Traditional Catholic Vs Orthodox Exchange: SSPX Drama with David Reilly

Summary

Podcast Summary: Traditional Catholic vs Orthodox Exchange — SSPX Drama with David Reilly

Podcast: Jay's Analysis
Host: Jay Dyer
Guest: David Riley (Backlash Podcast)
Date: July 6, 2026

---

Main Theme

This episode features a highly substantive, honest, and, at times, humorous conversation between Orthodox apologist Jay Dyer and Traditional Catholic commentator David Riley. The focus is the ongoing "SSPX Drama" — the debate surrounding the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), its standing after recent excommunications, and broader questions about papal authority, Vatican II, magisterial teaching, and Catholic tradition. The discussion ranges from personal faith journeys to detailed canonical and theological debates, with contrasting perspectives from Orthodox and Traditional Catholic viewpoints.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Introductions and Backgrounds

[02:42–08:34]

• David Riley’s platform: Real Backlash (YouTube), Backlash Podcast (Rumble), and thebacklash.net.
• David’s background: Not raised Catholic; parents left the Catholic Church post-Vatican II (1972); struggled with addiction; explored multiple religions (Protestantism, Islam) before revisiting Catholicism.
• Connection to SSPX:
  • Began attending SSPX Mass in 2012/13.
  • Father and he returned to tradition separately but nearly simultaneously.
  • Clarifies: “I do not in any way speak for or represent the Society of St. Pius X… If I say anything wrong, don't blame them, blame me.” (03:51)
• Personal faith journey: Found a rosary outside rehab; experienced profound change after praying the rosary; could not disprove Catholicism, so converted.

2. From FSSP to SSPX: Personal and Practical Reasons

[11:55–14:14]

• David’s father moved from FSSP to SSPX due to diocesan changes—loss of Latin Mass priests, not primarily theological.
• Theological commitment: David is committed to SSPX stances, trusts their bishops and priests despite a range of internal perspectives from mainline to near-sedevacantist.

3. The Excommunication Debate: Vatican II & Aftermath

[15:13–22:44]

• Overview of SSPX and Excommunication:
  • 1988: Lefebvre + 4 bishops excommunicated for unauthorized episcopal consecrations.
  • 2009: Benedict XVI lifted excommunications but didn’t explicitly restore full communion.
  • 2026: New excommunications for more bishops, priests, and laity.
• Ambiguities:
  • Legal/formal problems with the new excommunication orders—alleged failures of form (18:53).
  • Some canonists claim the penalties lack legal effectiveness.
• David’s position:
  • Valid and binding excommunication of six bishops; invalidity for priests/faithful due to improper canonical form.
  • “According to Info Vaticana, the formula used by Tuco [Fernandez] to excommunicate priests and lay people lacks penal effectiveness…” (16:58)

4. Canon Law, Magisterium, and State of Necessity

[20:38–24:44]

• 1983 Code of Canon Law:
  • David uses this code, highlighting its stipulations on state of necessity possibly mitigating excommunication for unlawful consecrations.
  • Jay raises whether this could justify any schismatic act.
• Magisterium and Papal Authority:
  • Debate on how Catholics discern what is binding (extraordinary vs. ordinary magisterium).
  • Jay: “You can't go into schism two or three times, right. It's kind of a one and done.” (16:25)
  • David: “It would have to be judged on a case by case basis.” (21:54)

5. Vatican I and Contradictions in Papal Teaching

[23:12–31:55]

• Tensions between Vatican I and Vatican II:
  • Vatican I asserts no new doctrines; Vatican II appears to introduce novelties.
  • Jay’s central critique: “Vatican One is saying that Rome cannot teach error. And you're saying Rome has taught error for about 70 years. I don't understand.” (31:48)
  • David: Admits the bind, recognizes this as “part of the crisis,” but resists the sedevacantist conclusion.

6. Sedevacantism and the Structure of the Church

[32:22–34:45]

• Sedevacantist argument: Rome's errors and lack of “visible unity” — but Jay argues this leads to an even greater loss of visible church structure, consistent with neither Vatican I nor Catholic ecclesiology. David acknowledges the complexity but does not accept sedevacantism.

7. Canonization, Saints, and Magisterial Doubt

[35:35–46:49]

• Jay presses David on canonizations (e.g., St. John Paul II), which should be infallible acts per Catholic understanding.
  • David: Acknowledges discomfort but appeals to the breakdown of traditional canonization processes (abolishing “devil’s advocate,” etc.), suggesting current canonizations are part of the broader crisis of modernity.
  • On Opus Dei and Josemaria Escriva: Critiques about hasty canonizations for ideological reasons.

8. Defective Rites, Novus Ordo, and Past Liturgical Revolutions

[50:00–55:56]

• David sees Novus Ordo as “valid but not the Roman Rite,” argues it lacks essential elements emphasized in tradition.
• Jay retorts that “defective” rites are specifically condemned by prior magisterial decisions (e.g., Jansenist controversy and Ottaviani Intervention).
• Discussion about the history of liturgical changes and the complexity of “what is tradition.”

9. Faith, Liturgy, and the Limits of Epistemic Criteria

[55:58–71:54]

• David resists “becoming Orthodox” based on his family’s Western/Latin heritage, despite Jay’s pointing out that faith precedes rite.
• Jay: “If a Protestant said to you, look, I come from a Huguenot French Calvinist family… the faith comes first before your family liturgical heritage. Sounds like an idol.” (57:47)
• David: “It's just my read, my reading of history… do as little as possible to keep the faith in the current crisis.”

10. Magisterium, Tradition, and Epistemic Circularity

[65:12–71:54]

• Jay asks: How does one know what counts as Magisterium?
  • David: Practically, his concern is for passing on the undiluted faith to his children, which he says he finds only in SSPX circles.
• The problem—as Jay points out—is the circularity of individual judgment about what is and isn't “tradition,” allowing anyone to locate the “rupture” wherever suits them (Vatican II, Vatican I, Council of Trent, etc.).

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On SSPX identity:
  • “I just want, I want that to be clear that I'm like not a surrogate of the SSPX. So if I say anything wrong, don't blame them, blame me.” – David Riley [03:51]
• On Vatican II:
  • “Vatican 1 also states… [the pope] might saintly safeguard and faithfully expound the deposit of faith… not supposed to… have new doctrines. And then, of course, in 1988… John Paul II says that Vatican II taught new doctrines. So how is this possible?” – David Riley [24:04]
• On current excommunications:
  • “According to Info Vaticana, the formula used by Tuco to excommunicate priests and lay people lacks penal effectiveness.” – David Riley [16:58]
  • “Do you accept John Paul as a saint?” — Jay
    “I have no issues with that at all.” — David [36:00]
    “So how could you be a heretic and be a saint? Or is he just a material heretic?” — Jay [38:10]
• On the core crisis:
  • “Right. It's a mystery. This is one of the things about the SSPX.” — David [43:38]
  • “Well, I thought you didn't want to turn your brain off. I thought you didn't want to turn your brain off. Now it sounds like it's a mystery.” — Jay [43:44]
• On Tradition vs. Rome:
  • “If the criteria is just, I go with what was always traditionally taught. What do you say to a person who is an old Catholic who says, amen, brother? That's why I don't accept Vatican one.” — Jay [69:20]
  • “I would have to admit that that doesn't suffice on its own... in any other period of time, I would tell you that Rome is the proximate rule of faith.” — David [71:37]

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

| Time | Segment | |----------|-----------------------------------------------------| | 02:42–08:34 | David's personal religious background, addiction, conversion, and intro to SSPX | | 11:55–14:14 | Why David’s family went from FSSP to SSPX; commitment to theological positions | | 15:13–22:44 | Deep dive: 1988, 2009, & 2026 SSPX excommunications; canonical debate | | 23:12–31:55 | Vatican I vs. Vatican II, papal infallibility, “new doctrines” | | 32:22–34:45 | Discussing the problems with sedevacantism | | 35:35–46:49 | Saints, canonizations, Ordinary vs. Extraordinary Magisterium | | 50:00–55:56 | Rite: Novus Ordo “defective but valid”; liturgical history | | 55:58–58:45 | Heritage/identity vs. faith, SSPX “do as little as possible” approach | | 65:12–71:54 | What is magisterium? The epistemic crisis and arguments with Old Catholics | | 73:09+ | Superchats: listener questions about family, tradition, conversion, and hypotheticals | | 87:41–88:25 | What would “restoration” look like if a “trad pope” were elected? |

---

Tone and Language

• Tone: Cordial, honest, sometimes wryly humorous; both speakers are sincere but keenly aware of the contradictions and ironies in the ongoing Catholic crisis.
• Language: Unfiltered, direct, sometimes technical (in discussing canon law and magisterium), but personal when describing faith experiences.
• Memorable lighter moments: Banter about old priests, “Saint Oxycontin,” pipe smoking vs. fedoras, “family tradition” jokes, and the “Catholics” (1973 film) reference.
• Recurring motif: The conversation continually returns to the “crisis” in Roman Catholicism — a lack of certitude, clarity, and unity after Vatican II. Jay argues this is insurmountable for traditional Catholicism; David admits the crisis but stays committed to passing on tradition as best he can.

---

Conclusion

This episode provides an illuminating, in-depth look at the current crisis in traditional Roman Catholicism, specifically among the SSPX. It covers the historical and theological roots of the split, the canonical and doctrinal debates, and how individuals from different traditions wrestle with questions of faith, authority, and continuity.
Listeners are left with a clear sense of why the Catholic world is in such turmoil—and why some, like the host, believe Orthodoxy sidesteps these systemic crises, while others, like the guest, remain committed to “doing as little as possible” to preserve the faith amidst confusion.

Recommended for listeners interested in:

• SSPX, traditionalist Catholicism, and contemporary Catholic controversies
• Deep dives into Vatican I & II, magisterium, and canon law
• Dialogue between Orthodox and Catholic traditionalists
• Honest, self-aware explorations of religious crisis and identity

---

Notable Quotes Index (sample):

• [03:51] David: “So if I say anything wrong, don't blame them [SSPX], blame me.”
• [16:58] David: “The formula used...to excommunicate priests and lay people lacks penal effectiveness.”
• [24:04] David: “So how is this possible? How is it possible that Vatican one says we can't teach new doctrines and...John Paul II saying...there's new doctrines in Vatican two?”
• [31:48] Jay: “Vatican One is saying that Rome cannot teach error. And you're saying Rome has taught error for about 70 years. I don't understand.”
• [43:38] David: “Right. It's a mystery. This is one of the things about the sspx.”
• [71:37] David: “I would have to admit that that doesn't suffice on its own…in any other period of time, I would tell you that Rome is the proximate rule of faith...”

---

Transcript

[Jay]

All right, welcome everybody. We are back with David Riley. And David, is. Are you on YouTube or what's your main sort of outlet right now?

[David Riley]

Yeah, yeah, we're on. Or I'm on YouTube. Rumble X on. On YouTube it is Real. Backlash is the name of my podcast, and then it's Backlash Podcast over on Rumble. But you can go to the backlash.net. that's the website where all of our content is.

