Then the the the the the the the building, the the the the the
the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the
the the don't then the the the the the the the the the the the
the the the the the the the the Oh ho ho, humble Pastor Man
is back in his cardigan, ready to enlighten you about what's really going on
in the world, and with all of our beloved YouTubers, I thought,
why not check in on all of our YouTube friends from the Roman Catholic world
and see what kind of wonderful, mind bending logical gymnastics are at work.
I'm talking about Olympic level mental gymnastics. We're going to have fun. We're
also going to check in on a couple of things that I forgot about that
I meant to discuss many live streams. Back was Cameron from Cucking Christianity,
I mean, Capturing Christianity. Interesting channel title why he converted to Roman Catholicism,
because you remember he made this video. And then we want to check
in on our good buddy Carbohydrate Lofton to see what his solid argumentation was.
We want to see what Trent Horne had to say about Oh Papa Frank and
what was happening, because I mean, for me, remember, aside from
Tim Gordon, that whole sphere has been nothing but sass a, right,
I mean, they've been nothing but vitriol, and now they're in a tail
spin because now they're don't go Orthodox, don't go Orthodox, and Trent's even
having to turn to Ben Shapiro to help prop up the boring Catholic Answers podcast.
Now I've noticed, but wait a minute, how are these channels growing
given the mountains of absurdity and ridiculous augmentation that we've seen from all of these
actors except for one, except for our buddy Tim, who is honest,
all of these other people, to put it in the words of the templar
in Indiana, Jones and the last crusade, you chose poorly, and now
you have to cope and deal with the poor choices that you made because a
lot of them literally thought that it was going to be a sufficient objection to
the stuff that I've said and the arguments that UBI and people in our sphere
have raised for so long, that it was just going to work to go
after people on a personal level and do all the backhanded nonsense that a lot
of people have figured out now right, And I wasn't worried about this ultimately,
because I know and have been vindicated and it's been born out that when
you go down this track of the course the Vatican is set on, it
will not correct. It will only get worse and worse, because I actually
know the forces and the powers that Francis is beholden to. And remember,
to these normy people that were going to be looking at tonight, except for
Tim, they're all complete normies. They have no idea what the new world.
They don't even know that there is such a thing. They've actually commented
on it says that they still think it doesn't exist. You've got people who
promoted all the stab stuff and they're even doing podcasting together. Right by the
way, Shout out to arch Angel Mike Angel, Archangel Michael Orthodox Church because
they sent me a cool cop. You can go to their website and support
them. I think they have for a long time been big supporters and fans
of the work that we do, so shout out to them. Don't worry.
I do have my cough jobs on hand, and Father Zacharia Lynch and
everybody at that church are big fans and supporters of the work we do,
and we like the We love the essays that Father Zacharia Lynch does. I
can't even type today, so I'll give you for those interested in the Colorado
region, if you're looking for an Orthodox church up there, you can support
them there. They probably have a building fund as well, and so there's
their church if you want to support them. One of the few people who
in the OCA, well, I wouldn't say a few. A lot of
the OCA does like what we do, but they actually underwent persecution for not
going along with the KOOF and for supporting the work that we do, and
they're still disliked. So I'll be sure and support them if you support the
work that we do. Times are pretty tough everywhere, So you know,
the point here is not to say that there's no problems in the Orthodox world
and therefore we're right and you're wrong. Because we don't have any problems.
The issue is what are the problems and are they problems of a systemic nature?
Now I strive over and over and over on this channel to constantly demonstrate
from the documents. We've got the documents, as Alex says, to prove
that Roman Catholic dogma has absolutely changed. Even though have you noticed of late
that the typical, the classical Roman Catholic arguments that you always hear, they've
been real quiet on those lately. Have you noticed that, remember the classic
argument that we always hear is well, we have the Pope to give us
doctrinal certitude. That's Michael Lofton's favorite argument. Interesting how that tagline, that
cliche. They've been real quiet on that one. They've been sitting on that
one. How come we're not hearing all the advantages of the papacy giving us
the certitude that we have, even though a person from an epistemology one on
one class could be able to tell you that that doesn't work as a consistent
argument, to say that this the papsy actually grants you epistemic certitude just moves
the problem back and stuff. How do I know him interpreting the papal documents
correctly, and hence why I brought up basic epistemological challenges to Trent Horn in
our debate, and he had no idea what we're talking about, didn't know
what circularity in terms of foundational critiques was all about. Totally flush or totally
lost. But I more and more realized that this whole domain of these people,
it's really just appealing to normies for just a low tier numbers operation.
I've been overthinking a lot of this, right, And you know, they
get freaked out. Remember when Matt Frat was doing a strange with Thumbnails where
he's crying, And that's because they're worried about losing their numbers and their audience,
their market share. And in fact, I would venture that a lot
of people's conversions might even relate to attempts to gain numbers, and that's why
they're immediately funneled into the neocon normy Roman Catholic world, which is not really
the tradcat world. Right. I would class Tim more so in the tradcat
world. But Tim has enough of a basis in Ariskitilian logic that he can
recognize flat out contradictions and be honest about it. So again, we appreciate
that, but the rest of these goofballs can't even do that. I mean,
they're not even able to do that. Remember when Michael often wanted to
do a debate, but he wanted to do written debate. Okay, Boomer,
Yeah, what what era is this? You want to do written debates
like two thousand and five, bloggosphere? Come on, man, So I'm
trying to convey to you guys, and I don't understand why you guys can't
see this, that this whole domain of the normy apologists is a kind of
a grift, right, And I get tired of people. This is overused
now, right, everybody calls everyone a grifter. But I mean it makes
perfect sense why Cameron would convert because it's a lot more a lot more numbers
in market share that you can get through these these angles, and you can
with evangelical idiocy on YouTube, right, So why not enter into the domain
of the mainstream popestplanners. So nice market share there, and it does look
like these channels have grown, right, So Pines with Aquinas is up to
four hundred and seventy four thousand, Trent is up to one hundred and eleven,
So their channels are still growing, but have the argument's gotten any better?
And when I read the comments of what's underneath these channels, I'm not
surprised at just the overwhelming volume of just absolutely low tier sort of newbie normy
takes. Right. It's a lot of new people to you know, people
realizing, hey, something's wrong with the world, maybe there is a god.
What's the big churches? Oh, Roman Catholic, let's look at this,
And so they tumble down the rabbit hole of a bunch of these normy
apologists, these pop apologists. But have the pop apologists actually made good arguments?
Are they actually that good? Of course, the answer is no.
Their arguments are terrible. Their arguments are intentionally kept at a super low level
so that you don't go outside of their magic circle. And so they repeat
over and over and over very low tier arguments because that is enough to gain
a lot of numbers. So ironically, they're actually playing the evangelical game.
It's not surprising, right, they're playing the sort of megachurch model, except
now it's online, right, So the model of the megachurches used to be
like ten to fifteen years ago. Do whatever that brings the numbers in,
right, and it worked to grow megachurches as a business model into these gigantic
you know, rock concert arenas, you know, smoke a mirror and all
that stuff. But the problem is that they learned, as they did studies,
Pew research and all that back in the day, like ten years ago,
that even though the number the megachurches were bringing these giant numbers, they
had a very high turnover rate and they're actually losing as many people as they
were bringing in. And the average stay behind stay around rate was like some
minuscule percent, and the average length of time was something like two or three
weeks. So the megachurches would boast about having you know, like friends,
We've convuted over forty thousand people in the last month, and then a month
later, forty thousand people left. Right. So yeah, I'll get to
the challenges to debate here in a moment. Thank you for those super chats.
Appreciate that. So when it comes to the challenges to debate, well,
what I'm saying about the all right, gotta have my damn cough drop,
because I still got the vatakouf. I got the same throat aids from
Francis from being in Rome seven weeks ago. Francis gave me aids, give
me theological aids. I have already asked all of the people that you're asking
me to debate. Do you think I haven't asked all those people to debate?
Now here's the thing. The more that I've studied and gone down the
rabbit hole of the papacy and Vatican two, which is I began studying that
in two thousand and three, specifically, you know, Catholic theology and Catholic
dogmatics. I mean, we've got more than one entire shelf of Catholic dogmatic
works, not counting Church. I'm just talking about pure Catholic theology over here,
right. That eventually got me into geopolitics, I mean, not Catholic
theology, but the geopolitics of the Vatican, because that becomes more and more
of an issue as you get deeper into history, as you get deeper into
Church, you realize the Vatican becomes a world power, and that seems to
affect its approach to doctrine and theology. And if the Vatican is a world
power and it affects its theology, then we begin to see other explanations for
why the Vatican is doing what it's doing, and so what we eventually get
is different narrative accounts. So Trent would have a narrative account that the Vatican
the Papacy is an infallible, divine institution guided by the Holy Spirit, preserved
from error, and when I encounter difficulties, I can go into the documents
to try to make the system work. And here's my post planning example.
For me, I have a completely different narrative and account, and I don't
even I don't think there's anything at all supernatural about the Vatican anymore other than
it being essentially satanic connected to all kinds of organized crime. The Vatican,
bank scandals, the mafia, the CIA, all very well known public scandals.
People have been convicted over this, All the names are well known for
them. That plays no role in the practice of the Vatican and the Papacy
at all. They never mentioned it, and that's because they don't even know
about it. And I'm not talking about going down some conspiracy rabbit hole.
I'm talking about a line history. If you want to call in, I'll
open it up. You can call in right here on Twitter x right here,
and I'll open it up to people here in a moment. So that's
that's and I think that narrative actually makes perfect sense, and it makes perfect
sense why what Francis does actually echoes the same sentiments of the world economic for
him and Klaus Schwab and Davos. But remember Trent Horn doesn't even know about
that, or he tells you intentionally not to look at that because there aren't
conspiracies and it doesn't work and it doesn't matter. It's crazy. I mean,
if you remember Trent's initial critique was that I was the equivalent of a
chick trap. So remember to even talk about there being a new world order
and the papacy being involved, even though Francis openly says he supports Klaus Schwab,
that's the less vel of chick track. Now, I think that when
we had our debate, Trent saw that. No, actually, the level
of debate that we are doing here is not chick track level. We've read
through about sixty big fat tons of the global elite. Do you think Jack
Chick did that nothing to do with chick tracks? So again, all of
these people are literally relying on your ignorance and your low tier laziness to just
accept their copes and accept their here, allow me to creatively invent something to
make the system work. That's what they do. And anyone who goes beyond
like baby tear stuff in theology or geopolitics, right uh, pretty soon moves
out of the sphere of these people. But these people know that in order
to capture a sizeable number of people and market share, they want to appeal
to the broadest normy neocon con inc crowd that they can. It shouldn't be
better if I do this. Mm hmm yep. I look at all the
lovely people. Do do do do? Do? Do? Do? Do
do? Look at all the lovely people. Okay, we should be back.
Hopefully it's got all. Hopefully it'll even out now we won't have the
interruptions. But I'll have to go back to the la inn here in a
moment. All right, Stream Health says is excellent. Well, that ended
my freaking. I'll have to open up another room if you guys want to
call in, because there were people in line to call in here, So
let me make another one of these. Has Catholic dogma changed? And it's
interesting that there is this interesting connection between Daily Wire individuals and the normy Novasorto
world, and they're all in a tailspin now trying to make all this work
right because we've been absolutely correct and everything that we said would happen. So
I started a new Twitter space here if people want to join. So the
new space is under the old space because the Internet went out. Of course,
it would go out when I'm trying to do this stream, right,
so you'll have to join underneath that stream. So let's see what Cameron's arguments
were. Cameron's arguments were why he left Evangelicalism for Roman Catholicism. And as
I was explaining before we had the issues there, Cameron said that initially,
if I recall, this is my memory of the events, right, Cameron
said, oh, Jay's wiping the floor with Matt Dilla Hunty, right,
and then later after the debate when we had the fallout with him and inspiring
philosophy, he switches to actually, Matt Dilla Hunty mopped the floor with Jay.
So this is a guy that says that Matt Dilla Hunty mopped the floor
with me in that debate. That loads here, right, So just a
seething, passive, aggressive emo sort of character. I would say grifter man,
right, because the same he also pushed the stabbs on you all.
Has he said sorry for that, by the way, has any of you
have you any of these people said they're sorry for doing that, by the
way, And remember I'm bad because I talked about conspiracies and told you about
that, right. But all of these people pushed all this normy stuff,
and their army of normy still pushes all the same normy stuff. So I
can only imagine that these are bad faith actors, or grifters, or just
completely ignorant. But soon after that, a year ago or so, Cameron
became a Catholic. Now I wonder, are any of these people doubting their
decisions? Remember how bad though, Remember how awful? And they're all of
your argumentation was about me as a person, nothing to do with argumentation,
nothing to do with the theology. Remember when Matt fred said that he'd be
open to inviting Ubi Petris on his channel and then ghosted him. Of course
he wasn't gonna have Uby on his channel. Why did he say he would
never have me on a channel? He just said, because I'm an evil,
bad person or something. Why because I get heated in debates, and
then he says to people coming on his channel, feel free to get heated
and debate as much as you want. So again, it's all just hypocrisy.
And so this goof is with this ridiculous like five year old haircut.
I mean like literally like haircuts that were popular like what like actually like seven
years ago, right, this diplo spencer cut. Let's hear why we're supposed
to be Roman Catholic. Now, if I remember in this video and I
just forgot to ever cover it, if I remember his his argent, he
ran an algorithm or something in some sort of a calculator that told him that
it was highly unlikely that. I mean, let's see what he said.
