Exorcist on Mark of the Beast

Exorcist Warns of Possible Signs of the Mark of the Beast
Shawn Ryan Clips | 6 March 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs_1fvkTnOk

4:46 Just in case anyone thinks I might be Elias or Henoch, nope.

I don't recall a childhood where people got to 8 feet tall or twice normal muscular breadth and ate other people, while a genius of metallurgy was fooling around with demons.
I don't recall a childhood under, say Nadab, Baasa or Amri (I looked up the predecessors of Ahab) I don't speek Hebrew and I don't read even part of the ancient Hebrew script.

I do recall a childhood in Vienna, on and off, as well as Sweden, Germany, vacations in US, UK and earlier on Romania, ending when in 1980 I had to move to Sweden at age 11, not the first time.

But, also, I never, ever claimed to be either of them.

9:16 What about a shot where the disactivated pathogen has been cultivated on cells from an aborted human fetus?

That's been seen during the first years since 2020.

The vaccinations and masks are currently no longer obligatory in France, but they are still sold.

The constraints could easily be turned on again

9:51 Is obeying someone who swore by Apollo over obeying a conscience that says no to abortion based vaccines religious?

Abolition of Man, Long form Essay by C. S. Lewis

There is also a standalone, the shorter essay "The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment" ...

CS Lewis Tried to Warn Us
Brian Holdsworth | 25 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULPJMOBb1v0

2:34 I'm also in favour of retributive justice.

I have been in prison, on a deed I still judge as legitimate defense, but the thing is, I have already served prison for it.

3 and 1/2 years (a pretty apocalyptic timespan) served two thirds before getting out, last third is reserved in case I should reoffend, so as to make a possible future punishment heavier.

On the theory of retributive justice, this is exactly what I would owe the Swedish justice had my act actually been culpable.

On the theory of humanitarian penalties, since my views haven't changed, I can still be interfered with to change me, and too bad if the legal system didn't allow for punishing me past last of June 2000, that's just something to get around.

I'm afraid certain evil men in your Catholic Church (I'm Catholic too, I just quoted Lateran IV against an Amish denying the identity of the risen bodies) have come out on the side of humanitarian justice. Continue to interfere with me, as long as I don't repent as if of a violent crime.

I'm not the least disputing that my act would have been one if unprovoked. A violent crime, that is. I'm just saying shrinks (and their "Catholic" hangers on) have proven me right that shrinks back on that day actually were in the act of destroying my life, so I actually did have a right to defend myself.

Recall, one part of what CSL said was, humanitarian penal theory was preferred as (back then) giving less likelihood of dangerous criminals getting back in the streets.

Oh, just in case you should change your mind, since 2000 I have been in garde à vue or otherwise in police custody more than one hour exactly twice. In 2006 or sth, a somewhat drunk girl went into a Restaurant to pee. She was thrown out, and someone not the owner followed her and manhandled her. He was not in uniform. I tried to step between and got beaten down to the street by him and also arrested over night, since apparently he was a policeman.

The other time was about a week starting with Wednesday August 15. In a library guards were standing over a girl who was lying down. I tried to step between, not by actual physical action, but shouting to people to defend her. I was told she was not being forcefully medicated, she had "tétanie" and I thought the French for tetanus was "tétanos" and didn't believe, and I was taken first to a mental evaluation, then to the psychiatric police cells and to a mental hospital. Within a week I was out.

Other than that, I have not been arrested though at times questioned, notably when sleeping in hallways. I have been mistreated in ways that make me dream of violent revenge, and I have not taken it.

Any "Catholic" who pretends I'm dangerous and should be observed and hampered the rest of my life is a crook of exactly the kind that C. S. Lewis warned against.

Mental hospitals were originally made for people who are suicidaln wantonly violent or in states where they obviously don't understand simple hygiene, like not deciding to lower pants when they have to shit (and have a place where they decently can lower their pants, bush or toilet). Part of my prison time I was in transfer to forensic psychiatry. One man I briefly saw had been there on false confessions to shrinks in cases of cannibalism (I didn't speak with him). He would not have been falsely condemned if not handled by shrinks and a cannibal is anyway not someone who psychiatry is made for. The people I regularly saw there and the people I had seen before the date when I defended myself convinced me, not one in ten, perhaps one in twenty of those who were being held were actually meant to be their. Diagnostics and preliminary diagnostics are so overdone that the patient corps becomes 10 to 20 times as big as it should be, meaning shrinks and their personnel get more jobs, if not more pay per hour.