[Jay]

Sorry about that. I wasn't trying to be rude. I was just been in a hurry. I will add the links to David's channel below so you guys can see that later. It will be there. We get a lot of replays later, so if you don't see it right away, it will be there. Don't worry. So, David, I was on with you maybe a year ago. We had a good conversation with some people that we, we know between each other back at the time. Yeah, you are still doing a podcast that also kind of overlaps with a lot of what we do. You talk about geopolitics, you talk about economics, you talk about theology, and you also. Are you SSPX or adjacent to that or tell me exactly what your position is.

[David Riley]

Yeah, so, I mean, I was watching your stream earlier and I, I guess I, I haven't. I haven't really been that forthcoming about it because there's been a lot of confusion about all this stuff. But I, I mass with the sspx. Have. I have since I think I started going in 2012 or 2013 would have been the first time that I went to mass with them. And actually it's the, the now Bishop Gold Daddy who actually heard my first confession. Uh, so, uh, with that being said, uh, I do not in any way speak for or represent the Society of St. Pius X. I'm not a member of the Society of St. Pius X. I'm not a. A third order member. I'm not religious. I'm not a priest, obviously. I'm just a guy that wants to be Catholic and I'm trying to do the best that I can in, in the world. Right. So I just want, I want that to be clear that I'm like not a surrogate of the sspx. So if I say anything wrong, don't blame them, blame me. Okay.

[Jay]

Yeah, no, that's fine. And were you. Were you raised Catholic or did you convert around that 2010, 11:12 time?

[David Riley]

Yeah. Well, so this, you know, this, this. I did a full stream with actually millennial woes over millennial this past. This past Christmas. And I Gave my whole conversion story. It was like. It's like a two hour ordeal. But I was not raised Catholic. My parents left the Church in 1972 after the. The reforms of Vatican II. You know, my dad had been told his whole life that the church holds all truth and that it's the teacher of teachers. And now all of a sudden, he's confronted with this new liturgy and a priest at the altar that's saying that the church no longer is the teacher of all truth. We're a pilgrim church on a journey towards truth. And so my dad was like, well, I guess I should go on my own journey then, right? And so he left the church and he wound up finding his way back around the same time that I did, because I. I was a junkie. I was a drug addict. I was in the music industry. I was heavily addicted to opiates thanks to the. The whole OxyContin over prescription epidemic that happened. And so when he found out that he raised a heroin addict, basically.

[Jay]

So you talking about Saint George? Saint George Floyd? Saint Fent?

[David Riley]

Saint. No, no, Saint oxycontin. Saint Roxy.

[Jay]

Okay, I thought you said about George Floyd or something. No, no, no, no, no.

[David Riley]

I'm talking about me. And so he kind of reevaluated his whole trajectory in life. And he'd wound up finding this picture of his family and his. His parents. And. And on it, my grandfather had written, a family that prays together, stays together, hit that rail often. And so my dad kind of went on his own journey, unbeknownst to me at the time, trying to find a Catholic church with an altar rail. And that led him to the Fraternity of St. Peter. And eventually he came to the Society of St. Pius X. I found a rosary hanging on a nail by a dumpster out back of my third rehab. And I figured that I needed to. I tried Protestantism. I tried, like, Islam. I tried, like, every religion I could get a hold of to try to, you know, get out of this addiction problem that I had. And I figured that Catholicism was like, the last thing to try, and all I have to do is disprove it and we'll be good. And so I prayed the rosary. My whole life changed in, like a week. And then the more that I tried to disprove Catholicism, the more I couldn't. And so I eventually just gave in and converted. And I had asked my dad, you know, what he wanted for. I think it was Father's Day back in like, 2012 or 13. And he said that he wanted me to go to Mass with him. Now at this point in my own journey, I had tried going to mainline Novus Ordo masses and I would open the door and look around and I remember specifically one time in Wilkesbury, Pennsylvania that I actually went back outside to check the sign on the church to make sure that it said Catholic. Because I opened the doors and what I saw was Protestantism. It wasn't Catholicism. And so anyway, my dad is the one that introduced me to the Society of St. Pius X. And so yeah, that's, that's kind of how I got there. I made my first confession and communion on a, on a retreat that was led by now Bishop Goldaddy in Ridgefield, Connecticut.

[Jay]

Yeah, my first confession was Bishop Gold member when I was in the SSPX back in the 2000. Just. I'm sorry, I hadn't read this. So you said you, you had a interest in Islam. How long did that last? Was that just kind of a, a phase or did you actually like make shahada and all that?

[David Riley]

No, no, it was like a couple of months. I was hanging out with this guy, his name was Muz. That's what we called him. He was in the rehab with us and he, he took his religion like very seriously. And so I was like, okay. And so I tried, you know, doing the, the Muslim prayer before meals, you know, and there was, there was something about the way, I guess the way that the Quran is constructed, it's in a certain cadence. I don't know how to put it like, like with poetry, like if you were to remove one word or change it, it would change the, the math of the cadence of the entire thing. And I thought that was interesting, this idea of like, oh well, the religion can't change. Well that, that would make sense because truth can't change. You know, like two plus two is four on Monday. It's got to be four on Friday too, you know. So there was something kind of alluring to that, to the way that the Quran was constructed. But at the same time there is enough contra self contradiction within Islam where I was like, okay, this, this can't be true. This can't be the true religion because it's, it's internally self contradictory and that violates the principle of non contradiction. So that's kind of when I was like.

[Jay]

And that when. And you said you had a, you had a Protestant phase. What, what was it? What did that look like?

[David Riley]

Well, I mean, so, so I was baptized when I was seven by my dad. We were drowning in the Atlantic Ocean after a jet ski. Accident. And so my parents, when we got back to town after the vacation, they thought very rightly, like, hey, he should get his first communion. So they brought me to the local Novus Ordo Catholic parish in Cleveland, Ohio. And for parents Night, the night before first communions, they brought all the parents in and started playing, like, Elton John Circle of Life as, like, a montage. And my. My dad looked at my mom and was like, get your son. We're getting the out of here. You know? And so from that point on, about age 7 or 8, my mom would bring me to Protestant churches, and I would just get into arguments with the priests, like, oh, you know, so. So I've been baptized. I'm going to heaven. I'm saved, right? Priest is like. Or the. The pastor would be like, yeah, yeah, that's right. I'm like, okay, so if I rob a bank on the way to and from church every Sunday, I'll. I'll see you in heaven, right? Because Jesus has forgiven all my sins, past, present, and future. No, not like that. No. You know, and so I could never really get good answers. And. Which is what led me to believe that Christianity is a religion for broken people who can't figure out what the right thing to do is. And as it turns out, most of us are broken people who actually can't figure out what the right thing to do is. And we do need some assistance, divine assistance, I think, in that field. So anyway. But yeah, that, that. I mean, it was just a lot of church hop. I also moved around a lot. You know, my dad was in the radio industry. He didn't take payola money, and so he would get a job at a radio station that would last two or three years, and then they would cycle him out for somebody who was on the take. And so we moved a lot. But, yeah, that's.

[Jay]

Now, you said your dad eventually went from FSSP to sspx. What. What took him to that direction? Because a lot of people kind of have certain things that make them choose between FSSP and sspx, you know, That's a good question.

[David Riley]

I. I should probably ask him about that. I mean, I know that his first confession when he came back to the faith was with the fraternity, and things were very good there. But I do think that there was. I think what the initial rub was is that the Diocese of Harrisburg had swapped out the priest that was serving there and removed that chapel from the Fraternity of St. Peter and gave it to an indult priest who did not know how to speak Latin. And so very quickly people kind of were like, hey, wait a minute, can we, can we find.

[Jay]

So it wasn't like a, it wasn't a big theological issue. It was more of a practical, local issue.

[David Riley]

Yes. Yeah, he, he didn't, I don't think know the extent to which, you know, Vatican II had issues. I'm not sure how deep he had gone into that before he went to the Society.

[Jay]

And then in your case, you found that to be like the best location for the Latin mass kind of in your area or are you sort of committed to the theological stances of the sspx?

[David Riley]

Yeah, I, I am, you know, I am committed to the theological stances of the sspx. I trust my priests, I trust the bishops. I mean, I know personally Bishop Filet, like I said, I know Bishop Goldaddy, a lot of the priests of the society I'm friends with. I won't dox anybody here, but I trust their judgment. Generally speaking. There is, there is a little bit of, I guess, internal differences. Like you might look at a priest like Father Robinson and he's Father. Not Kevin Robinson, the other one, the American Father Robinson, and he's a little bit more mainline. And then you'll get other priests that are much more radical, much more like counter revolutionary. They're kind of on like the far edges of, you know, almost kind of bleeding over into a little bit of set of a cantism or something like that. But there's kind of a spectrum even among the priests in the, in the society.

[Jay]

Do you know I used to go to SSPX for almost a decade.

[David Riley]

I, I just found out about that this week. I was curious which priest it was that was at your, at your chapel.

[Jay]

Father Gregory Post. This was back in the 2000s. Yeah.

[David Riley]

That's crazy. I know him. He's. He's old.

[Jay]

Is he still alive? Because I don't know if he's still alive or not, but I just him

[David Riley]

three weeks ago in Walton, Kentucky. He's doing great. He's down there with Father Jacobs still, still kicking it.

[Jay]

Yeah. He told him the last time I saw him, he said, if you ever come back on SSPX grounds, we'll have you arrested. Yeah, true story.

[David Riley]

Yeah, it sounds like him.

[Jay]

We had an argument over whether or not John Paul II would be canonized. This was back in about 2006. And I said 2007, I said, of course he's going to be canonized. And he said, no, it'll never happen. It will never happen. It won't happen. I guess I was right. So does that mean I can. Can I come back on SSPX grounds now? Or is that. Am I still.

[David Riley]

No, I'll put in a good word.

[Jay]

I'm joking. I'm not going to that. So let me ask you a question about the. The recent events. What are your thoughts on. Now? We know that in 1988 we had the previous excommunication. And of course, I came into the Novus Ordo in 2003. So I was kind of in that period of John Paul II and then transitioning into Benedict xvi. And we had this time of, oh, there's the motu proprio, and they're going to reach out to, you know, the sspx and, you know, Benedict's going to be the one that heals the schism and all this. And nothing really came of that. There was always just sort of this limbo status. And then now we have this new event of a new excommunication. What are your thoughts on the recent drama?

