Speaker 1: Again, the question here is about presuppositions, for sure, and
Speaker 1: I've listed many things and many problems for the foundational's
Speaker 1: approach that you're advocating. You replied with something to the
Speaker 1: effect that, well, there's a trilemma that we could refer to,
Speaker 1: and there's really not many other options here. Well, the
Speaker 1: fact that you don't think there's many other options actually
Speaker 1: doesn't count as a justification for the starting point. In
Speaker 1: other words, you started with properly basic beliefs, and all
Speaker 1: I have to ask you is that do you think
Speaker 1: that the notion of properly basic beliefs themselves is self evident?
Speaker 2: Do you mean the idea properly basic belief?
Speaker 1: Well, if I said, only beliefs that are self evident
Speaker 1: or encouragible or evident to the senses are properly basic,
Speaker 1: the problem is that you're in an infinite circle of
Speaker 1: regress because the proposition itself, in terms of you knowing it,
Speaker 1: is not part of your sense data. Nor can you
Speaker 1: show that it's properly basic without assuming it.
Speaker 2: Well, I would agree that the idea of a properly
Speaker 2: basic belief may itself not be properly based, but one could.
Speaker 1: Just have no, self, that's not what I asked.
Speaker 2: Okay, what did you.
Speaker 1: Ask the proposition itself about properly basic belief Is it
Speaker 1: properly basic.
Speaker 2: The proposition? There are properly basic beliefs.
Speaker 1: The proposition only beliefs that are self evident or incorrigible
Speaker 1: or evident to the senses are properly basic.
Speaker 2: Well, I would just I would say that it's true.
Speaker 2: You're saying, how do I know what properly basic beliefs?
Speaker 1: And it's true. I'm asking, is that notion itself properly basic?
Speaker 2: So you're okay. So you're saying that if it is
Speaker 2: properly basic, could create some kind of circularity if I say.
Speaker 1: That, yes, okay.
Speaker 2: Well, as I said before, I don't know if the
Speaker 2: description of an idea might be properly basic, but the
Speaker 2: experience itself is, and then we then we have terms
Speaker 2: to describe what the experience is.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter how you redefine it, because the point
Speaker 1: is that there's no self evident origin or incorrigible proposition
Speaker 1: like that found in sense data. M So what's the
Speaker 1: justification for that?
Speaker 2: The justification is that there are some there are some
Speaker 2: propositions that we encounter, and upon entertaining the proposition, the
Speaker 2: justification is also immediately apparent, and so it is.
Speaker 1: That's circularity. That's what that's the problem of properly basic beliefs.
Speaker 2: No, it's not just you just.
Speaker 1: Said it's immediately apparent. That's circularity.
Speaker 2: No, because the question, okay, it's it's not that because
Speaker 2: if I say, for example, I am having an experience
Speaker 2: right now, I am just reporting something that is happening.
Speaker 1: To you, all you're doing. No, I gave you multiple
Speaker 1: examples what you said I didn't do in critiquing the Kogito,
Speaker 1: Like what of all the metaphysical things that are assumed
Speaker 1: in the sentence?
Speaker 2: Okay, but even if I don't understand all the concepts
Speaker 2: that are involved, we can also doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: This is about justifying the beliefs. Okay.
Speaker 2: So what you're so it sounds like you're saying to
Speaker 2: me natural theology is false because there are no self
Speaker 2: evident truths.
Speaker 1: I'm creating your position of a strong foundationalism.
Speaker 2: Okay, but even if someone picked a weaker form of foundationalism,
Speaker 2: I think a lot of you Okay, what I would
Speaker 2: what I would say.
Speaker 1: That's not that a position you defended five minutes ago.
Speaker 2: Okay, but even the position that I have, I would
Speaker 2: just say a lot of people, even people who are
Speaker 2: non believers or atheists, would agree there are just basic
Speaker 2: facts about existence that we have agreement on. So you're
Speaker 2: from there, we can build.
Speaker 1: You're going to appeal to the master. That's actually a fallacy.
Speaker 1: It's not a justification.
Speaker 2: No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it's justification.
Speaker 2: So what's the just The problem is I gave you
Speaker 2: a justification, but your system just won't allow it because afations.
Speaker 1: Those are fallacies. No.
Speaker 2: I told you that some propositions that we immediate that
Speaker 2: we encounter is immedia and we do not have to
Speaker 2: infer them.
Speaker 1: I'm asking for the justification. You're just saying that it's immediate.
Speaker 1: But that's just I would rest that rests on the
Speaker 1: assumption that the external world is properly caused to impress
Speaker 1: upon your senshi Wou.
Speaker 2: I would say the justification that the self evident truths
Speaker 2: in my epistemology are true would be the same as
Speaker 2: whatever justification, let you know, leads you to believe that
Speaker 2: the God of Christian orthodoxy on the foundation I'm.
Speaker 1: Not subject to that problem. I don't make the strong
Speaker 1: foundations claim that you just did, so I don't have
Speaker 1: that problem. I admit circularity at this level.
Speaker 2: Okay, but but only at that level.
Speaker 1: Right, because it's a metallogical question where circularity is unavoidable.
Speaker 1: That's the point was set theory, and the incompleteness is.
Speaker 2: Therem Okay, are there any other circular so circular reasoning
Speaker 2: with God being the ultimate foundation of reality that is
Speaker 2: not invalid? Are there any other kind of the nature
Speaker 2: of the system itself? Okay, so it's not invalid. Are
Speaker 2: there any other kinds of circular reasoning apart from God,
Speaker 2: have nothing to do with God that are also not invalid?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Sure, The categories themselves have to be presupposed for
Speaker 1: the possibility of knowledge. So in other words, the way
Speaker 1: I make the argument is just simply that knowledge presupposed
Speaker 1: to the categories. The categories themselves are grounded in God.
Speaker 2: Okay, So the categories themselves, their foundation is not circular.
Speaker 2: Their foundation is in God.
Speaker 1: Well, they're circular when we're considering whether we can justify
Speaker 1: them at the human level.
Speaker 2: So we can't say that logic is true because the
Speaker 2: laws of logic themselves show that they're true. It sounds
Speaker 2: like you're saying circucular Yeah, it sounds like you're saying
Speaker 2: circular reasoning is invalid, except when we're talking about God
Speaker 2: being the foundation of the universe.
Speaker 1: I'm saying that every system at root is circular, and
Speaker 1: that's what I'm demonstrating to you in your strong foundationalism,
Speaker 1: and I'm showing that that's not going to be. Then
Speaker 1: how we justify or explain the different systems themselves. It's
Speaker 1: a comparison of systems and not a comparison of evidence.
Speaker 2: Well, Jay, I'm actually not necessarily opposed to using logic,
Speaker 2: knowledge and morality to show God exists or even these
Speaker 2: even a kind of transcendental argument. My concern is the
Speaker 2: specificity of the presupposition, because your case seemed to be
Speaker 2: very negative to natural theology. It's inability to prove a
Speaker 2: rigid designator that the triune God of Christianity.
Speaker 1: No I do I agree.
Speaker 2: So my question for you is what would prevent Why
Speaker 2: couldn't I take your exact same presuppositionalism, swap out the
Speaker 2: God of orthodox Christian faith put in the Catholic divine
Speaker 2: simplicity God or William or Cornelius Vantil taking his Protestant
Speaker 2: view of God using the same argument. What breaks the
Speaker 2: symmetry to pick your presupposition over the others.