The reason psychiatry is no longer functioning to keep a man like Decarlos Dejuan Brown Jr. out of the streets is, partly, perhaps it was not for him in the first place, and partly, it is overloaded and it is no longer sustainable. And the reason he hadn't stood trial on any of 14 previous occasions could either be he was being harrassed by police (and he came to think of himself as in a race war) or, if they were warranted, psychiatry had prevented him standing trial.

5:39 "no punishment is present here"

In Austria, Social Democrats and Nazis were in camps for political crimes. In Germany, tramps were in camps to reform them.

Hitler in the Tirpitz speech got out on the side of the Humanitarian theory of punishment when pretending the Austrian camps served "revenge" ... (he did have a few noteworthy things to say about England, though).

That speech is online, you can check it.

---

Mercy apart from justice is a suffocating tyranny with no limit to its imposition because the very authorities using it don't suffer any distress in doing so because they've been able to convince themselves of their own gentle humanitarian supremacy in the process.

---

14:07 Yes, a bit like the Apollo priests of Delphi (and some of the experts these days are descended from priests of Apollo and Aesculapius ...)

Have you checked what the five Greek cases of Apollo add up to in the gematria of the Greek Alphabet?

Cremation is Forbidden and Not an Obstacle to Resurrection

WILL JESUS RAISE THE CREMATED? (What the Bible ACTUALLY Says)
Bible with Elias et 6 autre(s) | 23 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOMBfVbQBZ8

The Church, East and West, has taken cremation (outside circumstances of grave necessity) as a testimony against the faith.

Slavonic priests used to call Lithuanians "musu sovitsa" back when they were Pagans. It means "our paganism" or more literally "our burning" / "our cremation" ... just as the community of believers was a Christendom, a Christian nation, so also the community of unbelievers was a "cremation" ...

15:48 Up to here, you were pretty tolerable. Actually good even.

What is sown corruptible that is raised incorruptible. St. Paul affirms the identity of the dead and the risen body.

Not "such as" and "similar" but "what" and "that" ...

Jesus still had the wounds, and if ever you go to Heaven, ask St. Thomas Didymus about it!

Here is Lateran IV:

He descended in the soul, rose in the flesh, and ascended in both. He will come at the end of time to judge the living and the dead, to render to every person according to his works, both to the reprobate and to the elect. All of them will rise with their own bodies, which they now wear, so as to receive according to their deserts, whether these be good or bad; for the latter perpetual punishment with the devil, for the former eternal glory with Christ.

17:39 Perhaps I'll let a dead Pope (Benedict XV) tell me it is:

The old Code of Canon Law (1917) prohibited cremation and required the bodies of the faithful to be buried. Again, an exception was given in times of mass death and the threat of disease. Those individuals who had directed their bodies to be cremated were denied ecclesiastical burial. In 1963, the Church clarified this regulation, prohibiting cremation for anyone who wanted it simply as some testimony against the faith.

A person has no right to decide cremation for oneself or a loved one outside cases of emergency, whether mass death or the case of Saul.

The code was started by Pope St. Pius X and completed and promulgated by his successor Benedict XV.

Now, the Bible actually had an answer about that Roman soldier.

"Now let your God raise you"
will have a reply:
"You said it, Centurion"

Or more literally:

And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and hell gave up their dead that were in them; and they were judged every one according to their works.

---

Sharing:

If It’s Called the Upper Room…Then What’s Below!?
24 July 2026 | SO BE IT!
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/SgLTKPPm6WQ

What About "Development of Doctrine"?

Two More Reasons Wes Huff Should Be Catholic — The Mass & Development of Doctrine
Catholic Bible Highlights | 3 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrDHoVs4GkA

18:24 As it is carried out by some, I don't like it either.

Matthieu Lavagna described an answer to Rennes, 1830 (Dz 2272—74) as a "key moment in the development of doctrine".

It was a local decision, only later made accessible to the Church universal, as I comprehend, and the key in the question was that someone who wanted to take interest was supposed to promise to abide by a future decision by the Pope on the matter.