[David Riley]

Well, you know, I think it's interesting especially to unpack. And there's like so many different aspects of this to unpack. First of all, is just following through the events of what had happened from 1988 to now. In 88, the society was or the. The archbishop and the four bishops that were consecrated, Tissier, Williamson, Gallaretta and Philay. Right. All five of them were excommunicated. And there was a letter that was issued by the Pope declaring the Society of St. Pius X to be schismatic. Now, fast forward to 2009. Pope Benedict comes in and he lifts the excommunications on the bishops, but they never formally rescinded the opinion that the Society was schismatic. And so this caused a lot of debate. And I have some tweets that are up from, you know, even February of this year where people were calling the society schismatic. And it's like, time out. Either we're schismatic or we're not, number one. And number two, if we weren't in schism and now with these new consecrations, we are in schism. You see what I mean? That means that actually we were in Communion up until five days ago. So which is it? Because it can't be both. You can't go into schism two or three times. Right. It's kind of a one and done. So it is kind of confusing then, you know, with the actual Order of Excommunication from Tuco Fernandez that came out from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the faith, from what I'm seeing, and I don't know if I can put. I might be able to put this on the screen, but according to Info Vaticana, the formula used by Tuco to excommunicate priests and lay people lacks penal effectiveness. And there was also a segment with Father Gerald Murray, who's a canon lawyer, also saying that the order given by Tuco Fernandez is invalid in form. He didn't use the right words. He didn't use the right procedure. And so the issue that I think we do have, I do believe that the excommunication of the six bishops is valid and binding. We'll see how that gets resolved in the future, hopefully. But the order supposedly excommunicating the 750 priests and over a half a million lay faithful is invalid. It is absolutely invalid.

[Jay]

And the reason for that is because a canon lawyer, a canon lawyer says that. Yeah, say it again.

[David Riley]

It lacked proper form. They did not cite and use the correct form to actually do the excommunicating. It was a part of the opinion of Cardinal Fernandez that we are excommunicated. It was not actually a part of the order that we are excommunicated.

[Jay]

So in, in your, in your mind, who's sort of the final arbiter of that? Is it canon lawyers or is it Rome?

[David Riley]

I believe it would be the Roman Rota, actually. So that would be the, like, grand jury, essentially for the, the Church's judicial wing. There should be hearings at this point. There will probably be some sort of formal response from the Society. I do believe that they issued that a couple of days ago. And what in normal procedure should be happening from here is hearings in the Vatican with judges, with lawyers, with evidence, where they argue the facts of the case. And the interesting thing about that is once an excommunication has been appealed, the actual penalty of the excommunication is lifted until the case is actually settled in court.

[Jay]

So, yeah, so there's a long way to go on. But you're saying the original, the specifically the excommunication of six bishops is valid, but not all the 700 or whatever priests, correct?

[David Riley]

That is my understanding, as per Father Gerald Murray and the canon lawyers at Info Vaticana, this is not. I am not a theologian, I am not a canon lawyer. I'm doing the best that I can with the information that I've got.

[Jay]

Do you accept the 19. What is 17 code only, or do you. The 1983 code?

[David Riley]

No, 83 code. The 83 code is, is pretty generous, actually. With all of this stuff, I mean, not only, like I said, will, should there be hearings about this, but also the intention on the part of the consecrator needs to be taken into account. Because According to the 1983 Code of Canon Law, if the consecrator believes that there is a state of necessity in the Church, and the Society has been cataloging that for decades now, that there is a state of necessity in the Church, then that bishop that makes the consecrations operating under that idea does not incur the full penalty of excommunication. It is less According to the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

[Jay]

But couldn't every single person who has a disagreement or a schism with Rome claim an extremists and the same excuse?

[David Riley]

I mean, theoretically, could they? Yeah. Whether or not that's, it's re. I mean, you know, I think that they would be on dubious grounds to do that. I, I do think that the Society.

[Jay]

Well, how is the Society's grounds not dubious, but any other person's grounds just de facto dubious?

[David Riley]

Well, I don't, I don't know if it would be de facto dubious. I guess it would have to be judged on, on a, on a case by case basis. You know, certainly the state of necessity doesn't give you license to do anything. And it's very clear that the bishops and the leadership of the Society St. Pius X were doing this not just because they wanted to, but because there is a state of necessity for the Society to have pre, or to have bishops to be able to confer the sacraments to the faithful that, that want genuinely Catholic sacraments and teaching and schools.

[Jay]

Okay, but the state of necessity there, I mean, I thought Rome, according to Vatican 1, is what ensures that we would not fall into that situation. So how is it that, how is it that a French society of bishops decides what the state of necessity is for the universal Church?

[David Riley]

True. Well, I mean, you know, I do think it's one thing where, like the Church isn't going to come out and say, hey, by the way, we're in a state of necessity now, so anything goes. I think that's kind of like a part of the state of necessity itself and this, this particular state of necessity that we find ourselves in today. But dang, there was a point that I was going to make. Did you mention something about canon code or canon law? Ah, it slipped my mind.

[Jay]

Well, again, yeah, that's fine. You can come back. But I'm. Let me ask it this way. Have you, have you by chance read Vatican One. I'm not trying to put you on the spot.

[David Riley]

Just.

[Jay]

Just curious.

[David Riley]

That is, that is exactly the point that I was going to make. So on the one hand, right, you're, you're saying, and I think very, very truly, that, you know, Peter is the, the proximate rule of faith. Being in communion with Peter is obviously a good thing to be in with. That said, Vatican 1 also states in Pastor Returnus of 18 July of. Was it 1860, which is the papal bull or the, the doctrine Proclamation on papal infallibility. It says that the Holy Spirit was not given to Peter and his successors, that they might make known new doctrine that. But that they might saintly safeguard and faithfully expound the deposit of faith which has been handed down from Christ and the apostles.

[Jay]

Yeah, but who's, but who's the who's. Yeah.

[David Riley]

Not supposed to. To. To have new doctrines. And then, of course, in 1988, the, what was it, the papal bull excommunicating the Society Ecclesia De? In that document, John Paul II says that Vatican II taught new doctrines. So how is this possible? How is it possible that Vatican one says we can't teach new doctrines and that the Pope's infallibility is not given to him to teach new doctrines? And then on the other hand, we have John Paul II saying, hey, there's new doctrines in Vatican too. And by the way, if you don't accept those, we're excommunicating you.

[Jay]

Yeah, no, I don't doubt, I don't doubt that. But I mean, to me, it doesn't really seem to justify the position of the sspx. It rather justifies the position that papal teaching, papal dogma actually contradicts. Because if you look at Vatican 1, it's very clear in multiple places that you're bound not just to the extraordinary magisterial teaching, but also to the universal ordinary magisterium. And when I was in the sspx, the thing that eventually got me to leave was recognizing this very point. For example, canonizations. And it's not just canonizations. You could extend it to a lot of other things. When I had that debate with Father Post, you know, he had to come to the position that, well, he wanted to admit that canonizations would fall under magisterium, be it universal or whatever. I think you'd have to say it's universal because the whole, the whole church is going to honor these saints. But how could it be the case that John Paul II could be called a saint and that be part of the universal magisterium. So he was in the position, for example, in 2006 and 7 of saying that that can never happen. It's not possible. But it illustrates one element of the universal ordinary magisterium that you can't deny. Rome's past 70 years of what they've taught and promulgated under the guise of saying, I'm only bound by what's quote universe or what's extraordinary magisterium. So I'm curious, because there's four statements in Denzinger and statements outside of Denzinger and papal encyclicals that illustrate many, many times over that you're actually bound to all of the Roman sees, teachings and their disciplinary measures, not just the ones that you decide are extraordinary.

[David Riley]

Yeah, that's right. Governance. Teaching is faith, morals, governance and teaching.

[Jay]

So then how would you reject Vatican ii?

[David Riley]

Well, and this is precisely the point, right? I mean, when you look at Vatican II and you look at the time, there was the Ottaviani intervention. Cardinal Ottaviani was a very traditionalist, conservative cardinal in the church at the time, and he had raised some serious concerns about some of the new teachings in Vatican ii.

[Jay]

But he's not Rome, so it really doesn't matter, though.

[David Riley]

Sure, he's not Rome, but as a part of this, Cardinal Felici issued a theological note attached to Vatican ii, basically saying that everything here in this document, everything in Vatican ii, is not extraordinary teaching unless it otherwise states that there is a doctrine or dogma.

[Jay]

Well, but wait a minute. Is. So Cardinal Felici, who would be fallible, is then the ultimate interpreter of the infallible teachings of Vatican ii.

[David Riley]

Well, right. This is, again, part of the problem with it. And also, you know, one of the hallmarks that we're seeing from Rome is you have to accept Vatican 2. Specifically, you have to accept the reforms of the last 70 years. There is no such test for orthodoxy as to whether or not you adhere to Trent or the Council of Florence or Vatican I. There's absolutely no mention of the previous 20 ecumenical councils. It's only Vatican II that is being called into question. And specifically with these new excommunications of the SSP ex bishops, it is specifically about the acceptance of Vatican ii. And at the time, the. The bishops, the fathers of the council, didn't think that they were changing church teaching. I mean, if you even read Sacrosanctum, Concilium and a lot of the texts of the council, it says that things like Gregorian chant is supposed to hold primacy in the Church's. Worship that you're not supposed to tamper with or change the liturgy and, and be introducing all of these novelties that all came. That was the spirit of Vatican ii that wasn't actually in the Council. And so there's a lot of debate even among us traditionalists about, you know, was it Vatican II itself or was it the spirit of Vatican II or the implementation of Vatican ii? It's very confusing, and there's a lot of different positions on this.

[Jay]

Okay, well, Nostra a tate. Do you think that Muslims, Christians and Jews worship the same God? Is that. I mean, you said, you said a minute ago it was it that John Paul admitted that it has new teachings, but now it sounds like. It sounds like a hermeneutic of continuity. So which. Which one is it in your mind now?

[David Riley]

That's what was tried. I think we're seeing the. The hermeneutic of continuity fail in real time. I think that's kind of the point of what.

[Jay]

So. So you would then say that Vatican II is not magisterial teaching.

[David Riley]

I would say that Vatican II needs clarification. And I'm not the only one saying that. There was also Dubia introduced very recently under the. The pontificate of Pope Francis from Cardinal Burke and several others. I think Cardinal Mueller was involved with it as well. There have been Dubia against a lot of the teaching in Vatican ii, lodged not only at the time of the council with the Ottaviani intervention. Like I said, even as recently as the end of Pope Francis's pontificate, we were still waiting.

[Jay]

But I mean, you know, it's very common, for example, in Roman Catholic apologetics when one's debating a Protestant, to point out that you need the Magisterium to have certitude and finality on these key issues that divide people. So now you're saying that there could be this magisterium for 70 years. That is totally unclear. And now there needs to be a fallible counsel or clarification that would then clarify what's supposed to be the dogma.

[David Riley]

Well, right.

[Jay]

And.

[David Riley]

And it's. It's not just that it's unclear. It's that the teachings of Vatican ii, some of them, are explicitly opposed to what had been taught prior to.

[Jay]

But I'm asking. I understand, but I'm asking an epistemic question of. I thought the purpose of magisterium was to provide the certitude, but now you're saying that we need another commission that would most likely be fallible to clarify the infallible so how is this not an infinite regress that the papacy was supposed to solve?

[David Riley]

Right. Well, I mean, like I said, we're living in a crisis. This is a crisis of faith. It's a crisis of church teaching.

[Jay]

But does, but if you read Vatican One, does it speak as if there could be a situation where not only not Rome teaching error for. For one instance, but Rome teaching error in any dogmatic way in terms of not just extraordinary but also universal, ordinary for 70 plus years?