Speaker 1: Because in this case, what I'm the way I would
Speaker 1: make the argument is that the Trinity is actually the
Speaker 1: ground not just of epistemology or logic or things like that,
Speaker 1: but actually the entire paradigm. In other words, it's an
Speaker 1: argument for the entirety of the Christian paradigm, not merely
Speaker 1: an argument for this or that piece of it. So
Speaker 1: the Trinity comes with in terms of Orthodox theology as
Speaker 1: I understand it, Saint Maximus's grand metaphysic, It actually comes
Speaker 1: with a holistic epistemology and metaphysic that is the grounding
Speaker 1: of the natural world itself. So it's not just an
Speaker 1: argument for an abstract concept or some logical thing. It's
Speaker 1: the entire Christian paradigm and the metaphysics of the Trinitarian
Speaker 1: theology that we have as Orthodox, which is unique to us.
Speaker 1: And this is why one last point, this is why,
Speaker 1: in for example, Questions and Doubts, Saint Maximus goes to
Speaker 1: great links to show that there are natural proofs for
Speaker 1: the Trinity. He actually thinks the existence of the world,
Speaker 1: the modal existence of the world itself, is triadic and
Speaker 1: is a proof, not an adamiration or a trace, but
Speaker 1: an actual proof of the Trinity.
Speaker 2: Okay, but why I didn't hear a reason? Why are
Speaker 2: why is our presupposition going to be a trinity versus
Speaker 2: a unity a unitarian God?
Speaker 1: Oh?
Speaker 2: Why that's point one and point two? Why your concept
Speaker 2: of the Trinity as opposed to a Catholic or Protestant concept. Why?
Speaker 1: Well, because, first of all, the the the Triune God
Speaker 1: is not just posited. I'm actually saying that God and
Speaker 1: the Christian world in the Christian Orthodox paradigm, gives an
Speaker 1: account for the metaphysical problems, for the one and the many,
Speaker 1: for the universals, for the for the you know, logical categories,
Speaker 1: the Aristotelian categories that you know maximums basically squishes into
Speaker 1: natural contemplation. I'm saying that the structure of the world,
Speaker 1: as well as ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, all of that is
Speaker 1: justified given an account for and grounded in a specific
Speaker 1: triune God and the specific revelation of what he says
Speaker 1: about how the world's constructed. So it's a revelatory theism
Speaker 1: and a justification via revelation as opposed to autonomous Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, the unaided reasoning approach that you're defending.
Speaker 2: So you're saying that we should presuppose the God of
Speaker 2: Eastern Orthodox Christian theism. Correct, because the God of Eastern
Speaker 2: Orthodox Christian Theism has revealed we ought to presuppose him.
Speaker 1: No, I'm saying that we should presuppose him precisely because
Speaker 1: the self revelatory declaration gives an account for the problems
Speaker 1: of ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology that I keep raising.
Speaker 2: Why is it?
Speaker 1: Why solves those problems?
Speaker 2: Why does only Orthodox Christians? So so I guess what, I'm.
Speaker 1: Trying to make revelatory character of the Trinity and Orthodox Christianity.
Speaker 2: Right, But Protestants and Catholics also believe in the Trinity.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but you don't have it because you have heterodox
Speaker 1: versions of it. Not I'm not I'm personally attacking you,
Speaker 1: but I'm.
Speaker 2: Saying that that's fine. But okay, So we would we
Speaker 2: would say your conception of theism is the only one
Speaker 2: that explains reality, because we would deploy arguments of reason
Speaker 2: to show that the competitors are false or don't succeed.
Speaker 1: Correct. But that's a category error. But because I'm not
Speaker 1: just because I'm using arguments from reason doesn't mean that
Speaker 1: they have logical or or epistemic orontological priority. That's a
Speaker 1: category error that Thomas, that Thomas constantly make that because
Speaker 1: I'm using an argument that it therefore has epistemic orontological priority,
Speaker 1: or did I use it first in a chain? Okay,
Speaker 1: it doesn't.
Speaker 2: With this also include we only got a few seconds
Speaker 2: here My question earlier did did did Abraham believe God?
Speaker 2: Do you think Abraham had an explicit knowledge of the Trinity?
Speaker 1: Yes, and say Maximus, as he did?
Speaker 2: Okay, so he knew the father son only is all right?
Speaker 1: All right? So I think that what I really wanted
Speaker 1: to get to here was the epistemic problems of an
Speaker 1: approach that Trent has to strong foundationalism, which you affirmed
Speaker 1: early on regarding the way that we go about doing
Speaker 1: natural theology. What I heard from Trent throughout the debate,
Speaker 1: in many many instances was actually equivocating and word concept
Speaker 1: fallacy shift between natural law, moral law, the revelation of
Speaker 1: God in nature and his tomistic conception of natural theology.
Speaker 1: My whole point in this debate was that those things
Speaker 1: are not equivalent. But multiple times of debate, Trent seemed
Speaker 1: to switch back between these different things which are very
Speaker 1: specific and nuance, as if they're all just talking about
Speaker 1: the same thing. Of course, my questioning here is to
Speaker 1: raise that very quick I'm questioning that very assumption right
Speaker 1: there that I don't think those are all talking about
Speaker 1: the same thing. I wanted to really stress that this
Speaker 1: approach that Trent's doing is an empirical approach. I didn't
Speaker 1: say Trent or Aquinas was an empiricist. I said the
Speaker 1: approach is empirically based. And that's not in doubt because
Speaker 1: in de Veritati, Aquinas clearly says that there's nothing in
Speaker 1: the intellect that's not also in the senses. He also
Speaker 1: affirms the distinction between what is better known in itself
Speaker 1: and what is better known by us. And this is
Speaker 1: really the basis of the foundationalist approach that we have here.
Speaker 1: If we're gonna take that approach, we have a series
Speaker 1: of problems that I raised one as an example of
Speaker 1: properly basic beliefs in terms of the section when I
Speaker 1: was questioning Trent about circularity of properly basic beliefs. This
Speaker 1: is just one problem for any empirically based epistemology, and
Speaker 1: make no bones about it, Trent's natural theology isn't empirically
Speaker 1: based natural theology. So he's going to have to demonstrate
Speaker 1: the justification for the empirical argumentation that he's doing to
Speaker 1: say natural theology is a case when I am saying
Speaker 1: that natural theology isn't the case because I can come
Speaker 1: to the table and critique the presubpositions in the exact
Speaker 1: same way that human kant do that you're gonna have
Speaker 1: to give an account for And why do you have
Speaker 1: to give an account for it in that way? Because
Speaker 1: of the nature of your presubpositions and the foundationalism itself.
Speaker 1: Foundationalism is saying these are self evident, these are the
Speaker 1: things that everybody agrees on that we start with. What
Speaker 1: does it matter how many people agree with something or
Speaker 1: disagree with it. That's a appeal to the masses fallacy,
Speaker 1: And so if Trent's going to have a foundationalist of pistemology,
Speaker 1: He's going to have to answer not just that, but
Speaker 1: the questions of what is the metaphysical content of all
Speaker 1: the words that you're listing here in terms of this
Speaker 1: sense data. What is the status of the external world
Speaker 1: that you're presupposing in these metaphysical claims. What is the
Speaker 1: certitude that you have that the sense data matches up
Speaker 1: to the objects in the external world? How do you
Speaker 1: solve Sellers problem of the myth of the given? How
Speaker 1: do you resolve the underdetermination of data? How do you
Speaker 1: account for the fact that the paraphetic axiom itself is
Speaker 1: not in sense data? How if that's the case, do
Speaker 1: you account for induction and deduction on an empirical basis?
Speaker 1: What are the primary what are the properly basic beliefs?