To Matthieu Lavagna, this means taking interest is in and of itself licit, now.

He also cited a part of the code of 1917 where those taking care of ecclesiastic property are told to place investments in low risk and licit placements. To me that doesn't sound like a bank account with interest, but as buying shares in a low risk company.

1950 has been described as a key moment in the development of doctrine as well, while Pope Pius XII simply refused to decide on whether it was licit to say Adam had biological ancestry.

Even more absurd is describing 1822 as allowing Catholics to believe Heliocentrism.

19:13 Exsurge Domine versus Dignitatis Humanae.

Probably not Wes' fav example, since he probably prefers religious freedom.

19:54 Apologia played a role in mine.

I'm glad I didn't come across Essay at this point.

As to enthusiasts for this work, I like to remind that this is not his Catholic viewpoint as already received in the Church and having received instruction, it's his motivation from an Anglican standpoint on why to quit Anglicanism for Rome.

Loads of things that are very well attested in early tradition would have been inaccessible to him at Littlemore (I think his last Anglican abode was) and so he would have made sense of them by supposing "development of doctrine" even if this was not the case.

20:16 I have since 2001 built my writing on debating, first on forums and later on quora and under youtubes, as one main staple.

You are free to respond, unless I get delays in viewing the answers, the responses and my responses to them will usually get into the blog post.

Nobody wants serious debate anymore?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE-Z9r5Fa3k

[This is the whole film My Name is Nobody, but my answer to the rhetorical question was simply the title. I very much like the film, though!]

20:48 I'll give at least one proof text of Trent disagreeing with the as yet Anglican Newman's thesis.

Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,–in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, –wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold; [Page 20] or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.

What is key in forbidden exegesis?

Relying on his own skill?
Interpreting without asking the Church first?

No, coming to contradict:

• the sense that the Church hath held and doth hold
• the unanimous consent of the Fathers

This presumes that a sense that the Church doth hold normally is one She hath held and that the Fathers typically consent.

21:05 Going to Armstrong:

Did they believe that God really has a material palace in the sky and that He received His Son in a decorated state chair placed a little to the right of His own? — or did they not?

Quoted from CSL.

Very obviously, if Jesus remains true Man after the Resurrection, if it makes any sense to speak of Him having a body (which can "bilocate" — using the term losely — to altars and communicants) or Him still being the Son of Mary, as some radical Protestants deny, I've actually come across that, He is in a material place, presumably a palace with a decorated state chair.

Whether God the Father is also visible in some kind of theophany is another question.

But God the Son became Man, and therefore He is now in the kind of tabernacles He would have eaten in while walking on Earth, and not just the tabernacles in the churches (with valid apostolic succession). That means, Heaven is not another dimension.

"The Church knew the answer (that God has no body and therefore couldn’t sit in a chair) as soon as it knew the question."

False. God as God has no body, but is still capable of theophany and can therefore sit in a chair just as much as He can dine with Abraham in Mamre. God the Son as Man very clearly has a body and therefore very habitually can sit in a chair or take a walk on streets of gold.

21:23 Maybe, just maybe, St. Pius X was, like me, preferring Apologia or Arians of the IV C. over Essay?

22:46 "as Cardinal Newman formulated it"

In 1845, when writing the book, Newman was not a Cardinal, he was a celebrity convert on OCIA (or equivalent) asked to sum up why, as an up to then Anglican he had decided to Pope. (Or, if you prefer, to Cross the Tiber).

24:09 As an ex-Lutheran I find it disheartening to see Bergoglio with a chocolate statue of ML. Yes, the man from the WWW cities ...

24:29 Lutherans did kill Catholics in Sweden and Denmark (to which respectively Finland and Norway-Iceland belonged).

It was somewhat less common than in England on Tyburn, but it was not all that rare either.

24:57 I'm historically in favour of killing for obstinate heresy.

I e, I hold it was one of the ways in which "ho katekhon" did his job.

I also hold, "ho katekhon" as in the Roman Emperor was taken out of the way in 1918. In 2004, when I was on El Camino de Santiago, I was told Spain was introducing gay marriage. So much for saving a Catholic society in Spain by bringing back the Inquisition. Can't be done any more.

