a saint.
They have to they have to recognize by the way like his own deposition. They have to whether whatever side you take it if if you're conceding he he factually rejected into natures. His duplicity alone is enough for deposition on both sides.
>> All right. Um let's continue these other two examples. Staint is he is a saint and John the 1 and his deacon dioscerus I who later became a pope of uh of Alexander and he's a saint in 497 were open to communion with Rome if the letter is doctrine if their own sonatical letter was accepted.
>> So I will only briefly get into detail but they said the taleo and Latin we hear >> he's saying the dioscorus who wrote the letter of 497 to the to the senate of Rome >> he's a saint for them.
Um, I'm not too sure. I'm not sure.
>> You put it put it in parenthesis.
>> It's impossible. It doesn't make it doesn't make any sense. I'm assuming this is either going >> about saying the scores I of Raote, not of Alexandra.
>> Oh, I forgot about that.
>> Great point. And so, Deacon, uh, I believe you were on the stream covering, uh, the letter to Rome.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. This is what he's refer >> just take a listen to this story.
>> We'll only briefly get into detail but they said the tomale in Latin we hear from the bishop of Thessalonica isn't heretical unlike the Greek of Calcedon.
So here's our confession. If you accept it we can have communion.
>> So you can see tomo wasn't a dealbreaker for two more saint >> the to of Leo wasn't a dealbreaker for these guys >> of the John the first and the second.
>> Okay. First of all I that he just he put that in. He put two eyes and made it the second that thatos was a priest. He was a presbbiter. Yes. In the senate of Alexandria. He wasn't the patriarch.
>> Okay.
>> He was representing. He was a a legit >> of Alexandria to write the letter to the Senate of Rome.
>> Um the letter does not say the Latin wasn't heretical. Craig, how come you don't give us quotes?
>> Never. This video is so empty of quotes.
say it says that the Greek look look how he's doing this is very I'm very disappointed. I'm very disappointed that the Greek he says was uh the the letter says because it was translated by Theodoret the heretic who their side calls blessed.
Uh therefore he could have he could have made it sound more notorian than it is.
So they're asking Rome, maybe the original doesn't. They're not saying it doesn't. They're saying maybe. Let's talk about it. Us and you, we'll figure it out together.
They never say it's not.
They just say the Greek is for sure. We want to see the original.
>> Yes. Yes. And this is all based on the words of a certain deacon. He tries to claim this is a bishop. Oh, it was a deacon named Fotius of Thessalonica who claimed that the tome in its original language is in line with Nika. It wasn't uh it wasn't theorist who said this. It wasn't John the 1 who said this. It was a deacon from Thessalonica. And this gave hope. This gave hope to these two figures. It gave them hope that perhaps there is a chance that uh you know we we need to see the original language.
Perhaps there is a chance that this was a mistransation.
Bro. Okay. Not only that, what we just said, he created a historical character.
He created he made him and he canonized him. He made and and he gave him second theorus I after ours the first who was that Calcedon was against theoros the first.
So then he's recognizing even the first by calling this one the second. There has to be a first if you call him a second. Right? So he's recognizing that one. He's creating a whole new one. Tell saying he's the second canonizing him and saying he was the pope of Alexand let's continue his third claim of our saints being in communion with them. Um and John the second initially had communion um with St. Flav the second.
Those who were pointing out he then broke it because he was a more um severe non-caledonian or a more adamant non-caledonian. Now Seus of Antioch who had Flav the second depose interestingly enough was in communist Constantinople.
Now Timothy the first Constantinople accepted Seus as non-caledonian Atheos but he also simultaneously accepted Calcidon.
>> Wrong >> which we can see why Rome would not be in communion with Timothy first with Constantinople. But then it begs the question, how could Seus be in communion that it with someone who's accepting Caledon?
All right. So, let's cover this very quickly on the character of Timothy the first of Katnople and subdeacon. Um, I don't remember which video it was. I don't remember which stream it was, but Erhan referenced this. He didn't reference Timothy the 1 of Constantinople by name, but he referenced a specific figure being communi.
