Speaker 1: All right, So I'm glad actually that all of these
Roman Catholics are in a tizzy over the obvious massive
failure of Tim Fordan in the debate. First of all,
all three of us were loud and interrupted, and these
hippocrites ack like I was the only one that was
loud and interrupted, which is just a ridiculous double standard.
Everybody did it, including Temple. It was an informal debate. Obviously,
people lie and act like I've never done formal debates,
that there aren't civil formal debates. There are dozens of them.
But we also do the uncivil informal blood sports style
as well. And so what amazes me is just the
consistent just gas lighting and lying that Roman Catholics do
no matter what. They're actually incapable of reading comprehension, of
just basic honesty about any of the topics that come up.
And just like a bunch of feminists or women on
the internet, the only thing that they care about is
the optics, how it makes them feel and who hurts
their feelies or whatever. It's nothing to do with the content.
None of these people will actually stick to the content.
And then anytime you invite them to come discuss, they
whine and complain as if you're mean, which, by the way,
is a self like gay as hell to complain. But
beyond that, it's not true that you don't get a
chance or an opportunity to come make your case. You
only get interrupted when you don't make arguments, and when
you shift into various fallacies or various straw men. That's it.
It's pretty easy. We have atheists, Muslims, Protestants, Catholics they
call in all the time. I've done so for years.
If you could just simply coherently make an argument, it's
very easy to make your case here, and I welcome it.
I offer it all the time. And what's funny is,
out of ten reven cathoy shit talkers, none of them
will actually come debate their arguments. All they want to
do is debate your debating, debate your meanness, your style,
or what you did bad. Now you'll notice too, that
any moral qualm they have about me, when they pile on,
they let loose ten times more venom than I letless
in any of these conversations. But it's okay for them
to do it, but not for me. So it's all
just insane levels of democracy, idiocy, childishness, stupidity, and that
it just never ends. So let's get to the actual issues. Kevin. Kevin,
when you commented, you commented to me about what Vatican
two says about Hindus, and I replied to that, and
then you said all this other stuff about Muslims, which
I never even replied to. I didn't even listen or
look at any of your comments about Islam. So why
did you then lie as if I deflected and I
was misleading people. That's why I blocked you, is because
it's a total dishonesty. I made one reply to one
of your comments, gotta I'm me and Kevin.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I didn't lie. I'm not really sure what you're
talking about. I said, Vaticant two does not say Hindus
worship the same God or.
Speaker 3: The one Truth.
Speaker 1: And I did I reply to that. You did reply
to that, okay, And so that was it, right?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 2: That was one post and then I reposted or whatever
you yeah, quote what Twitter calls it. I quoted a
second post. This one was not about hindu it was
about Muslims. And then I made an argument from Romans one.
You commented about Hindu use again, so that was a
totally different context.
Speaker 1: But I was obviously still replying to the original comment
because I'm talking about Hinduism.
Speaker 3: Pretty it wasn't pretty obvious. It was not obvious from
you at all.
Speaker 1: If I'm talking about if I'm talking about Hinduism, is
it not obvious that I'm still talking about that post?
Speaker 3: It's not. I mean the post the second post was about.
Speaker 2: I mean, if I'm going to respond to somebody, I'm
not gonna respond to them about something.
Speaker 1: Does Vatican does Vatican who actually say that? Say what?
Your first comment was that Vatican.
Speaker 3: Two doesn't say that, right, it does not say what.
Speaker 1: It does not say what my original comment said about
throwing Hindus into the mix. That's right. They do not.
Speaker 3: They do not worship the same God.
Speaker 1: And yet what term does Vatican two use in no
sat It says they. You do read it.
Speaker 3: I'm carrying my my daughter me read it.
Speaker 1: You can't. You don't know what it says.
Speaker 3: I don't want to butcher it says.
Speaker 1: It says they. Finally they in Hinduism they value the
moral life and worship God. Excuse me, let excuse me,
that's the uh, let me go back up. That's the
Muslim comment, it says, let me pull it up. I
got a different spot. That was the wrong comment. Okay,
here it is. I'll read the whole section, so you
know with the context. I thinks it says thus in Hinduism,
so we're talking about in the religion, men contemplate the
divine mystery and express it through an exhaustible abundance of
myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom for
the anguish of our human condition, either through asthetic practices
or profound meditation, or a flight to God with love
and trust.
Speaker 2: Is that the same thing it says about Muslims that
they worship the One True God?
Speaker 1: Does it? What's what? What? When it's uh? What does
this say about God? What? What does it?
Speaker 3: Does it use the proper it does? Does that mean
it's the one True God? What?
Speaker 5: What?
Speaker 1: Which one is? It?
Speaker 3: Does that mean it's the one True?
Speaker 1: How many gods? How many gods do you believe in?
How many do you capitalize?
Speaker 3: Well, the Hindus believe in many gods.
Speaker 1: How many do you capitalize?
Speaker 3: I mean I only talk about one usually, but.
Speaker 1: How many do you capitalize?
Speaker 3: You're falsely inferring that because do you capitalize?
Speaker 2: I think you're falsely in capital you're.
Speaker 1: So, how many gods are there that you capitalize? Anybody?
The ones that you believe in? Right? Right?
Speaker 2: But I think you're falsely assuming they're That means is
that they're worship the One True God.
Speaker 1: Why is it capitalized? You liar?
Speaker 3: I'm not lying, Jay, Why is it capitalized?
Speaker 1: I don't know. You don't know exactly, I don't know. Well, yeah,
you don't know.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean I can make a property, I can
make a proper guest without jump into conclusions that that
they worship the same God as you know Muslims, or
as Christians or as.
Speaker 1: So you think Muslims, you think Muslims and Christians do
worship the same God?
Speaker 3: Of course that's what the document says, Jay.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly, thank you. So it's not what Tim Gordon said.
Speaker 3: Right, I'm not aware of anything. I don't follow Tim Gordon.
I have no idea what.
Speaker 1: Okay, right, Muslims and Christians worship the same God when
Muslims don't acknowledge the Trinity?
Speaker 2: But why are you changing topics? Let's stick to the
Hindu So.
Speaker 1: You don't want to go there were brought up Muslims.
We're gonna go. We're gonna go.
Speaker 3: We haven't finished hind.
Speaker 1: You brought them up because you just said you don't
know why it's capital g. Now we're going to go
to your other argument because you don't know. So tell
me how do Muslims worship the once your God when
they don't believe in Christ or the Trinity?
Speaker 3: Talking about Hindu?
Speaker 1: All right, so this is why this is what you
guys do. You just said, you just said about the
Hindu you don't know. You said, I don't know, you, bro?
Did you say I don't know?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I can't. I can't read into the end why
they capitalize the words in God?