St. Thomas clearly stated that one main reason for killing heretics was to delay the advent of the Antichrist, his precursor was the one taking Nicolas II out of the way, i e Lenin. The Inquisition has become pointless and in 2004 I learned this was even the case in La Hispanidad.

26:01 Luther was in a hopeless muddle.

If Catholicism had no poison, why establish something outside it?
If it lacked salvific truth, where was the Church in ... 1401 (I'd have said 1516 if I didn't know Luther credited John Hus with full truth)? And if the answer was "nowhere" what did that make of Matthew 28:16—20?

He had to want to have it both ways.

26:31 "all the mainline denominations are pro-abortion"

Sadly true of CoS.

Do we see some lion mouth and leopard head, somewhere?

He Thought He Has Refuted YEC, Well, Not My Version

Explaining Simple Calculations VERY SLOWLY For Creationists (One Creationist In Particular)
Creation Myths | 24 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnuhi-Te0ZI

6:42 I am YEC and heavily disagree.

1) The carbon date for the Flood is 39 000 BP, the youngest dated Neanderthal is 42 000 BP, meaning the Neanderthals date as pre-Flood
2) The parts of the Neanderthal genome we have exclude Y-chromosomes and mitochondriae and the Ark is the ideal bottleneck to have sapiens sapiens get exclusivity.

10:29 Added speed in Neanderthal variation: partly due to Nephelim.

Not to be accounted for in normal mutation rates.

Added speed in post-Flood variation.

The time after the Flood includes, on my model:

1) the Ice Age (and somewhat quicker than other YEC's would say, over before Babel)
2) reduced lifespans (here I agree with other YEC's)
3) and a speed up in production of carbon 14.

To explain the last point. The atmosphere at the Flood had 1.629 pmC. We now have around 100. The Flood was 5000 years ago.

Of the original 1.629 pmC, we would now have 0.89 left.

At normal speed of production, you add 45.384 to that, so 46.274 pmC. That's so obviously not what we have. Therefore at some point in time, carbon 14 was produced faster.

One factor which produces carbon 14 faster is more radiation.

This also results in reduced lifespans by faster mutations.

Thank you for making a point for me!

No, I'm Actually Not a Norse Pagan, But Perhaps a Beardo

Ignorance in Full Display: Pete Hegseth Banning Norse Pagans
Bjorn Andreas Bull-Hansen // Bjorn Talks | 18 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmM_NG_iMVY

4:27 While not a Norse Pagan, I believe Odin was a real person.

Meaning the one who came to Gylfi and fooled him into believing he was a god or even one of three creator gods.

In objective favour of my position, Jackson Crawford (though he didn't refer to it) verified that the Deyr fé stanza in Havamal, which resembles Ecclesiastes closely (Praekeren in Norwegian) would have been metric even if reconstructed as Proto-Norse, around the time when Odin would have come.

I am also a bearded man whom some consider a weirdo. However, you show some ignorance of US slang, the wiktionary entry on "beardo" starts in 2006.*

So, I kind of feel a bit targetted ... indirectly.

7:41 I must say, I'm thankful that Christianity allows me to be a Critic of Science, for instance ditch Evolution (like on the scale of microbes to trees or the radicality of ape to man).

You do you of course, but one day God will call you out for not being a Geocentric and concluding He exists, turning the universe around us, like St. Paul says in Romans 1.

8:48 "it doesn't become extreme, it doesn't infringe on other people's rights"

Somewhat rich from a person who just called himself a science believer.

Between 1934 and 1977, a total of slightly less than 44,000 sterilization procedures were performed in Norway under the 1934 act.

Now, I'm citing one who claims that those who were targetted involuntarily were only c. 2000, but even 2000 is 2000 too many, in the name of science.**

10:29 "a fundamentalist attitude towards other people"

What is that supposed to mean, even?

Fundamentalism is normally used of an attitude to one's religious texts. If one has any.

But you sound as if meaning a brutal attitude against someone because he has a different religion, guess what, killing monks is pretty brutal, whether it's done by Norse Pagans or by Lutherans or Calvinists, and doing it because Gregorian is regarded as seiðr or because shaving the beard is regarded as unmanly is hardly a motivation that excludes some high degree of religious exclusivism. Perhaps this wasn't done all through the Viking age, but at least a part of it.