Speaker 1: Given the fact that I don't think the ones that
Speaker 1: you listed are actually properly basic beliefs, given the critique
Speaker 1: that I gave of Descartes cogito. If that's the case
Speaker 1: and we start with induction, how do we get to
Speaker 1: the justification of universals right from induction? So if deduction
Speaker 1: is a problem, excuse mean. If the induction is the problem,
Speaker 1: deduction also goes What is the justification for the epistemic
Speaker 1: bootstrapping project at the outset that Trent is involved in,
Speaker 1: Given that as I tried to show there are no
Speaker 1: properly basic beliefs, and also given the fact that things
Speaker 1: like the uniformity of nature, that logic works and operates
Speaker 1: in an external world, or that the external world actually
Speaker 1: has a causal relationship that it imprints data upon Trent's mind.
Speaker 1: Nothing in that was a affirmation or an accusation that
Speaker 1: Trent is a human empiricist, or that a Quitas is
Speaker 1: an empiricist. I never said that, so Trent was replying
Speaker 1: to a strong man. I simply said, how does Trent
Speaker 1: reply as a foundationalist to these classic problems? For any
Speaker 1: foundationalist system, it really doesn't matter which one we pick.
Speaker 1: One thing that I really wanted to conclude with was
Speaker 1: about the arguments of Saint Maximus for the Trinity, and
Speaker 1: I'll just run through these really quick. Maximus thinks that
Speaker 1: the modes of natural contemplation lead us to the low gee,
Speaker 1: which to the logos. The logos is a rigid designator,
Speaker 1: not for generic reasoning or Marcus Aurelius's logos, but in fact,
Speaker 1: for as Trent said, the wisdom literature logos of Ecclesiasticus,
Speaker 1: Proverbs and John One, who is the second person of
Speaker 1: the Godhead. It's a rigid designator creation that, according to
Speaker 1: Saint Maximus, is fundamentally chrystological and fundamentally triadic. And big
Speaker 1: Ue ten shows that creation is a veil for the logos.
Speaker 1: The creative world, Maximus says, is a book. It's a
Speaker 1: book that's the same as the logos in terms of
Speaker 1: the Bible book, right Maximus. This goes on, of course
Speaker 1: to say that the created order is a theophany. And
Speaker 1: my main point here is that natural theology posits a
Speaker 1: deity that does not allow the created world to actually
Speaker 1: be a theophany. And I think the tomism demonstrates that
Speaker 1: Matt Frad and Trent Horn are we not supposed to
Speaker 1: be Orthodox?
Speaker 2: And for me, the papacy is a gift that God
Speaker 2: has given the church. That makes sense. It's one of
Speaker 2: the important things in being Catholic.
Speaker 1: If the papacy makes sense, then why is the papacy
Speaker 1: such an issue of contention right now in the Roman
Speaker 1: Catholic world, and especially since the time of attic in two.
Speaker 1: I mean again, you'll find that they always just appeal
Speaker 1: to this sort of the simple pragmatic argument. Look, it
Speaker 1: just makes sense. Look it's just gonna help with unity. Look,
Speaker 1: it's going to solve the problems. And does it actually
Speaker 1: do that? No, it doesn't. Remember ninety percent of their
Speaker 1: apologetic of these guys is you need this office because
Speaker 1: it's going to solve all the problems that you have.
Speaker 1: Yet when we do the problem analysis, we don't find
Speaker 1: that it actually provides the thing that it's supposed to do.
Speaker 1: It doesn't provide unity, it doesn't provide clarity. In fact,
Speaker 1: if you remember when we did the for the two
Speaker 1: four hour streams, the eight hours of response to Trent,
Speaker 1: remember that right got a lot of views on that.
Speaker 1: We saw that Trent himself was struggling consistently with how
Speaker 1: to make sense of And here's your various ways to
Speaker 1: interpret Francis on the death penalty. Why do we have
Speaker 1: to give varying interpretations of something that's supposed to be
Speaker 1: a clarifying statement on basic morals? Why do we even
Speaker 1: have to have the pope clarifying the basic morals which
Speaker 1: are now ambiguous, which related to quote natural justice in
Speaker 1: the traditional Roman cality view. But remember what's he doing here?
Speaker 1: Just falling back on these kinds of pragmatic low tier Oh,
Speaker 1: it'll just make it easy. Oh, it'll make it simple,
Speaker 1: it'll solve the problems. Again, the last seventy years of
Speaker 1: Roman Catholicism illustrate nothing but the opposite of that chaos, collapse,
Speaker 1: lack of clarity, greater and greater confusion, greater and greater
Speaker 1: moral revulsion, especially when it comes to to Rome itself
Speaker 1: on quote clarifying moral issues. So the irony is that
Speaker 1: the selling points that these guys always fall back on
Speaker 1: are the very things that they're also always having to
Speaker 1: deal with that it's not practical, it's not clarifying anything,
Speaker 1: it's not making anything better, it's not producing unity. And
Speaker 1: this is they're apologetic, is what papal lawyering.
Speaker 3: We debate these guys, they are always like on following Peter,
Speaker 3: and by Peter they mean the papacy, right, because we
Speaker 3: believe to see if Peter's in every bishop and bring
Speaker 3: up for the audience your argument from indefectibility.
Speaker 1: It's a great one. Yeah. So essentially, what we've gotten
Speaker 1: to in modern day Roman cathloch Apologists that are in
Speaker 1: this sphere is the idea that rather than I'm gonna,
Speaker 1: you know, to move away from the question of infallibility,
Speaker 1: not that you can't debate infallibility. I think it's funny
Speaker 1: and you can go down that route. But they'll just
Speaker 1: always have this out where they'll just say, well, but
Speaker 1: he's only infallible in xyz cases, and I will tell
Speaker 1: you when that is right. So every individual Catholic will
Speaker 1: have their own list of when he's being fallible when
Speaker 1: he's not being infallible. And so the better way to
Speaker 1: construct this argument is to talk about indefectibility. And this
Speaker 1: is better because we know Vatican one is teaching very
Speaker 1: clearly that the Roman Sea will never defect from the
Speaker 1: faith until the end of the world. It will contain
Speaker 1: valid successors until the return of Christ. Vatican One says
Speaker 1: the Sea of Rome is indefectible until he defects, which
Speaker 1: is to say nothing, so basically a meaningless statement which
Speaker 1: allows every individual Roman Catholic to simply say that I
Speaker 1: will accept and reject the papacy insofar as it applies
Speaker 1: to my own version of papalism. And that's why every
Speaker 1: single Roman Catholic will have a different list of what
Speaker 1: the infallible teachings actually are. And again, this whole system
Speaker 1: should at least give us the list. What do the
Speaker 1: Roman Catholics always come over to us and say, where's
Speaker 1: your list of Douglas, where's your list of dogmas? Oh,
Speaker 1: they don't have it? Exactly what do they have? They
Speaker 1: have a couple criteria of categories to rank the authority
Speaker 1: of the various teachings and dogmas, which is then up
Speaker 1: to every individual Catholic to apply and to try to
Speaker 1: make sense with mental gymnastics, how the system isn't chaos
Speaker 1: and nonsense?
Speaker 2: And Orthodox counsel of just the Orthodox bishops, well, one
Speaker 2: guy can always just kind of they can't, and so
Speaker 2: you're not able to address you don't have that unity
Speaker 2: that a person who is given a special authority from
Speaker 2: Christ to be the first among bishops, and the Orthodox
Speaker 2: say the BOE has that title, but it doesn't really
Speaker 2: mean much.