Speaker 1: And you don't know. So we're gonna move on. And
you lost that point, We're gonna move on.
Speaker 3: I haven't lost any point.
Speaker 4: You still have.
Speaker 1: I don't know you still your argument? Argument is you're done, dude.
This is why you're a liar. You're a liar. Get
out of here. That's why these people are discussing liars.
It's Brosey and you noticed he would not go to
the Muslim argument. It's exactly how this is gonna I
told you. So this is what these people do. They
make a big stink. They don't even actually have any
capability of dealing with the argument. It's all that I'm bad.
And then when we get to the argument, they lose
and they flounder and they don't know and they don't
want to talk about it because they're dishonest. That's my point.
Go ahead, h browser, it was going on, Jae, Can
you hear me? Yep?
Speaker 6: All right, cool, Yeah, it's gonna be quick, man. I
just wanted to say, you know, just with this, this
small bit of engagement I've been doing with these guys
for the past I don't know, like a couple of months.
I genuinely I don't understand how you're still doing this
ship man.
Speaker 7: It's that.
Speaker 6: Do you remember earlier that that guy under one of
your posts that I called out for that for that too, Kokoy?
Absolutely yes, yeah, so so he did. He took a
while to reply. Once I saw that he did reply,
he completely ignored what it was that I was saying
in the reply, So I just let it go. There
was there was no point in your reply. And then
he went to then he went to my page and
then he uh he he left the reply under under
the picture that I shared of yours, saying that you
would smoke you were smoking Aiden and Tim in the debate,
and I was just from a couple of days ago
when he said something and he completely ignored what I
said regarding the different ecclesiologies again, and he asked me,
he said, uh, he he brought up something that, you know,
like something that Carill has said in the past. He
brought up Bartholomew again and uh fuck, who's the last
patriarch of what of John? John of Antioch? He he
brought it, He brought up three and he's he's asking me, Okay,
so are they accumulated? Like how do you how do
you completely ignore what I said under the post reply
to that, completely ignored again under something that under something
from days ago, and then leave another damn reply Like
these people are so fucking dishonest. Man.
Speaker 1: That's crazy, man, It's crazy. So the thing with the
Orthodox patriarchs, the page is just a bishop with canonical privileges.
It's not some it's not a little pope like they
think that patriarchs are like many popes, and if they
have a patriarch saying something wrong or ritical, then it's
a gotcha. They're every patriarch. From the Orthodox perspective, every
patriarch it has had has had heterodox patriarchs at some point.
They've all fallen into heresy, including Rome, including the ep
in any of them. So for us, it's not a
defeater if there's a heretic patriarch who falls away, or
if there's one even that says something heretical. Now, another
point that should be made is that our ecclesiology candon
law is different. So the methods about how the Orthodox
Church goes about dealing with heresy at that level, it's
not the same as the methods that Roman Catholics have
and how they view the relationship of Candilaw to the Church. So,
for example, if a patriarch commits error or heresy, schism, whatever,
and he continues in that, there's phases too can procedure
in the Orthodox view, So eventually, after removal from communion
there's a sonodal excommunication, the rest of the Orthodox laity
are not bound morally and to be expected to remove
themselves from communing with that person until there is a
sonodal pronouncement like that. That's Orthodox ecclesiology. So when these
Roman Catholics are replying to us that Carol said something heterodox,
Carol said something wrong. I can easily say absolutely he did,
and it's just as wrong as Francis. But I don't
have the same ecclesiology as you, and so I am
not bound to become a set of a contest as
an Orthodox person like you would be bound as a
Roman Catholic to become set of a contest if the
pope becomes a heretic er says something heretical. So all
they keep doing is just reading Papism into Orthodoxy and
acting like it's a gotcha when it's a different system.
Speaker 6: Yeah, and but see the day obviously, you know, I've
heard a damn billions on the Twitter spaces where you
will explain that that verbat into somebody and say if
they come back on or maybe even later in the debate,
if it's brought up again, they'll just say that you're
you're using a double standard and it's a so like
based on what happened earlier. It's like they just don't
understand what it means to have different ecclesiology under under
that post. I'm not the first one I said it.
I say that one more time.
Speaker 1: Jay thieve of it.
Speaker 6: Hold on, Jay, say that one more time. My connection
went out.
Speaker 1: No, it's my connection. I said. They just can't literally
can't conceive of it because they don't think in terms
of different systems. Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 6: So I'm not the first one that said anything about
ecclesiology under that post, but he ignored it.
Speaker 1: When I said that.
Speaker 6: Every I went I went back maybe about like an
hour after his reply, just to check and see how
dishonesty was being every other every other person. And there's
a guy Henry I don't I don't know if you
follow him, but I mean, you know, a lot of
a lot of other ortho guys following them whatever, he's
the first one that said something about it. He did
not want to engage with him. And I guess I see,
I see now why, I see why now I don't
I don't see how you're still doing this, ship man. Yeah, yeah,
I don't get it. These like this level of dishonesty
I've just seen just today, just today under you know,
like under like with Vain. I see Vain is in here,
you know, him replying him replying to some of these
motherfuckers under your post, man, is it's madness. I just
don't understand how you can how they can't understand it.
It's like it's basically just an internal critique and they
just don't know how to do that. They just they
just see it as any any critique, you're giving them
a double standard.
Speaker 7: Instantly, they just they just a man.
Speaker 1: Like, yeah, well you have problems. You have problems too,
at doak P. Notice how like only one of all
of them even came.
Speaker 8: Okay, Jay, I just wanted to so obviously, I know
this whole discussion is with Catholics Muslims, and they called
they worship right I always. I know you've previously said
that Catholics and Orthodox on what should have seen God either.
So would that be a contradiction within the Catholic system
to say we should have same God as he?
Speaker 1: Would it be a contradiction within the Catholic system for
a Catholic to say that he worships the same God
as the Orthodox? Yeah? Oh uh, Well, I just think
the Catholic system is just basically entirely operates on word
concept fallacies that anything that calls it's deity God is
therefore the same reference as the Catholic God. So when
a Hindu says that he believes in Atman or Brahman
or whatever, Oh that's God. Or when if a scientologist
says he believes in a first mind, oh that's God.
That's the same thing we believe in. So it's so
flexible and elastic that literally anything can be equated to
quote one God or the first cause or I mean, yeah, yeah,
Catholics going to say that he has the same God
as an Orthodox person, the same God as a Muslim,
the same God as as capital g of the Hindus
in Vatican two.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I guess what I'm wondering is like Catholic was
the say, you know, Orthodox and Catholics wiship would that be?
You know, like always when you say Catholics and Muslims
wishes God. That sounds like massively cregious in one year
listening to that, but I mean would.