And a motivation involving the cutting down of Irminsul in Saxony sounds pretty much like solid Fundamentalism about Norse and Saxon hallows ...

11:36 Nah, cruel and evil are not always synonymous.

Franco was cruel, my grandpa argued, in 1975 when he died, because he used the vile garrote.***

Franco was good, my ma argued in 1984, when stopping me from joining De Molays, because he had abortion banned in Spain.

I don't see any totally irreconcilable thing between the two.

Besides, if cruel were evil, where does that leave Gudrun's revenge or Ivar Boneless' revenge and so on? I don't think St. Olaf went as far as to "rista blodsörn"

---

* https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=beardo&action=history

** https://www.eurozine.com/sterilization-in-norway-a-dark-chapter/

Citing further:

Free will was the guiding principle in the act. Physical coercion was not allowed. The person in question had to apply for or consent to the procedure him or herself – if he or she were able to do so – before the sterilization could be carried out. However, the act did open up for sterilization without consent of the “insane” and of persons of “deficient mental development and/or permanently impaired mental capacity”9 , but in these cases the procedure could not be carried out without the prior written consent of the person’s legal guardian or, if the legal guardian was incompetent, a person appointed to act on his or her behalf.

Mental institutions have a way of faking consent by extortion and things ... "dat don't impressin' me much" ... and in some cases the legal guardians could be foster parents aligned with the system rather than the patient.

*** Never the cruelty of forced sterilisation, though! In Badajoz, there was a case of castrations, but that was by ill disciplined troops, not on Franco's orders (and I'm not a fan of Yagüe under whose orders it happened, at all).

In Defense of Apostolic Succession

On Apostolic Succession
Dr. Jordan B Cooper | 30 Jan. 2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xRwwCswp1I

4:20 Would you agree to two things:

a) while changing Sabbath to Sunday is reflected in a hinting way in Acts, the change itself is not in any NT Book, and not in any OT book either?
b) even so, sanctifying Sunday is obliging on us, up to Doomsday?

Bc if you do, how are you not defending tradition as infallible outside the purely theoretic framework of sola scriptura?

One commenter

has gone invisible.

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@Tom-q9x2v "But when assessing the gravity or degree of difficulties of such a thing, this must be, in the end, a not-infallible judgment."

It can't, due to Matthew 28:20 saying "all days".

You probably get Sola Scriptura from a comment in St Athanasius whose point was that Arius was using, not tradition, but things totally extraneous to either Bible or Tradition.

Your first difficulty with Sacred Tradition is answered.

If you read up in St Paul's three epistles to Timothy and Titus, you see bishops are being trained as guardians of tradition.

While this includes all NT as well as OT books of the Bible, some points are not directly found in it.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Tom-q9x2v I'd have to ask you (or if you prefer someone else to answer, not forcing you but I take this as public debate, not a private conversation with you):

1) does Malachi 1:11 indicate Mass is a sacrifice?
2) does the citation in Hebrews of "tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedec" in light of Genesis 14:18 indicate it?
3) supposing Mass were not instituted as a sacrifice, where was the Church not having it in 7th C AD?

Not just the one not directly stating it, but one stating or showing for them Mass was no sacrifice, and which can otherwise be defended, from the Bible, i e nothing like Gnostics, Manichaeans, Iconoclastic Emperors of Byzantine Empire, Paulicians etc. - was there one?

Matthew 28:20 says "all days". I don't believe in Sola Scriptura, I do believe in Tota Scriptura.

For good wishes, same to you. I am not an Inquisitor.

III

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Tom-q9x2v "The Bible's Letter to the Hebrews specifically rules out this possibility."

Only if you suppose the sacrifice of the Mass to be another sacrifice and not the same as that of Calvary.

We actually consider it the same.

Two Masses are not two separate sacrifices, they are the sacrifice of Calvary made present in two times and locations often outside Palestine and often after AD 33.

IV

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Tom-q9x2v "Sola Scriptura as found in the New Testament,"

Sola Scriptura is specifically ruled out by the New Testament and nowhere found in it.

A

Josse

@josse9867

Hans-Georg Lundahl Sola Scriptura doesn’t deny tradition, it just denies counter biblical teachings, so Sola Scriptura doesn’t conflict with the changing of sabbath

Hans-Georg Lundahl

what, @josse9867 ?