[David Riley]

No, this was absolutely not. This is unheard of. This was barely even thought about. I mean, you can look at.

[Jay]

But I'm saying, does Vatican One make it possible the way it's worded about Rome cannot teach error. It's absolutely impossible because it would deny not just the dogmatic infallible teaching office, it would also undermine the point of folk of focal unity, which is the Roman See and the Roman Pontiff.

[David Riley]

Yeah, yeah, I. I agree with that. I agree with that. And like I said.

[Jay]

Well, you agree with Vatican One.

[David Riley]

Yeah, I do. Absolutely. I accept. I accept.

[Jay]

Okay. Vatican One is saying that Rome cannot teach error. And you're saying Rome has taught error for about 70 years. I don't understand.

[David Riley]

Well, this is a part of the crisis. Right. And so there is a position that is further to the right or more based and trad. Pilled or whatever, which is set of accountism, which is the idea that we haven't actually had a Pope since 1958 and that all of the acts that have been coming out of Rome since that period of time have been coming from an anti Pope. Which is why. That's how they explain how there is.

[Jay]

I was. I was a set of accountists. I know. I have all the SATA books.

[David Riley]

Nice. I've got one of Father Cicada's books over here.

[Jay]

Is it the blue one? Is it the blue one of the. Well, there's. I'm thinking the Radecki brothers, not Cicada.

[David Riley]

Oh, the diamond brothers.

[Jay]

No, the. The Radecki brothers are a separate double.

[David Riley]

Okay.

[Jay]

But I'm familiar with the Dime brothers too, so I read all that stuff. I used to be in the SATA circles back in 2007, eight as well, because I was going to the SSPX, but I had the private opinion that I was set of a contest. So the problem with the SEDA position though, is different in that if you read C. Delegus of Pius xi, he wrote a letter, an allocution that dealt with the old Catholics. And in that letter he explains that the, the error that the old Catholics have is absolutely identical both to the SSPX in my view, and the set of a contest position that you could have a significant, massive alteration not just in the infallible teaching office in terms of airing of the Roman See, but also the fundamental change in the structure of the Church itself. And the thing that convinced me that SATA was impossible was not just the fact that Vatican 1 says, I think twice, that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church through the Roman See to have infallible successors until the end of time, which negates the possibility of there being 70, 80, 100 years of no Roman See or no successor. That's vastly different from a vacancy for a couple years when there's the election of a new Pope. This would be to fundamentally change the public, universal structure of the Church such that now everything that's been done for 70 years is invalid. It's not just a matter of losing the infallible teaching office. It's also the public, visible structure of the Church that's now lost because now it's just underground bishops, which are all fighting with each other and electing their own popes. You become a conclave is after set of a. So it's a vast denial of multiple aspects of Vatican I. And I guess I'm just trying to say that these are the issues that led me directly into orthodoxy, because there is no solution to 70 years of dogmatic error from Rome. And don't you think that the excommunication signifies this final sort of like reaffirmation that Rome is not interested in tradition at all? In fact, they're the enemies of it.

[David Riley]

Oh, did I lose you? You still there? They're the enemy of tradition. Is that what you said?

[Jay]

I said, does this not signify as I. Does it signified to me back when I was in the SSPX and we had the same sort of row and thing going on with under Benedict when there was no reconciliation and we didn't actually get a return to the Latin Mass? Does this not signify that Rome has no interest and will have no interest in returning to traditional? Especially since, for example, there's about five papal statements that Vatican II's reforms are, quote, magisterial. Francis just said it in 2017. He said all the liturgical revolutions and reforms are magisterial and cannot be undone. They're irreformable, he says. So does that not tell you that Rome is not interested in you and the trads and that they have moved on?

[David Riley]

Yeah, well, that's. That's Explicitly like what they said a couple of weeks ago. I think, I think Pope Leo himself said that we just need to quote, move forward. And so, you know, the society, St. Pius X did that. They consecrated new bishops, they moved forward and you know, we'll see whether or not the, the current Roman authorities can move forward because I think that this is going to be a stumbling block for them.

[Jay]

Do you accept John Paul as a saint?

[David Riley]

I have no issues with that at all.

[Jay]

No.

[David Riley]

I mean, I think it's totally possible, probable, maybe, I don't know, maybe not probable, but certainly possible that he's in heaven. And you know, if Peter, not that

[Jay]

is in heaven, but is he a saint? So that's more than just being in heaven. There's plenty of people in heaven that are not saints.

[David Riley]

Being a saint is the, the, the Holy See's approbation that this person is in fact in heaven. And it is totally okay for you to pray for them. But even before people are canonized saints, there's usually a culture of that person and people praying to this person for a miracle or for some sort of spiritual.

[Jay]

But if you said that you admitted that John Paul II admits that there's changes in Roman Catholic doctrine and John Paul II, more than anyone else after Vatican II implemented and did all of those radical actions. I'm just wondering how could he still be a saint if you're saying he admits to there being different doctrines that he promulgates?

[David Riley]

Sure, yeah. And again, you know, I get it. I understand that I, I am like. And there aren't that many of, of us like SSPX influencers. There's like two of us, right? There's like me and Kennedy hall and then the rest is like all set of acantists. We've got orthodox and then the papists, like the super Pope respector on, on X or whatever that's going around dunking on people. And I've got something to say about that in a bit. But the way that it used to be is that saints were supposed to be elevated in the minds of the faithful as a demonstration of some sort of heroic virtue that they had in their lives. Whether it was that they wouldn't compromise the faith, they wouldn't bow before a heretic or you know, they're, they're supposed to have some sort of virtue that was demonstrated to a heroic.

[Jay]

Sure, but you can't be a heretic and be a saint.

[David Riley]

Well, no, if you're a heretic, if

[Jay]

you, and you just said John Paul ii, but you said John Paul taught different doctrines according to you and him.

[David Riley]

He himself said that Vatican II taught

[Jay]

new doctrines and he taught all those things and implemented them more than anyone else.

[David Riley]

Yes, he did. That is.

[Jay]

So how could you be a heretic and be a saint? Or is he just a material heretic?

[David Riley]

Is he just a material heretic? It's possible. I mean, I can't judge him. I don't. I don't know.

[Jay]

So in the Roman system, I can be a material heretic and I can participate in other religious ceremonies and Assisi gatherings and go to mosques and pray in mosques and in synagogues, which in the first thousand years of Christianity, you're excommunicated if you pray in the synagogues.

[David Riley]

No, no, you're not supposed to do that. That is not a demonstration of heroic virtue by any stretch. I mean, my parents, when they were young, before Vatican ii, when they would walk to school, they were told by their teachers not even to look at Protestant churches, that it was a sin to even look at a Protestant church. And they would cross the street to. To walk on the other side of the sidewalk, to avoid even walking on the same side of the street as a Protestant church. That was back in the late 1950s when this was going on. And of course, now liberty, we've got the meeting of Assisi, we've got the, The Pope today out at some migrant facility. God knows, you know, it's a mess.

[Jay]

Well, so you mentioned that you do adhere to the 1983 canon law, you know, and it has in canon 752 that anytime the Supreme Pontiffs and the. Or the College of Bishops are teaching on a matter of faith and morals, even if it's not ex cathedral or dogma, even if you privately disagree, it says religious submission of intellect and will must be given to those teachings. So this is what they've been teaching for the last 70 years. How do you reconcile disagreeing with it when your Canon Law says you have to submit with religious with your intellect and your will.

[David Riley]

Yeah, this is, this is something that I, I would be out of my debt. Let me just. I'm going to reread this just so that I can confirm it again. While the ascent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even if they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. What is that supposed to mean?

[Jay]

So that means ordinary Teaching. Right. So you have three strata.

[David Riley]

Like if you're, if you're doing your ordinary teaching, then they should have it in their mind to be proclaiming the doctrine of the Church. How do you.

[Jay]

Yeah, but I'm saying, but what I'm saying is that you're not the one that gets to decide whether they're teaching the doctrine of the Church. Even if you privately think that you're, that they're wrong. If they're teaching in the ordinary way about faith and morals, your job is to submit with intellect and your intellect and your will. So this was the whole, this was the whole reason why in my situation I couldn't reconcile SSPX with these things.

[David Riley]

Yeah. And I think that this is a sloppy canon. I, I think that this, this deserves another look. Granted, I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a canon lawyer, I'm not a priest.

[Jay]

But what's sloppy about it? Because it's, I mean, you guys have three strata.

[David Riley]

How do you accidentally intend to proclaim a doctrine by definitive act? How do you accidentally do that?

[Jay]

How do you, what are you talking about accidentally? This is just saying, when they're not even.

[David Riley]

It says, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act, how is it possible that they could doctrine in a definitive act, essentially accidentally?

[Jay]

That's not what it's saying. It's talking about, it's talking about normative teaching. So like your bishop, when your bishop teaches in a homily or if he says our Church is going to do this or that in pertaining to faith and morals, so perhaps not about, you know, the Church's purchasing of a parking lot or something like that, but when it comes to faith and Morals or the U.S. conference of Catholic Bishops. Right. The duty of the Catholic is to submit to the ordinary teaching, even if it's not infallible. And this is because there's three strata. There's extraordinary, universal, ordinary and ordinary. And this is saying that even when it's not infallible, you have the duty to submit with intellect and will.

[David Riley]

Yeah. And I would, I would tend to agree with that if it didn't, you know, necessitate me shutting off my reason, if it didn't necessitate shutting my brain off to do so.

[Jay]

I mean, but isn't that what they told, I mean, every Dollinger at Vatican one. Right. Because Dollinger had a lot of the same qualms and hold ups. And they said you can either submit your intellect and will to the ruling of the Supreme Pontiff in Vatican 1, or you can, you know, follow your reasoning process which makes you doubt Vatican one. So I'm just saying that's an example that the Roman Catholic attitude is not that you get in the final analysis your private interpretation of canon law or the excommunications, it's to submit with intellect and will.

[David Riley]

Right? But the issue that we're running into today, especially with the new universal ordinary magisterium since the Council, the problem is that it has been the Pope explicating what the Council taught in the most heretical ways possible when it comes to inter religious dialogue.

[Jay]

Okay, so but now you just deny Vatican one. If the pope is teaching heresy since Vatican one or since Vatican two, that would be 70 years of the Roman See teaching and implementing heresy. That would deny Vatican one.

[David Riley]

Well, I don't deny Vatican one. Okay, so let's put that to bed.

[Jay]

I know you don't, but. But by saying that Rome teaches heresy for 70 years, denies the teaching of Vatican. The Roman sea cannot air and will not air until the end of the world.

[David Riley]

Right. It's a mystery. This is one of the things about the sspx.

[Jay]

Well, I thought you didn't want to turn your brain off. I thought you didn't want to turn your brain off. Now it sounds like it's a mystery.

[David Riley]

Well, right. So when it comes to like me making some sort of judgment on the, the person of the Pope or his personal holiness or what it is that I think his intentions are, I kind of suspend judgment on that. It's like, okay, we are, but you've

[Jay]

already made that judgment. If you think he's a saint, you've already made that judgment.