Speaker 1: So the reason they say that is natural theology. They
think that there is a generic theism that is the
theism of all the world religions in some loose sense,
but a little more so the monotheistic ones they're a
little bit closer. And then supposedly Trinity is like the
one that's the closest of the close. So it's like
a graded scale of what of worshiping God, and that
doesn't exist. Like a heretic is in the same boat
as a pagan. Now, a heretic is not identical to
a pagan. They have different theological views, and certainly a
heretic is closer to an Orthodox Christian than a pagan,
but they're still in the same boat of being outside
the faith. This is what they say can't seem to
grasp and that's why their whole ecclesiology, their whole system,
is built on being twenty percent right, being fifty percent right,
being thirty percent, seventy percent Catholic, which is ludicrous even
in their own system, because you've got two dogmatic statements
in Roman Catholic theology that one heresy or schism or
action of apostasy literally automatically puts you outside the mystical body.
In other words, if I'm a Roman Catholic and I
decide I do not believe in the Immaculate Conception in
Catholic theology, I'm no longer Catholic. It's a packaged deal.
You can't have nine out of ten dogmas and still
be Catholic. This is something that they don't understand their
own system says this.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I've overready understood the whole like you know, you know,
Orthodox have the same similar like sacraments or whatever as
the Catholic. Therefore, you know, we can receive their echerysm
just like well, they haven't got the same faith then,
so why can we What can you take you know, communion?
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a fair critique. I mean, if they are
outside communion with the Roman, see why is it still
quote valid? And again the all goes back to the
ex operatta ex operaparado, a sacromatology of Augustine, which the
Orthodox do not entire in its entirety except Foggy Mountain.
I want to go to Ruman Catholics to have any
arguments or points or if I want to try to
give some explanation. You can even have sixty seconds and
I'll be quiet if you can actually make sense of
Attican too.
Speaker 9: Hey J, can you hear me?
Speaker 1: Yep?
Speaker 10: Hey J, thanks for having me on. Just this is
my first time on. I just wanted to say, I
think this all just sounds like relativism. To be honest,
it just sounds like.
Speaker 1: Of course it is. That's what I'm saying, Like, it's
it's it works to the to their cause for numbers
to act like every you know, generic usage of the
word God is referring to the same thing, and so
we're all talking about God. It must be the same God.
Speaker 10: It's just religious syncretism, just in a different way. Yeah,
So I think they're just lost, you know, like maybe that's.
Speaker 1: Why they don't that's what that's why. How how could
Erica Bara imagine spending all these years in Roman Catholicism
and papal lawyering and you don't even know that Muslims
and Christians and Jews don't worship the same deity. So
it's gotten him absolutely nothing. This is why Roman Catholicism
is a problem, because it leads you into spiritual delusion, contradiction, chaos,
and idolatry. That's one and all of the madness of
these people demonstrates that point against it. It's a system
that will drive you insane and drive you away from Christ.
It's a religion of dead works because it's all nonsense.
At the end of the day, it's all trying to
make this stupid papal thing work and the only thing
that matters in the religion is the papercy at the
end of the day. Felix, what's up, hija?
Speaker 7: Can you hear me?
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's actually my first time.
Speaker 11: Also, I just wanted to add some thoughts that you
like said earlier. And the guy earlier said that the
thing about this like one monotoism that's like seventy percent correct,
like fifty percent correct sort of person correct, it's actually
a Muslim idea.
Speaker 3: It's like Muslim idea absolutely.
Speaker 1: It's because believe Mostlims believe in natural theology, just like running.
Speaker 11: Yeah, and like the way that second two adapted to
some kind of Jewish doctrines and they actually use some
kind of rabbis to write second two. Maybe they use
some kind of Muslim scholars to adapt this thing also,
And I just want I just wanted to add one
more thing that Muslims, like modern Muslims or do this
in some kind of Southeast Asian countries, for example, in Indonesia,
is actually made some kind of syncretic redision between like
Islam and Buddhism and the Hinduism where they made all
the hindu Jitis into one God. And it's like, well,
technically only one God and all the other like Vish
New Brass mind other like Ditis, are just like his.
Speaker 3: Advotars, so they are also correct exactly.
Speaker 1: It's like this is a this is a version of perennialism.
And this is why Roman Catholics like Neoplatonism, because Neoplatonism
knows the exact same things with God as manifestations of
the principle of the One the monad. It's the exact
same move that they all make. And by the way,
this is the whole reason why they do patro mama.
All of the people fussing about patcha Mama, what's in
consisted with patcha Mama and the reasoning of Vatican too.
If God can be manifested in Hinduism, why can't he
be manifested as Pacha Mama. Why not just say Pacha
Mama is Mary. Yeah, it might have been a pagan
sacrificed human sacrifice goddess. Just say that it's Mary. Though.
This is how stupid this is and excellent comments Felix.
That's that perfectly makes the point there, with the same
move that Muslims make. I've been debating Muslims for six years.
Many of those debates revolved around their version of natural theology.
They literally think that if you're on a desert island
and you just start reasoning, you would come to the
Muslim god. That's what shaikh az ars, she'd argued, right,
And so I mean that's literally and where do they
get that? Well, the Muslims lie. They think they get
it from the Quran. They get it from Greek Hellenic philosophy,
they get it from Aristotle, they get it from Christian
I should say tomistic type theology. Chase, what's up? I'm
saying there's a symbiotic relationship between the medieval Roman Catholic
and Muslim theologists and thinkers. What's up cha?
Speaker 12: Yo?
Speaker 4: You know it's funny, is uh? I? Remember?
Speaker 13: You know I message you that thing about how the
people say, yeah they do. It's like, okay, well yeah
you how do you have martyrs?
Speaker 1: Then?
Speaker 13: But another funny thing is this is actually already baked
in the theological.
Speaker 4: Fluidity is already baked into the system.
Speaker 13: The Byzantine Catholics can venerate Saint Palomas and not.
Speaker 4: Recite the Philioque.
Speaker 13: So it's funny because it's actually already baked into their religion.
That the theology doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: The theology doesn't matter exactly, So theology is always secondary.
Speaker 4: To paper exactly.
Speaker 13: And so and people, you know, if they say no,
look like we can have these these different things. No,
you're denying massive stretches of you know, eight hundred years
of history, even more, you know, twelve hundred years of history.
We're you're not saying, oh, it's just it's just a uh,
you know, energetic procession. No, you you're literally having a
different theology. You're venerating people in a sect of Catholicism
that were never Roman Catholic, that have a completely different
theology that you your own people.
Speaker 1: Will call your No. No, they were actually extra communicated
because if you didn't follow lions in Florence, those councils
excommunicate you for not following them. So Palamas and all
these people that Rome now venerates were previously literally excommunicated heretics.