Speaker 1: Well that's interesting because if this is the case, then
Speaker 1: why does Ratzinger and by extension, the post Vatican too
Speaker 1: Vatican why do they admit that the Orthodox Church has
Speaker 1: preserved its faith and it's doctrines, it's unity for the
Speaker 1: last thousand years. So that's an admission that we preserve
Speaker 1: this without the papacy for a thousand years. So the
Speaker 1: papacy actually isn't necessary. So your own popes admit that
Speaker 1: we don't need the pope. I mean, this is in
Speaker 1: Ratzinger's books. Now you might disagree with that, but my
Speaker 1: point is that, well, how come your authorities recognize that,
Speaker 1: let's not an infallible statement. I don't have to acceipt that, Okay,
Speaker 1: so what right? This is? All they do is spur
Speaker 1: out and go to this arbitrary of when it's infallible
Speaker 1: when it's non infallible, which again they're going to have
Speaker 1: to have an infallible criteria when they say what isn't
Speaker 1: isn't infallible or else. That whole system falls apart into
Speaker 1: the contradiction. But as we've seen, they're not very good
Speaker 1: at logic and epistemology.
Speaker 2: But when you go back to the New Testament, it
Speaker 2: seems clear to me and even to many non Catholic
Speaker 2: commenters that Peter was given special.
Speaker 1: In the yearly. So here we go again. The only
Speaker 1: things that matter to them are Matthew sixteen, right, So
Speaker 1: it's like they don't care about the Bible at all
Speaker 1: until they want to do is to Jesus with Isaiah
Speaker 1: twenty two in Matthew sixteen. They don't care about anything
Speaker 1: else to do. They go to Acts fifteen where Peter
Speaker 1: is not the voice of God and the final authority
Speaker 1: where it's James. No, they don't do that, or they
Speaker 1: do this stupid thing where they try to argue that
Speaker 1: it's a different Peter in Galatians one or in Acts fifteen.
Speaker 1: I mean, just silly mental gymnastics. The whole system is nothing.
Speaker 1: But I'll use the Bible for when it backs up
Speaker 1: the Papa seat. The rest of the time, I don't
Speaker 1: care what the Bible says, and they don't, especially the trads.
Speaker 1: I mean they even say that they're happy that they
Speaker 1: don't read the Bible. Many of the trads that they're
Speaker 1: said on Twitter all the time, right, Reading the Bible
Speaker 1: is a Protestant thing. They think the sell delusional and
Speaker 1: idiotic these people are. But I mean, these are just
Speaker 1: terrible arguments. This is this is car salesmanship.
Speaker 2: Paul will stand for the truth and he'll even stand
Speaker 2: up to Peter.
Speaker 1: Oh really, sound like Vatican one, Trent.
Speaker 2: Now, why why does you make note of Peter? Because
Speaker 2: Peter has the most authority, right, I will even oppose Peter.
Speaker 1: So mouthpiece authority. None of that equates to Vatican One. Again,
Speaker 1: all non sequitors. The whole thing is bait and switch,
Speaker 1: just telling you that because there is this place, because
Speaker 1: Rome has this pre eminence, that the Roman, therefore Roman
Speaker 1: Catholic doctions are all true. It doesn't follow. In other words,
Speaker 1: there's an Orthodox read, and maybe the Orthodox reading is wrong, right,
Speaker 1: But my point is that there's an orthodox reading of
Speaker 1: all of this stuff, and it's ignored because the idea
Speaker 1: is just that look at all these quote minds, look
Speaker 1: at my reading of Galatians and all this stuff, and
Speaker 1: therefore Vatican one. That's essentially what he's saying, even though
Speaker 1: he's not saying that or making any reference to Vatican One,
Speaker 1: but he knows that Vatican one is the counsel about
Speaker 1: the papacy. So the whole point of this text of
Speaker 1: Paul is that even Peter can be rebuked if he
Speaker 1: errs this is all spun to be the opposite in
Speaker 1: their exegesis, to be that Paul went to Peter to
Speaker 1: see if he was correct, and Paul found out, oh oops,
Speaker 1: Peter made a gaff. He just kind of messed up.
Speaker 1: Is that what he says? No, he says that he
Speaker 1: departed from the Gospel. That equates to defecting from the faith.
Speaker 1: That is the very thing that Vatican One says Rome
Speaker 1: can never do. Peter is Rome their exegesis proves he
Speaker 1: departed from the faith in Galatians. It's like, did they
Speaker 1: even read the text or did he just read quote
Speaker 1: minds from other Roman Catholic apologists or did he actually
Speaker 1: even read Galatians? Is he just repeating Dahlgreen in Hest's book.
Speaker 2: Question difficult for people to discuss is that many people
Speaker 2: have a very narrow definition of worship. Worship is just
Speaker 2: giving God all the honor God is due, and.
Speaker 1: That is not what worship essentially is. That's a very
Speaker 1: broad statement that you could say, Okay, yeah, we give
Speaker 1: God the honor, but how do we give God the
Speaker 1: honor in the way that God lays down. This is
Speaker 1: why Roman Catholics always argue against Protestants that Protestants are
Speaker 1: essentially failing at worship because they don't have a eucharistic
Speaker 1: altar and sacrifice. Yes, Protestants believe that Jesus died on
Speaker 1: the cross and that was a sacrifice, but they have
Speaker 1: discarded that eucharistic centrality to worship that's ongoing at an altar,
Speaker 1: and to most pop apologists in the Roman Calic sphere,
Speaker 1: they love to make the argument that Protestants therefore do
Speaker 1: not really worship God. They might have a mental assent,
Speaker 1: but the actual holistic worship, which is the entire person,
Speaker 1: the entire being of the person. This is why the liturgy,
Speaker 1: both in the East and the West includes the whole man.
Speaker 1: It's not just a mental assent. It's also actually eating God,
Speaker 1: it's actually partaking of it's bowing down, it's crossing yourself.
Speaker 1: It's all of these actions that are including the physical
Speaker 1: body just as much as the mind, and Romancalolics don't
Speaker 1: even have this for Orthodox the heart. Keep in mind,
Speaker 1: in the Roman Catholic system there is no noose or
Speaker 1: heart doctrine. They don't believe that. They believe in the
Speaker 1: Augustinian and Thomistic idea that its body and soul, and
Speaker 1: for them, soul is essentially primarily identified with the intellect.
Speaker 1: So for them's salivation is ultimately an intellectual vision of
Speaker 1: the divine essence. This is known as the beatific vision.
Speaker 1: This is why for them, when they talk about worship,
Speaker 1: it's in that context of a mental assent to a
Speaker 1: vision of God's essence. Ultimately, that's the highest form of worship.
Speaker 1: For the Orthodox, that is not the highest form of worship.
Speaker 1: We do agree that there is an intellectual faculty in man,
Speaker 1: but we think that as Romans One says, man's heart,
Speaker 1: as a result of the fall, is darkened, and the
Speaker 1: heart is not identical to the intellect or the mind.
Speaker 1: The heart is the innermost being, the spirit in man,
Speaker 1: which is why Paul talks about body, soul, and spirit.
Speaker 1: He lists three things. Roman Catholics they only believe it two.
Speaker 1: So the whole man is deified. The whole man participates
Speaker 1: in worship, which is why we taste and see that
Speaker 1: the Lord is good, the fountain of immortality as we
Speaker 1: see in the liturgy, and why the whole body is
Speaker 1: involved in worship. Kissing, praying, kneeling, bowing. All of these
Speaker 1: things go into the holistic element of man being involved
Speaker 1: in worship, which is because the resurrection is not just
Speaker 1: an intellectual resurrection. It's a resurrection of body and soul
Speaker 1: and spirit coming back together after death. Thus, the body
Speaker 1: plays a key role in the escaton and in the
Speaker 1: resurrected state these people don't really realize that, because for them,
Speaker 1: the eschatological state is an intellectual vision of the divine essence.