If he used this stupid calculator argument, that I could say, okay,
yeah, here's this piece of data. Here's this piece of data. I
created what I call a Bayesian like analysis of all of the evidence born against
the papacy, and so I use the Bayesian framework because I think, yes,
I know, I had to click the stupid thing to make the sound
come on for you. So he had just said, yes, it is
an algorithm based on Bayesian analysis. So he came, right, we're supposed
to believe that he's like I guess, I guess we're supposed to think,
Oh, he's a genius mathematician, and so he's going to prove the papacy
with mathematics. Uh huh, what's the Bayesian analysis of butt stuff? Can
you get? Can we get a Bayesian analysis from Cameron about the legitimacy of
blessings of butt stuff or or not variety? Right? And so the fact
that he was impressed with that, and then you assigned what points to each
line of evidence against So what I did was I created what I call a
Bayesian like analysis of all of the evidence born against the papacy. And so
I use the Bayesian framework because I think that it's a more formal way of
doing Like, I mean, is this not like the ultimate sort of Sperg
approach? Right? I mean, maybe they're just trying to appeal to Internet
spurgs with this argument. I'm gonna put all of the pieces of evidence into
a spreadsheet. We'll call this the quick Books Cameron's quick Books analysis. Remember
quick books for the papacy, Right, Cameron's quick Books argument for the papacy.
I'll put put all of the arguments into a spreadsheet. How do we
even know you're putting good arguments in there? I'll link the spreadsheet below.
You could go through it and deduct the mathematical quantification of the argument. This
is ridiculous, a Bayesian spreadsheet argument for the papacy. You can't make this
up. This probably has what thirty one thousand views? At least it's not
three hundred thousand views because this is utterly ridiculous. Everyday probabilistic calculations that you
do in your own like in your head, Yeah, everyday probabilistic calculations that
we do in our head. I mean, do you sit around doing everyday
probabilistic Bayesian calculations in your head? Did you ever consider that that might be
an argument for the papacy? But how is an argument for the butt stuff?
That's that's what we want to know next, right, And I'm sure
we're going to get some amazing explanations as to how it doesn't mean what it
says it means in paragraph arety one, Right, you're like, Okay,
how likely is this happens? And you'll say, oh, it's really likely.
That might be some you know, some example that you would just come
up with but in invasion terms, like what you'll do is you'll assign a
figure to that probability, and so you can be a little bit more precise
in seeing like, Okay, well, how much of an effect probabilistically,
but what's the probability of the ding dong touching the other ding dong in the
Roman Catholic blessing services? Right, what's that probability? I would say it's
ninety eight point nine percent probability abut stuff. But again I just Cameron,
did you figure in that into your equations? Please let me know, as
opposed to just going on the sort of more informal Okay, this is some
evidence, here's some evidence, here's some evidence. Here's a lot of evidence.
There's a lot of evidence. But then you know, but then you
don't really know at the end of that how it all combines. How many
lines of evidence did you have full and against the Papa seed? Roughly,
there weren't a lot for the papacy. There was the biblical there were the
biblical arguments I see, and there's a lot of Protestant objections, there's a
lot of what so there aren't a lot of arguments for the papacy except for
the biblical arguments, of which there are none, at least the Vatican One.
Papacy is nowhere in the Bible. There is the successor to Peter via
having the keys argument, which is an orthodox argument. Sure, but a
Bayesian spreadsheet that now it's getting ridiculous, and I actually think this is a
bunch of actual just total bs flim flam. He put into his Bayesian spreadsheet
mostly anti Catholic arguments and he still comes out of this. I mean,
I smell total grifter here. Counting in love, I probably had like four
for the papacy and about fifteen against the papacy. And it seems to me
that what's interesting about this analysis is that rather than going on you will kind
of intuition, you actually don't know what the evidence is going to show you
because you're going through the one by one and signing a number. This is
who would fall for this? Let's say, I gotta see these comments.
If people actually think that this would be a good argument, This is a
brave man. Are you serious? Who in the who did Cameron ever actually
debate? I asked to debate this, dude, I mean I immediately wanted
to debate this dude when he had a falling out with me, and all
he did was post all the DMS, trying to make me look like a
bad man, right, which is what they do. Which if I actually
was a bad man in the DMS, I don't care, right, because
I'll post a DM if you're talking a bunch of bull crap to me.
Sure, But what happened was they wanted me to not I kid you not.
They wanted me to have a debate but not say anything mean. And
I'm like, I'm not gonna subject my free speech to your arbitrary deciding.
I don't know what you think is mean, because debates include rhetoric, and
if I utilize rhetoric, which is a central part of debate, I'm not
gonna submit to your evangelical arbitrary that's mean. It's not pious. So I
said, no, the debate was already agreed upon. You introduced a new
criteria that I cannot be mean in the debate, which is just ridiculous.
And I said no, I wouldn't concede to that because we had already agreed
on the debate terms. And then he said, oh, well, then
there won't be a debate and I'm gonna leak all the dms and make you
look bad. Okay, Yeah, good job dude. Right, So I
guess it kind of worked in that people still think that I'm mean because I
wouldn't agree to their arbitrary decisions to not be mean. I mean, do
you guys understand what this is? The crap that I deal with? And
then it's like, dude, come on, just do the damn debate.
We've already agreed to it now ironically inspiring philosophy, and I already made up,
and we don't care about this anymore, right, so we let this
go. H haven't heard from this guy, don't expect to. Don't care
anyway. But the ignorance of these commenters. Roger says, this is a
brave man who never failed to debate any Catholic. What solid Orthodox person did
he ever debate? And is nobody in the question the comments here even remotely
questioning his Baysian algorithm for the papacy that he just made up. I mean,
this is ridiculous. Yeah, here's at least one solid commenter here,
both sides as if orthodox he doesn't exist exactly. But look, Orthodoxy isn't
necessarily going to give you a big market share. So did anybody consider that
that might have had something to do with his decision? Right? I mean
these comments are just ridiculous. As ridiculous says that the quick Books argument for
the papacy. All right, I got to hear more of this. This
is gold. I didn't even I forgot about this, this this whole thing
here. I'm glad I went back to this. Right now, he's going
to have to have a Gayzian argument for the papacy. Thank you. Shout
out to William in the chat. Right, because we need to know the
probability. What was the probability in twenty when was this a year ago,
twenty twenty two of the legitimacy of butt stuff back then? Well, I
would say it's ninety eight percent, right according to the Gayzean algorithm. Yeah.
And so what I did at the beginning was I wanted to be charitable
to both sides. Again, I'm trying to fight my bias, so I'm
trying to be charitable to the Catholics. I'm also trying to be charitable to
the Protestants. And so what I would do is I would assign a charitable
oh, he assigned a charitable number. So this is like utilitarian calculus,
right, where this is like Jeremy Bentham's argument for the papacy, right,
which actually works. I could see Jeremy Bentham making an argument for the papacy
because Jeremy Bentham was an outright ped oh right, So Jeremy Bentham would have
made a great Jeremy Jeremy Bentham should have been the pope, I mean,
being an open ped oh right, we get a straight up Pedosian analysis,
right to go to go to to to Rome. Are they sitting up on
a on a balcony outside of Saint Peter's This is ridiculous. So again I'm
glad that it's charitable, and I'm glad that he assigned the charity number to
the various arguments. Yes, you heard him right, he assigned charitable numbers
too. What's the charito is that like a seven or a six or maybe
a six six six, Maybe that's the most charitable number that we coubscribe to
the papal arguments? Right, I mean this is this is Jeremy Bentham's moral
calculus argument from Cameron Bertutez of the pieces of data, and you're like,
Okay, well, yeah, how likely is this? Like let's give the
Protestants something here, and so we'll give him a little like this is a
little bit of evidence against the papacy. I can't really stay this a whole
lot, but this is still being charitable and so, but what you can
do with the with the Protestant case is you can by the way, I
forgot, I just remembered. This is the guy who hates the transcendental argument,
by the way, which I think is literally just too high IQ for
him to get. He just doesn't get it, and that's part of the
reason. It makes him mad, and that's why that's the real reason that
he insists that I totally lost the debate that Matt Dilhundy wiped the floor with
me, according to Cameron, And I think it's because he just can't get
TAG. He doesn't get it and no idea what it is. And so
you're getting the most ridiculous evidentialist argument I've ever heard for anything in the religious
world. I mean, Jeremy Bentham's moral calculus argument is dumb and completely like
Internet spurg coomer Man level stuff. But in a naturalistic, atheistic universe,
I can at least see why Kumerman Bentham would make that kind of an argument
if that's the universe that he lives in, and we're all just machines determined
by this giant, you know, mechanistic universe. We're all in this in
the machine. Welcome my son to the machine. But to make this argument
in some evidential us stack up the arguments in an algorithm for the papacy is
so dumb. This is preposterous. So no wonder kimra Bertozi would never debate
anything. I asked this guy multiple times. Okay, you think I'm dumb,
You think Matt del Honey wiped the floor with me. How about you
come on and we'll have a debate. Oh you're mean. I don't have
to. I got an excuse your mean, So remember the excuses he's me.
Meanwhile, he's got a quick books argument for the bay. They've got
the dedicay, They've got these different documents, these early church documents where you
don't see, like why is Matt Fratt smoking a cigar on top of a
in front of the Vatican? Are we supposed to think that like I can
be some like some sort of like Australian James Bond in Rome. He's like
he's trying to do pull a Daniel Craig, Like when Daniel Craig goes to
the Vatican. It's trying to be like the Aussie James Bond home Hero and
a mission for Francis to make sure the world accepts the quick books. Gaysy
in argument for the Papacy. By the way, he sounds like he sounds
like the guy who sells you ship in Resident Evil. Hey there, stranger,
want to buy a little bit of butt stuff. Welcome to Vatican City,
stranger. You might need some pendance to ward off the Setanic Evil and
say the Vatican got a news, got some items for sale, stranger.
Literally the dude that I was just talking to in Resident Evil, all right,
that's Matt frad laid out and specific names and everything. And so they'll
say this is a document, we would expect to find the papacy in this,
in this early, this early document, and so and then. But
there are obviously Catholics who want to respond to that, like Jimmy Aikan and
be like, well, no, there's actually reason to suspect that they wouldn't
have named specific names in the early Church because does Jimmy Aiken respond to that
while he's doing his Star Wars streams? Or is it after the Star Wars
stream? So, because I can't, I can't remember who like as an
actual like Star Wars? Soy man right? Jay Dyer is worldly? Johnny
g would you like to come on the chat and debate? So again,
I sense I sense a Roman Catholic in the chat. Since a Roman Catholic
in the chat? Now, if I did a Star Wars stream, it
would be to make fun of it. It would not be because it's cool.
Resident Evil actually is cool, though, who would have ever thought that
Resident Evil would be more based in Chad one day than Star Wars would be?
And yet here we are. If you remember when Resident Evil five came
out, they were already trying to cancel it because they said it was Resident
Pepi fit. Anyway, Hey Jamie, could you make me a coffee?
I don't know if you heard me or not. Uh, you have a
gift for impressions, Thank you. I did impressions for my entire high school,
my senior year. I think I do have somewhat of a gift.
Maybe one day'll be really good. Anyway, this is too funny, go,
this is better. This is more comical than I ever dreamt of.
Why is being persecuted? So you're not going to just spell out all the
names of the most important figures in your religion so that people can just read
the letter and then go hunt them down and kill them. And so there's
there's reasonable responses to that, But nevertheless, I was still being charitable to
the Protestants and giving it some weight of evidence against You would think if you
have around fifteen arguments against the papacy and only four, yeah, favor of
the papacy, that it's going to be hard for the papacy to come out
on top unless those four arguments are very strong. Yeah. So there's there's
really three passages in the New Testament that are sort of relevant to the papacy
in terms of like giving some positive boost to it, which is Matthew sixteen,
John twenty one, and Luke twenty two. And you if you look
at the interesting So I like the admission there that there's really only three passages
that we build this entire edifice on and allow me to explain via intense isid
Jesus we don't know what isaid Jesus is. That's where you read back into
a passage something that was never there initially or in the minds of the author
is said Jesus. Is very common when people like to bolster a new doctrine
via mining the passages for something that was never there than creatively constructing an argument.
For example, allow me to start out. Let's say I started a
cult, right, and my cult was centered around the idea that instead of
having a male patriarchal tyrant, or even a female run things, the fairest
type of governance should be kids. Kids rule, kid order. Dude,
shout out hashtag kids rule. Now, why would I want kids to rule?
Because there's a passage in Isaiah it says a child shall lead them.
Clearly, that's talking about the true head of the church should be a teen
dude, teen pope, thank you. I mean the passage says a child
shall lead them, the pope is the leader. Clearly, that's saying we
need a kid pope. By the way, a teen pope would be better
than Francis. I mean, let's bring in Pope Jeoffrey. Put Pope Jeoffrey
up in there, he'd be better than Francis. Dude, Geoffrey isn't even
as Geoffrey wouldn't be making people, you know, sign on to the boute
stuff. But the passage says that a child shall leave them, and all
the passages are about the Pope. Isaiah twenty two. The Steward, the
Steward, the Steward of Gondor. He's a symbol of the Pope for Gondoor.
Right, Remember seeing Bean, Remember Sean Bean, the Steward of Gondor
basically is the Pope him over there, right, But he's over there suckling
on them berries with meat giblets running down his face. But hell, I'd
rather have the Steward of Gondor as the Pope than Francis. Who would y'all
rather have the Steward of Gondor or Geoffrey either want to be better than Francis
because neither one of them and they were corrupt, but they didn't make anybody
do butt stuff for Gondor. Fu girdle. Right. If the Steward of
Gondor was pope, then you'd have a Borimir over there, who's Geoffrey.
People don't know who Geoffrey is, right, you'd have Sean being over there
going fu girdle. Come on, now, that was pretty good jokes.