Speaker 13: Yes, so they all worshiped the exact same God though
they were excommunicated as heretics. So it's actually it's interesting
because you know, now you can there's so many horns
of this dilemma for them through Vatican too, that they're
finally having to be put in the hot seat with
that they've been ignoring for you know, forever.
Speaker 1: And well, I'm glad that I was able to put
them in the hot seat. Uh. And you'll know not
if you pay attention to the routes that he took
in the debate. Even though it got heated and it
was loud, he constantly contradicted. At one point, it's like,
the documents are ambiguous as written by liberals, but it's
still orthodox if you just give it the right interpretation.
Oh well, then why is it using the word god
capital G. Well, I don't know. I mean, it's it's
it's wrong, but it's also not wrong. Like he just
he literally said it's bad, it's ambiguous, totally flipped like
ten minutes later it's like, no, there's nothing wrong with it.
It's fine. Yep.
Speaker 13: And and what's interesting is and and I liked him.
I think Tim's a cool guy. I know you you
liked him obviously to Tim's he just seems like a
likable dude.
Speaker 1: And we went out to eat, We went out to
eat afterwards.
Speaker 4: For sure.
Speaker 13: Yeah, And but I thought it was funny that he
kept going, no, you're you're confusing, you know, the signifier
and the reference. Like, no, it's the document, the documents
literally saying they have the wrong signifier but.
Speaker 4: The same reference. That's exactly insane.
Speaker 1: That's the point. The document is saying that if we
if we really get into it, we're all worshiping the
same thing. It's just the words get in the way,
exactly shape.
Speaker 13: So then now another another aspect of the same dilemma,
because there's it's so much fun thinking of how many
places you can bring this to.
Speaker 4: The funny thing is okay, why does why does Florence matter?
Speaker 1: Now?
Speaker 13: Why does lions matter? Why doesn't I see a matter?
Why does chalcdon matter? If it's everything is pointing to
the same reference, why does it matter?
Speaker 1: Like like you, like you said, if this Vatican to
theology is correct, there would never have been in any
need for martyrs in the first three centuries, because why
are you not, like, why can't you sacrifice to the emperor?
Just read the Emperor as an image of the once
your God, and there you're sacrificing to God.
Speaker 13: See exactly exactly, And it's yeah, it's just it's so
it's such an insane game, and I'm i think. You
know what I'm excited for is I think people are
finally going to see why you have been saying for
years and then myself as well when I, you know,
started getting into doing apologetics and got a blessing to
do apologetics.
Speaker 4: This is where natural theology leads. This is where it leads.
Speaker 13: And I was reading the uh the ambiguou uh the
Ambiguum the other day and it's funny because Saint Maximus,
I gotta I'll find the quote later and I'll send
it to you. Saint Maximus was talking about these things
and and explicitly saying that like the human mind, uh
looking around, can't can't reason up to any of these
great things because it sees all the finitude of life
constantly all around it. And they'll venerate him to It's
just funny. There's so many layers, but uh, I'm gonna
pop out and listen. Thanks for pulling me up.
Speaker 4: Well.
Speaker 1: I think the kill shot too is the more I
thought about it, every Roman Catholic will agree that Arians
are heretics, and are you know God does not accept
aryan adoration and worship, and yet Muslims are literally from Arians,
and yeah, and we're supposed to believe that Vatican too
is saying right that God still accepts it and and
they adore the one True God. So I mean, yeah,
that's why I always ask these people too, like do
you think Basil thought that the Eunomians had the same
God as him? And most Roman Catholics who know anything,
they'll actually ad meant no. And it's like, then you
just shot your whole Vaticans who document in the foot.
Speaker 13: Yep, and yeah, it's so, it's so funny, it's so funny.
And and the funny thing is about the about the
Aryan thing is is that this also ties into it's
the you know, the whole meme of people saying.
Speaker 4: Like, oh, saying Christ is king is is anti Semitic.
Speaker 13: Say okay, but now when people say Christ is king
in Christ is Lord and stuff, it's like, you see
how they can just be a Muslim saying that it's
exactly Catholics will go, yeah, dude, you got the slogan,
let's go.
Speaker 1: Well. Actually a lot of the track cass do cheer
on the Muslims from the Muslims wool agreed and stuff
like that. Yeah, but it doesn't make any sense because
the Lord is a title of divinity.
Speaker 4: So yeah, yeah, I'm gonna pop out and listen, have
a good one.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they get Jordan, what's up?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 1: What's up?
Speaker 7: Man?
Speaker 14: Yeah?
Speaker 15: I was discussing with the Roman Catholic about the energies
the energy distinction, right, and he was saying, like, oh,
if the so like, if the energies themselves are not
identical to the essence and they subsist within God, how
can you say that this isn't lead leading to polytheism
or like, how why couldn't you just hold to Scotus's
definition of formal distinction.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean we've addressed this many times because there's
multiple things going on here. There's modal collapse problem. First
of all, there's a question of what we participate in.
If you want to say that it's a formal distinction,
I mean, do you see the church fathers Basil Cappudians
letter two thirty four. Do they talk about participating in
a formal distinction or do they talk about participating in
the uncreated reality that is divine glory and immortality in life?
So God's energies have to be really distinct because everyone
agrees through apithetic theology the via negativa that we don't
know the divine essence, but what we do know is
the energies that come down to us, as Letter two
thirty four says. So really the key way to refute
the Scotis type angle or whatever, or even the identification
of the attributes and the operations with the essence in
a strict identification sense is to look at participation. Because
there's no creature that can save us. So the grace
that we participate in cannot inherently be created, because that's
an aryan form of grace is just another creature. We
actually need to be saved by the uncreated glory. And
in John seventeen, Jesus says that his disciples will participate
in the glory that he shared with his father before
the foundation of the world. Everyone agrees God's glory is
not created. That's why the Theophanes also proved this, because
they're not the divine essence, and yet they are the
energetic manifestation of the logos in time and space that
immediately destroys the absolute divine simplicity. Argumentation and scout doesn't
really doesn't get you anything other than a harder distinction
between the attributes and the essence. That's all it does.
It doesn't answer the question of what we participate, what
we participate in. It doesn't answer any of the questions
about Theophanes, It doesn't answer the modal collapse. All the
same problems are still there.
Speaker 15: So okay, oh yeah, that's actually great. I actually even
in the Bible, Saint Paul talks about it and so
forth to early Church fathers.
Speaker 7: But also I would.
Speaker 15: Talk what about the the incarnation itself? Because the Roman
Catholic was like, well, the incarnation itself, the flush is created,
that's a created effects.
Speaker 3: So how can you say, if that's a creative effect.