[David Riley]

If I think who's the same?

[Jay]

Leo xiv, John Paul. Right. You said.

[David Riley]

I said it's possible that he's in heaven and I hope that he's in heaven.

[Jay]

And I know, but if you're Roman Catholic, you have to believe that he is. Because unless you want to say canonizations are optional or can be fallible, you have to believe that he's a saint.

[David Riley]

I think that the. Look at, we should be taking another look at the process of canonization. I mean, I'm sure you're aware maybe some of the listeners are not. The, the term devil's advocate was a real position that was held in the tribunals for deliberating canonizations. And the devil's advocate used to present evidence that would show that the candidate in question is not in fact a saint. That, you know, there's all of these personal problems and doctrinal problems or whatever, they abol. That they abolished that to canonize Jose Maria Scriva.

[Jay]

Right. Which solidifies Vatican too.

[David Riley]

Correct. And, and when you look at a lot of these canonizations of Pope John xxiii, Pope Paul vi, John Paul ii, we know that they're going to canonize Pope Francis. That's totally going to happen.

[Jay]

Right.

[David Riley]

They are canonizing the council. That is what they're doing.

[Jay]

Yeah, exactly. That's what I was saying about Jose Mario Escriva.

[David Riley]

Yeah, sure. Yeah, absolutely. And so, you know, again, being in a crisis and the books are open for anybody to go look at. Right. You can go read the Syllabus of Errors by Pius ix.

[Jay]

You can. No, I know those all the time. I think they're, they're absolutely.

[David Riley]

Point in time when the Vatican definitively they changed what they taught, they changed their. And they're the ones that.

[Jay]

I agree. Absolutely. But here's the thing though.

[David Riley]

Like, do you, I know you go back to 1054.

[Jay]

Well, do you think that, do you think that canonizations are part of the universal ordinary magisterium?

[David Riley]

If a can of lawyer told me that was the case, I'd probably believe it. I don't know.

[Jay]

Well, I mean, if, if they're not. The problem is that we could conceivably doubt anybody, right? Could we down St. Augustine?

[David Riley]

I wouldn't. I don't, I don't think that you.

[Jay]

I mean, I'm a Protestant. I'm asking. Let's say I'm a Protestant. I'm saying, hey, can I have the right to doubt, you know, Pius the 10th? Can I doubt Augustine? What's.

[David Riley]

No. I would say no.

[Jay]

So then you can't doubt then. You can't doubt change.

[David Riley]

So then they no longer have the same safeguards in place.

[Jay]

But it doesn't matter what the safeguards are. If the promise of Peter is that the universal ordinary magisterium is also protected and if canonizations are part of that, then you can't doubt Jose Maria Scriva or John Paul ii.

[David Riley]

Right. They. Like I said, they're probably in heaven and God bless them. Pray for me. Please pray for all of us. But yeah, I mean like there. And there are issues with Jose Maria Scriva. He to be members of Opus Day at a time when being a communist would get you late tapes and NCA excommunicated.

[Jay]

So have you looked at the CIA funneling money into Opus Day?

[David Riley]

That's a big part of it began. It's in, it's in the Operation Gladio book by what's his face. Paul Williams, I think, wrote about that. And I've. I've got a long laundry list of issues with Opus dei, you know, but, but here, here's the thing, right? It's like we've got this issue happening where you've got German bishops that are being disobedient themselves. They're not adhering to the doctrine of the Church. They're not adhering to what?

[Jay]

And they're not excommunicated communicated.

[David Riley]

And nobody is claiming that they are outside of the Church. And you know, there is something that I do want to point out to people like Pope Respecter or these like super ultramontanists that are dunking on the Society for getting excommunicated. And congratulations on your new Protestant sect, Burn in Hell. Like E. Michael Jones, the way that he's going about this. Canon 383 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law says this is of the bishop, of course, but in exercising his pastoral office, the bishop is to act with humanity and charity to those who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church. And he should foster ecumenism as it is understood by the Church. And it's like, are any of these Pope respecting people following Canon 383? No, they're not. They're being assholes and they're, they're dunking on people and laughing about burning in hell. And then there is an excess on the other side. There are people that say, good, you know, I don't want to be in communion with Rome. And I think both positions are in error. I mean, this is a wound and it hurts. It hurts, you know, as a member of the Society, to see good, faithful Catholic priests and bishops being called non Catholic schismatic, that you're disrespectful. It's hurtful.

[Jay]

In the Roman system, especially post Vatican one. Isn't it Rome that decides who is in fact in communion with Rome?

[David Riley]

Yeah, I would imagine so. You know, but again, there's like explicit, like criteria that you can use to judge these things.

[Jay]

You can look at them, but who's the judge of that? Rome is the judge of that. Not Rome, not Filet, not any of those people.

[David Riley]

And I think Rome is not doing a very good job. I think that they've got people, I mean, for example, they've got people in charge of the DDF that don't know how to properly excommunicate people. You don't know how to write up an order of excommunication properly.

[Jay]

So, I mean, isn't that dude isn't. Didn't he write books about, like, butt stuff and kissing?

[David Riley]

Yeah, your mouth. The Art of Kissing by Tuco Fernandez. That's the name of the book that everybody cites, of course. And it's disgusting from what I understand.

[Jay]

But have you. Have you. Are you familiar with Octorum fide?

[David Riley]

Yes, that was the condemnation of the Synod of Pistoria.

[Jay]

I think the Jansenist. Yeah, but one of the things that the Jansenists complained about was that Rome had promulgated faulty rights.

[David Riley]

Rights.

[Jay]

And they're specifically condemned because it's impossible for Rome to promulgate faulty rights to the Church. So I'm curious, wouldn't that be one of the major critiques that the Society has against the Vatican?

[David Riley]

You know, this is an interesting thing. So I believe it is canon 13 of. I forget which session of the Council of Trent that says that all of the rights that have been handed down and received over the ages, right? Like we receive the Mass, we receive the Rite of Baptism, we receive the right of Confirmation, that all of those rights that we receive should be kept in their whole intact and not changed by any one of the pastors of the church, whomsoever the believe. The word that's used there is kwakumque, which is all of the pastors, including the Pope. So when we come to Vatican ii, Vatican II itself did not, not promulgate a new Mass. In fact, just the opposite. It would have strengthened the Latin Mass. It would have said, you know, that

[Jay]

things like, okay, but so you're saying the Novus Ordo is not defective in its, what, Latin version?

[David Riley]

No, what I'm saying is that the Novus Ordo is a new right. I believe it is a valid right, but it is not the Roman right. It's a different new right that was constructed and promulgated by Paul vi.

[Jay]

Do you know, the Roman. You know, the Latin Mass underwent a lot of. A lot of revolutions. This is something else that took me out of the Latin Mass was that if you look at the first thousand years of the liturgy in the west, it's actually not the post Tridentine ritual. So there's. There's a significant change and revolution that occurred throughout those centuries, even in the west. And the west had several different rights. So the idea that the Trident. The idea that the Tridentine Mass is literally kind of like the patristic era Latin. Right. That's. That's not true.

[David Riley]

I will absolutely grant that. And furthermore, you know, one of these issues and, and I see this is like, I guess an Error, maybe of. Of defect on, on the one side is that, you know, when you think about all of these other heresies, Donatism or Jansenism or who are the Albigensians, right. In France, all of these heretics went to the Latin Mass, or at least whatever we would have conceived of as the Latin Mass. Martin Luther would have celebrated the Latin Mass. So just because you have the Mass doesn't mean that you have the faith. And the faith is what is the important thing here. Now, there is that law of the Church, Lex Arandi statue at Legend Credendi. The law of. That would. The law of what is to be prayed, statutes, what should be believed. So when you change a prayer, you necessarily are also changing belief. But yeah, it's a ma. I mean, I do not hold that all Novus Ordos are invalid. You know, I'm of the opinion. I've got a lot of friends that go to the Novus Ordo. My buddy Vince James, for example, he goes to the Novus Ordo. I've got a lot of friends at the Fraternity of St. Peter, and I. I think we're all Catholic. That being said, I do think that if you're talking about the Roman Rite, it's the Latin Mass. And if you're trying to compare the Novus Ordo to the Latin Mass, the Novus Ordo is lacking in certain things, like the explicit understanding that it is a propitiatory sacrifice, that it is. That it is the representation of Calvary, that the body and blood do in fact. Come on.

[Jay]

Right, but, but I don't think. Yeah, but the Jansenists didn't argue that Rome promulgated invalid rights. They argue that Rome promulgated defective rights. So it sounds like you're saying that the Novus Ordo is in that way defective. So apart from validity. Okay, but, so, but that is the Jansenist argument that Rome can promulgate defective sacramental rights.

[David Riley]

Yeah, but that wasn't all of what Jansenism was.

[Jay]

Well, that's not. But that's. I'm talking about specifically, what's a condemned proposition of the Jansenism is that Rome can promulgate defective rights. That's in Denzinger.

[David Riley]

Right. And like I said, there is some dialogue, there is some debate around whether or not Paul VI validly promulgated the new Mass. There. There are questions about how it was promulgated, how it was descended.

[Jay]

But again, that would, that would mean that for 70 years, Rome has erred by promulgating a defective, problematic sacramental. Right. So Again, it's like back to the same point of, this is really undermining the, the idea of universal, ordinary, magisterial teaching.

[David Riley]

Yeah, I mean, I, maybe, and maybe, like I said, maybe, bro, that should

[Jay]

tell you to be orthodox, dog. That's the thing. That's the, that's the point. The problem is Vatican 1, dude. It's not just Vatican II, it's Vatican 1. And Vatican 2 is like that, the night and day that says, look, maybe the problems are a little earlier than that.

[David Riley]

Well, listen, and, and the problems of the modern age certainly do predate Vatican 2. I mean, you can look at, for example, Pendi Dominici Graes, the great encyclical of Pope Pius X warning about modernism and liberalism infecting the Church, that came out in 1910. So clearly these problems were already there, certainly with the Revolutions of 1848. We all know the story of Pope Pius IX. He was a famous liberal that, you know, eventually became more traditional, more conservative after he became pope. But, yeah, yeah, this is like, you know, like the crux of the problem. But I, I can't become Orthodox because that is not my right. And I'll get into this a little bit.

[Jay]

What do you, what do you, what do you mean?

[David Riley]

It is not my r, I, T, E, it is not my right. My right is the Roman Latin. Right.

[Jay]

You just said, but you just said a minute ago that the Latin Mass is not the faith. So shouldn't the faith come before the expression in the liturgy? So now you're saying the opposite.

[David Riley]

Well, but the faith is different between Catholic and Orthodox, obviously. Like, we have disagreements.

[Jay]

Well, but the point is that even on your own grounds, it's the faith over the right. But you're saying I can't be Orthodox because of the right.

[David Riley]

I'm saying that I, I want both the, the faith of my fathers and I want the right of my father. I want both. I, I, I shouldn't have to make some weird fian.