That was all right? Right, let's three. I mean I think being
charitable you can say, okay, this does give a little bit of weight
to Is this a buzzword that him and Lofton all just decided to suddenly hammer
everybody with being charitable while being charitable? Being charitable, being charitable, being
charitile, church charitable, charitable? Is this this thing to beat people's heads
over with as some sort of lame like one time over blanket excuse for everything?
Right? What do you even mean being charitable? I mean, I
know what the word means, but what do you mean? Because I feel
like it's getting over used here? Right, yeah, exactly what legit would
have a hard time choosing between Francis or Pope denethor or Pope Geoffrey, Like
you could go either way. This is why I spent so much time posting
on this one piece of data. Or it's just a ridiculous grift argument that
you thought would dupe a lot of dummies into thinking that you had a mathematical
Bayesian proof of the papacy. I mean, who actually believe did you?
Guys who believed this a Baysian spreadsheet argument for the PAP I mean, is
this due truble? Maybe he's troubling. Maybe Cameron is actually super based Baisdian.
I'm gonna give you a Baisdian spreadsheet right now from Quick Books as to
how this argument is tarted, a Basian spreadsheet for the PAP. I remember
what I remember when I saw this video a year ago, I was like,
is that real? And I totally forgot about it. I'm so glad
I remembered this thing. This is a This is a gem, dude.
I want to remind y'all because we've got a bunch of young boys in the
chat. We got a bunch of young boys. Does this even exist anymore?
Didn't Bill Gates put this on everybody's computer back in the day. I
want to see an and here we go. Check this out. This is
what we're talking about right here, Yes, really quick, especially not those
crap for those that don't know. And you want to would you like to
construct your own Baysian argument for the papacy. Allow me to show you Quick
Books. Just install Windows XP or whatever they had in nineteen ninety seven.
What if we have in nineteen ninety seven. I don't remember. So for
those that don't know, here's Windows Quick Books nineteen ninety seven. Bad yours
is okay o that quick Books to County software from the makers of Quickens.
I called a total free number and got a free trial version. My system
works fine for me, That's what I thought. But if you have bills
to pay a customers who owe your money, you really ought to try this.
Yeah, Or if you have apologetic work that's super lazy and dumb and
grifty and like kind of a joke, you can also use quick books like
Number or a religion that would like to easily make dumb people convinced. I
think Vatican City is more door. So what are you'all talking about? Right?
More door or back door? Y'all tearing it up in the chat.
It's on fire tonight. This is the quick book. This is the Pope
Francis edition. Right here, you get a you get a remember remember in
Microsoft word that little clippy, right, you get a little you get a
little a little dollar sign with a with a papal with a pope hat that
pops up helps you out on on Pope books. Now quick books, what
do we want to call it? Trying to think of the right word Microsoft,
Microsoft Pope Splaner, Microsoft Pope Splainer. By the way, you could
literally write a program for this crap, the Microsoft Pope Splaner program like quick
Books. Type in your problem and it will spit out a Gaysian algorithm based
on camera member twos these calculations and you'll never lose an argument. Yeah,
but does it do the Vatican banks payroll? Because that funds a lot of
organized crime and money laundering and weapons trades. Remember how it came out that
all the weapons sales that were being funneled to Vatican bank accounts. So does
quick Books work with the Vatican Bank or is that a separate private bank?
So that's probably that's probably off the records right to report that you control.
I'm so every Roman Catholic pop apologist should I don't over here and get quick
Books because Cameron solved the I mean, who knew you thought you had to
do all this boring as apologetic work, read all these books. You only
needed one book Quick Books. The typological there's there's all sorts of names for
it, but the typological Eliakhan argument, you call it something like that.
But there's a connection, there's a textual illusion. Ah, you see three
passages that have nothing to do with Batican one. And now let's move to
the Eliakim type of logical argument of the steward of gondor right is somehow equal
to the quisa the God Emperor on Earth. I'm gonna remind you what this
doctrine actually was in history, because all of these goobers don't even talk about
it, and they don't even know. Like, I can't stress to you
how low tier normy pop apologetics for the Roman Catholic world actually is. And
I know because I was in it, and I did it for a while
when I was dumb, before I learned about quick books. I'm gonna show
you another change that nobody ever talks about except over here on this show.
No one talks about one of the biggest changes that, by the way,
was backed up in part via the stupid is of Jesus. Of what he's
talking about, the steward Eliah Kim is Christ. First of all, it's
not a worldly office of Peter that mirrors a worldly steward in the Old Testament
kingdom. I mean, they're literally like owing back in time to Old Testament
relations to try to make the papacy into the equivalent of an earthly high priest,
which would be a version of judaizing heresy. It's just so stupid.
I mean by this type of argument, everyone in the Old Testament who is
the leader of anything is now a type of the pope. You see how
stupid this is. Now, let's get creative with our isogesis. Oh,
well, we had some female judges, didn't we, In the Book of
Judges. I think a name is Deborah. Oh to quote back, remember
Deborah. Why Deborah was a type of the pope. You see, she
was a head of Israel. The New Testament needs a living, earthly head.
The pope should be woman. Oh but wait a minute, that's a
violation of paper code. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Oh really
is it? You mean, like how blessing unions was a violation. Oh
but that's changed. But it didn't. But nothing changed, ain't it?
Damn thing changed? All? Ain't nothing changed? All yo doesn't change?
Why doesn't he? He should have a rap song about that, right,
loft dog dn't change, dog under durn ding change. By the way,
we're gonna we had an awesome clip of Michael Lofton lying, So we'll play
that just in a second. How many times did I tell you these guys
were just complete goobers. Number One, they're actually not that smart. The
lack of the reason they're not debating with me has nothing to do with me
being mean. And by the way, all of these people, except for
Tim, are totally passive, aggressive and totally cunning and shifty in the background,
so they present you this pious case the face, and in the background,
they're not pious. These people are ridiculous. Now, maybe Trent does.
I don't know Trent so, but the rest of these goons are goons,
and we're seeing that they're goons because I'm not waiting. It's about Jay's
being we I'm not wasted. I'm wasted. This is normal me, dude,
I'm not wasted. I did take chalk today, so if I'm ramped
up, it's because of chalk. But I'm not wasted. In fact,
I'm never wasted. I do not I never ever drink. I know people
are surprised when they hear that I had one glass of wine for the first
time in five years when we met the Italian Strotzy Joccardini family, the nobility,
and I did that because they have a winery and I don't want to
be rude and not drink their wine. But Jamie can tell you that I
hate alcohol and I don't drink, and I quit drinking. We're coming up
close to a decade, dude, Like we're getting up towards a decade.
I just I don't like alcohol. I quit liking it, like almost seven
eight years ago. Just woke up and I was like, you know,
this sucks. I don't like it anymore. And by the way, I
drank enough of my twenties anyway. And every time I tell this story,
they're like, you were an alcoholic. We got him exposed. I think
I could have become an alcoholic if I had constantly kept drinking. But no,
I wasn't an alcoholic. I never went to AA or any of this
stuff. I just one day woke up and said, you know what,
I don't get much work done when I drink, and it's not fun anymore.
Once you get to about age thirty, you can't drink like it you
did when you're in your twenties, and you wake up feeling like crap and
you're you feel like garbage for three days in a row. It's like,
all right, I'm done drinking. And then by age thirty. Anyway,
all your friends are married and have kids and they don't go out to bars
anyway, So you're just gonna drink it home alone. That's that's freaking losory
dude. Anyway, we gotta get back to Cameron. This is too good.
This is by the way, thank you for the super chat, so
much appreciated. Uh, we're gonna get to Trent and we're gonna get to
loft Dog and is that it? Oh there was a Scott Han clip here,
so I think Cameron. Yeah, it gives me heartburn too. By
the way, when I quit drinking, all my ascid reflux in a way,
so people are always complaining about acid reflux. Oh cool, gooble,
gonna take all these pills, gonna take zero tech and blah blah blah,
but taking all these alien planet name I gotta take zero tech from the planet
play at eight. Why are you taking alien name pills? Dude? You
want a big secret. Stop eating cake and drinking alcohol and you won't get
acid reflux anymore. Revelation. All right, this is too good. This
is comedy gold. And by the way, if somebody would actually like to
see a complete deconstruction of this dumb argument from Isaiah twenty two of eliak Him
as if it's a proof of the papacy. There was the classic debate on
Suan's channel with ubi Uh and I don't remember who he debated. Maybe it
was it was Suan. W wasn't it the new Eliah? And the funniest
thing about this debate, I'm not kidding if you go, if you really
want to go watch it is that Suan ends up going into Uh quoting elements
of the Talmud to prove how Jews viewed Eliakim and the I mean, so
I love that. I mean, let's go to the Talmud to prove the
earthly temporals premacy power of the papacy exactly again demonstrating that the real essence of
the papacy is a step back into Old Testament methodology and ideology when what Jesus
was setting up was not an earthly power in kingdom. That does not mean,
you guys know, I'm not a Baptist, right, I'm not some
kind of goofball that thinks that the state has no role. The dual headed
eagle is the role. Okay, the dual headed eagle doesn't fit anywhere into
the papacy, because if the pope is the church and state, then it's
a single headed eagle, not a dual headed eagle. But everybody knows that
the classic image and symbol of the Church from the Patristic Byzantine period is a
dual headed eagle. I'm not lit. I don't know what you're talking on
chocolate. If you're talking about lit, I'm on chalk. I'm not on
any drugs. I ain't lit. And it's a textual allusion back to this
Old Testament character alike him. And so the argument goes is that Peter that's
mentioned in Matthew sixteen nineteen is the fulfillment of alake Him. So he is
the new aliak Him. He's the type that's the typological. Interesting you notice
that for the first thousand years of the Church, as far as I'm aware,
Isaiah twenty two is never used as a Vatican one style proof of the
papacy. Naturally, it would only become in a creative exigesi or isigesis after
the Gregorian reforms. After the eleventh century when we get the papal revolution.
Shocker, right, You think any church father exegted Isaiah twenty two has a
proved that the pope has not just universal jurisdiction, but also that he has
temporal supremacy. And I'm gonna show you that that's where the doctrine goes.
Because none of these people ever talk about the dogma. The audio of what
is too low. I'm my audio is too lower his. Let's see if
I can turn cameraon up any turn it up, bring the noise. All
right, we got cameraon up as far as he'll go. Let's see if
that helps. Let's see if we can try one more thing to make it
even. That's about as loud as we can get it. So let's see.
Because they don't talk about the fact that the temporal supremacy of the pope
became a dogmatic definition that was necessary for salvation, you see. And I'm
gonna have to freaking turn the dang internet. I'm gonna have to turn the
dang WiFi on because the battery is running down. I'm to grab another cough
drop and to remind you to smash that like button. Support the show via
super chat function if you have a question, comment topic, feel free to
bring it up. I was inspired today, Yes, a literally, I
have the vaticouf. Some id said, are you sick? I've had Vatican
cough since I was at the Vatican seven weeks ago where I was smoking cigars
on the balconies of the Vatican. Psich I would turn down smoking cigars on
the balcony bat it actually sounds like somebody that's actually sounds like something Skittles,
Rainbow meet up. Let's smoke some cigars on the balcony of the Votic and
if you know what I mean, it's a big fabulous all right, let's
get back to the Bayesian proof of the papacies. Oh, this was about
real Isaiah twenty two Eli, I can it's fulfilled in Christ has nothing to
do with a temporal papal ruler, the Old Testament character the New Testament character.
And what you did then is you see that the office of the Old
Testament office is going to be very similar in all sorts of ways to the
New Testament office. Not in every way. Obviously, there's going to be
because the Jesus' kingdom was greater than David's kingdom. There's going to be greater
properties that are going to exist in the anti type, the type that you
see the fulfillment that you see in the New Testament. So it's not going
to be a one to one correspondence between the two, but you're nevertheless going
to see some correspondences. Now you might think, well, now, wait
a minute. Surely when we object to this and point out that this is
creative is to Jesus and nobody in the New Testament thought of Isaiah twenty two
as a reference to a temporal papacy with universal supremacy and jurisdiction and all scope
and the Quisa's Hotterock doctrine. Surely right, the universe is super being.
Right, Surely they have a response to that. What do you think the
response is high IQ, beloved audience, and I'm not trolling my audience,
actually is high IQ. We don't fall for these dumb quick books arguments for
the papacy. What do you think the response is doctrinal development? Ah,
yes, the great umbrella uber mention argument. Right. Well, you see
it wasn't necessarily immediate there in Isaiah twenty two or in the Patristic exegesis for
the first thousand years it's a doctrine that developed where we learned the seeds coming
to full fruition of the papacy to become the temporal ruler. And how exactly
was the temporal authority of the pope backed up for many many centuries? Oh,
the forgeries? Exactly were the forgeries also seed doctrines contained in Isaiah twenty
two. Well, you see there's a development, and then it takes time
to weed out the bad Oh okay, interesting, So it's taken time to
weed out the bad arguments and the bad reasoning as to why it's wrong to
bless skittles unions. You see, you see that doctrinal development is the same
basis for moral development. Dummies, what properties the life had? Then it
was very close to the papal office. And so then the question is does
that really transfer over? Does that office transfer over to Peter? And so
I was not convinced about this argument for a while. But what I saw
so even he knew this was a stupid argument, right, But what was
the thing that changed his mind on this Isaiah twenty two argument? I gotta
hear this was that if this argument is true, And again I was trying
to be charitable to both sides. If this argument is true, it is
so unlikely that Protestantism or Orthodoxy is true. Again, this is the distinctive
doctrine, is the papacy. And so basically it's like, now, wait
a minute. This started out as a quick books Bayesian argument of some sort
of algorithm, some sort of Suss algorithm that he came up with, and
now he's decided that Isaiah twenty two is the lynchpin of all arguments. This
is the lynch pin. Again. Please go watch uh Ubi's debate with Sewan
Suna on this stupid ass argument. This is so dumb. I can't believe
that people think this is the clincher for the papacy. I mean, how
are people how are people falling for this? I'm trying to figure it out.