Speaker 15: Why can't we why can't we perceive the created effects
as opposed to uncreated energy? So what's wrong with that?
Speaker 1: Again, We're not saved by being participated by participating in
something created. It's uncreated glory. In John seventeen John Damascus,
when he talks about the human nature of Christ, he
says that Christ transferred his immortality that he possessed by
his divinity to the human nature. So the human nature
that he possesses really participates in Jesus's uncreated grace, glory
and immortality. If you read the two Letters of Serials Sensus,
he talks about how we all agree that it's not
the essence of God that is what saves us or
that we participate in. It's his uncreated grace and immortality
by which he deified the human flesh that he assumed.
So that has that requires a necessary Okay, yeah, the
Eucharist requires an essencerityistinction because everyone agrees we're not eating
the essence of God exactly.
Speaker 5: And that was the point I brought up to him too.
Speaker 15: It is the uncreated grace that deifies the flesh, which
makes it like possible for us to partake in grace.
So concerning that, though, does the energies does it have?
Does it make humans who partake in it do this?
Does it make them have a different view than people
who don't partake in grace?
Speaker 1: Like?
Speaker 15: You know, so if babies unlive for some weird reason,
right or die, let's say, since they don't get to
partake in the divine grace, would would they have a
different view of God? They wouldn't be able to perceive him?
Speaker 1: You talk about like an unbaptized infant or.
Speaker 15: Something even that, or like even like people of other face.
They perceive God differently because they don't partake in God's
grace the same.
Speaker 1: Way that Actually, yes, actually I think both things are happening.
So the unbeliever, as Paul says, the natural man, cannot
receive the things of the spirit. So that's what the
reason Roman Calviyus can't see this stuff or understand this stuff.
It's not an intellectual problem, it's a spiritual problem. It's
the same with atheists. So you're correct, they can't actually
see or perceive any of this. They think it's foolishness
and as polytheism and all the other ad hominem and
stupid blasphemous things they say about the divine energies, which
are literally in Paul's epistles. They say it because they're
stupid and they're blinded. And I don't say that out
of pride. I say that because I want them to
be saved. But in the case, so that's the case
of anyone's perception that you can't even perceive the things
without having the Holy Spirit, which you get three repentance
and the orthodox sacraments in church life. But separate from that,
I would say, yeah, there is a tradition that in
some of the Church Fathers that the the Cappadocians Uh
even talk about at times. It's not exactly limbo like
the Roman Catholic sab but it's a version of hold
on one second, I'm trying to buy something in me,
just one second, excuse me. Some of the Orthodox Church
prayers talk about that we just simply commend infants to
God who have died baptized. We don't know their exact state,
and we don't think they're necessarily damned because they don't
have any actual sin. Because we don't believe in original guilt,
we wouldn't say that they're automatically damned. That was even
the Roman Kelly Church doesn't believe that anymore. But so
there's some speculation, and then some of the liturgical prayers
talk about how you know, God will take care of
them and that kind of stuff, so they're not necessarily damned.
But there's no evidence either that they're necessarily partake of theosis.
So exactly what happens with unbaptized infants is unclear. There's
just a little bit of liturgical prayers that discuss it.
So anyway, so what would it.
Speaker 15: Be like though it would it would they still have
eternal happiness, they just don't have the vision of God
with the beatific vision, like they can still have eternal Yeah.
Speaker 1: I think the one statement that I've seen from Nissa
is that he speculates that they would be put into
a place of natural felicity, which is kind of close
to infant limbos of the Roman Catholics have.
Speaker 15: Okay, and like, because why come from like a reform background,
so I don't want to think of I know, Orthodox
doesn't think of God as as legalistic, but well, i'd say, like,
would you say that damning itself just talking about like
regular humans here is it to satisfy God's wrath since
you are in opposition to his will?
Speaker 1: Is that the whole basis of hell. No, I think
that the Orthodox conception of hell is a lot more
sensible the whole river of fire thesis versus some satisfaction notion.
First of all, no creature can satisfy God. And this
is one of the reasons why we don't believe in,
you know, the penal substitution reformation idea, because that's all
premised on the father damning the son to satisfy his
justice and his infinite holiness. But the problem is that
what's offered in the in the triad cannot be one
person to another because anything that happens in nity is
all three persons. So you got to have a triadic
action in the traditional offering notion is either anti trinitarian
or can you stop doing that? The background is really loud.
Oh yeah, yeah, right, so they so so you you know,
if you have the traditional reformed idea of like the
damning of the sun, then that's anti trinitarian. So you can't,
we can't do that. So the business E Sonos the
eleventh century points out that what's offered is the humanity
of Christ to the Father in the spirit. So it's
a triadic action or this whereby the son is offering
his humanity to the Father in love in the Holy Spirit.
So uh, that's not any like a penal sanctioned imputational model.
It's a offering of love that restores heels and deifies
our nature. So is that Oh.
Speaker 15: Yeah, that that answers it. Well, just just one more thing,
just just like about the litargy about how God can
do you think that not just in scripture but also
like through the liturgy. God could speaks obviously through the church,
and he speaks through liturgies. Is that like, you know,
when we proclaim the invocation of the saints, you know
Mother Mary of course.
Speaker 3: Or Buss and Mother. Is that God's speaking through the liturgy?
Speaker 1: Well, actually everything is God speaking, So in a sense, yeah,
I mean everything that's happening in some senses, you know,
God's providence. Everything that happens in our lives is God's providence.
The liturgy is yes, God's speaking to us. I mean,
lives of the saints speak to us, the Bible speaks
to us. All these things are potentially you could say,
God speaking.
Speaker 15: Okay, yeah, oh yeah, that's some great answers there. I
actually learn quite a bit. Well, yeah, thank you for
answering my questions. I appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, great questions. We got a lot of you know,
talk some videos on all those topics. So Joshua, Hello, Yeah,
what's up?
Speaker 3: Hi?
Speaker 4: Can you hear me?
Speaker 1: Yeah? I go ahead.
Speaker 16: Yeah, I just had a quick question on Oriental Orthodoxy
because just within the Orthodox Church right now, I find
that there's a bit of like an acceptance of the
Oriental position without I guess I guess I want to
know more about it. I'm just scurious if you know,
if you like have any recommendations on books that that
might just give some insight into the controversy as well as.
Speaker 1: Yeah, one of the best books is joh John mcguckin's
book Saying Cyril of Alexander in the Christological Controversy, Okay,
and then I would read say Maximus's Little Book Just
be Tation with Purists, and then I would read John
Damascus's book three of on the Orthodox Faith. That's really
good too. So all those three things will will I
think helps solidify. But especially at the end of the
macguckan book is the Two Letters of Serial to six Census,
which is really important.