>> Yes.
>> Uh, so I just want to address this.
So it's true that initially Timothy would not condemn Calcedon and he allegedly condemned those who condemned Calcedon when pressured to do so in front of a Caledonian monk. But he denied this matter in front of the emperor and anatized Calcedon later.
Scholarship refers to him as Timothy.
Get this Timothy theite patriarch of Constantinople. This is scholarship speaking. uh and evidence of his conviction uh we take from the Tricagon controversy.
>> Yeah.
>> So, >> yeah.
>> Yeah. I'm not sure. Go ahead. Go ahead.
>> Go. No, go ahead. Go ahead.
>> I'm not sure what they keep talking about these guys. I don't know if they're making up people like Craig just did with the Scorosi or they're actually referring to like real people who they're not aware of repented like Aacius, Timothy, Anthemus. These are all patriarchs of Constantinople who became Orthodox, >> right?
>> Mhm.
>> Likely the latter, but we we we can never know what's going on in their heads, right?
>> Yeah, we can. We can.
>> But um evidence >> too much anime or whatever >> maybe. So, so evidence of the con of the conviction again comes from the tricagon controversy because he enforced who was crucified uh for us into all Constantinople churches and scholars say this is for two reasons. Number one, in order to emphasize the myaphysite character of his church and second to distinguish himself from his Caledonian predecessor Macedonius II. So Timothy Timothy theaphazite was uh or sorry Timothy of Constantinople was a meaposite. Again number one he condemned calcidon in front of the emperor and number two he was a supporter of the tricagon and used it as a mayaphazite uh distinction.
Um I believe that's everything. Um next uh we'll see what Craig has in store for us. This this is really bad for Craig.
So fact of the matter is Calinaton is not the deal breaker that people claim it is if we have non-caledonian states in communion with Caledonians.
>> So that's worth pointing out and some degree non-caledonianism isn't the sort of dealbreaker that some people think it is with the Caledonian side in communion with them even St. Fius which we have a whole other video on perhaps not uh not very prudently by the way but worth pointing out this occurred with both sides saints. Now let's talk about court uh court nonaledonianism and theirity.
Now we never talk about this because this is sort of stereotype that the non-caledonians um were loyalist side but that's totally not true. We saw Zeno patriarch for the issue of Caledon. Yes, there was political machinations in favor of noncaledonianism and there was action among the non there was an end of piece brought the end of this piece really started by Seis brought disputed depositions and elections between Caledonians in court noted. Um the piece like I said already ended during the hinoticon and so there are a lot of people are non-caledonian but the ones you only hear about are the court side the ones that actually had the favor of the royalty in Constantinople and those people were the minority of non-caledonians. My personal opinion is because the main impetus time behind non-caledonianism was resistance to the Roman Empire. So >> we'll refute this later.
>> Of course the side that's not Caledonian that is collaborationist with the Roman Empire is going to be the most popular side but we'll get to more details. Now patriarchs all eventually were put under house arrest, but I want to mention they were protected also in Constantinople.
We'll get into >> he's getting this from Janat Mas's book.
>> Oh yes, correct. He does quote from this. Yes.
>> Um that guy mean it's it's like it's original research, but it's very liberal.
>> It it's really bad. Yes.
>> Very very liberal.
>> He tries to agent you know about this. He tries to argue argue some sexuality thing and St. Seis, you know what I'm talking about.
>> He was like St. Seis doesn't believe in gender or something like >> you want to tell ridiculous.
>> Yeah, I'm not I'm not a fan of that book.
>> Yes, we'll continue.
>> No, this part is great. Love this.
>> Antioch and Theis of Constantinople and Theodosius of Alexander examples of these men. Now, it begs the question, were they controlled opposition? Right?
Like they are the royalist notions. Are they kind of like controlled opposition like and Sean Hennity, >> you know, are they controlled opposition like the Msad and Hamas?