I do remember the first time that I heard this argument back in maybe
two thousand and five. I think I heard it from its front. It
was in the Butler, Dolgren and Hass book, which is a popular Roman
Cawolic apologetics book, Peter and the Keys or whatever. I got it over
here, and I remember thinking, interesting, that's a fascinating argument. That
is an interesting take. But I was not very well studied in the Book
of Isaiah at the time, nor was I really good in New Testament theology
either, So I have to think that this could only be a convincing argument
to really low tier, low information voters. That's all. That's all all
I can think here, because I mean, in Suan's case, it took
him going to the Talmut and digging up ridiculous out of nowhere Jewish tradition,
exegesis isa Jesus inventing stuff about Isaiah twenty two, and they're, you know,
the high priest or something, I mean, just crazy stuff that would
have nothing to do with the practice of the church obviously. And he's got
these people like qualities with his office being the new alike him. How likely
is that on the papacy seems pretty likely. So interestingly, he just stated
the thing that was in question. So you've got Peter who's got these papal
like things in the office. That's what he said. That's not me making
fun of him. You've got Peter that's got these papal like things of the
office. Let's hear this beautiful, eloquent, wonderful statement again. And so
basically it's like if he's got Peter, he's got these people like qualities.
If you've got Peter, he's got these paple like qualities. Well that's the
thing in question, Cameron. So you notice that it's not surprising by the
way that this is also the guy that can't get tagged. He doesn't he
can't understand tag literally, and so he doesn't understand that. Your presupposition is
that Peter equals Vatican One, and that's not what's been demonstrated. I guarantee
you, I guarantee you one percent that this guy hasn't read Vatican One,
much less any of the other councils. With his office being the new Elia
Him, how likely is that on the papacy seems pretty likely. Is no
one going to talk about how eliak him is a type of Christ. The
very office and the statements of a like him, and what he does is
the thing that Christ has. So in the liac and passage it does state
that he's the he will open and close right as the steward of the House
of David. And remember when we had the debate with a certain Catholic and
the Book of Revelation came up, and the quote where it says I have
the keys of Death and Hades, and this certain Catholic person said, that's
Peter, when it's Jesus talking to the seven churches. Do you notice the
pattern there of type and fulfillment type anti type things that are typically referred to
as fulfilled in Christ and in his ministry the person of Christ are transferred consistently
from Roman Catholics to the Pope. Now, to be fair, we would
agree that you could say that every bishop and every priest in a way also
represents the Father and represents Christ. It doesn't follow from that that that becomes
then a retroactive proof of Vatican Ones claims that should be so obvious in their
own church. In the Alexandria document admits this even more forcefully than the Chi
eighty document. But of course they haven't read that, because this is all
relying on little information voters who haven't read the documents and don't know what all
this stuff actually says. We did a whole live stream going through the entirety
of the Alexandria document. Do you even know what that is? That's where
they admit all of our positions again again under a papally approved commission me David
and snacky right here. We put the whole thing on the screen for you
because you're all lazy and won't read it. Roman Catholics and every Roman remember
when this came out, what six months ago? I posted this? I
sent this to every Roman Catholic I could think of. Do you know what
I got in response? Silence? Silence, absolute silence. No one responded.
Remember that trad cap mom that would call into the streams and talk for
an hour she said, oh uh, I'll watch this later. Silence.
By the way, have any of the Roman Catholic apologists commented on the Alexandria
document? How come? Where's the Pope's planning on the Alexander Dark? Now?
Maybe they have, because I don't watch these gebers. But if they
have, feel free to enlighten me and put it in the Chat or something.
Maybe we can go watch it. But I mean, here's the Papal
Commission admitting about ninety percent of the Orthodox complaints and arguments. And guess what
if that's true, then Vatican One's not true. Fred says, I've watched
a lot of you, and I find you hard to follow. We'll ask
a question, what is hard to follow? I? Mean, how many
are how difficult is it to understand that? Unam Sankdam says that you have
to believe in the temporal supremacy of the Pope to be saved, And now
that's no longer Roman Cathlic dogma post Vatican two. The Pope took off the
triple tr Do you know what that is? Do you know why he took
the triple tr off? To signify that he no longer cares about supposedly temporal
supremacy. The triple crown symbolized that, and Roman Catholics no longer confess that
post Vatican two. So that's a thing that was necessary for salvation in when
I'm sunktum, But you don't have to believe anymore. Do you want an
easier example? How about Urban the second calling a crusade versus. Now you
can go and pray in the mosques with the Muslims. How about that?
Is that clear enough for you? Do? Do people not have any discernment
to understand that you can't as a Christian go pray in mosques towards Mecca?
Do you not know this? What kind of Christianity? What do you even
think this religion is? And do you understand that the trad pope Benedict did
the exact same thing, And do you know the pulpsplanners never tell you this
because there is no explanation for this except that it's just simply an apostate religion
that's a tool of geopolitical power. But remember there's no a thing as a
new World order, so that doesn't exist. So problem solved. I mean,
why are you falling for these people? Oh it's a liberal publication.
Oh so it didn't happen because it's a liberal publication. You can go find
it in a thousand publications. You can't as a Christian pray in a mosque
because it's a public sign of defecting from the Christian faith in Roman Catholic theology,
it's that moral theology tells you that. Does this not make it clear
for you that that's a different religion? Is this the same religion that Urban
the second believed, that called for a crusade against the godless infidel Turks?
Is building an Abrahamic faith center the same religion. And it's not just francis
what that frenchs? No, you mean Benedict? You mean, like right
here, trad based trad Benedig going praying in the moss towards Mecca. He
just praying silently to Jesus. That's called casusedrie consused tree. That means that
you justify obvious moral infractions with Pube's blaming and Roman Catholics are notorious for this.
This is a surrendering of the religion because it signifies by the action that
you are giving credence to blessing, just like their skittles blessings. You're blessing.
You're affirming that Mecca is a site of God and that the mosque genuinely
worships and has a connection to God. And that is not Christian teaching.
Islam is an aryan anti christ religion. They completely reject the deity of Christ
and the Trinity, and that everyone knows this. Is that clear enough for
you? Is that clear enough to signify that this is a different religion.
So we had one tried cat the other day saying that, oh, it's
not a change, because it's a change in practice about how we operate with
Muslims. No, No, you understand. You can't go and worship publicly
with other religions in your own theology. You can't build a Brahmic faith center
together with Muslims and Jews, unless you actually do have a false religion that
is the same God of Muslims and Jews, which is essentially not the Trinity.
So actually it is more honest for Francis allah Vatican two's natural theology to
build an Islamic faith center and a Jewish faith center together with his Vatican two
faith. That is more honest. And they do worship the same Little g
God together, which is not the Trinity. So all of you in communion
with Francis are partaking of that spirit, and that is a spirit of delusion,
and it's odd again. Yeah, exactly why does this even need to
be explained to a person who persons who profess to be Christians? M h,
what are the what are the what are they saying about? Do the
do the Catholic apologists even talk about this? I mean, are they not
telling you that this exists? I mean, so here it is. Oops,
we're not playing London grammar. So I remember, according to Trent Horne,
this should be absolutely okay. What's wrong with because we have in common,
suppose with Muslims and Jews, the worship of one generic God, that's
natural theology. So there's nothing wrong with an Abrahamic faith center, because as
Vatican two says, we share the same God as the Muslims and the Jews,
even though they're not Tranitarian, so we don't. But I mean,
Trent shouldn't have a problem with this. Maybe he doesn't loten all these idiots.
So here they are all at this Masonic looking ceremony, and they're bringing
their cubes of light, which is all very ominous here, bizarre ominous thing.
And this came about from Francis's joint declaration with the Grand Emam. For
you Pope's planners out there that are ignorant and trying to say Pullridges have known
to do with this. It comes from his document. Of course, he
has something to do with this. And have you all forgotten this? Did
you forget Pacha Mama? Did you forget the Amazons and on? Did you
forget all these Francis' greatest hits. But remember, the papacy provides certainty,
epistemic certainty, doctrinal clarity, moral support and guarding of and maintenance of tradition.
Remember that's what the tradcats and the Pope's planners and all these Roman Catholics
have been saying for years. Oh, but they've been pretty quiet on that
one, haven't they remember they were quiet on this And they're not using this
trump card of the papacy making everything clear anymore, are they? How come?
How come? Well, because nothing changed? Ain't nothing changed? Oh?
If nothing changed, then why did Francis have to issue a new document?
And how come the they're all going wild with it with their schedule stuff.
Nothing changed because the document says in one paragraph nothing changed. Oh yeah,
that's called double speak. That's called a contradiction, as even doctor Ed
Fazer pointed out about the document. So wait a minute. I thought Francis's
documents make things clear and they're the final court of appeal. But no,
no, you need all the pop Catholic apologists to interpret the interpretation of the
interpretation. What would Francis do without Michael Lofton to interpret the papal documents?
Yeah? Right, you have to interpret the magisterium. But wait a minute.
The Magistarium was supposed to be the final court of appeals. Why do
I need Michael Lofton all these papal apologists If the Magistarium is the final court
of a view, why do we need them? Why do I need an
army of pope splainers? And by the way, the popes players themselves now
have their own mini army of Lofton splainers on Twitter. But let's let's finish
Cameron's Bayesian quick books argument for the papers. This is the stupidest stuff I've
ever heard. But if you're doing this Bayesian analysis, and then you ask
how likely is that data given something other than Catholicism, something other than the
papacy, so like Protestantism or Orthodoxy, how likely is that data? And
I have to say, I just have to say, Now, the whole
question is do these texts actually prove the in one doctrine of the papacy?
And his move is just basically say, well, look let's have Peter with
all that papally stuff, all that papal equalities, papal equalities, he said,
papally papish qualities. And then how likely is it that Orthodoxy or Protestants
could explain these texts? Not very likely. So there you go. This
is the dumbest slide of hand, stupidest argument. This is the crowning dumb
argument for the papacy of all time. It is dumber than all of the
like it's this is dumber than a forgery. Like a forgery is a better
I mean, because it's at least kind of cunning, you know what I
mean. But this is just looney tunes, dude, Looney Tunes against super
Low. It's gotta be very very low. I see. And so this
this is really strong. Even Matt Fraser, uh huh, I see.
I mean it's by that little giggly I see there. It's almost like maybe
even Matt fraz kind of doubting. This is like that, this is a
little this a little goofy here, this is well a no fault. I
don't know about these. How do you do? It's stranger? Could I
sell you a bit of argument, our resident evil merchant, evidence for the
papacy if you're convinced of the type of loge I see. So if you're
not, it doesn't do much damage. Oh that was an interesting admission.
So if you're convinced of the typology, then it's a great argument for the
paper. So in other words, grant me my papal presuppositions, and then
we can read into Isaiah twenty four or twenty two. All the Vatican one
stuff. Wow, amazing, how this is a strong argument. Is that
what you're saying, there's a caveat there? So I was going to wait
to talk about that a little bit later. Let me, do you mind
if i'm of course, and just while you're doing that, just so for
those when we talk about does quick books run on an iPhone? So I'm
confused here, So he's trying to pull up his quick books? Uh that
does it still run on the Mac operating system? I wonder a person's places
events in the Old Testament foreshadow of greater reality in the New. So Saint
Augustin says, the New Testament is concealed in the Old, the Old is
revealed in the New. And this is not some medieval invention. Saint Paul
talks about Christ is the New Adam and many other examples. Yeah, yeah,
nobody doubts typology, but you are creative isigesis of reading Vatican one into
Isaiah twenty two is is just ridiculous. That's what people doubt, not not
typology. Notice he doesn't even think his audience is like intelligent enough to even
know what that is. Right, So again this is like, let's speak
to the lowest tier people who have no clue about anything, and rope them
in with this mathematical Bayesian argument for the papacy. This is just unbelievable.
Recently said that Christianity is a type of logical religion. And this is one
of the things that's really gave me, given me like a better appreciation for
the Bible is the fact that the New Testament ties in to the Old Testament.
It's the fulfillment of the Old Testament. It's not as if, I
mean, as a Protestant, my view was kind of like, oh,
we could kind of like get rid of the Old Testament, like let's forget
about it. Let's try to forget about it, because well, that's interesting
because that runs counter to the type of approach that the Vatican put out on
It's the document on the Relationship of the Church to the Jews. Remember that
document, because it actually said that rejecting type is a valid way to read
the Old Testa. Remember that that was a huge scandal. All the Roman
Catholics were in an uproar for years over this document. What was the name
of that document. It's escaping me at the moment. The Church's relationship to
the jewsus not no stratate. It's a document that they put out in the
two thousands, because even people like Jimmy Aiken and even the all the normy
Catholic even they had to try to explain this thing away back in the day.
Can anybody remember the name of that document. I haven't thought about this
in a long time, but actually, if you read rat Singer's book,
he basically says the same thing in his book too. Two religions, one
covenant. Excuse me, many religions, one Covenant. It's a real book.
I know none of you Knube Catholics have read this, but I've actually
read about six or seven of Ratzinger's books, and rat Singer refers to the
document in this book. I mean, even Ratzinger's book was kind of a
scandal because it says that the Jewish reading of the Old Testament is a valid
reading. Oh but that would mean that all the prophecies of Christism, Assiah
and all the typologies are also no longer the case. You see, So
just classic Vatican double speak. People ain't talking about Rusia. Russia don't have
anything to do with what we're talking about tonight. No, it's not no
sertate. They it's a separate document in the two thousands that came out.