Speaker 4: Okay, that's awesome, all right, thank you so much. Ja.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we're going through. We're still doing our Oriental series.
We've all we've only done three, but we're going to continue.
Joshua other Joshua you there, oh hey, sorry, yeah, sorry,
go ahead. Yeah.
Speaker 17: So, I was just wondering where is where does Luminingentia
mentioned Hindus.
Speaker 1: I'm just looking it up right now, let me see,
I know know Tratte does in three right, So Okay, okay,
I'm it's we read it earlier, loyell On, let me see.
I'm sorry, it's it's paragraph too. It says in Hinduism,
men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an
inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They
seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition, and
through esthetic practices or profound meditation, or a flight to
God with love and trust. Okay, which is not true.
You don't. You don't have a flight to God in
love and trust and into it.
Speaker 17: It's pretty much like Romans one, but exact opposite, exactly.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 18: No, I'm just reading, like I'm just trying to find
on Luminegentia and paragraph sixteen.
Speaker 19: Like what Catholics have to say about that, And.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I can't figure out like.
Speaker 18: How they like why it's singing Muslims specifically.
Speaker 1: Well, remember there's two I think because the argument in
Lumgentium is and in No Ratt is that since Jews
are not gonna at all have anything good to say
about Jesus or Mary, if Muslims at least like Jesus
and Mary, then they're closer to Us than Jews, although
Jews are actually listed first Intate and limit Gentium, which
is funny, right yeah, no.
Speaker 18: Yeah, which is also like a shocking page where it
says God still has like this.
Speaker 3: People remains most dear to God.
Speaker 17: I'm like, that's kind of a misinterpretation of there is.
Speaker 1: No ambiguity there.
Speaker 7: Yeah.
Speaker 1: In fact, yeah, in fact, the two thousand and three
document that they put out, the US Conference of Catholic
Bishops put out, is even worse. It actually says that
because God still loves them, you shouldn't try to convert Jews.
So yeah, all that, Yeah, that's worse.
Speaker 18: Yeah, like it's uh that that one's surprising.
Speaker 17: And then just the one look like I don't know,
like the idea that it even matters that you consider
Jesus a prophet when Saint John says that where Jesus
is incarnate, son of God.
Speaker 1: Anti Christ exactly. Yeah, that's exactly my point with the
whole argument, Like, Okay, so most Catholics are going to
say that Arians are heretics and God doesn't accept arianism.
Oh but wait a minute, Muslims are basically arians. They
come out of arianism, and God accepts Muslim it's just stupid.
It's like, hey, Yates, what's up? Man? Hey, diy can
you hear me? Yes, sir, Hey, I'll make this quick.
Speaker 20: With Lemon Gentium sixteen, I sent you a d with
this information, but I'll try to make it quick as possible.
The very last sentence says, and together with us, they
adore the One merciful God. Mankind's judge on the last day.
Mankind's judge on the last day, according to John five
twenty two.
Speaker 1: Is Jesus.
Speaker 20: It's explicitly stated. So how on earth could they get
around that?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Exactly. And also don't Muslims think that Jesus participates
in the judgment at the last day too? So, I mean,
is that not even clearer against the argument that Tim
Gordon was making.
Speaker 20: Right, it's explicitly saying, yeah, we adore the One God
with Muslims, but also Jesus is God. It's just a
contradiction in the same sentence.
Speaker 1: Exactly. Yeah, See, you can't there's no such thing as
like half God. Right, Well, we're on the same page
because we worship half of God. I mean imagine saying
I believe in the same God as you, but only
half of it. It's like, well, there's this thing as
half God. Oh really there's not. Well then how are
your works being the same God if it's not the Trinity?
Speaker 19: Right my adults?
Speaker 1: Exactly?
Speaker 20: All right, I'm gonna let somebody else get up here.
Speaker 1: Yeah a good qu a good point. Josh again, got
a lot Josh's hey, I think I got a delay here.
Speaker 3: So every time I request, like, it's delayed, so my bad.
Speaker 18: Yeah, so I just want to throw Like Also, the
natural theology move that they make when they go to
Romans one is totally bogus, Like.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's not natural theology, like.
Speaker 18: The idea that Mohammad and Saudi Arabia is sitting there
reasoning himself to God as opposed to like he was
taught under the threat of force that this is what
I believe, Like this is not like, yeah, it's not right.
Speaker 1: So, as we point out, if you read Romans One
from the Orthodox perspective, Paul is talking about a darkened heart. Uh,
it's not primarily about intellect and Roman Roman Caltholk read
the Romans. Catholics read Romans One like if you just
if a pagan just kind of sat there and reasoned correctly,
like Aristotle like he was. If he was just doing
like syllogisms, he would basically he would be aristotl right,
he would come to the right conclusion about a first cause.
That's literally what they think Romans one is about is
like syllogisms. No, No, it's saying that the reason that
men don't worship the true God is that their hearts
are darkened and they worship idols. It's the literal opposite
of the of the problem which that Roman Calolus say,
which they locate in the intellect. They act like the
intellect is making a mistake in the way that reasons
about creatures, and that that's what Paul's talking about if
they just reason correctly. But the whole point is that
it's not even the reasoning faculty that is the problem.
They reason falsely because their hearts are darkened, because Roman
Romanic caalics don't have a doction of the heart of
the news. So by wait, I think if I recall
the actual terminology that's used there by Paul, and the
Greek corresponds to the terminology uh in the Hebrew text
that like David uses about the heart the news, and
the news is not a Greek gnostic doctrine. It's a
Hebrew doctor the news. The heart is not the same
thing as the intellect, but in reman Caltholic theology, the
soul is basically just the intellect, the reasoning faculty spirit
led what's up?
Speaker 21: Yes, all right, I gotta I got a quick question
for you, and is it? Is it okay if I
ask you something kind of outside of the debate title.
Speaker 19: If not, that's cool. We could we could.
Speaker 21: Say no, I don't care, all right, So I just
I want to get your opinion on like speech, so
not that you know, not that we have to be
I guess, like perfect all the time their speech. And
I'm definitely not advocating for tone policing, but I'm just
trying to figure out, like what is because when I
read the Patristic Fathers, it's like they don't they tell
us to not really like like curse, you use crude
language stuff like that, And again this is not.
Speaker 1: I disagree because they they curse and say horrible things
and make mean jokes all the time. Gotcha.
Speaker 21: Yeah, Like I said, I want to get your take
on like like what I guess it's it kind of
falls into economy too.
Speaker 1: Like I just let's let's walk all all right, So
let's walk through a couple of points there, right, So, like,
you know, the Saint Cyril Jerusalem says hate all here
at sics and hate the assemblies of the hero at Sis.