Speaker 1: For the Orthodox, there's a new heavens and a new Earth,
Speaker 1: and it's mirrored and patterned on the resurrected body that
Speaker 1: you see at the end of the Gospel of John
Speaker 1: that Jesus possesses. Jesus has a new body that walks
Speaker 1: through walls, and that can appear and disappear, and yet
Speaker 1: he can still eat and it still has physical reality,
Speaker 1: even though it's deified flesh. According to Saint Cyril of Alexandria,
Speaker 1: that's the deified flesh that we're eating in the Eucharist, which,
Speaker 1: by the way, disproves the Roman Catholics in the debate
Speaker 1: with Father Deacon Antonius, because they argue that you don't
Speaker 1: actually taste and see God in the Eucharist, because they're
Speaker 1: being consistent with their Toumistic theology that it's all created
Speaker 1: causal effects and not the actual uncreated divinity that you're
Speaker 1: participating in. I hope you see this, because this all
Speaker 1: of this nonsense the last two weeks three weeks is
Speaker 1: simply illustrating the vast differences between the Orthodox view and
Speaker 1: these other pagan systems, and I will include Rome in
Speaker 1: the pagan systems. It should be evident now and on
Speaker 1: display for everyone all the things that I've been telling
Speaker 1: you for the last ten years. The entire internet e
Speaker 1: religious world is able to now see this that Rome
Speaker 1: has a severely heretical and de efficient position on all
Speaker 1: of these topics.
Speaker 2: Is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit deserve honor. Refusing
Speaker 2: to honor each of these persons as God means a
Speaker 2: nontrinitarian can't worship God. Critics also say that the Bible
Speaker 2: teaches that whoever denies the Son does not have the Father,
Speaker 2: and that Pagans offer worship to demons, not God. Therefore,
Speaker 2: they say, Muslims cannot be worshiping God. But we have
Speaker 2: to be careful about taking a few proof texts and
Speaker 2: using that to answer a complicated question. Zeus and Thor
Speaker 2: do not exist, and if they have any effect on
Speaker 2: the world, that's just the work of demons. And John
Speaker 2: says the Antichrist doesn't have the Father, but in the
Speaker 2: same letter he also says he who loves is born
Speaker 2: of God and know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but loving is still contingent in terms of being
Speaker 1: in the covenant and having the love of God. So
Speaker 1: just saying that anyone that loves is of God is
Speaker 1: not the sense that John means it in One John.
Speaker 1: He's not saying that anyone, even a say Satanists, who
Speaker 1: loves their spouse or their husband is of God. That's
Speaker 1: completely false.
Speaker 2: Knows God. A person might not have God as a
Speaker 2: covenantal father, but the Bible says non believers can have
Speaker 2: God as the creator to whom they must give worship.
Speaker 1: For the wrath of God is revealed against all on
Speaker 1: goodness and unrusouness of men who suppressed the truth and unrightousness.
Speaker 1: So notice that in the pagan world the truth is
Speaker 1: not revealed, it is not acknowledged, it is suppressed. Why well,
Speaker 1: it is manifest within them. Notice he's not talking about
Speaker 1: external reasonings at this point, about syllogisms or Aristotle having
Speaker 1: a really supreme high IQ intellect. And that's why he
Speaker 1: got a lot further than the Amazon tribesmen did about
Speaker 1: who God is. Right. It's nothing to do with syllogisms
Speaker 1: and reasoning out in some Hellenic philosophic Plato aristotl sense.
Speaker 1: It's about the universal world of idolatry, that all the
Speaker 1: nations fell into after the fall except for the Covenant
Speaker 1: people who maintained the true worship of God, the only
Speaker 1: acceptable worship of God, by the way, and he says
Speaker 1: that these people had a manifest witness to them in creation,
Speaker 1: that they should have come to the conclusion that there
Speaker 1: is only one true God, and that he lives and
Speaker 1: exists and so forth. But did they come to that conclusion. No,
Speaker 1: Paul says, they are without any excuse. According to the
Speaker 1: Roman Catholics, they're all excused. Paul says, they're without excuse.
Speaker 1: Roman Catholics say, well, but they didn't know God, but
Speaker 1: they reason from creatures to a creator, so they are
Speaker 1: given a free pass. Paul says, they're without excuse. Even
Speaker 1: though they knew God, they did not honor him as God. Now,
Speaker 1: I think there's different ways you could exeitute this passage.
Speaker 1: Some people might exitute this as if Paul is talking
Speaker 1: about any individual pagan at any point in their life.
Speaker 1: I think Paul's talking about the original connection that man
Speaker 1: had to God in Adam, and that all of Adam's
Speaker 1: sons should have had to God had they been faithful.
Speaker 1: But since they felt they are patterned and live after
Speaker 1: their father Adam and not after Christ. And so what
Speaker 1: happens then is that there's a sense in which back
Speaker 1: to Adam, man knew God and had a relationship with God,
Speaker 1: but the fall led to idolatry and universal pagan worship
Speaker 1: of the demonic and anything other than God. And so
Speaker 1: that's the sense in which at one time man knew God,
Speaker 1: but we have all then fallen from that uh oh,
Speaker 1: and have not glorified or worshiped or honored him as God. Now,
Speaker 1: this right here refutes the Roman Catholic Vatican to excuse
Speaker 1: and invisible invincible ignorance arguments, because they're trying to say, well,
Speaker 1: in the case of Pagans, they're still worshiping God, they
Speaker 1: still acknowledge a creator. But Paul is saying that even
Speaker 1: if they acknowledge the proposition that there's a creator, they're
Speaker 1: not worshiping and serving him in any way that God accepts.
Speaker 1: I mentioned the word triad in passing, and Trent Horne
Speaker 1: assumed as the original tweet shows that he thought this
Speaker 1: meant something to do with arianism. I said that, you know,
Speaker 1: in our debate, you were incorrect by misunderstanding the fact
Speaker 1: that Abraham worshiped the Trinity. Trent thought this was mind blowing.
Speaker 1: How no natural theology teaches me that they worshiped a
Speaker 1: Unitarian God in the Old Testament. And then he says,
Speaker 1: I asked if they knew that God, would trinity Jewish
Speaker 1: multiplicity in the Godhead could be akin to proto arianism. No.
Speaker 1: In fact, the very point of why would argue that
Speaker 1: the Old Testament teaches the triad is to prove that
Speaker 1: they were trinitarian Trent. So, as you can see, his
Speaker 1: initial reply is quite literally a fundamental misunderstanding of the
Speaker 1: basics that every Orthodox Christian knows by looking at the
Speaker 1: ruble of Icon that the Old Testament saints worshiped the Triad.
Speaker 1: And Trent says, you even had to use the word
Speaker 1: triad to describe it, but you would say that modern
Speaker 1: people that worship triad as in Jehovah's witnesses are not
Speaker 1: worshiping the One True God. So notice that very clearly
Speaker 1: Trent didn't even understand the very common terminology amongst the
Speaker 1: Greek fathers, the Byzantine theologians, the very theologians who dogmatized
Speaker 1: and solidified and explicated the Trinity Cappadocians, Saint Maximus, etc.
Speaker 1: For Trent, he thinks this is somehow bound up with Arianism,
Speaker 1: even though Trent attended, according to his own description, for
Speaker 1: many years, or presumably for many years, the Eastern Right.