Let me see, maybe it's mentioned here. It's something like this the relationship
of the Church to the Jews or something like that. He caused the big
start. They also had to downplay it. They all tried to downplay it,
like even E. MJ. He says stuff like, oh, this
document has been canceled out, it doesn't matter anymore, and when and when
do the Vatican do that exactly? It's just they just say this stuff,
right, Oh, well, we don't care about that anymore. I'm sure
you don't because it's pretty like it's pretty contradictory. Right, there's nobody remembers
this document. Let me think, all right, it'll probably be in this
article here somewhere. I'm trying to think what the name of it was.
Now. It might have even been a document specifically put out by the US,
like the American US Conference Catholic Bishops, and the document came out maybe
even then. It's either the nineties or the two thousands, and it's one
of these things that people have forgotten, like the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans,
I mean, the joint Declaration with the Lutherans is another example of contradiction,
because Lutheranism is an infallibly condemned heresy, and the joint Declaration says that,
well, that doesn't really apply anymore. Okay, sure, I mean
Lutherans still believe Lutheranism. Oh maybe this is it. This is back to
twenty fifteen. New document doesn't seek for conversion. Yeah, it had all
kinds of stuff in it like this. Maybe this is it. Oh,
come on, now, a damn pay article. Come on, let's see
if we can cheat. The Catholic Church does not seek to convert Jews anymore.
The document says, yes, this is it. What's the document?
Though? It's not nosratat this is a post Vattican two document. Hmm,
that's not it. I want to find this because everybody's forgotten this. Here
we go, everybody's forgotten this. I didn't forget it. Let's see new
document. You Catholics should not try to make converts. None of these docum,
none of these things say what the document is. Oh, the document
is called the Gifts and Calling of God are irrevocable. Here we go,
bingo, this is it. Aha, that's it. So this was a
document that was put out on the fiftieth anniversary of nosretate about it in two
and it specifically says that the Old Testament is there's a valid way to read
the Old Testament that Jews have. We're not going to convert Jews anymore.
It's all just totally like surrendering the entire mission of the church. Right.
I'm trying to see what year this came out, twenty fifteen. I think
there's actually an older document than twenty fifteen. But here is that document if
you want to read that one. I mean, there's a ton of these.
By the way, Oh here we go, we should just go here
with relations with Judaism. So basically there's a bunch. I'm not sure which
one it is, So let's see commission documents. To the Commission, there
was a specifically notorious one though, and it prompted all the Roman Catholic apologists
to go into overdrive hyperdrive to make it work. Do we have any former
tradcats that remember this the address to Mines? No, that's not it confide
it on EWTN. Hmm. It just seems like so I thought Gifts and
Calling of God document was older, But I mean the covenant that God has
with Israel is irrevocable. That's actually I mean, God says he will divorce
Israel. It's simply not true. And Roman Catholic dogma actually says in the
Middle Ages that the Covenant of the Old Testament is no longer in force.
I think it's a I think that's that Cantade Domino at Florence. So this
is just an outright contradiction right there. But I remember, these are papally
approved dialogues, right, and of course they're all just going to say,
oh, we don't have to listen to that. Yeah, but the Pope
has approved these documents. Even if you don't like it or you don't listen
to it, the Pope has approved it. So this is what he that
what this is what he thinks, right, he agrees with this, So
that means that he doesn't believe the Christian faith. Cardinal Koch And by the
way, if Francis disagreed with these documents, he would simply say, do
not follow with these documents. I'm the supreme teaching authority of the Romancolic Church.
These documents are telling you not to make converts of other religions and that
is a horrendous evil action, because to make converts is an action of love.
Anyway, if you really want to though, I mean, there's a
whole host of these documents here if you go to the Vatican's website for Ecumenism,
and all of the documents are right here, so it's actually a giant
trove of them. And the joint declaration with the Lutherans I'm sure is also
on here. There's too many documents on this thing. You have to go
fish for if you want it. But anyway, there's the link. Let's
get back to Cameron here. Remember these documents say to not make converts,
right, Remember how Lofton was saying that Francis never said that. By the
way, I lost my place. Where are we at with the quick books
here and attacking Hilder It's like, let's can we just forget about the Can
we just forget about that and just focus on the New Testament? Because it's
all about love and the MASSI and Harry's heresy, isn't it. It's not
a new well, it's something that I was just sort of like drawn to,
like you know, unconsciously, I was like I wish that I could
just do away with the Old Testament, yes, because it was just like
yeah. But Benedict also says similar things like when it comes to modernists,
exe Jesus of passages too. So I mean the Vatican has adopted higher criticism
and higher critical methods at least pre Vatican to and then pretty much dominates in
the Roman Catholic world. So they're trying to sell you on this, uh,
you know, classical patristic exegesis when the Vatican has already accepted modernist,
higher critical ext to Jesus and doesn't do typology in their seminaries anymore. So
he could say, well, but I'm not I'm talking about at the church
level. Yeah, but the Vatican promotes the modernism that you're critiquing. So
I'm talking about the head of your church level with atheists. Yeah, when
he's embarrassing. By the way, keep in mind his debates with atheists.
This is the uber evidentialist man. It's not It's not accidental that he went
to Rome, isn't it? Because evidentialism is bound up with foundationalism and bound
up with foundationalists epistemology and natural theology. So interesting that it's very telling that
he went to Roman Catholicism. I love that. Yeah, helped me see
the importance of the Old Testament and how important it is for the New Testament
authors, including Jesus. Jesus went through and Luke all the Old Testament scriptures
and was like, yeah, this is what Moses had to do, this
and all that. And but wait a minute, Cameron, if Jesus went
through Luke and told him that the Old Testament was about him and all those
passages were typological to Christ, to his ministry, then that would mean that
the Old Testament is not validly read by the Jews, which the Vatican says
it is. So so you're going to get the Vatican there, Cameron,
did you know that? And so it is a typological religion Christianity. Would
you mind if I pressed back against this, maybe try to play a devil's
advocate with this, or would you rather not do that? Well, I
let me you mind if I just continue the journey. So at this point
I did start to look into this one argument, so because I saw if
this argument actually works, then it's really powerful evidence, and so then I
wanted to actually study it. Yeah, so again accept on my presuppositions,
and then I'll overwhelm you with this wowing is Ofgesis passage from Isaiah twenty So
I thought he started with Baysian quick books. And now we spent the last
five minutes on Isaiah twenty two as the killer killed, the kill shot papacy
argument, and so as I studied it, I continue to remain sort of
agnostic about it. I continue to just see I mean, yeah, like
this argument, there are good reasons to think that it's successful. Right,
But then you hear objections from Gavin ORTLND like a typology run a monk,
right, like that seems like a good objection. Yeah, I don't really
know what you're just reading into this, Yeah exactly. I mean, for
example, we should expect to see in the first eight hundred years of the
church, anybody, any counsel, any church father utilizing Isaiah twenty two about
the papacy, Right, wouldn't we expect to see that? If this was
so obvious and has anyone shown this? I mean again, perhaps there is
a church father somewhere that utilizes Isaiah twenty two in some tip of lige.
I've never seen this. I would be surprised perhaps it exists. Do you
want to come on the stream. So we got a bunch of people in
the chat. We've got eight hundred nine undred people over here in the chat.
Make it a bunch of fuss. So you can call in. If
you're gonna fuss in the chat, just come talk to me, call in
right here via Twitter. Otherwise, stop fussing in the chat. I'm talking
to the pope'splainers in the chat. So yes, Marco JB. Come to
the to the chat here, because we're going to go. We'll go to
more documents. We've got all the documents you want. I've got papal documents
out the wazoo here. You don't know that. And so I remained agnostic
about it, and so I was. But I was talking one day with
a friend of mine who's an expert in Bayesian analysis, and I was like,
so what do I do at this point? Do I do? So?
Wait a minute, it's not actually Cameron's argument. It's his friend that's
an expert in Bayesian analysis that's going to give us the quick Books Baysian proof
of the paper. So you can't make this up. This was the dombin
this again, worst papal argument of all time? Or what do I do
with it? If I'm not convinced about this this data being an actual data
point, do I ignore it? And then just like go with whatever the
evidence that I've got. And he was like, no, you don't ignore
it. What you do is you cut its probabilistic force in half. If
you're unsure about that piece of data, then you cut its probabilistic force in
half. And so naturally I went directly to my document and I did that,
and the probability after I cut the probability in half came out two point
ninety one. I think, all right, I've had I've had about enough
of this, this argument, this is this is We're gonna move on.
I mean, so point nine to one chance that the Isaiah Isaiah twenty two
is not about the papacy, Okay, yeah, and that's why you're a
Roman Catholic. Good luck with that, and we'll see how long that lasts.
I imagine it could last infinitely because these people It's like Dolinger said,
right that once Vatican One happens, the entirety of Roman Catholic pologetics would become
papal lawyurism, meaning that everybody would no longer defend Christianity, the d do
Christ, the Trinity, all that it would be now to defend the papacy
in Vatican One? What did ninety nine percent of the papal apologists do argue
the papacy? And so Trent. Someone reached out the other day and said
it wasn't for Trent and was reaching out independently of Trent, said why won't
you have the Trent debate? We had a Trent debate? What are you
talking about? No, the papacy. Oh, I've offered twice to off
to debate Trent on the papacy because I think that the papacy is a geopolitical
power and institution under the sway of things like the econom World Economic Forum and
the State Department. And Trent had no interest in debating that. Trem will
only debate the topic of the infallibility and errancy of the papacy as a institution
created by Christ. When that debate has been had about a million times,
and so how many times do we have to see the same proof text,
the same quote, mining I mean, it just gets old that debate has
Ubi's had this debate with every one of these Catholic apologists already, So I
want to know because the papacy has a tremendous amount of geopolitical connections. There
have been countless public scandals in court cases. Can somebody please help me understand
the meaning of those things? Because that actually seems to make a lot more
sense to explain the papacy than your pope's planning. But they will not debate
that. Why will they not debate that? None of them. I have
reached out to professors, I have messaged everybody who has Catholic scholar friends.
I've asked all of them, somebody please debate the geopolitics of the papacy.
Not one of them will touch it with a ten foot pole, because remember,
according to Trent, there are conspiracies. It doesn't I'm Jack Chick.
That was literally what he said, literally the I mean sure, right right,
I'm Jack. I wrote sixty plus writings of the elite we've lectured through.
I'm Jack Chick. Uh huh. But I'm telling you they won't debate
that topic because I will demolish them because even their own trad cats write gigantic
scholarly tones and go on their buddies channels to talk about geopolitical influence and control
of the papacy, like David Wimhoff, the lawyer, and so if I've
read that book, it's like eight in our pages. And he goes on
Flanders podcast and all these people and I talk about the same stuff. They
call that crazy conspiracies. When the very guy who writes the book goes on
people in their circles podcasts, meaning they support by a proxy, crazy conspiracies.
It's so ridiculous. None of these people wanted to have a serious debate
about real on the ground world issues. They want to already have you debating
fan fiction infallible papacy nonsense. So I'm talking about probably the last two years.
I've asked specifically to find Roman Catholics that would debate the geopolitics of the
papacy, and there are none. I've gotten a resounding no from every one
of them. And I've even reached out to guys I don't even know I've
never heard of. Like I asked him, I said, tell tell me
the scholars, tell me the papal historians that can explain to me the Vatican
banking scandals and the p two mafia and Gladio. Nobody, and again,
have any of these people ever even talked about those things. No, they
don't even know about it, and they have the gall to call me Jack
chick. So I want to hope that maybe Trent just doesn't know about those
things, right. But I can guarantee you this, if we did have
that debate, not one of these goobers would last five minutes, would they?
And they know better. That's why they don't have it. And the
excuse that I mean is an excuse. So that's it. So let's see
what Trent's explanation is and who does Trent go to interesting Ben Shapiro, Hey,
everyone, welcome to the Council Trent Podcasts. I'm your host, Cat
Against' apologist and speaker Tren Horne. I wasn't planning on talking about the issue
of the new Vatican document on Blessings for same sex couples and couples in your
regular situation. He wasn't planning on talking about it. I wonder why do
you want to talk about it? Maybe because it's another big contradiction Trent.
Is that why or is there an other reasons? Because a lot of other
voices were addressing it. But Ben Shapiro asked me to come on to his
show to give my perspective. So I thought this would be a good opportunity
to discuss this issue and the Catholic faith in a broader way. Well,
I'm curious, Trent, did you abide by the Vatican documents that tell you
not to try to attempt to convert Ben Shapiro? Did you stick to that
or did you want to try to convert him because you know that deep down
that's what Christians do as they try to convert people. Or did were you
faithful to the Vaticans apostasy telling you not to convert Jewish people to his audience.
In the interview that I have with Ben, which i'll share with you
shortly, I wanted to communicate that some reports about this new Vatican document are
simply not true, like reports that the Church has changed its teaching on marriage,
or that the Church is now allowing for formal liturgical blessings for same sex
couples that resemble gay weddings. That's not true. The Church has not changed.
False, the Church has changed because the response of twenty twenty one about
the blessing of same sex couples was what what did the CDF say in twenty
twenty one about the blessing? Do you remember the word? For this reason,
it is not listed to a part of blessing to these relationships. Did
you notice that he changed that He cleverly said sacraments in marriage. No,
no, we know that it's not sacraments in marriage. It's the blessing,
the priestly blessing of the couples twenty twenty one. Can you read response on
twenty twenty one? Holy Office of the Inquisition? Can we do but stuff?