>> What is this?
>> Would anyone like to say say anything on this?
>> No. He cooked us. He cooked us.
>> You know about this? Hamas was bolstered by the MSAD, the Israeli intelligence because they were the religious fanatics disavized the Palestinian Liberation Organization communist.
>> At least Craig isn't a Zionist. So that's good.
>> I I guess I guess >> that's against you will pick one of the two sides uh that are in opposition to them to uh weaken them, right? And so were these royalist naledonians um bolstered by the by content of mobile to weaken naladonianism? Um I I pose a question. Uh I'm not exactly sure, but it's worth considering.
>> No, it's >> um let's talk about divide and conquer versus consolidate and reconcile. Now you could say, well, if they're controlled opposition, perhaps it's part of the divide and conquer strategy that we could divide the different non-Calonians, get a group we like, and then because they're all splintered, we could take them out one piece at a time, right? Kind of like >> had a really strong effect on his conspiracy level.
>> Consolidate and reconcile. And I I think it was consolid and it's easier to talk turkey with this group of reasonable people and then we can all a bunch of bunch of different that's much more difficult. So the quote Hardy in his article um why did just calc it was a scupized right same >> everything that came out of what he writes after a while the emperor was perhaps not unwilling that the two such sources of power as the loyalty of the Egyptians to their church and the wealth of the city of Alexandria should be in different hands. The cops of course control the lesser but considerable resources of dascese monasteries and parish churches outside of Alexandria.
We need not ascribe to just ending a deliberate plan to divide and rule. But he may well have calculated that since the total suppression of the monophysites was unlikely. It was better to keep their leaders in some kind of touch with himself than to drive them into complete opposition. And that's why I think with St. Theodora and Justin, they're playing good cop bad cop and the whole plan all along was to um consolidate and to limit actions and when they did as we're going to see did act and consecrate people to try to do it outside the Roman Empire. And there's canical reasons for this. That's why I don't think even Theodora is analedonian. I think she >> I don't think Oh, simple. You're ready for this part? Yeah.
>> So, one more time. I don't think Theodora is a non-caledonian. Let's continue.
>> Saint for good reason.
>> I think she's a Caledonian saint for good reason.
>> Working with St. Justinian to reconcile >> because she's working with Justinian to reconcile.
>> True.
>> All right. Simple. You wanna you want to refute this point?
>> Yeah. So, basically, for those of you who don't know, um St. Theodora, she's she was a nephite.
Um, they have to make up the fact that she's a Caledonian based on zero evidence because she was the wife of their so-called St. Justinian. And having a wife that opposes you in every regard of your faith doesn't look too good if you're a Cedonian. Um so some scholars do argue that you know Justinian and Theodora were working together but every like the most consensus is that scholars generally assume that Theodora was an ardent a very very strong non-caledonian or mafhasite very very strong so this is literally the this claim that that was a calcedonian completely made up and it's literally to get around the fact yeah that's she was uh like Kadus She was literally the daughter of a Mapazite priest. She was friends and we'll go into like how she even approved of Maphazite bishops. But um >> I think there are some traditions that say she was even ethnically Assyrian. I have to find them.
>> I'm I'm not sure. But yeah, that would be crazy. They have to do all of this though, guys, to get around the fact that they venerate another non-caledonian, another heretic. They venerate her. They venerate her. She is a saint for them. So someone called Propus right in his anecdot who hated Theodora and he tries to make her like you know look horribly. She claims that he he claims that Theodora and Justinian divided Christianity and he says that her o her oriental Orthodox convent conviction was both politically expedient so it was good for politics and it was an ab choice a good choice because she was morally corrupt. So basically this guy he wasn't oriental Orthodox he hated her and even he says she was oriental Orthodox she loved the Maphasites.
