This is the first big problem, exactly, Snek. I mean, the accusation is that there are multiple

schismatic orthodox claiming churches. And yet the problem is that these schisms occurred

in his mind when it was a Roman Catholic church, right? In his mind, the first millennium of the

church is the Roman Catholic church. And so to cite these as, quote,

schisms of the Orthodox Church is utterly stupid.

I mean, that's like right away a totally bogus argument on his own grounds.

Yeah.

And the worst part that he complains and even goes into Solovely, you know,

which is the idea that every schism is based on pride and every schism by definition is bad.

But here, by blaming it on us, is causing a schism hundreds of years before the actual schism

happens.

Because you see, you see that everything that is good in the United Church, he would claim for Rome,

or that he will claim, you know, a lot of things, a lot of good things that happened in the West, you know, which was the Orthodox West at the time, you know, the United Church.

To be specifically Roman and everything that's bad that happens in the East will be, you know, specifically Orthodox, which is already contradicting its church view, because

according to them, we started popping into existence after schism.

But here, not only is he saying that we existed before, but he's already splitting the church.

So this is a geographic understanding.

It's very wrong because it's saying that Rome was never a universal church.

It's conflating the Catholic Church and the

undivided church with the Roman Patriotate alone, which is a huge problem. So here, we already

see that this is a lack of knowledge of early church history, especially for 1,000 years.

Yeah. Yeah, and I want to point out, too, from a logical perspective, which, by the way,

...