If we're on our way to do the butt stuff? But we're also
sorry for it, but also we're not and also please bless us, yes,
yes, please give us this CDF. No, it is not listed
to impart the blessings. So you just heard Trent say nothing changed, nothing
changed. Oh but wait a minute, what does the new document say paragraph
thirty one, fiduccia. Can you guys read within the horizon outline here appears
the possibility of blessings of couples in irregular situations and for the couples of the
same sex. Oh but it's not liturgical, so what stop with the sophistry?
Trent and Michael Lofton are liars because the document clearly is a change.
What does the document right here say for this reason it does not listen?
The Vatican's Doctrinal Office, the CDF, in twenty twenty one the other day,
blessings are possible. You are being lied to. These people are liars,
and they are forced to lie because they are bought into a system that
they are coping for with their mental gymnastics. When it clear as day says
a change, not listit can now be done. Can you read? Can
you read? Stop lying? All of you lying liars? Do you know
what their response is? Can you guess? Oh? But in the earlier
paragraph it says you can't do it, and nothing the earlier paragraphs is nothing
changed. Oh so if there's an earlier paragraph saying nothing changed, and then
a later paragraph says that you can now do this, that's called a contradiction.
And even your famous professor, doctor Ed Fazer went on Twitter to show
you that that's a a contradiction. So you're lying because it is a change,
And if nothing changed, there was no need for a document because the
CDF had already said you can't do it right here, And that has all
always been the teaching back to the two thousand and three document from Ratzinger that
we covered last time. So two thousand and three you can't do it,
two thousand and one can't do it. Twenty twenty three you can do it,
and all those skills men immediately started doing it. So you are liars,
Trent, You're lying. Matt Frad lying, Actually Matt Frad. Now,
wait a minute, does Matt Frad differ from Trent Horn? Because why
is it Matt Frad say, want nothing changed? Maybe it is. Let's
see episode might say what did I say? Thanks to Trent Horn for letting
me use his studio. I want to read what the head of the Ukrainian
Greek Catholic Church, the church of which I am a member, just had
to say about Fiducia supplicants. So we'll read together. By the way,
as the church basically run by the CIA, So if you don't know,
I mean the Ukrainian Catholics or we're big involved in trying to split the Orthodox
Church in the Ukraine, which thank God has failed. It did lead to
basically the persecution of the Orthodox Church in the Ukraine. But the thing he's
touting that he's all because by all these rumman Catholic pap Apologists. They don't
go to the Novasordo by the way. You know that, right. They're
all involved in the subversion of passing themselves off as LARPing Orthodox because their state
department run churches are basically all about that. So that's another element to this
that people don't know, right. So he's basically saying, oh, I
got to the fid chitch out of Ukraine, and let's convit to Orthodox people
as I wit Orthodox t shits and present myself like I'm the Orthodox, but
I'm trying to get everybody in union with Frenzies. Hey, stranger got some
new ways. But it's a pretty short documented about it, quite powerful.
So communicate regarding the reception in the UGCC that's Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church of the
declaration of the Decastroy of the Doctrine of the Faith for Ducius Supplicans on the
pastoral meaning of Blessings. In response to numerous appeals from bishop's clergy, monastics,
ecclesial movements and individual laity of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church regarding the declaration
of the Decastrey of the Doctrine of the Faith for ducias supplicans on the pastoral
meaning of blessings, and after consulting with relevant experts and competent institutions, I
wish to inform you of the following and as four short paragraphs is the first.
The above mentioned declaration interprets the pastoral meaning of blessings in the Latin Church,
not in the Eastern Catholic Churches. It does not address questions of Catholic
faith or morals, nor does it refer to any prescriptions of the Code of
Canons of the Eastern Churches or c CEO, nor does it mention Eastern Christians.
So they're clever out is that, oh, we don't have to listen
to it because we're under another canon law, Eastern Canons and the Roman Calloary
Church. Have you read Vatican One? You have to accept Vatican one.
If you're a Roman Catholic. You don't get to not accept Vatican ones teaching
about the universal jurisdiction and supremacy of the Pope because you're in an Eastern Rite.
This is a fiction that Eastern Catholics have made up to make Eastern Catholicism
some offer and some opportunity to Orthodox people. This scam has gone on for
way too long. People that have watched David's video begin to figure out that
it's LARPing because there's nothing in Vatican One that gives Eastern Rite people some excuse
to not have to not to submit to the papacy. The papacy when it
speaks on faith and morals, is authoritative. That's his ordinary teaching. So
Michael Lafton is actually more consistent than these people because Lofton understands what Vatican One
says about the ordinary teaching of the papers, meaning that you have to follow
it. You don't get to go to a national group of churches. Look
at what these guys are doing. How long have they said and critiqued Orthodoxy
Orthodox He's nationalistic. Now he's going to a nationalist church, the Ukrainian Catholic
Nation State Church. He's repealing to a nation synod of church to be more
correct than Francis. That's not how papism works, Matt. Vatican One doesn't
allow you to pick and choose Eastern rights that aren't subject to papal rulings.
Now you might think you can do that, and you might think the papal
system allows for that, that's just the incoherence and contradiction of the papal system.
That's not true Eastern sonodal practice. That's called orthodoxy. So he wants
orthodoxy within papers, which is the whole scam of Eastern Catholicism. And he's
going to say, I'm going to saw it with a bunch of bishops in
a nation state against Francis. That's called schism. Have you ever heard of
nation states going against the pope in papism, that's called schism. Have you
ever heard Old Catholics. So these people have no concern for consistency. They
have a ministry of grift that they've erected over the last several years. And
that's why they won't to ever a debate anybody who's serious. Why have a
debate when you can just keep this nonsense going us on the basis of Canon
fourteen ninety two of the Cceoh this correct, By the way, I'm skipping
this because Eastern Canons have absolutely nothing to do with this. The Eastern Catholics
pretend that they're not governed by the pope, and that they're governed by some
mythical Eastern canon law which is not subject to the Pope. I'm not saying
that canon law is mythical. The idea that they're not under the pope is
mythical. Vatican one says anyone who does not accept Vatican one is excommunicated and
damned. So for you to say, I don't have to accept Vatican One
because I'm an Eastern Catholic and we're governed by our own canons. Your canons
have nothing to do with the Pope's overruling and supreme universal jurisdiction. And by
the way, that's proven by the fact that the Pope determines what the Eastern
canons are. This is so stupid. This is all deception. They're coming
up with creative ways to lie to you because they're liars at all. Be
separated from the rest of the priests, always has an evangelical and catechetical dimension
and therefore can in no way contradict the teaching of the Catholic Church about the
family as a faithful, insoluble Oh but wait a minute, So but I
thought there was no contradictions. I thought nothing changed. If nothing changed,
then why do we have to listen to the Ukrainian Catholic Church disagree with the
document, but remember, nothing changed. These people are in free fall.
They're frauds, they're liars, and they have to repent and turn from this,
but they won't do it because of pride. I hope everyone can see
how ridiculous this is. And these are the same people who have dissed me,
come after me, same people try to get me deplatformed, all the
skullduggery that they've engaged in lying about me, coming up with nonsense for years
and the last we haven't made a stream like this in years, right,
we did a lofton stream two years ago. I don't even pay attention to
these people, So don't come over here be like, oh you're all salty,
will you have such a bird altitude? Dude, I don't don't.
I don't pay any attention to these people, but I will pay attention to
them when some big scandal comes out. Which is a contradiction where francis completely
check whether it is morally appropriate to bless people engaged in what they call mortal
sin, and it changed, and Trent just flat out lied and said nothing
changed. But now, if nothing changed, why is this guy having to
side with people that say that the document is wrong and fruitful union of love
between a man and a woman, which our Lord Jesus Christ raised the dignity
of the holy sacrament of matrimony. Pastoral prudence urges us to avoid ambiguous gestures,
expressions, and concepts that would distort or misrepresent God's word and the teaching
of the Catholic Church. The blessing of the Lord be upon you Spiatu's love.
Right, So this LARPer who pretends to be Orthodox is knowingly going against
the teaching of Rome, siding with a national church. Guys, remember how
how many thousand times have the tradcats said your church fails because it's nationalistic,
as if Roman Catholicism isn't, by the way, completely nationalistic throughout Europe and
many countries. Right now, we're supposed to listen to the Ukrainian Catholic Nation
Church against Francis Matt You were selling people on the papacy and its ability to
provide clarity, unity and certitude. But wait now we're supposed to listen to
the Eastern Ukrainian Catholic bishops. Well, but that's Orthodox, that's not papalism.
So that's about enough of that. I'm not going to play this nonsense
of him trying to explain this for an hour. All right, let's listen
to this, because this one was gold. This is pure gold, because
of course a popeplanner in chief, Michael Lofton. What does Michael Lfton say
about this? And does he contradict himself that the blessings which he also extended
and remarried couples could take place in churches in the Diocese of Spire. The
ceremony must differ from a church wedding ceremony in terms of words and signs,
and should explicitly now here's a kicker reinforce the love commitment, love commitment and
mutual responsibility in the couple's relationship as an act of blessing. So for context,
this is just a month ago when German bishops were saying that there could
be a blessing for sames, for unions, for skittles unions. And what
was Michael Lofton's argument? It violates the magisterium, the very thing that this
new document says can be done. Do you see this? So let's listen
to him. You can hear himself, you can hear him yourself. As
I said, you know some people disguise certain things in very cunning ways.
I mean, like Francis's documents, here's how they're going to try to sell
it. They're going to try to sell it as well. We're not blessing
sin oh disordered in this union. By the way, this is the very
thing that this liar now uses to Pope explain about the document. Do you
hear this? The very thing that the document that he's critiquing a month ago
says is now what he says, We're just blessing whatever good is found in
this union, such as monogamy, commitment, friendship. We're just blessing the
good there not that the very thing that Francis's documents tut. The very thing
that the armies of Novasorto people are now doing to explain Francis's document, Michael
Lofton in this video says, is the trick they would use. This liar
uses the tricks now because he's a frawl and he's a liar. You see
the way that they're going to try to couch it, and in fact we're
seeing him couching it in just that way. And you're probably familiar with what
my response has been to that, which is exactly what the magisterium actually said.
In response, as we'll look at here in a moment. Oh right,
So magisterium within a month develops to be the opposite of what it said
a month ago, according to you, So now we have the opposite on
the blessing. The magistrum has developed within a month. My response is he's
been. You can't isolate any good that you find, such as fidelity and
commitment. You can't isolate them from the context in which they are found.
We can speak of commitment, dude, uh Jocal in the chat Joker in
the chat, I already addressed this stupid objection. It does not say the
document literally says it is. Can you read. You're sitting there saying it
doesn't say what it says right there and all I know what you're gonna do.
You're gonna say. But in another place in the document it says that
nothing has changed. That's called a contradiction, Jokal, What does it say
right there? And what did if nothing changed? Why do the Ukrainian bishops
say that it's wrong? What do you mean nothing change? You're just lying.
It's called a contradiction. Look at this, What does it say for
this reason, it is not listit to impart this this is twenty twenty one.
And then the new document. The new document says, what within the
horizon outlined here appears the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations of the
same sex. It literally says it right there for you. And you are
lying and you can't either you can't read, or like battered wife syndrome,
you double down and look to the other places in the document where it seems
to say what you want, and ignore the part that's a contradiction. So
tell me how it's not a contradiction, jocal. And by the way,
why don't you call in It says only people can be blessed. It says
cop boles, cop boles, couples, couples. The document is on the
screen for you. Look at the Roman Catholic lying in the chat as the
document is on the screen. What does he say right here? It says
that only people can be blessed. The headlines or the media lied about it,
No, Jocal, you're lying, joker. The media did not misrepresent
it because it says couples, couppules. It's even in the headline of the
section how do you lie right there to everyone's face? Are you gaslating us?
Do you think that we can't read it says couples? Are you running
a capturing Christianity? Quick books Bayesian analysis, which tells you that couples just
means two individuals? Is that how you make it work? This is why
your religion is collapsing because you're lying to yourself. You're liars. Couples is
a neutral term? A neutral term? Was it an Oh my gosh,
this is his code. Couples is a neutral term. Doesn't even make any
sense. A neutral term. The fricking term was in the old document it
said you can't do it? Was it a neutral term? Then you are
a liar. Dude. Just boot this liar. These people are unbelievable,
And this is why your church is collapsing because you can lie all day long
to yourself. But guess what, this empire of lies isn't gonna work because
Francis is doing our work for us. Joker, Get this liar out of
here. I'm so sick of these people. I'm putting out with these people
for years. Look at the level of lying that these people resort to.
Just made up some nonsense. The word couple is a neutral term. What
does that? That doesn't even make any sense a neutral term. These people
are disgusting. That's why, well you get so mean on the look,
because these people are disgusting. They act ridiculous, They lie all the time,
and they pretend and present to everybody that they're pious. Like Michael Lofton's
big giant crucifix, go big dog crucis fix bha my head? Do you
go, Paus by the way, buy my new repp dog. Listen to
his liar again with his nonsense. Blessing whatever good is found in this union,
such as monogamy, commitment, friendship. We're just blessing the good found
there, not the bad. You see they that they're going to try to
couch it, and in fact we'd seeing him. I mean for you utterly
super slow people. Let me explain it. This is Michael Often a month
ago explaining when the German bishops in his in his organized crime sect that he
worships in, when they wanted to do union blessings. Michael often is saying
it's against the magistarium, and he's even picking apart the logic they use now
in Francis's document. They're doing that very thing, and so he's contradicting himself.
Hopefully everyone can see this. And if you can't see this, then
just go somewhere else. Man, don't even come to these dreams because I
don't want you to be here. This is not for you. Go lie
to yourself elsewhere. Go have your patcha Mama and your voodoo elsewhere. Go
do your butt things elsewhere. Man, we don't want you here. This
is not for lying liars who wanted tolude themselves. Go to Michael Lofton's chat.