[Jay]

In the Orthodox world. There's plenty of Latin right liturgies, which are basically the same as the pre, you know, they're basically the pre Tridentine Latin. Right? So that would be the Latin heritage. So another, even this argument really doesn't, doesn't make any sense.

[David Riley]

I guess, maybe, maybe from the way that you're looking at it, I could see that. But, so my, my family comes from Alsace, France. Right. Right on the border of France and Germany. And during the French Revolution, my family smuggled priests from Germany into France. We had secret masses in our farmhouse at the time that the French Revolutionary government had prohibited public masses, we eventually got caught doing this. The townspeople called up the revolutionary army. They came out, stormed the house, they burned down our house, they burnt the farm down, and they took my family on a caravan to be guillotined in Paris. At the last minute, they were rescued and they went to Germany and then they came to America. But it's like here, you know, this is my family willing to die for their faith, willing to die for access to the sacraments. And it is that Mass that they would have celebrated.

[Jay]

Well, I mean, I get that, that. And that's a noble thing, but what does that have to do with which positions are theologically right or wrong? Because if a Protestant said to you, look, I come from a Huguenot French Calvinist family. That's my background. Background. I mean, you wouldn't say, well, I guess you got to keep your family tradition. Family tradition. We're going to be Hank Williams here, right? I mean, you would say, yeah, but the faith comes first. Before, you know, your family liturgical heritage. Sounds like an idol.

[David Riley]

Oh, I don't think it's an idol. I mean, it's, it's like the concept,

[Jay]

if it comes before the faith, well, how is it not like, so Saint Maximus was willing to get his tongue cut out over, you know, Christological disputes. Sounds to me like that mattered more theologically speaking than like family tradition. I'm not trying to knock the family traditions. I'm just saying, like, I don't, I don't understand that line of reasoning. Like, why. I understand it impacts you personally, existentially. And I'm not denying that. But I'm just saying, like, but really that has nothing to do with which positions are true or false.

[David Riley]

No, certainly not. I would, I would also grant that. I guess it is just my read, my reading of history. It is my reading of the, the. The Church documents, the things that have been promulgated, the councils. It is my read that the, the crisis that, the doctrinal thing, that this is something modern that happened in the late 1800s into the early 1900s, specifically modernism, liberalism, the modern eras, religious liberty, collegiality, ecumenism, and all of these types of things. And so the idea is to do as little harm as possible to, you know, and this is like one of the reasons for, like, I personally, personally Prefer the pre 1955 Latin Mass, especially Good Friday. The SSPX does not do that. They do the 1962. I wish they did the pre 55, but they are operating under this. Do as little as possible, change as little as possible in order to. To kind of get onto a good footing, if you will, in this crisis, as opposed to just throwing the baby out with the bath water. I think they're trying to take measured approaches to the crisis. And, And I kind of agree with that. I. I would be like, okay, let's do the. The least amount that we can to keep our conscience to, you know, to be practicing the faith as well as we can.

[Jay]

Are you familiar with Michael Hoffman?

[David Riley]

Yeah, he lives up here.

[Jay]

Yeah, I thought he did. He has a book, and I don't know if he still goes to sspx, but I think at one point he kind of went to some SSPX masses. But he wrote a really interesting book that kind of opened my eyes to stuff that I wasn't aware of when. Even when I was a tribe. I read it after become orthodox. But he wrote a book called Occult Renaissance Church of Rome. And it's a very fascinating analysis of the Renaissance papal period. And one of the things that he highlighted in several chapters was Renaissance papal ecumenism. And he makes the argument, I think, convincingly, that Vatican II's ecumenism actually wasn't new. And I know you pointed to earlier periods, perhaps in the 1800s, of liberalism creeping in. And I've read all the 1700s and 1800s papal encyclicals as well. So I'm familiar with the things they wanted to combat in terms of Freemasonry and liberalism and all that. But if you go back to the Renaissance period, you begin to see also that. That. No, actually the papacy was engaging in a lot of these same types of, you know, Renaissance magic, Pico della Mirandola style, ecumenism through Neoplatonism, Neoplatonic magic, even back then. And so there's a trad cat admitting that, like, ecumenism actually isn't a Vatican II thing. It's actually much, much older. So I'm saying that, Michael, if you're

[David Riley]

out there, I want to take you out to lunch. Okay. I tried Dming him on Twitter. I think he thought I was like a fed or something. Something. So I wasn't able to. I would love to take Michael Hoffman out for lunch and chat with him. He's done some. He has done some really great work. I mean, we can also look to things like the pornocracy, right? The pornocracy was basically like 1000 AD to about 1100 AD when one Roman family, I forget their name, was it the Theosophist I forget the name of the family. But basically they had like total control over the papacy. They had like their surrogates installed as the popes.

[Jay]

That was the, it was the Frank. So the 11th century is the period when the Franks controlled the papacy through nepotism. They basically installed most of the posts throughout that century.

[David Riley]

So you, you have, there was a crisis there, right? There was of course, the Aryan crisis, right? Where you have, was it Pope Liberius that was kind of cooperating with semi Aryans and then, you know, excommunicated Saint Athanasius? There, there is a period of a, of a kind of similar crisis. Then the pornocracy, uh, then there's the, the Great Western schism, uh, where the Avignon crisis. And you've got, you know, speaking of saints, you've got like St Catherine of Siena on one side and St Vincent Farrer on the other, both of them backing different popes, both of them excommunicating one another. But now, you know, here it is. It's like you, you, you could be a faithful Catholic. You can look to the example of St. Catherine of Siena or the example of St. Vincent Farrer, both of whom follow different popes, but both of whom were also Catholics and saints. And so, you know, we've got this thing that's happening now, like I said, where all of these people are crawling out of the woodwork to tell the society, St. Pius how, how not Catholic, right? When it's like. No, we have examples.

[Jay]

Yeah, no, I get that. I get that for you guys. You could use those periods as examples. But from those from the outside looking in, I mean, in that period, in that.

[David Riley]

Huh, I said it's a mess.

[Jay]

So in that period with say with Catherine and Vincent, was Rome the guarantee tour of unity during that time?

[David Riley]

Well, see, and this is just that. This is, this is, this, this gets into it. You know, I would love to see how some of the the Pope. Pope explainers would explain that to me. It would be.

[Jay]

Well, but I mean you're, you are a kind of pope splainer as well, because you have a duty to defend Vatican I. So I'm just curious, was Rome the guarantor of unity during that period?

[David Riley]

No, the faith was the guarantor of unity, it seems.

[Jay]

Okay, but. But the faith of what? Because Vatican one says the faith of the Roman Church is the guarantor of unity throughout all the periods of the Church.

[David Riley]

Well, and I do think that there is a unprecedented nature to the current crisis in that I don't actually Think that it was the faith itself that was contested during the Avignon Crisis. It was. Whether or not, you know, According to

[Jay]

Vatican 1, the focal point, the rock of the faith, is the Roman. Roman. See, so that'd be like saying that the. The place of the Bishop of Rome isn't actually part of the dogmatic structure of the Church. Of course it is. What do you mean? How would it not be part of the faith if it's about the Roman bishop?

[David Riley]

Right. Well, yeah, I'm not qualified.

[Jay]

That's fine. Let me give. I got one. I got one last question, because this has been a great conversation, and I know you probably want to get. You want to get out on the boat. We got a few. Do you want to say for super chats, or do you need to. To head out?

[David Riley]

I'll stay for super chats. That's fine.

[Jay]

So last question is in your mind, and I'll let you answer. I'm not trying to trap you or anything, but I want to. I'd like to hear what you. As a faithful Roman Catholic in your position, what is it that tells you when something is magisterium versus not magisterium?

[David Riley]

Can I be, like, just brutally honest here? In my position as a Roman Catholic, as a father of three, soon to be four, it does not enter my head at all, this question. What enters my head is looking at my children and thinking to myself, how can I transmit to them what wasn't transmitted to me? Right. Because there was this break of transmission. My parents left the church in 1972. Then they came back, and, you know, we had this whole talk of my conversion. But it's like, I have a duty as their father to transmit the faith to them and to raise them in such a way that they retain the faith in their adulthood and that they eventually form families of their own and lead their children to heaven. That's where my mind is at. How best can I do this? And so when. When I'm wrestling with this question, it's like, okay, I look at the diocesan churches, and they are teaching kids the most insane, heretical stuff about ecumenism, about the body and blood isn't really present there. They're. They're teaching them. I mean, look at how many transgender kids are coming out of these new diocesan Catholic schools. It's. It's insane. It's sick. It's. It's horrifying. And so I'm sitting there looking at that like, okay, yeah, I can't in good conscience send my children to be educated here on the Other hand, here's a group of Catholics, the Society of St. Pius X. They operate schools. They teach the kids the faith that my father would have learned when he was in grade school. And not only that, they do it in the exact same way. No iPads, no Chromebooks, no cell phones, no social media presence. It's this immediate expulsion from the society schools, if any of those things are there. And so I'm thinking to myself, how do I get my kids to heaven? And that's, that's really where my adherence to this.

[Jay]

I mean, I get, I get the practical answer, and I don't. I'm not trying to negate the importance of that. But I mean, for example, the question of, you know, should I support the death penalty? Right. That comes into play with Magisterium and mean, is that a question?

[David Riley]

And I do support the death penalty.

[Jay]

No, I mean, that's great. But I'm just saying, like, in terms of the present papal teaching, what is the principle that tells you what to go by in terms of, like, whether the present teaching is the magisterial of affirmation or the previous traditional teaching?

[David Riley]

I, I would err on the side of what came before would take precedence over what we're seeing today, specifically, because we are seeing novel teachings that have never been taught. We have, like, centuries of tradition, both east and west, talking about, for example, the death penalty. We have St. Thomas Aquinas, we've got common law. And now all of the sudden happening at the same time that we're getting all of these other novelties, the Pope is spitting out, oh, yeah, by the way, the death penalty is.

[Jay]

But what. So. Right. And I agree with you, I agree with you. But let me. What would you say when an old Catholic person says to you, hey, David, that's the same principle I use to believe everything prior to Vatican 1, because that was the previous traditional teaching prior to Vatican one.

[David Riley]

Yeah. What would I say to the old Catholic that they need to, they need to accept Vatican one?

[Jay]

No, no, no, no. The question was, what do you say to an old Catholic who says on the basis of the exact same epistemic principle of adhering to tradition. Yeah, I, I have the same position. I just don't believe anything after Vatican one.

[David Riley]

Yeah, I mean, I just, I, I don't think that Vatican 1 taught new principles. I think that Vatican 1 explicated principles were present.

[Jay]

But the problem is the epistemic criteria is the same. And so if you have that criteria, and that's what tells you what, what magisterium is and isn't. And everyone else has that same criteria. What do you do when they come to absolutely different conclusions? If the criteria is just. I go with what was always traditionally taught. What do you say to a person who is an old Catholic who says, amen, brother? That's why I don't accept Vatican one.