Speaker 1: The Eastern Right hails Palamas as a saint, which actually
Speaker 1: makes no sense given the fact that he was considered
Speaker 1: a damnable heretic for many centuries, and to notice that
Speaker 1: the most famous work that he has is called the Triads.
Speaker 1: A simple search would tell you that amongst the Orthodox world,
Speaker 1: Triad refers to Trinity. Does Trent simply say, oh, I misunderstood,
Speaker 1: you're correct? No, He doubles down because it shows that
Speaker 1: he's not even familiar with basic terminology in the very
Speaker 1: Fathers that dogmatize the Trinity. Doubles down and says, no,
Speaker 1: this is an Egyptian term. What the word can be
Speaker 1: synonymous with Trinity, but it's more common as a grouping
Speaker 1: of deities. Look at the nineteen ninety six Egyptology book
Speaker 1: from John Griffith. Now the more common use is not
Speaker 1: some of them from an obscure egyptologist Trent. The more
Speaker 1: common use is what you should know from the Uniate world.
Speaker 1: In the Orthodox world of triad and meaning trinity. This
Speaker 1: is just silly. Now, Trent doubles down again and says
Speaker 1: that Old Testament Jews did not worship the Trinity. He
Speaker 1: says it right here, did the faithful Jews who live
Speaker 1: before christ incarnation worship God? If they did, then they
Speaker 1: must have worshiped the same God or the Trinity of
Speaker 1: the Christians. Even though they didn't worship. Trent does not
Speaker 1: believe that the Old Testament saints worship the triad, even
Speaker 1: though Jesus and John five through nine says that they
Speaker 1: worshiped the Father, his Angel, and his Spirit. So Trent
Speaker 1: doesn't even know that the Old Testament teaches the triad. Now,
Speaker 1: I pointed this out in at the time of the debate,
Speaker 1: and after all we had our debate, and Trent and
Speaker 1: other people tried to save face and tried to do
Speaker 1: damage control. He says right here, literally a few seconds ago,
Speaker 1: that they didn't believe in the Trinity. So do you
Speaker 1: understand that Roman Catholics do not understand the Trinity? And
Speaker 1: I don't mean in terms of an intellectual comprehension. They
Speaker 1: fundamentally have ridiculous, stupid theology and in order to save
Speaker 1: face and defend his natural theology. Alla Vaticant's no stratat
Speaker 1: Trent is literally saying that they believed in a Unitarian God,
Speaker 1: the very thing that I said was the problem in
Speaker 1: the debate. Trent still thinks that the Old Testament people
Speaker 1: believed in a Unitarian God and not the Triad. So
Speaker 1: this refutes all of the Roman Catholic liars that sat
Speaker 1: here saying that that's not what true means. Why do
Speaker 1: Roman Catholics feel the need to lie and how could
Speaker 1: you be this silly in your theology to be so
Speaker 1: ignorant of the Old Testament? Again proving my point in
Speaker 1: the debate that how would you argue against a Muslim?
Speaker 1: Do you not understand that to debate any Muslim requires
Speaker 1: going to the Old Testament to prove the Trinity. I
Speaker 1: even showed a video that was my opening statement in
Speaker 1: the day on Hookie getch you debate to Trent, which
Speaker 1: apparently he hasn't watched because it refutes his stupid heresy
Speaker 1: in Acts seventeen. In no way says that they worshiped
Speaker 1: a Unitarian God. It's just like this guy is on
Speaker 1: another planet and doesn't even understand what the debate is,
Speaker 1: and now the libertarian says he can't hop on. Dude,
Speaker 1: I sent you the link. There's no reason why you
Speaker 1: can't hop on this debate. It's an open chat. You
Speaker 1: wanted to debate. Now you're saying he can't get on here.
Speaker 1: Give me a break. Here you are you hopped on here?
Speaker 1: Now where's the actual video? I hope you guys understand
Speaker 1: that this means that Roman Catholics don't have the basics
Speaker 1: of the Trinity. I'm pretty sure that trinity is a
Speaker 1: pretty important doctrine. And you just saw Trent say that
Speaker 1: in the tweet that he just put up the very
Speaker 1: thing that all of his defenders were saying he didn't mean.
Speaker 1: He says it again. Now, let's remind ourselves of a
Speaker 1: few moments of the debate with Daniel Hoikikachu, because it
Speaker 1: turns out Trent and Daniel have the same god, the
Speaker 1: Unitarian generic God of natural Theism. Now, I know that
Speaker 1: Trent would confess to believe in the Trinity and the
Speaker 1: deed of Christ, but he doesn't understand that he's got
Speaker 1: two conflicting, contradictory positions in his worldview. And he doubled
Speaker 1: and tripled down in the last hour on Twitter on
Speaker 1: this so I repeat again, did the Old Testament saints
Speaker 1: worship a generic Unitarian deity, the very thing that Trent
Speaker 1: and Roman Catholicisms are taughte Entrent just now within the
Speaker 1: last five minutes reaffirmed, Or do they worship the triad
Speaker 1: as every Orthodox person knows. You're saying that this is
Speaker 1: fundamental to us, and they're still wandering around, groping in
Speaker 1: the dark like the Pagans of Acts seventeen, not understanding
Speaker 1: that it's a triad in the very beginning, because their
Speaker 1: theology is all jacked up and dumb. That's why. Because
Speaker 1: they're in a giant machine that they have to make
Speaker 1: all of these pieces work and make this giant algorithm
Speaker 1: that's a giant contradictions fit together, and they don't. They
Speaker 1: don't even know what recapitulation is. They don't even know
Speaker 1: what monarchical trinitarianism is. If you've read Justin Martyr against
Speaker 1: Tripho the Jew is Trent even aware that Justin Martyr
Speaker 1: argues from the Old Testament Theophanies to prove the deedy
Speaker 1: of Christ and his attempt at proving Triad It's like
Speaker 1: Trent's never talked to a Muslim or never read these
Speaker 1: church fathers. Oh but wait a minute, Trent didn't know
Speaker 1: what the word triad meant. He thought it was a pagan,
Speaker 1: anti Trinitarian term when it's constantly used in the Eastern
Speaker 1: Church fathers. So now Trent is doubling down, as we said,
Speaker 1: tripling down that the Old Testament saints did not worship
Speaker 1: the Trinity. They worshiped a Unitarian God. Has he never
Speaker 1: read John five through nine? Has he not read Second
Speaker 1: Corinthians three, where Paul says that Moses looked face to
Speaker 1: face with Jesus. If no man sees the Father at
Speaker 1: any time, as Jesus argues in John to the Pharisees,
Speaker 1: and then who was Moses talking to? This is the
Speaker 1: point of Jesus' argument to the Pharisees. I don't think
Speaker 1: Trent knows the Bible very well at all, and particularly
Speaker 1: not the Old Testament at all. I think Trent knows
Speaker 1: a lot of pop apologetics, because remember Trent was not
Speaker 1: too long ago a Deist who converted to Roman Catholicism,
Speaker 1: and so I don't think Trent knows the.
Speaker 2: Trinity a Catholic teaching that has not been infallibly defined
Speaker 2: could be in error.
Speaker 1: Interesting, but you said a minute ago it was authoritative.
Speaker 1: So even if it's not been infallibly defined. Trent earlier
Speaker 1: said Leo's normative teaching is authoritative. What does that mean, Trent?
Speaker 1: What is authoritative non infallible teaching? Does that mean you
Speaker 1: can reject it? And Trent? What are the ex cathedral statements?