That's where you should be. You should go buy into his grift and
provide him with more donuts and go download his ridiculous, horrible rap songs.
By the way I can. I'm a joke rapper better than he ish in
just that way. And you're probably familiar with what my response has been to
that, which is exactly what the Magisterium actually said in response, as we'll
look at here in a moment. My response has always been, you can't
any good that you find, such as fidelity and commitment, you can't isolate
them from the context in which they are found. We can speak of commitment
fidelity, friendship isolated. Objectively speaking, these are goods, right, but
we relate. We don't live in the world of ideas Plato's ethereal realm.
Why are all the people apologies contradicting each other? I thought the papacy provided
clarity and certitude, and yet all of the pawp apologists are all having different
takes and contradicting it. They're they're melting down. Bro, This system is
itself melting down because the system itself is a geopolitical power structure in reality.
In reality, you'll find what's going on in books like this, not in
Trenthorne's apologetic pop books, but in books that show you the history of the
papacy becoming a world power and becoming a giant banking institution. That's the real
explanation and narrative of the papacy. That's what's really going on, not the
stories of the Pope splaneers, and they're made up narratives at all contradict Again,
why are they contradicting each other? Is it no change or a change?
Which of the pope splanners is the correct interpreter of the interpreters? You
see? Do we need a pope splainer, for the popes splainers for the
popes splanners. How many levels removed do we need to be before we can
get an accurate interpretation of the interpretation of the interpretation? Remember the video that
I made six years ago, six years ago, laughing and making fun of
the interpretation of the interpretation of the interpretation of the interpretation. What do we
have? The very thing I put in my damn video. That's what we
have. Let me find my video and see if we're not vindicated. Remember
my video. The papacy is circular. By the way, just a little
note for the Roman Catholic paup apologists. I have had an influx, a
mountain of people saying, even salty Roman Catholic submitting it you were right.
I'm sorry. Have been a mountain of people saying I am leaving Rome and
I'm gonna look into Orthodoxy or become Orthodox. An avalanche is coming and it's
only gonna get bigger. And as I told you guys before, it's not
gonna work to say, well, he's mean. I mean. I tried
to tell you guys like three or four years ago, when we were already
seeing thousands of people convert to orthodoxy. I was already trying to tell you
guys then that it's not gonna work to just keep saying Jay's mean, Jay's
mean, Jay's mean. That's all they've had is personal attacks and Michael Lofton's
low tier, five hour boring ass streams that nobody can make it all the
way through. So what did I say? Let's say I know how it
works. Fact, because as soon as you start trying to figure out who's
interpreting the popes or the councils correctly in Rome, there's a million different debates
and nobody can know. Nobody can decide for sure, And it doesn't matter
how many times to the pope reaffirms what have we seen in the last few
months? What have we seen in the last few months? This is my
video from five years ago. So who are we supposed to listen to,
Tim Gordon, Matt frad Carblohydrate Lofton, Like, who's the correct pubs planner
that we're all supposed to look to because they're all contradicting. Do we look
to the Ukrainian Catholic bishops? Do we look to James Martin? I thought
we were supposed to look to Francis. But oh, that doesn't work,
does it. Now we're in the position of interpreting the interpretation of the interpretation
of interpretation. And then I did this in the video, I drew father
Bruce. Father Bruce is the one that really interprets Francis, not Michael Walfton.
It's Father Bruce. Come to the guitar mouth, by the way,
makes sure feedback there haad to fix that. So here's our little Pope figure
and here's a little we're gonna put a little lowly normy Roman Catholic guy here.
Now, Pope Figure just decides one day that it is time for an
infallible declaration. Now he doesn't just simply cite in the document that it is
infallible, which would make it pretty easy for everybody wouldn't know. What he
does is he says that with full apostolic authority. Uh, by the way,
that is actually I think a good question to keep asking, why don't
they conveniently identify for everyone when this is infallible? I mean, perhaps they
could actually just say this is ex cathedra infallible teaching. But have they ever
given us an actual list of infallible ex cathedra teaching. No they haven't,
Which wouldn't that make it a lot easier if you were the supreme pastor?
Maybe the supreme pastor could give us a list of the infallible teachings. Remember
they always ask us this, Where to ortodogs listened to infallible things? Where
did you listen to you valible things? Yeah? Where's the list of the
infallible papal things? Oh there's not one. Oh wait a minute, is
it? Is it this book? No, it's not just this book.
Uh oh dang. See, I thought I could just read Densier. No,
sorry, I got to read a lot more than that, because there's
also these ecumenical councils and Vatican two, and I'll see that that's also part
of it. Where did you used to do? Impeibook things? The chair
right, Herry, he's gonna be proclaiming it in his proclamation bubble I decree
blah blah blah blah blah blahlah blahlah blahlah blah blah. And then later he
issues an encyclical that helps interpret this, and then later there's I don't know
another Uh. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issues a proclamation that
helps interpret this, and then later there's another I don't know, papal whatever,
it doesn't matter. Just come up with all the different layers and levels
PC, papal claim clarification, papal claim clarification. Now let's say this is
how because also works. I'm I'm not joking, right, this is really
how it works. Okay, Now, what is what is necessary for something
to be ex cathedral from the chair? Well, it's for the whole universal
Church. It's proclaim a full apstock authority right from the chair and supposedly,
or I'll put an inverted cross on him here, since they they love those
inverted crosses in Rome. Just Chair Proclamation xxx, which is also clarified in
encyclical b c D, which is also clarified by the Congregation of the Doctrine
of Faith with Rattinger as its head, suppose years ago. Now you notice
what I was doing in this video, ironically, is the very thing that's
happened now, right. We didn't get an ex cathedral statement from Francis about
butt stuff, but we got multiple statements from Francis which have then become a
devolving kicking the can down the road operation of the new document that interprets the
Dubia, which interprets the previous statements of Francis, which relates to the previous
CDF documents from twenty twenty one, which relates to the previous CDF documents from
twenty two thousand and three. So do you see the spiraling out of control
that's going on here? That's what I was illustrating in this video from five
years ago, and that's exactly what's happening right now. Because this is how
Roemancatholicism works. You can see I drew it on the famous whiteboard right there
for you. Look what I drew five years ago on the whiteboard is happening
in live time for you? Is it working? Is it providing clarity,
unity, certitude, preservation of faith and morals? Is it? Come on?
And you all know the answer to that question. Except for the lying
joker in the chat who said that couples is a neutral term just made up,
pulled that out of his butt. Couples is a neutral term. It
didn't make any sense. Couples is a neutral term. But I mean,
I guess if we're gonna use quick books to prove the papacy, then that's
where we're at, right, I mean, we're at quick books level arguments
for the papacy. Then uh, the papal clarification that comes later down the
road. And here's a U lowly little Roman guy. And you think we
just need the pope to solve these questions of theology. It solves it,
does it, really? But see what we've already done is we've introduced the
mysterious chair of authority that isn't always made clear when and yes, Roman cal
will debate ad nauseum which statements are ex cathedral and which ones aren't, which
shows us where's the ex cathedral list of the ex cathedra statements Roman Catholics.
I mean, that's what you should have if your system. If you want
me to buy into your system, at least give me that. Oh it
doesn't exist and it never will. This whole nonsense doesn't really do anything like
it's supposed to. It doesn't solve the problems it's supposed to. If we're
all sitting around for decades debating which ones are the ex cathedral pronouncements, that's
because it just moves the problem back a step? Can you not see that?
So here's can you not see it five years later, six years later,
with it in front of your face in real time. Can you guys
not see this? Everything I was telling you five years ago is happening in
live time for you now want to He says, all right, I'm gonna
interpret this so in his mind. And by the way, think about all
the Orthodoxic humanists who want to join with Rome. What does it say All
those gubers have just as much egg on their face too, right? And
this is, by the way, I think deep secretly, they're all a
bunch of They're into the the skittles, you know, touching pps thing too.
So that's that's what they want deep down. And I say, go
for it. Go to Rome. You don't need to join the Orthodox Church
that you can just go have that. Go have that over there. He's
got to be sure that the improper interpretation of all this layers of gobbledinggook is
proper, properly entering into his mind and interpreted correctly. Now, guess what
every Roman Catholic will tell you to do in this process. Oh, you
can't just do this. This is kind of this is kind of Protestant,
bro, It's kind of Protestant, going directly to these papal proclamations, assuming
that you can figure this out. Yeah, right, like in the Roman
gallic system kind of. I thought I could just go read Francis's statements and
that made it clear, right, and that's his that's the point of the
papacy that these pope sellers, these car salesmen of the papacy have been selling
us. Aha, Orthodox don't have it, we got the go ha haha.
Oh okay, So now that I'm Roman Catholic, as these goofuses have
been themselves saying, I can just read Francis right. Oh well, wait
a minute. Now the whole church is an uproar trying to figure out what
France has meant. So who's right? Oh well, you see now you
need to go to a postplanner doctor so and so, postplanner x y Z.
So the very thing that you bought into the system for doesn't actually work,
as I told you years ago, because I bought into the same thing
years ago, back in two thousand and three. I fell for these dumb
arguments. I didn't fall for the quick books papacy argument, but I felt
for the other arguments back in two thousand and three. Also, you too,
Before you can do that, you need to go talk to your local
priest, because your priest is there, Father so and so, Father Bru,
Father Bruth, Father Bruth is there for you. Yeah, So where
do I get the authoritative, correct interpretation of the interpretation of the interpretation?
Do you know? I see now why I took the entire debate with Trent
to epistemology. This is why I made the debate about epistemology, and Trent
miserably failed in the debate. To anybody who knows anything about epistemology, as
they can see clearly, do you understand that not a one of them has
yet even grassed or grasped or replied to this epistemic objection because they can't because
they're wedded to a foundationalist of pistemology which will never allow them to answer this
question. There we go, All right, enough of those, right,
I don't have to You want to go watch this old car bloated version of
me, you can do it right here. That was pre chalk, by
the way, pre chalk. Listen, you want to get uncar bloated like
me, But before I was on chalk, and you're like, why are
you so agitated and up and up at EA to day because the Chalk dot
Com. Maybe I took my chalk I did. I took a gold hefty
dose of a tong cat, so I took my tonguekettle Lee and it worked.
So I'm fired up. You too could get fired up by boosting your
testas rum by going over to Chalk dot com and using the promo go J
three to this ja Wi fi zero Jay five zero to get fifty percent off
these beloved wonderful Chalk products. Don't forget the chad mode, the Alpha chad
listen. I played the chad mode ad so many times. I'm just gonna
I'm gonna take a brief break from it because it's funny. But look,
how can you not buy a product with the chad meme dude on it?
Right But as you know, my favorite is the tong Kettlee And right now,
Chalk has that amazing stack wherein you can get both the Action two point
zero and the ton ketaly and the chad Mode altogether and you still get fifty
percent off using the promo go J fifty. Also the promo co J five
three life this j J Y five three LFE that gets you fifty three percent
off all recurring subscriptions, and you might as well set up a recurrent subscription
because I know you're gonna want it when you get these excellent products coming to
you in the mail. Just like Jeffrey Bazas has over on Amazon. You
don't have to put all your information back in there, just get it on
recurring subscriptions. Listen, dog chalk dot Com will not make you charitable and
it will not make you nuanced. How's that for a selling point? Boom?
All right, so we went through this one. We went through this
now listen, Tim was so this was actually a genius. Tim actually broke
down the grammar for you slow boys. And I don't even remember my grammars,
right, I don't remember a freaking grammar. But Tim, because he
homeschooled, he remembers grammar, and he breaks down the grammar of what it
actually means, especially the joker over there talking about neutral terms. No,
the word couples is the word used in the document on purpose. And would
you like a grammatical breakdown? October the ninth, I played you the clip
I told you so, then he's going to do the same thing. Create
this false middle category that's really meant to be that which is proscribed blessings women
deacons. He's going to do that later in the year, and so I
have a few things I want to do really quickly. I'm playing this because
I thought it was funny. This is like, you need people to break
the grammar down for you as to what the sentence means if you're being lied
to or gas lit. In twenty twenty one, Cardinal Ladaria optional chief at
the time, who got fired. It is whispered for this document, for
this defense of teaching, for censuring Fernandez and especially Heiner Wilmer. The two
CDF replacements that Francis tried immediately afterwards. This is the document in twenty twenty
one. It is not lisicit to impart a blessing on relationships or partnerships.
He's talking about the document right here that involve sexual activity outside marriage, as
is the case of the unions between persons of the same sex. This is
not civil unions, just any relationships partnerships. Unions three three synonyms for couple.
It is not listen to a part of blessing on any relationships or partnerships
involving sexual activity outside marriage. Is this the case of the unions between persons
of the same sex. That's twenty twenty one. If your lying friends tell
you no change. Here's the document in twenty twenty three from December the eighteenth.
Within the horizon outlined here appears the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular
situations and for couples of the same sex twenty twenty one. It is not
listed to impart a blessing on dot dot dot, relationships, partnerships, unions
between persons of the same sex, any of those three twenty twenty three.
One more time, this is an ad phaser quote. Who's been great on
this? The possibility of blessings for couples of the same sex. Those are
dense quotes from twenty one to twenty three. This is a reversal of doctrine.
This is formal heresy. There's no question about it. The text is
that clear. Twenty one, twenty twenty three. And I even because I'm
a grammar master, I even diagrammed the sentence for you paragraph thirty one of
Fiduccia Supplicans. Uh. Here appears the possibility Grammars mean exactly mean grammar.
So here we have. This is Western says oppressive grammar. This is this
clear there we go, So, uh, who champion the white board?