[David Riley]

Yeah. I, I don't know what I would particularly say there. I mean, I guess I would like, look at, for example, like, the definition of, of Mary as the theoticos. Right. Like, this was hotly debated. There were people that said that she was. I mean, and, and this comes back to like, for example, something that we're dealing with in the Church today, that we, the, the, those of us that go to the Society of St. Pius X for Mass, we believe that Mary is the mediatrix of all graces. And the Pope basically said three or four months ago that that's not Catholic.

[Jay]

Right. Yeah. And again, like, the point was. Right. The point was to show that if the epistemic criteria for identifying Magisterium is, quote, to follow what the tradition said prior to the new teachings, that allows a person to essentially say, yeah, so what? That's why I'm an old Catholic and I don't accept Vatican one. So. And I'm not asking how would you apologetically argue against an old Catholic? Because I know you're going to cite all kinds of things that you would say. But I'm saying that shows the problem in the epistemic criteria that to say that the way to identify Magisterium is, quote, whatever tradition says then allows the person to say. Based on my interpretation and my private judgment, I've decided that tradition broke off at, you know, old Catholics or. No, it goes back to, you know, po. No, no. Right. There's the, There's a group of set of a contest that think that Pius IX was the last of authentic Pope. So.

[David Riley]

Highest ix.

[Jay]

Yeah. There are nonests. Yeah.

[David Riley]

Wow, that's new.

[Jay]

So that's my point is like, how do we know that the epistemic criteria that you outlined there, that we go by what was traditional and not a new teaching? How do we know that that's the right criteria?

[David Riley]

I would have to admit that that doesn't suffice on its own. I would. I would have to say that it doesn't suffice on its own and in any other period of time. I would tell you that Rome is the proximate rule of faith and that you would look to the Sea of Peter.

[Jay]

All right, yeah, go ahead.

[David Riley]

I mean, I know that. That's contradict. Yes, I know that that's contradictory. Yes, I know the Pope hates us. But that. That would be the answer that I would. That I would give in any other normal time in the Church. And I'm sure that they would argue.

[Jay]

Every old Catholic would say, this is an emergency crisis scenario.

[David Riley]

So I might get it.

[Jay]

It was a great discussion. I will have David links. David's links below. He does want to stay here for Super Chat. So let's get into those. Let me scroll back here. We've got first. Super Chat is. Where'd it go? I'm underwater. No, we did that one last time. Excuse me. JB Peltier says for $2, this man sounds like FM radio is in his bloodstream. Well, you did hear that his dad was a radio guy, so he definitely has a talented radio voice for sure. Thanks, Nathaniel. $10. Can I get a wigger to get a dollar bill? All my wiggas? Holla if y' all could cast a spell real quick. That's right. JB Peltier, $5. Sounds pretty ad hoc. JB felt if you. Feel free to spawn if you want to. I don't care.

[David Riley]

I was gonna say, I think that there's a little bit of this that is kind of ad hoc. I mean, again, you know, like, you know, Archbishop Lefebvre, he didn't even want to start the Society of St. Pius X. He was asked to do it by priests that approached him. He was. He thought he was going to retire to Rome and live a quiet life and just fade away. So I do think that there is kind of an element of this that is ad hoc, where it's like people are coming and asking him. And, you know, he. He's trying to understand it as it's happening in real time. Of course, hindsight is 2020 with a lot of this stuff, but when you look back at a lot of the things that Archbishop Lefebvre said, he was vindicated. I mean, especially when it comes to.

[Jay]

Is it true? I'm remembering from my SSPX days. This is a long time ago. Is it. Am I remembering correct that Lefebvre did sign the documents of Vatican ii? Is that correct?

[David Riley]

Yes, he did.

[Jay]

Okay.

[David Riley]

Now, he might have signed all but, like, one, maybe all but one, maybe maybe two that he didn't sign, but generally speaking, he did. And he explained that he never thought that the authorities in Rome would take the. The inch that they gave and run a mile. He never foresaw that. He did not think that they would be interpreting the documents in the liberal fashion. He thought that. That Rome was going to continue to be Orthodox and expl. And expound things the way that they had been. Not in his wildest dreams. I don't think he thought that they would be making a whole new rite of mass or completely redoing the rite of baptism confirmation. That they would be substituting olive oil for peanut oil, which is what happens in a lot of dioceses. So, yeah, I don't think he foresaw that when he signed those documents.

[Jay]

JB $5. Ever observing, waxing, learning and not coming to the knowledge of the truth. Nick at night, $10. Watered down Christianity here. The idea that there aren't fake sects of Christianity is nonsense. I don't think anybody here is arguing that there aren't fake sex. I think we would definitely agree there. Joshua Tree. Thank you for that. JB $5. Cases like this feel like trying to deprogram cult members. Well, I don't think David is a cult member member, but some of the, some of the super chats might be mean, so I can't control.

[David Riley]

I've got thick skin.

[Jay]

I think you got thick skin. He can handle it. Telemachus. $10. Jay, do you have any book recommendation on Byzantine history? I mean, I think the John Julius Norwich trilogy is the most famous. I've also read the. I've not read all that. It's massive. But I have the bridge version and the full version right over there. There's also the Stephen Runciman little book that's pretty good, that's more readable about Byzantium. So I would recommend Those. Nick at night, 10. $5. You can't convince me that there's a difference between a fedora and this guy. Well, he does have a pipe, so I think that's. The fedora guys don't usually smoke pipes, so pipes are very much like a trad cat sort of. I mean, there's some orthodox pipe smokers,

[David Riley]

but kind of close. You know, it's. It's a cowboy hat now.

[Jay]

He's got. Yeah, so he's not full fedora there. He's full on cowboy dude. I mean, country boy can't survive family tradition. He was saying family tradition earlier. So he's going full Hank with that hat. Lenny Grad, $20. This is frustrating. All argumentation flows off of Roman Catholics like water off of a duck's back.

[David Riley]

Thank you for the comment.

[Jay]

JB $5. J. Objection. David. No, no, no. You don't understand. I'm not. I. I'M not done being confused. True Jesus to ama. $5. Jay, what's your opinion on openness to life in third world countries? My fiance is insecure. Do you mean openness to having children? I think we should all be open to having children. If you're marriage married. So I'm not sure what you mean. Nick at night. $10. The goal of various sects is to accept everyone like thieves on the cross. Literally leading people to their own demise. Accept them like thieves on the cross. I'm not sure I understand that. Potato. Potato dealer. Go ahead.

[David Riley]

I don't understand.

[Jay]

Potato. $5. Jay, is patience maxing. Long form with an open call. With a try cat. We'll see. People say I don't ever patience Max. And I'm mean. So there we go.

[David Riley]

Not mean.

[Jay]

Maybe some. Very rarely. I think I'm actually mean. But on the average it's just. It's more like a court case. I feel like a lawyer. I'm not a lawyer, but I feel like I'm in a court case. When I'm debating, I treat it like that. But outside of that, I'm not mean. You could ask Tim Gordon. JB2 dollars. I cannot be orthodox because I don't know. Nuh. Whoa. Jack. $20. Become Orthodox or be gay. Those are the options. Riley, $10. Dave, we love you. This is from Riley and Victoria.

[David Riley]

Oh, thank you. Oh, I know who they are. Thank you for watching. They're orthodox. They're my orthodox friends.

[Jay]

Okay. Actually, Ortho car is $5. Not. You're right. He who loves father mother more than me is not worthy of me. Rachel Wilson, $5. I want and quote I shouldn't have to is cope. And the kind of thing that you usually hear from teenagers. Come on, dude, it's time to get serious.

[David Riley]

Hey, Rachel, unblock me. How about that? Let's start there and then we can. We can have a little dialogue.

[Jay]

Nick, at night? This guy is Pride Month Protestant. Well, he's got kids. I don't think he's Pride Month. Bird, $10. Orthodoxy is everyone's right. I do like David's good faith though. Riley Chapman, $10. Dave, we love you. Raleigh and Victoria again. So they double love you.

[David Riley]

Double love. I'm gonna have to have a barbecue.

[Jay]

Nick, at night. $5. It's embarrassing. He looks like a road scholar. If we compare him to David Wood. I think everybody's a road scholar compared to David wood. Joe Wags, $10. Good chat. It's just two dudes talking chorch to use that rouge Lawn speak. Cameron, $5. Dave, if your kids grow up and they wanted to be Orthodox, what would you, would you support that?

[David Riley]

I would try to convince them not to, but I would still love them. That would be an important thing. And of course that's why I'm sending my kids to the schools that I'm sending them to. The recidivism rate is like unbelievably low. Specifically the girls school that I'm sending my daughter to. Every graduate that I know from that school is married and has a, has a big family. So hopefully that won't happen. If they did, I'd still love them. Maybe they would come back and watch this video and be like, yeah, my dad's a doofus. I'm orthodox. I don't, I don't know.

[Jay]

Guns do yoga. $5. Become orthodox. Give up the cognitive dissonance. The contradictions are systemic defeaters for Rome. Brio. Brio Burr Holzer, $5. Thank you, David, for this conversation. It was actually very enlightening. It's very straightforward and I like that the positions are laid out. JB, $5. These days disagreements boil down to whether we are being arbitrary. Arbitrary or all is well and good. Remember guys, we get, you got to get. I'm not trying to be a douchebag, but you got to do above the two dollar tier. I can't read a million. One dollar. Super chat. So we got to be above the two to three dollars for. I'll read it. K kg, ten dollars. How were Roman Catholics not guaranteed to ultimately stumble into Vatican 2? By replacing the infallibility of the Church with that of an individual. Let me reread that. How are Roman Catholics guaranteed to not fall into Vatican 2 if what you go by is the infallibility of an individual?

[David Riley]

Well, it would be based on the infallibility of the individual guided by the light of the Holy Ghost to saintly safeguard and faithfully expound the faith and doctrine of the Church as it had always been expounded and not to teach new doctrines, which is what Vatican 1 says. So I think, yeah, I don't think that they thought that this could happen.

[Jay]

Right. Well, I would agree with that. Would you agree that this, with this proposition? Maybe you would qualify it. Do you think that the. The ultimate interpreter is all a question, not a proposition? Do you agree that the ultimate interpreter of the deposit of faith and tradition is the Roman Sea?

[David Riley]

Yeah.

[Jay]

Okay. Blink $5. I am late to the stream. Dave, how are you coping with it? So disappointed. What's happening to Rome? Is disappointing. And wait, I'm so. I'm disappointed to see what's happening with Rome. It does not seem to correct itself.

[David Riley]

Yes. And not only is it not correcting itself, but it's, it's self reinforcing. Especially when you, when you go back and you look at certain documents like the Alta Vendita, which was put out, like, I think at the turn of the century, from the 1800s to the 1900s, the highest lodge of Freemasons in Italy, basically declaring war on the church and vowing that they would enter the seminaries to teach the next generation of priests, and eventually one day they would basically get a Freemason pope, which many people have argued was Pope Francis. And some are arguing that now Pope Leo XIV is in a similar vein as that. And so when you start seeing some of these things that are coming out, like the posthumous work of. Of Pope Benedict, talking about the seminaries as basically gay discos, you know, we are not by any means out of the woods on this yet. I think it's going to get worse before it gets better.