So even the scholar uh Susan Harvey says on his anecdotal as a piece of historical writing it provides an almost wholly fabricated view of Justinian and Theodora useful in the study of the development of rhetorical method and cultural themes but little substance. So basically this whole idea that Craig's like, "Oh, I think they were I don't know, Mossad and Hamas." And he goes into like how like uh Hamas made Mossad or what or sorry, Msad made Hamas. I I don't like this is not comparable.
Scholarship doesn't even give this weird conspiracy theory credit. Evaguras Scholastis, who was a Calcedonian, he was unsure, right? He he even suspected himself that Theodora was like doing strange things and helping the Maphasite. But uh they did but he just said like Craig said he was like oh they're probably like you know he he knew what he was doing. His wife's like literally opposing him but he knows what he's doing. So it's it's just embarrassing, right? Um, we have more evidence of this and it's it's more it's more. You have the chronicle of 8:19, the chronicle of Zunin, the chronicle of Jacob of Adessa, Michael the Syrian, John of Niku, all of all of these chronicles, and these are non-caledonian sources that say she was a strong Meaposite believing believer.
And uh, some claimed that like Kadus just said, she was the daughter of a Mapite priest. and then always an Orthodox Christian, right? And all of these chronicles have various sources like pseudo Zachcharias Recctor, but pro primarily John of Ephesus, a contemporary of Theodora. He he cites this. He's a ardent historian and even Craig cites him a lot in his uh in this video later on. Um John of Ephesus, he talks about Theodora serving the Oriental Orthodox community a ton. He was she was their protector. She helped us. She hit us when Justinian was crashing out for no reason, was trying to kill all of us. Uh Theodora gladly helped us with the Persian queen to uh store us and uh help us live under Persian rule. That's also a reason why the Syrian Orthodox had such a great grounding in Persia because of Queen Theodora. Um when uh Alharif Jabalah, sorry I I butchered that a little Theodora Yeah, >> he he told Theodora, "Why are there no Orthodox priests oriental Orthodox Maphazite priests in the Eastern territories? Because of the fierce persecutions, right? She immediately gave the orders and the means that gave way to Meaposite patriarch or sorry uh the the Meaposite bishop consecrated Jacob Barardis. And surprisingly enough, this is extremely damaging because Jacob Bardis is the same person that Craig will say is unconical. So your saint approved an uncannonical bishop. But anyway, she hid a bunch of uh Mapazite Orthodox who were exiled and persecuted by Justinian like Seis, Theodosius, Anthemus of Constantinople in her own palace, right? The palace of Hormisdus.
Severis is someone whom she even met before she was married to Justinian in Egypt during her.
>> Your mic your mic is Caledonian, bro.
>> Oh my god. My bad.
>> All right. Uh, I'll continue for now until Simple rejoins.
>> You're my too.
>> What's going on?
>> I think his is fine. I think it's just internet problem.
>> My connection. It could be you guys.
>> Sub Deacon, I think it's your end.
>> Okay. All right.
>> Okay. Simple. Are you back?
Simple.
Let's just keep the video playing.
>> I'll I'll continue. We're almost done on the topic of Empress Theodora. So, the the most So, we can list tons and tons of examples, right? But the most important one is her own baptism. So there's a a certain Orthodox named Orthodox Stylite named Zura. And he was forced down a pillar by Caledonians. So he went all the way to Constantinople uh furious uh and demanding uh demanding demanding peace, demanding justice.
He was cursing Caledon. He uh and all of this all of his actions at the courts in Constantinople warranted the death penalty under Justinian's law. Uh and it it caused Justinian to throw a tantrum against Zura, shouting insults at him, but Justinian couldn't do anything because Zora was very popular among the people. So um eventually Zura baptized Empress Theodora, right? So we have a styite, an Orthodox Styite baptizing the empress after she was already Christian.
What what does that mean exactly?
Because we know we know Empress Theodora was Christian prior to this. We know this. So how could she have been baptized after the matter by the so-called Zora by the Stilant? What does that mean? What what uh indication does that give?