Who champion the white board? Who champion the white Let's let's let everyone see
this. Okay, So what we have and this is also free homeschooling lesson
because I told you the main thing your grammar school aged children need to be
doing ninety percent of the day should be grammar. Here appears, Here is
the subject of a sentence? Appears is the verb the possibility. Then we
have a bunch of possibility. Is either a direct object or predicate nominative,
depending on how you qualify appears, which is a unique kind of verb that
can either count as an action. So listen, dom Roman Catholics. Here's
a smart Roman Catholic breaking down grammar for you. Because you can't read.
That's why we're doing this verb which takes a direct object noun on the other
side, or a linking verb, which takes a predicate nominative noun on the
other side. This is a vague sentence. Appears can be one of those
rare verbs that's like is or becomes. There aren't that many linking verbs.
So the possibility is either the direct object receiving the action, or more likely
it's a linking verb appears, and possibility is the renaming of the subject the
predicate nominative. So what appears is the possibility. That's why I like this
sentence is a linking verb sentence. Now, of blessings, four couples of
the same sex. These are three prepositional phrases. The first is of blessings
is an adjectibal phrase of blessings describes possibility. I mean, imagine how dumb
this actually is that we're having to use grammar to break down the sentences for
people in the Roman Catholic documents. We just just stop for a moment and
think about the absurdity of this. Supposedly, Francis was gonna be the thing
that would give a certitude clarity in doctrine, but we need Roman Catholic apologists,
which I'm glad he did this. I'm not dissingc Tim, but it
illustrates the absurdity of the notion that this that Francis is giving. Anybody need
clarity. Now, we gotta have robic like just doing grammar to show people
what the freaking grammar actually says. Dude, come on four couples is an
adverse verrbial prep phrase describing an adjectible prep phrase. The one of blessings and
of the same sex describes couples, meaning it is another uh, what kind
of couples? Couples of the same sex, So it's another adjectible prep phrase.
Obviously, prep praises are almost always adverbial or adjectable. They act just
like an adverb or an adjectide. What means, what this all means is
that what appears here? What mean this is existing? Here is a possible?
What means this? This means all right? All right? I mean
if you don't get it after this point, then just go some go to
some other channel. Man Roman Catholics in the chat mad but her, just
go somewhere else. Like we're done. That's it. There's nothing else I
have to say to you. You don't like me, We're good, that's
fine. Go for it. Go go have a uh purple source res and
donuts with Michael lofton all day long. Let's open up the chat. We've
got a few people here requested to fuss cozy Kevin, what's up, Kevin?
You gotta un mute dude? Are you gonna unmute hm hm, yes,
not bones. What's up the Roman baron? Uh oh, that sounds
like a Roman Catholic. Let's set it straight. I gotta ummute, Tony.
Can you hear me? Yes, Christ is born. I just wanted
to say I'm a former Roman Catholic. And as soon as I saw this,
I read the entire document because I knew people would just be reread the
document. No, no, no, you haven't read the document. Well
I read the document and I'm not retarded. And it says too blessed a
sodomy. I just you know, I don't understand how Catholics can't read that
in plain language, and it's lying. And doesn't this illustrate, by the
way, that evidentialism isn't true. I mean, here's the evidence, hawk
com everybody isn't clearly interpreting the clear meaning of the passage. Right. It
also gives credence to like the Western heresy of gradualism, right, And I
mean it's pretty powerful because I'm suspecting maybe here in a year it will probably
be full blown homosexual marriage. Now that's my schizo theory. But I mean
they did the same thing for quote communion in the hand, they did the
same thing for quote older women, Well, we have altered girls, which
is the preparation for female deacons. Deacon Essa's right, yeah, and that's
the preparation for female priests. I also saw your show on predictive programming on
avoiding Babylon, and this is, in my opinion, like the predictive programming
of the Roman see I mean, if that makes sense. Yeah, I
think they throw ideas out to test the waters and see how far they can
go. And actually, actually Tim did an entire stream on incrementalism and he's
totally nail. He's absolutely spot on. Yeah, absolutely, And if there's
any Catholics here who I mean are still coping that Catholic who whoever that was,
who completely dismantled the you know, the the grammar theory. I mean,
he did such a good job on proving that the document reads in plain
English, and you know, the verbiage used is very clear. Yeah,
it's Tim Gordon, who's the buddy of ours, who is basically, along
with a waiting Babylon, about the only Roman Catholics that we can still interact
with of it. We haven't completely run off or whatever. So I you
know, I appreciate them, and I like, on a personal level Tim
quite a bit. He's really cool. Yeah, we fung out in person.
But there's the full video if you guys want to watch Tim's full discussion
of the the incrementalism that the guy's talking about. So any other points I
appreciate that. Yeah, no, no, no, none other God bless
me man. Good, thank you you as well. Bones. What's up,
Bones? I'm you hey, Jay, thanks for having me on,
Sir. I just I kind of debased the Roman Catholics online rather frequently,
actually, and one of their biggest arguments against the Orthodox Church is that it's
autocephalus, and they're trying to make autocephally akin to Protestantism. They're trying to
be like, oh, you're basically well, that's awesome, because that's the
great one of the greatest owns that you could ever have, because they don't
even know that autocephalosy comes out of the Council of Ephesus. Really, oh
yeah, So that's how dumb they are. They think that that would then
mean that the Council of ephicis taught Protestanism, so that's a great So they're
just owning themselves, right, yeah, yeah, I always thought that was
ridiculous that and I also tried to use your argument that I watched in your
debate with Nick Flint, is about the Old Testament Church is being a decentralized
unit and kind of what Christ wanted in the church going forward, and they
just they think that that's ridiculous and they're like, oh, well there was
kings in the Old Testament. I'm like, what what does that have to
do with the I don't know. Yeah, well, they just think everything's
fulfilled in the pope because the religion basically is the religion of the pope.
So, as you can go read about Council of Ephesus, autocephalasy autocephaly of
the Church of Cyprus was granted at the third Ecamenical Council of Ephesus. The
Jerusalem Church was declared a patriarchate and autocephalus at quintessext and this is also accepted
in the canons of the six Ecmenical So two Econmical councils recognized autocephalus churches.
And they don't even know that. They're completely ignorant they because they just think
everything is about the pope. So yeah, classic, that's a classic m
thank you m Jason to be the last one that we got to go.
Yes, sir, all right. I just wanted to ask, so,
Okay, have you read that new or maybe it's something of the article of
of what the bartholowing me, the hecy medical patriarch has been saying about Constantinople.
No, but I'm guessing that he says something about the concept of being
like a pope. Hello, are you there? Well, I guess he's
gone beardy. What's up beardy? Last one gotta gotta un mute beardy.
Yeah, thanks for bringing us on. Appreciate it, Jay. I wanted
to bring up what Michael Knowles was saying. So he just agrees with you.
He says that the the so called blessing is is outside of the we'll
say this spiritual inner circle of the church, outside of the spiritual inner circle.
Okay, So he didn't use those words. I'm sorry, I'm paraphrasing.
I don't actually remember exactly what he said, but I don't know if
you watched his little borb on it. No, I don't keep up with
these people. I did ask him to debate, though, and it was
all of course ignored. Yeah, so I mean he's basically saying that the
so called blessing is for people that are not professing Christians, you know,
that aren't part of the Catholic Church. Total baloney. I think so too,
total one, because the same blessing was asked for people in the church
in the twenty twenty one document very clearly, and Michael often even pointed out
that the same question asked and by the German bishops who are trying to do
blessings of people in the church. Of course, I mean this is just
sophistry that they use because these people are salesman. So yeah, I mean
that's that's I will give them a point for the creative attempts here to act
like to act like these are people called outside the church. Give me a
freaking break. Everybody knows that this is about blessings from the bishops and the
priests towards people who will come to how many non Catholic. First of all,
it doesn't make any sense anyway that the priests can bless people outside of
the church. As a same sex couple, that doesn't even make any sense.
Secondly, it's not for people outside the church, because this is not
some giant scandal where millions of gay couples are rushing to roam to Novasorto priests
to get blessed outside of the church. Church. Everyone knows this is an
attempt to bring in skittled marriage. It's clear as that, well, what
it is is grooming. It's prepping for the next stage, because it's incrementalism.
So I mean, that's just that's just another example of sophistry. But
thank you for that last one. We don't really have time for anymore BMX
since twenty bucks, Thank you so much, BMX. Catholic becoming Orthodox.
There we go. That's a nice name. One dollar. Robertson Jenas says
that the Church fathers agreed about a geocentric universe and that if you deny at
least to a foundation of atheism, does Orthodoxy generally believe in this. I
don't think there is any general Orthodox statement on this. I think that you're
free to believe either of these positions. And I don't have any problems saying,
you know, I'm sure there are good arguments for geocentrism. Sat Herman
of Alaska ten dollars jay I was baptized and receiving in the church a Nativity.
Thank you. You helped bring me out of atheism and you led me
into the church. So thanks, thank you. Glad to hear that Chase
Haggard three dollars. He waited each piece of evidence in the analysis. Oh,
he's a Chase's talking about the Bayesian quick books. So it was an
arbitrary spreadsheet waited on his presuppositions, classical foundationalist moment exactly, Fumpel three dollars.
Honestly, imagine Michael Lofton defending the election of a child pope. Of
course he would right, So if the Roman College voted and accepted the Joffrey
as pope, they would have to go with it. Fumple three dollars.
Is there a Bayesian argument for orthodoxy? No, but good question, Punky
Dennis five dollars. Jay Catholics are always droning on about it only counts off
its ex cathedral. Vatican One teacher that they have to submit to things an
outside of excothed exactly, it's called ordinary magisterium. So where do this ExCathedra
come from? Well, I mean there is a doctrine that the pope has
the ability to pronounce doctrines ex Cathedra if he chooses to. So that's sort
of like this thing he has as like his backup right, but that's for
supposedly extreme or extraordinary circumstances. Who even knows when that is. But you
see it's clear. It's it's never laid out as to what the exact instances
are, and it's I believe it's left vague on purpose, because if you
leave it vague on purpose, this allows the papacy to have this ultimate kind
of bait and switched thing to where it can always be interchangeably dogmatic or not
dogmatic as the situation calls for. So if they need to say something retroactively,
oh well that wasn't a dogmatic definition, does it appears to contradict?
Oh well, then you see it wasn't dogmatic. So it's dogmatic when it
needs to be, is what that amounts to. So you're absolutely correct,
doctor Badges at one dollar. The Pope consulted the church fathers, and TD
Jakes and P Diddy agree with his decree as long as Alexander Soros is officiating
the blessings. Another creative attempt to maybe give an account of what's going on,
Thank you so much, doctor badgetself, Frankie E ten dollars. So
we can all then just go to mosque's bower a head and say that secretly
we're praying to Jesus and not Allah. And if this is the case,
then how come all the early Christians didn't do this when they were being martyred?
Exactly. Yeah, they could have just said, oh, I'm just
praying secretly to Jesus, not to Zeus sort of the Roman emperor. Yeah,
we would have never had any martyrs exactly, because everybody knows that this
is maloney. Gary twenty five dollars, think it's much gre Ricky five dollars.
Pope slayers will go all the way until they eventually have to defend the
blessings of the Skittle's marriage. Yeah, and then it'll go on into I
mean, the floodgates have been opened. Pandora's box is open. And the
area where I disagree with Tim is that thinks that some conservative band of cardinals
will be able to like come together maybe and like stop Francis, I don't
think so, Siggy five dollars Catholic. Uh is that Muslim youth marriage?
I guess? Uh? When will that happen. Well, who knows.
I guess the floodgates have been open, right, tag Hua three dollars.
There's no definitive definitive teach Excuse me if there's no definitive list of infallible teachings.
This is illuminating. Creating a document would be too strong of a claim,
just like some sort of new Biblical revelation. It's better to just have
a vague do it yourself, and fallibility exactly as the point I was just
making exactly. Thus, Roman Catholics would lack Roman cause also then lacks the
courage of its own convictions. Sometimes I'm very bad at reading super chats,
and I kind of miss stuff. And somebody got mad the other day because
I thought I was skipping their super chat. Sometimes I skip them because there's
just a small window of what I can see. So if a bunch of
them commit at once and you scroll a little bit, it scrolls past a
bunch of them, And if somebody walks in, or if I get distracted,
I might miss a super chat, or I might miss half of it
if it's a long one or something like. It's not I'm not doing it
on purpose. Sometimes I'm in a hurry sometimes I get distracted, So any
people that I missed your super jazz, forgive me. I'm not doing it
on purpose. Remember, you can subscribe and go to the shop at the
website get the books at Jason Elsion dot com. We have in my Big
Red Book there's actually about three hundred pages critiquing Rome Catholicism, so that's not
I mean the book six hundred pages, but about two or three hundred of
its critiquing Rome, about two hundred of it critiquing Protestant stuff, and then
geopolitical philosophical essays in the Red Book. You can get that in the shop
at Jasonelsis dot com, as well as all my other books, and be
sure and subscribe to Jamie as well. Heading over to Rockfinn all of our
great buddies and friends over at rockfinn dot com. Also, Tristan and I
will be streaming this week. We've chosen an amusing little ditty known as Stepford
Wives. We thought that would be a fun feminist film which oddly has a
bunch of m K ultra stuff and it you think you're watching some kind of
conspiracy m culture thing, and then it turns into this like total feminist propaganda
thing. So we will be deconstructing Stepford Wives, the original movie. I
don't know if we're gonna do the stupid remake one with Ferris Buehler, but
there is the an Ai Pope might actually do better than Francis. People are
dissing an Ai. I think we make it. Actually, I should have
an Ai Pope anyway. Subscribe to me over on Rock fin as well as
all of our buddies and friends over there, and look for the upcoming stream
this week with