[Jay]

Millstone. Excuse me, Rachel Wilson, $20. I will unblock you if you remember what I blocked you for, because I do not remember.

[David Riley]

I don't remember what you blocked me for either. That's the thing. Like, I don't know. I've never had an issue with you or your husband, so I don't know. I'm sorry.

[Jay]

Millstone. $10. What are you smoking, Dave? I am a fellow pipe smoker.

[David Riley]

Ah. Today I am smoking some Peterson nightcap.

[Jay]

Well, you know, that's not the best diet cap that they got out there. You know, it's like, you know, it's like if you're gonna do a nightcap, it's like, why is it called night? You know, it's like evil and dark or whatever. It's the dark night of the soul. Your dark night. Know, it's like, like I couldn't resist, but ortho cards, $2. If Rome was a. I'm going to violate my principle here. If Rome was a true church, it would correct itself. Fluffy kitten, $5. And says nothing Byzantine. Melvin, $5. I thought Vatican one and Vatican two. Wait, I'm just. Let me reread that. If you thought Vatican 1 and 2 were bad, wait until Vatican 3. Do you think this will be a trilogy? Is this going to be a trilogy? Trilogy?

[David Riley]

You know, I was just. Before we, we went on stream, I was re watching that 1973 Martin Sheen flick, the Catholics. And of course, in that movie, It's a fictitious future I forgot about. Had just concluded.

[Jay]

Wow.

[David Riley]

So, I mean, God knows. God knows.

[Jay]

Is that actually a good movie? Because that's been on my list forever. Is it worth watching or is it stupid?

[David Riley]

No, I think it's interesting. I. I'm like, like I've got 15 minutes left to watch, so I've got to finish watching them before I can give like a full, A full kind of read on it. But I liked it. I liked what I saw so far. And I actually, I think it kind of gives a little bit of perspective on the crisis today. I mean, for them to be able to make a movie in 1973 like that that, you know, envisions basically the future that we're living in now. I think that they understood something there. So I do think that it is a, a, a decent movie to watch.

[Jay]

Orthodox for nieces, $10. I hope David begins a little bit more serious questioning about what is true. If he starts there and he reads Saint Seraphim Rose, say he will be naturally led into Orthodoxy. Seek what is true. Have you read any of like Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future or any of that?

[David Riley]

No, not yet.

[Jay]

It's a good book. I think you might like it. He also has a good civilizational critique that's very presuppositional called Nihilism Roots of the Revolution. They're both, both kind of very short, readable books. JB says nightcap is peak. Stevie says for $3. Can we say that what's happening in Rome is a reason why Rome. Sorry, sorry, is. Is false. Orthodoxy has remained strong throughout this time. Well, I would say that. I'm sure David would not agree with that.

[David Riley]

I would say, yeah, we would look at things like divorce and remarriage and contraception. I think there's certain issues among certain groups of Orthodox. Orthodoxy is not monolithic.

[Jay]

Well, I would say the answer to that. We have already, UBI has a documentary that we made answering that very question. So if you go to ubi, Petra's channel, if you'd like to hear the Orthodox response to that, because it's a little more involved than just like a 2, 2, 22nd response, but Ortho cars, $2. The Roman Catholic Church is top 10 anime betrayal of all time. Okay, let me. We got a couple more over here. It's always when you go over to YouTube, it's. You have to separate and find the ones that you didn't do yet. So all good. We might be getting near the end here. Let's see.

[David Riley]

I Say I do have a, I have a boat call.

[Jay]

We're almost done here. Yeah, let's see, last couple here would be. I might have gotten them all already. Let's see. Welcome to the new members by the way. I see several new members are popping up here. Thank you guys for joining fluffy kitten sends $5, doesn't say anything. Bod hizzle. $5. Here's a question for you, David. Last question of the night. What would you hope to see done in regards to Vatican 1 and Vatican 2? If for example there were a Bayes Pope to come about in the future, would you like to see it reversed?

[David Riley]

I mean, yeah, if we're going to go to Larpland for a second. I mean, you know, with the election of Pope Pius xiii, you know and he, he would come out on the loggia with his back turned to the people, he would refuse the papal blessing of the world and instead he would turn his back on the world and bless the church and then he would get the papal tiara out of. He would dust it off, put it on his head and then go out to St. Peter's Square with a copy of Vatican II which would be unceremoniously burned as the Vatican choir sings the Te Deum. That would be what I would envision in Larpland in reality. I think that just some, some clarifications on some of the new, new doctrines would be nice.

[Jay]

That would be. Well, I'm going to take these super chats and I'm going to send you a Metal Crusaders helmet that you can wear and when that, when that comes out. All right, well, hey David, thank you so much for joining me. It was a civil, interesting back and forth. Appreciate it. Nobody was mean. We had a good time and thank you for joining us.

[David Riley]

No, thank you for having me. It was great. All right, do it again.

[Jay]

Take it easy man.

[David Riley]

You too.

[Jay]

All right, so we do have some more super chats that just came in here towards the end. We got lenny grasses for $10. Look man, if the papacy fell into heresy and I let him go because he's was had another prior engagement, if the papacy fell into error it. Yet it dogmatically claims that it's not supposed to, then it was never true to begin with. That is essentially what I was kind of trying to convey. So you know, pray for David. Maybe he'll plant some seeds. He'll still think that through cleavage antiquity shout out to Cleave, he says for two hours. Great guest. Love that cordial conversation. Yeah, I think you know, and it's good to do these kinds of conversations too. Not just for optics but just to say, look, you know, we're not always mean and hating people. It's just total right where we can have, we really can have the conversations that the other people want to have. You know what I mean? Like a lot of the times it's the energy of the other person that sets the tone. And so I will match energy sometime. If they're particularly feisty and sassy and nasty, then I might get a little sassy back. But if people want to have just a cordial back and forth, you can absolutely have it. We've had tons of cordial back and forths with Tim Gordon and other Roman Catholics, even Managosi since $10 and he says nothing. Silence. Well, thank you Manosi, appreciate that. Make sure I didn't miss any super chats over here. Last chance to get in a couple. Nilbrook says what books are you reading right now or do you have next up? Well, we do have Vatican Spies so I'm a good way through this one. It's a pretty, I mean it's, it's a little, pretty thick here. I thought it was going to be a quick one but it's actually like 400 pages and it's a lot of information so I'm about 200 pages in. So we're looking forward to Vatican Spies. We might do Moses Hess's book Roman Jerusalem. That's very timely. He is of course the father of modern utopian socialism and the key architect of modern Zionism. So I think Moses Hess's own book, given the fact that it relies on sort of Spinoza, Hegelian type of weird philosophy, would be relevant. I meant to get through more of the, the MK Ultra books today but we only got through about half of it so maybe we'll do a part two since that's a very timely discussion happening right now. What's the other book that we got going? We finished Old Boys. I'm going blank on what the other. Oh, the Rothschilds biography. Right. So we got the last section of the Rothschild's biography which was amazing, wild. Of course I did cover that on the fourth hour of Lord Voldemort. You probably heard Lord Voldemort singing the praises of it, which I was surprised that he. Not that I'm surprised that he liked what we did, but he was really singing the praise of it the other day. So we got to do the part two of that, the rest of the Rothschilds biography which will be probably in the Next few days. Sometime this week, perhaps an upcoming week. We do have a lot of debates, a lot of things coming up. I want to remind you guys that. Oh, crap, I thought I had the. The debate con tickets. Where are they at? If you want to get your tickets to see me debating Jake, the Muslim metaphysician and the Muslim dude that thinks that God the Father is a dude with a body. He has a very toned body. He looks good. That will be July 25th and 26th in Dallas. You can get your tickets right here. Promo code 20 from Jay. Let me pull it up. Oops. Oops. There we go. There it is. So this is. Dang it. There we go. There is the link for the tickets to that. If you guys want to come on out and use that promo code so that James can figure out, like where the ticket sales are coming from, that's advantageous for us. So use the promo code to get 20 bucks off. 20 from Jay. That's 20 from Jay. And we got a lot of events coming up. We've got the Ludwell Conference with Jim Jotras. If you come over here to my X profile, you'll see, if you scroll down, way down, I'll just type in Ludwell Conference and you'll see, you'll find it. You guys got to be proactive, don't be lazy. Maybe pull up everything. Just go get it, dude. Now all these super chats coming in. Gabriel says for $5, Jay, thank you for everything that you do. Do you think Hildegard of Bingen is one of the historical emotional saints? Yeah, we covered her in one of the talks we did on hysterical so called Saints of the Roman Catholic World. I want to say that's a. That's actually one of the YouTube talks that we did. I think it's the one we did on Cabala or Medieval Mysticism, I think was the name of. I don't remember the name of. It's when we were covering the Cambridge Companion. We did cover her. David already left. But K. Barbano says for $10, David, why is it wrong to be orthodox? Well, in the conversation, if you're not at that point yet, he will actually outline his reasons, which were had to do with liturgical rights and his family heritage. So that's the explanations that he gave. F for M. $5. Is there a document, isn't there a document that shows 35 things that Catholics need to reject? It's like 30 or 32. It's not a document. It's Metropolitan Seraphima Praeus's letter to Pope Francis, which is actually a little book. It's almost a book. A little book length letter. But at one point in that he lists the. This. The central sort of 30 or so 20. I forget exact 32. Whatever it is that are the things that orthodox would really have to see change. Right. $05. I'm interested how you annotate when you read again. There's not a system. I get asked this all the time. I literally just have sticky notes. And when I read something on a page that's relevant, I summarize it at the top of the page with the sticky note and I underline a lot. So I think that's helps with memory with me being tactile with it. Jay, explain the sticky note system. There isn't one. That's it. There's literally just that. Eric says, very sad. Pray for all the Roman Catholics because the Vatican hates them. Well, that's the thing that I kind of realized eventually when I was a trad cat was like, why am I defending this institution that hates me? It's like I feel like a theological cuck. Like I feel like I'm a pimp or I'm in. I'm a hoe in a pimp relationship. And the more that the. The. The pimp. The Vatican is like smacking me around. Shut up, Hope. Shut your ass down. I feel like, wait a minute. It's time to get out of this life. You know what I'm saying? I ain't trying to live that life. You know what I'm saying? Vulpa is $5. Ammonius Sakas was a teacher of Plotinus. He might have even been an Indian. Please give a Neoplat. Neoplatonist spiel. In OSHA advice we have the people are. I don't know about a NeoPlatonist spill for five bucks, but you'll get a little bit of a people are in the Osho voice. How's that? All right, I think that's everybody here. All right, guys, appreciate it. A lot of fun. Glad that David was willing to come and do the discussion. By the way, if you want to support the stream through bitcoin, that is my bitcoin address you can support there as well. And yeah, definitely pray for the tribe cats because I think hopefully a lot of tribe cats are going to kind of take this as a yet another sign that, you know, Rome is really not where it's at. I would never go back. I've never even had one inkling of a second thought. Of going back to Rome, so. But. But I don't hate Roman Catholics. You know, a lot of those guys are pretty close to us. Otherwise. Everybody have a good night.