That's actually in the rudder too. Yeah, So does that
mean that I have to like go out and you know,
like literally have hatred in my heart? I think he's saying, like,
you hate the theology, you hate their system. Right, if
you read the way that Paul talks about, you know,
people of Creed, he says Cretans are all liars, they're
basically to comebacks. Okay, So if you read Jerome the
way that he talks about Helvidius or Vigilantius, I mean
he just calls him a dog, he calls him a monster,
he calls him basically a loser. So it's pretty common
in the Patristic writings that they call people these names
all the time, especially they're the enemies of the faith.
They don't typically do that for people inside the church,
although sometimes they even do that. But aside from that,
I mean, the scriptures themselves tell us to avoid the fool.
How can I avoid the fool? If I can't identify
who a fool is, Yeah, so it just call. If
I was to say you're a fool, I'm not going
to waste my time with you. There's nothing wrong with
that unless the person isn't a fool. And if you remember,
and when Jesus talks about he says, if anybody calls
his brother a fool without reason, he is liable to
the judgment. Well that's yeah, without reason. So if there
is a reason, then you're not likeable to the judgment.
And Jesus himself called people names all the time. He
called Herod of Fox, he called you know, a woman
who came to him, he called her he said, the
dogs eat from the eat from the table. So I
mean Jesus used this kind of demeaning language at times too,
So I don't see why even that language is a
universally a problem. Now. Second from that, cursing is a
different issue where I think I disagree with a lot
of people on this because people think that what Protestants
decided that. So you have these Puritans in a few
centuries ago in America, and they had this moralistic idea
that cursing wasn't just like literally pronouncing a curse or
using God's name in vain, which is actually what it
is to curse, curse somebody with God's name or something,
you know, to say GD for example, Like that kind
of stuff is what blaspheming and using the Lord's name
in vain is. That's cursing. Saying the F word or
saying the word shit. That's just older English language that
commoners used. So there's nothing inherently wrong with the word.
It's like there's nothing that makes the word poop more
holy than the word shit. They literally are identical. And
even the King James Bible uses the word piss, right,
So do I have to say peepie or piss? So
I don't believe. I don't. I don't believe there is
such a thing as quote cuss words. I think that
there are things like propriety and taboos, and so, for example,
it wouldn't be appropriate to walk into a church and say,
you know, shit and fuck or something like that, because
it's improper and that would be a vulgar speech. But
if somebody says, you know, did you have sex with
her or did you hump her or did you fuck her?
Between those three words, they all mean essentially the same thing,
and there's nothing inherently like, there's not It's not like
one of the words is magically more evil than the
other word. That's that's just moral. That's just like Protestant
Puritan superstitioning.
Speaker 21: Yeah, I got you're saying, you're you're not like advocating
for like vulgar speech.
Speaker 19: But it's just like, who are we kidding?
Speaker 21: Right, Like if you say hump, it means the same thing, right,
So I get.
Speaker 1: Well, but no, wait a minute, So you understand that
people talk about like you have to talk about these
things at times, So I'm not sure what you mean
by that, Like, so if so, first of all, when
you talk about vulgar, the term vulgar again meant the
common language. And so in the West, what we think
is vulgar terminology or cuss words is just identified with
what the poor people and the bar people and the
wench made maids would say, you know, down at the
pub when they would talk about going to the bathroom
or having intimate affairs. Right, that's the speech of the
vulgar people, the commoners. That's why it's called vulgarity. That's
literally literally the origin of it and so the point
is that if I is it really any different if
I say poop is out of shit? Now? Okay? So,
and is it necessarily wrong to talk about poop if
I have to have you know, I have to explain
where are you going? I'm going to poop like like,
there's nothing wrong.
Speaker 19: With that, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1: And there's nothing wrong with saying I'm going to take
a ship like this, There's no it's just silly to
quibble over this stuff. But again, I do agree that
there are there is such a thing as propriety, and uh,
you know, for example, if I'm in a comedy club,
that's a different setting than if I'm in the church,
And so it's proper in a comedy club that you're
gonna hear. And by the way, I'm not for nasty,
disgusting jokes. There's a lot of raunchy stuff that I
think is over the line. Yeah, so there there is speech.
As Paul talks about that is I mean that the
English translation used the word vulgar. But you know, let
no unclean speech come out of your mouth. Paul says,
But even that, you could argue, it's more it's it's
you know, if you're talking bad about your brother. That's
worse than saying the word shit. So Paul might even
mean unclean speech in that way. But anyway, go ahead
with your points.
Speaker 21: Yeah, No, I I just, you know, wanted to get
your your take on that, because I've even noticed you
kind of like tone it down a little bit too.
Like I hear you a lot of the times, kind
of like qualifying and telling people like, I'm not trying
to be mean to you.
Speaker 19: But so I think like you, at least from.
Speaker 21: What I've what I've seen since I've been watching you,
is that you actually take care to let people know like, hey,
I'm not trying to be mean to you or whatever,
but you know, I gotta, I gotta kind of.
Speaker 19: Correct you on this point or whatever.
Speaker 21: And it's really only when people I guess get ridiculous
where you kind of have to shut them down. Might
call him an idiot, might use some of the language
that the Patristic fathers utilize.
Speaker 1: But I don't.
Speaker 21: I don't really see you going out of your way
to like just randomly insult.
Speaker 19: People because you want to be mean.
Speaker 1: No, I don't.
Speaker 19: I mean, which is what you get, which is what
you get accused of right, right, Yeah, So I just
wanted to.
Speaker 21: I just wanted to, like I said, just kind of
wanted to get your take on that and just kind
of see where you are coming from on how you
view some of this language stuff.
Speaker 1: Yeah, go read your own. I mean, he's pretty vicious
when it comes to everybody. He had disagrees with King
what's up?
Speaker 22: Hey, what's up?
Speaker 23: Jay?
Speaker 22: I just wanted to agree with you on your earlier
ex post when you said that this Vatican two is
very Masonic. It absolutely is. It's something I wish God
spoken about more. It's actually it's so new age, which
you obviously know. It's I'm not trying to be a crass,
but it sounds like something you know, when I was
sixteen doing ascid with my buddies, that we would come
up with this Vatican two. We're all one and so
to the Catholics, I say, I mean, dude, is your
theology seriously just we're all one? No, We're not all one.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's like DMT brow theology exactly. Yeah.
Speaker 22: So this Pope of the Future that your videos are
so hilarious about it is totally this new age hope
of the future. So yes, thank you. Jay, I appreciate you, bro, Yeah.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That's exactly the whole point.
Speaker 7: I mean.