"Sola Scriptura doesn’t deny tradition, it just denies counter biblical teachings"

Well, so does Catholicism!

B

Soteriology 400

@soteriology400

@hglundahl Acts 17:10—12.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, @soteriology400 ... how is that supposed to relate either way to whether the Sabbath was changed or not?

Soteriology 400

@hglundahl The point I was making, we see an example of sola scriptura, so it is not ruled out which is the comment I was responding too.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

But, @soteriology400 , we do not see an example of sola scriptura at all.

We see Jews testing the NT against the Scriptures of the OT. The NT is far beyond "the OT only" the thing we see is a verification that the pretended truth from God actually can be such, because it does not contradict Scripture.

That's how you should go about with testing Catholic claims too, by the way, seeing they contradict neither OT nor NT Scripture!

JoshVanV

@joshvanv5281

@hglundahl but the only reason one would be Protestant is to believe the Catholic Church DOES contradict scripture. This is why Martin Luther protested, not because he didn’t want to accept tradition. He simply could not with good conscience accept the practices contrary to scripture that the church was forcing him to agree with. Sola scriptura is a practical rule, because if the church can be in error, there needs to be something outside of it to norm it, and that is scripture

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@joshvanv5281 "if the church can be in error,"

For the Church Universal, can it?

Matthew 28:16—20.

What was the task Christ gave His Church and did it involve not being in error?

What was the help offered the Church, and does it involve divine omnipotence?

A justified man can, but an elect cannot finally lose salvation. Note, being justified doesn't mean you know you are elect, here on earth you usually don't. So also a partical Church can, but the Church universal cannot lose truth which is salvific for the believers.

---

4:54 "aren't talking about sacramental authority"

Why would they when it is for one thing clear from the Bible (words of institution say "do this" to the twelve, John 20:21-23 promises the same body the power of forgiving or withholding forgiveness on God's behalf, St Paul to St Titus or more probably St Timothy says to recall the power given through his laying on of hands), and for another thing dangerous to reveal in an as yet Pagan world?

Gustav Wasa knew very well what a bishop and a non-bishop could do, so he forced one elderly Catholic bishop to lay hands on Laurentius Petri. This doesn't mean Laurentius Petri handed on the apostolic succession, has to do with verifiable intention.

5:15 "the way it develops later"

For reasons stated. And I object very strongly to "develops later" terminology, you pronounce it as if it were later a novum.

5:30 "it comes out of this idea of"

Ideas a and b are both stated in NT Bible books.

In Fathers, idea a is stated earlier than idea b.

Of the options:

1) Fathers had reason to mention a before they had reason to mention b
2) Fathers forgot b was in the Bible books and developed b independently from a, even if it logically doesn't follow

which one makes more sense in a Church given the promise "every day" in Matthew 28:20?

---

6:27 Obviously, with a broken link in some place, that place will have no valid bishops, priests or sacraments beyond those that laymen can confer at least in cases of necessity without a priest, that being baptism and matrimony (if a couple otherwise having the right to marry cannot find a priest willing to marry them within two months, they would make valid marriage vows even without a priest to bless them).

You cannot have any general anguish on "what if", since the Church has made sure to avoid broken links (up to changes after Vatican II, but that is in a Protestantising anti-Church, and doesn't affect all Catholic clergy, since some rejected these changes in time, like Catholics rejected changes of Protestant Reformations even when pretending to be episcopal).

---

7:14 It can be added, some consider Apostles were never Baptised either.

Therefore, that the laying of hands was not how they received orders doesn't mean it is not strictly necessary after them.

The character is there for three sacraments : Baptism, Confirmation and Deaconal or Sacerdotal Ordination / Episcopal Consecration.

That this is not explicitly treated of in Bible or very early Church Fathers doesn't change that that is tradition.

7:40 You are also confusing "call" with character.

A man can be called to priesthood, but as long as not ordained, he cannot be living that call.

The call is God's preference for your life, the ordination gives power to transsubstantiate, offer sacrifice of Mass, absolve.

---

I think I'll break off watching here, since subtitles are automatic and clearly garbled, and resume the refutation when I have a computer with headphones and sound. Feel free to answer before that happens, should you have occasion.