Speaker 1: Where is the list of ex cathedral statements? And to
Speaker 1: make this again a very devastating epistemological argument, if we have,
Speaker 1: for the sake of argument, say ten ex cathedral statements,
Speaker 1: I need to know where the list is that is
Speaker 1: also ex cathedral because if the list of ex Cathedra
Speaker 1: statements can be wrong, then you're in the same dilemma
Speaker 1: as the Protestant on the canon question. You make the
Speaker 1: same argument epistemically to Protestants about knowing the canon of Scripture.
Speaker 1: Apply that same argument to your claim about knowing the
Speaker 1: ex cathedrals statements. Where is the infallible decree of the
Speaker 1: infallible list of ex cathedra statements you just reputed yourself.
Speaker 2: But they are not all infallible because the Catholic code
Speaker 2: of canon law says, no doctrine is understood is defined
Speaker 2: infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.
Speaker 1: So his answer is, the things that are infallible are
Speaker 1: the ones that are manifestly of You can't make this up.
Speaker 1: This is the stupidest most This is T Jump level.
Speaker 1: He's literally T Jump reality is reality. The ones that
Speaker 1: are infallible are the ones that are manifestly evident as infallible.
Speaker 1: This should end this whole retarded system and Trent Horn's career.
Speaker 1: This is so stupid, And imagine Trent Horn saying the
Speaker 1: same thing as t Jump. Let's replay that, because this
Speaker 1: was better than I hope this was, Like, this is
Speaker 1: funnier than I expected. Let's go back. Trent Horn's epistemic
Speaker 1: criteria is to go to by the way, canon law,
Speaker 1: Trent is canon law infallible. Most Roman Catholics would argue
Speaker 1: that canon law is not infallible. So wait a minute.
Speaker 1: The thing that Trent goes to to know the canon
Speaker 1: what's infallible is itself fallible. You can't make this on.
Speaker 1: This is what you get when you don't know basic
Speaker 1: epistemic questions and basic epistemology. Do you remember in the
Speaker 1: debate with Trent, I said, Trent, tell me the things
Speaker 1: that are self evident. He said, descartes cogito. What dude,
Speaker 1: that's been savage by philosophers for centuries. It's laughable. And
Speaker 1: that's what every person who takes in epistemology one on
Speaker 1: one class. That's like the first thing they think.
Speaker 4: Dude, like descartes cogito. Man, It's like I, I look,
Speaker 4: I exist or whatever. Right, It's like, I think therefore
Speaker 4: I am uh so that's why it's self opened or whatever, right.
Speaker 1: And then the professor in your first class or first
Speaker 1: day of epistemology shreds that because it's stupid. That's literally
Speaker 1: what Trent argued in the debate with me. To show
Speaker 1: what's self evident, descartes cogitoe, What are you serious, dude?
Speaker 1: Is so easy to it's not even self evident. First
Speaker 1: of all, it relies on time determination. Has Descartes proven
Speaker 1: time yet? No? It relies on language and words having meaning.
Speaker 1: It relies on the existence of a self, which has
Speaker 1: not been proven yet. It relies on the existence of
Speaker 1: logical inferences. Has Descartes proven logical inferences yet? Okay, so
Speaker 1: if it relies on all these other things to be
Speaker 1: the case, to say, the sentence of the Cogito, then
Speaker 1: it's not self evident. Anything that relies on another thing
Speaker 1: Trent isn't self evident. Look up the criterion problem. But again,
Speaker 1: I cannot believe that this goober, in order to show
Speaker 1: what things are ex Cathedra, actually goes to a thing
Speaker 1: that Roman Catholics say is not infallible. Now, maybe there's
Speaker 1: a Roman Catholic trid who will argue that ken law
Speaker 1: is infallible. Uh, I've not seen that. Maybe they do.
Speaker 1: It's similar to their approach to the Catechism, the Catechism
Speaker 1: of the Calogy Church. It's authoritative, it's normative. But I
Speaker 1: don't think most Roman Catholics would argue that everything in
Speaker 1: the Catechism is infallible. There would be differences of levels
Speaker 1: and whatnot. Okay, fine, so is canon law infallible? Most
Speaker 1: Roman Catholics would say, probably not, because it's changeable and
Speaker 1: it can, you know, move around, and it deals with
Speaker 1: a lot of practical stuff that's not eternal, divine revelation,
Speaker 1: divine law. Right, Okay, So if it's fallible and changeable
Speaker 1: and mutable, then how are you going to the thing
Speaker 1: that is changeable and fallible to tell me where I
Speaker 1: identify the infallible. This is so simple. This is epismology
Speaker 1: one O.
Speaker 2: One says, no doctrine is understood, is defined infallibly, unless
Speaker 2: this is manifestly evident. That's why I said Jay's complaint
Speaker 2: about the Second Vatican Council saying Muslims worship God does
Speaker 2: not disprove Catholicism as a whole, because even if that
Speaker 2: teaching were false, it's not an infallible definition.
Speaker 1: H No, even if it's not infallible, you are still
Speaker 1: bound Trent by what we saw here to the normative
Speaker 1: teaching of the papacy, and all of the documents of
Speaker 1: Vatican two are normative and binding. So that means you
Speaker 1: are now bound by the Roman see to error. That's
Speaker 1: the point. You don't get to reject more telling no state,
Speaker 1: because as we see here five places in Denzinger that
Speaker 1: say that you have to support all of the normative
Speaker 1: ordinary teachings, even if it's not infallible. You are still
Speaker 1: bound by religious submission of intellect and will to the
Speaker 1: ordinary teaching. That's Canon seven fifty two.
Speaker 2: Or a dogma that cannot possibly be false. And in
Speaker 2: some cases Jay complains about statements from the Vatican that aren't.
Speaker 1: That like, as if we can't say the Vatican, I mean,
Speaker 1: does he not realize that the Vatican is not merely
Speaker 1: the papacy but also the Roman College. When the Roman
Speaker 1: College makes decisions, for example, the election of a pope,
Speaker 1: does the pope decide who the pope is? No, the
Speaker 1: Roman College decides the pope. So yeah, it's correct to
Speaker 1: talk about the Vatican.
Speaker 2: Trent aren't even church teachings at all.
Speaker 1: The actual Vatican source that loft Dog mc Lofdog pulled
Speaker 1: up which refutes what Trent says. The Holy Spirit the guys,
Speaker 1: the Church is at work in the religions. The universal
Speaker 1: presence of the Spirit cannot be compared to the presence
Speaker 1: in the Church. Although one cannot exclude the it's alf
Speaker 1: value of the false religions. This is the nineteen ninety
Speaker 1: seven Vatican document clarifying what you see in Vatican two.
Speaker 1: So notice they don't explain things the paup apologist because
Speaker 1: they have some idea that this is absurd and obviously
Speaker 1: a contradiction. They don't explain things the way their Vatican does.
Speaker 2: The Catholic Church often permits theological opinions without.
Speaker 1: Oh but Trent, the theological commissions just got approved by
Speaker 1: the Pope, so they reflect Leo's mind. We just saw
Speaker 1: that with the Theological Commission on the Eastern Churches. So
Speaker 1: you understand, this is so great that Leo, Leo is
Speaker 1: now going to be the great apologist like Francis because
Speaker 1: they were able to handwave they tried to handwave for
Speaker 1: the last several years and Alexandria by saying that it's
Speaker 1: just a theological commission, it's not approved by Rome. Oh
Speaker 1: but now turns out Leo has expressed his approval of
Speaker 1: Kiati and Alexandria and that it expresses and fulfills his
Speaker 1: desire and his mind. So notice when I go to
Speaker 1: the same documents that Loten uses against Trent and Tim Gordon,
Speaker 1: that document that Trent was talking about, the Theological Commission
Speaker 1: is approved by the Vatican, and then Trent says it's
Speaker 1: just a theological commission document, it's not binding. Oh but
Speaker 1: wait a minute, Leo has now approved the Theological Commission.