Right. Um, we can keep going. There's uh the story of uh Mariah the solitary. Uh, same sort of situation. And also Theodora had two children prior to to her marriage with Justinian, a son and a daughter. We know nothing of their personal religious convictions. However, we know that two of her grandsons adhere to orthodoxy. One of them a monk named Ephanasius was even taken into consideration as a candidate for the vacant patriarchal seat of Alexandria.
So even her own grandchildren are Orthodox. What does this say? Right? And all all these examples are are you know proof that she served and she adhered to the Orthodox Church. It disproves these madeup claims that she was Cedonian by conviction, which uh not even her own opponents would claim. Nobody made the positive claim except for Craig that she was Cedonian. Some would say she was uh you know she was uh taken the side uh to to keep peace. Some might say they were unsure, but nobody made the positive claim that she was Calcedonian except for Craig. Where did he get it from?
Nobody knows. So like just to conclude all of this, >> he got it from he got it from the hamburglar and grimace.
>> The hamburger and grimace. There we go.
And and to conclude all of this on Theodora, I just pose a question to to Craig. Why is Empress Theodora a saint in your tradition? What has she done for your church, for your bishops, for your priests, for your clergy, for your congregation? What has she done to be a saint?
We don't know. We don't know.
>> I think um this would be a good place to pause and continue this for another part. We can do this in multiple parts.
>> That way we don't bore everyone here. Um >> so yeah, next I think the next topic is going to start with St. Severis. That'll be a good place to start.
>> Um we let's talk amongst each other next place next time to to meet all together.
We might have more people if they're able to make it. But yeah, hopefully you guys enjoyed this one. Let us know if you guys want to see more things after this, but we're going to focus on continuing completely finishing and demolishing all of Craig's arguments in his video. So, I think I think we can honestly finish this in one more part.
If we need another one, we'll be able to do that as well. So, thank you guys for watching.
>> Uh, thank you for bearing with us. Thank you, Moss, for the presentation. Thank you, uh, Subdin and Simple for making time. I'll put your guys' channels in the description and I'll also send the collaboration link. Yeah, thank you guys for for coming to this.
>> I just want to mention that uh real quick, sorry that this is usually people complain that our videos are too long is because they they just run through everything, make up stuff, and we have to spend the time dedicated to these topics to actually go through and show you what the truth is. Because if we just like glossed over it, oh, they're wrong, the wrong, nobody would get substance out of it. So that's why this is going and and really like a lot of work goes to Moss. Moss worked really hard on this. So thanks again to him.
Um, and yeah, I hope everyone can tune in next time because if you go ahead and watch Craig's video, give him the views because the next stuff that he says is crazy and Kyle picks it up and he just runs with it. So I we're there's a lot coming. That's all I got to say.
Okay guys, >> any last things?
All set.
>> That's everything.
>> All right, we'll continue this another time. Thank you guys for watching. God bless everyone so much. God bless. The
Vidéos Similaires
They Said Flight Was Impossible—Then Two Bicycle Mechanics Changed Everything#wrightbrothers
umars997
526 views•2026-05-30
#SeamansAct1915 #MaritimeHistory #LifeAtSea #BoatShitCrazyX #SaferWorkEnvironment
BoatShitCrazyX
859 views•2026-06-01
Black Women Were Banned From White Suffrage Groups
Peoplediduknow
782 views•2026-05-31
A Volcano Created Frankenstein — And Killed Summer for a Year
TheDarkSideOfSmth
389 views•2026-05-29
Born into slavery in Beaufort
RoadsanRoots
613 views•2026-05-31
50.32 Judah And Israel Split / Jeroboam's False Religion - 2 Chronicles ch. 10-11
smyrnachristianchurchkokomo
107 views•2026-05-29
Iran's Secret Society Wrote the Constitution — Then Got Hanged for It
TheShadowLecture
502 views•2026-05-29
How the Qing Dynasty's Imperial Harem System Actually Worked
HiddenTime360
580 views•2026-05-28