Speaker 1: It reflects his mind right here. It doesn't matter it's
Speaker 1: not binding anymore. I don't have to follow it, I
Speaker 1: can reject it. How do you know what? What did
Speaker 1: he say at the beginning of his video? He said,
Speaker 1: Leo's teachings, even if they're not infallible, can be authoritative.
Speaker 1: Watch Trent contradict himself right here. Watch this.
Speaker 2: As they don't falsify Orthodoxy, but Catholicism teaches that the
Speaker 2: Pope only acts with the charism of infallibility on very
Speaker 2: rare occasions. Most of the time when he teaches, he
Speaker 2: teaches authoritatively but not infallibly.
Speaker 1: What does that mean, then, Trent, that it's authoritative but
Speaker 1: not infallible. Are you bound by it? Are you bound
Speaker 1: by the Apostolic journey letter that you should joyously embrace
Speaker 1: what Kiati and Alexandria say. Are you now supporting Leo
Speaker 1: in dropping the philioque just the recitation, not the theology.
Speaker 1: Do you not see how arbitrary and ridiculous this system is?
Speaker 1: This is the most talmudic ridiculous. Like it's like rabbis
Speaker 1: writing documents to refute documents, to make documents work with
Speaker 1: other refutations of docum to then refute and make the
Speaker 1: document where it's just crazy level insanity. And that's why
Speaker 1: it only appeals to SuDS and I don't know people
Speaker 1: with you, Froze, I don't know, Like who finds this appealing?
Speaker 1: What in this system do you get? Trent? What are
Speaker 1: you getting out of this other than your paycheck? I
Speaker 1: think Trent is also mad because I asked him if
Speaker 1: because people were alleging that Trent took money to promote
Speaker 1: stabbies during KOUF. I asked Trent, was that the case?
Speaker 1: Trent said no, But I think that might have been
Speaker 1: what prompted this angry Trent video here.
Speaker 2: So so if the pope were to instead, it publishes
Speaker 2: permitted opinions that have gained a consensus among members of
Speaker 2: the MAGISTI yeah.
Speaker 1: But Trent now, Leo affirms Kat and Alexandria and.
Speaker 2: The document JA Sites is not an error on the
Speaker 2: point J raises, because it says salvation quote is not
Speaker 2: produced independently of Christ in his church.
Speaker 1: Yeah. The problem is that it says that salvation occurs
Speaker 1: through the false religions.
Speaker 2: It also does not outright say other religions have Salvavic value.
Speaker 1: It does it says that salvation can occur by Christ
Speaker 1: saving them through Islam.
Speaker 2: It discusses the question of whether we can say, non
Speaker 2: Christian religions that predispose people to truth have Salvavic value.
Speaker 2: This is why the document talks about, quote, the possibility
Speaker 2: of the existence of Salvavic elements.
Speaker 1: And so look at those ridiculous kazustri just word games. Well,
Speaker 1: it doesn't actually say that they can be saved in
Speaker 1: those religions. That discuss the possibility of them being saved
Speaker 1: to those.
Speaker 2: Religions as whether the religions as such can have Salvavic
Speaker 2: value is a point that remains open.
Speaker 1: Oh, it says that it is possible.
Speaker 2: So that document doesn't say what Jay claims.
Speaker 1: It says. That's why Lofton is actually correct here saying
Speaker 1: that the Roman Catholics, with all the clarity between themselves
Speaker 1: and they're apop apologist, refute one another every single day.
Speaker 1: What the papal teaching is on castid CANUBII and marital
Speaker 1: relations is abundantly clear because of the papacy, right, Tim Gordon.
Speaker 1: But then the top Catholic apologists are calling themselves male
Speaker 1: feminists because they say Tim Gordon is wrong. Well, I
Speaker 1: thought it's clear. So if we're gonna make the argument
Speaker 1: that the papacy provides clarity. How come the top apologists
Speaker 1: completely disagree over fundamental questions about salvific roles of false religions.
Speaker 1: You can't even get that right now. I'm not saying
Speaker 1: that itself is a defeater of the system. That's just
Speaker 1: an observation, an anecdotal observation of the absurdity of the
Speaker 1: claim that the papacy provides unity, clarity, and moral guidance.
Speaker 1: Where the unity and clarity and moral guidance on a
Speaker 1: basic issue of whether or not I can be saved
Speaker 1: in Hinduism or not? You and Lofton and Tim Gordon
Speaker 1: can't even tell me that.
Speaker 2: And it isn't even an official teaching of the church.
Speaker 1: What's the official teaching Trent? Where's the list?
Speaker 2: In that respect, it would be like many documents proposed
Speaker 2: by orthodox theologians that Jay or other online apologists might
Speaker 2: disagree with but don't disprove orthodoxy. Now, Jay is correct
Speaker 2: that Catholics must submit even to the non infallible teachings
Speaker 2: of the.
Speaker 1: Church, oh really.
Speaker 2: Including the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. But since
Speaker 2: those teachings are not infallible, that means in rare cases
Speaker 2: a Catholic could privately, not publicly, but privately fail to
Speaker 2: accept these teachings.
Speaker 1: If notice the level of like how they're saving the system.
Speaker 1: Now when Vatican two teaches obvious contradictions and heresies, just
Speaker 1: privately keep that to yourself because you have to submit
Speaker 1: to the pope Canond seven fifty two. So I mean,
Speaker 1: I think you get what you deserve. So the people
Speaker 1: that want to follow this, the forty thousand idiots that
Speaker 1: are over here supporting this and loving this, like you this,
Speaker 1: you get what you deserve. You want a giant organized
Speaker 1: crime syndicate Operation Gladio thing running your life and ruining
Speaker 1: your life, and you want to take your kids to
Speaker 1: be around these creeps. You deserve what you get.
Speaker 2: If they have a proportionate, serious reason for doing so,
Speaker 2: and such an act would not constitute the grave sin
Speaker 2: of heresy.
Speaker 1: Oh really, so private theologian random dude Trent Horn, who
Speaker 1: was a Unitarian not too many years ago now is
Speaker 1: an expert in canon law and identifying when it's magisterial
Speaker 1: how what's what was Trent's I gotta go back to
Speaker 1: this because this was the best thing in the whole thing,
Speaker 1: the best thing in the whole discussion.
Speaker 2: All doctrines would be infallible, but they are not all infallible,
Speaker 2: because the Catholic Code of Canon Law says, no doctrine
Speaker 2: is understood is defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.
Speaker 1: This is the greatest reaffirmation of a circle that I've
Speaker 1: ever seen. Could you imagine something being more stupidly circular
Speaker 1: than this? Now you say, wait a minute, Jaye, don't
Speaker 1: you argue that at base all arguments are self referencing
Speaker 1: and self recursive. Yes, that's why I'm a presubpositionalist. That's
Speaker 1: why I believe in trance in all argumentation. That's why
Speaker 1: I don't believe in Trent's classical foundationalism. But do you
Speaker 1: notice what Trent is doing here? The papal epistemology is
Speaker 1: forcing him to commit a vicious circle, which he said
Speaker 1: in our or debate should be rejected. All vicious circularity
Speaker 1: is rejected according to Trent Horne. Oh really, Trent, how
Speaker 1: do I know what's ex cathedral? It's the ones that
Speaker 1: are manifestly evident as ex cathedral