Speaker 1: The problem is not quibbling over words. The problem is
that believing this theology is delusion and it will lead
you to spiritual ruin if I believe all the religions
are passed to God, which is essentially what Francis said,
echoing Vatican too. That's the dangerous in result of this,
and it also demonstrates the whole point that we've been
making for many years that natural theology literally can just
lead to perennialism. If you read the Garby paper, that's
one of the points he makes at the beginning, because
he studied under the famous perennialist John Hick, and he
said he argues, like, if I'm going to be doing
natural theology, there's no reason why that has to lead
me to Tomism or Catholicism. Why can't it lead me
to perennialism. And the argument I think that's kind of
being made here indirectly by everybody via this Vatican into
debate and what's happening with you know, Tim Gordon and stuff,
is that Vatican too kind of is perennialism, Like why
is it not? Why why does that have to lead
me to tonis zone and sure as hell doesn't necessarily
lead to Jesus. And why are we going to use
the arguments and the philosophy and the metaphysics of Muslims
and the Neoplatonists and all these people and then try
to get them into Christianity. It's it just doesn't make
any sense. It's like, yeah, let me show you that
we all believe in a monad. Oh, but it's not
the Muslim monad. It's the Jesus monad. Like we all
believe in the monad, let's just stick Jesus on top
of it. That's the whole Roman Catholic approach. Here's inquirer.
What's up? Yeah, what's up? Currit Yeah?
Speaker 3: Yeah, okay, yeah.
Speaker 4: I just want to say I've been seeing you on
some bigger podcasts.
Speaker 15: That's awesome, man, it's good to see you getting some recognition.
Speaker 3: Cool enjoy your work.
Speaker 4: So I just have a couple of questions, like.
Speaker 24: I am in the process of like starting Catechism, and
the one thing that kind of stands out to me
is when they.
Speaker 1: Say you Roman Catholic catechis hold on Orthodox Katechistas or
Roman Catholic Catechism. Okay, gotcha. Yeah.
Speaker 24: So I'm just wondering, like when they say theotokos like
most holy, what do they mean by that?
Speaker 4: Like that is the only thing that really sticks out
to me.
Speaker 1: I clearly they don't mean the most out of all. Right, No,
we would say she's the queen of Heaven, She's the
queen of saints, she is the holiest love creatures. We
would agree with that. No, just I think it's just
a delay. Can you hear me? Now there? Can you
guys hear me out there in this? I think there
was a delay with that guy. Can you guys hear me?
If you can hear me, do like a thumps up
or something. Can anybody hear me? He requests to speak? Okay,
you guys can Yeah? I mean yeah. So Mary is
called most holy because she's the queen of saints. She
is the the tokos, she is the godbearer, Mother of God.
You know, in Psalm forty five, she's pictured as right
next to the king. It's a Messianic psalm and Mary
is the queen in that song. So all of the
accolades that we give to her signify that she is
the pre eminent of all the creatures. She's the new Israel,
She's the again Tetoko's Mother of God, Queen of Heaven
Revelation twelve. So it's just proper to her honor that
she be called and given that title. Kelly. I'm you, Kelly.
What's up?
Speaker 2: Hi?
Speaker 25: I just joined the space and so I was reading
the comments below. So it sounds like people are saying
that Roman Catholics won't come up. So I'm a Roman Catholic.
I'm not sure if we're against us or for us.
So do you want to clarify or does any people?
Speaker 1: Well, the point was that because I just did a
big Roman Catholic debate. The debate centered around the fact
that the text of Vatican two say very clearly that Muslims, Christians,
and Jews all worship the same God, and that's essentially
what we're taking issue with. It also says that Hindus
worship God too.
Speaker 9: Oh, I say, I was just gonna.
Speaker 25: I wasn't quite sure if people were saying that, you know,
our religion, I'm not sure if you're Catholic, but I
am so, are my really isn't true?
Speaker 9: Or if anyone had any questions about.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm saying that it makes it not true because
it's a contradiction from the basics of the Bible and
traditional Christian teaching. Muslims and Christians and Jews don't worship
the same God. And if Vatican two says that, then
from Catholicism is not true.
Speaker 9: Correct.
Speaker 25: Yes, I mean they don't see Jesus the same as Catholics.
Speaker 1: To well, then it's not the same reference, it's not
the same deity. So then Vatican two is false. That's
the point.
Speaker 25: Oh, I see, Okay, I see what you're saying. Well,
I mean, that's that's fine. I mean, you know, I
wasn't quite sure if just anybody was calling Catholics out
as far as what it is that we believe. So,
I mean, you know that obviously we're more towards the
you know, I mean, the Jews kind of stop at
the first you know, half of the Bible were more
New Testament.
Speaker 1: So yeah, But this is more specifically an argument about
the Vatican teaching at the Second Vatican Council, which is
to basically admit that it's adopting a kind of a
syncretism or a perennialism, where all the religions in some
way kind of point to and participate in Christ in
God and salvation even though they don't know it. It's
a very problematic thing to say that Muslims, Christians at
Jews worship the same God when they clearly don't. For example,
Jesus says in John eight that Abraham believed and worshiped
him and that Jesus is the creator and God of
the Old Testament. Well that's the case, then the Jews
and the Muslims don't worship the same God as Jesus did.
Speaker 9: Right, correct.
Speaker 25: I mean I'm not well read on honestly what the
Muslims and he Dos.
Speaker 9: Believe in any way, because I.
Speaker 1: Well, Muslims are good on this point, because they're a
good example in this to make this case, because Muslims
say that Allah has no sons. But if Allah has
no sons and Jesus calls God his father, then Allah
can't be Jesus's God and can't be God the Father.
Speaker 25: Correct, And I mean do they I'm assuming that they
don't believe that the Blessed Mother is the actual mother
of Jesus, or they do, and then they just don't
seem to.
Speaker 4: Care about her.
Speaker 1: No, they think that there is a virgin birth, but
there's not really any reason why that happened. It's just
it's because Islam is a copy paste cut from Christianity
and Judaism, so it's kind of a mix. So they
do believe in a virgin birth. They believe that Jesus
was born from Mary, but there's no real reason why
that's the case. In Islamic theology, there's not really an
explanation for what the word Messiah even means, even though
they think Jesus Messiah.
Speaker 9: Interesting. Well maybe some of them will.
Speaker 25: Well, actually, the Muslims and Hindus seem to be pretty
hard pressed on their religion, so and they can stay there.
Speaker 9: That's fine.
Speaker 25: I'm not here to to kind of grab anybody over
to the Catholic Church or anything, but I just you know, yes,
I'm here for the Catholic faith if anybody cares about that,
but I will drop if if you'd like me to.
Speaker 9: Thanks.
Speaker 1: I appreciate that. Good questions. Yeah, I'm an Orthodox Catholic,
so we're the real Catholics. Not trying to be rude,
but that's that's what Orthodox Christianity is it the Orthodox
Catholic Church, anybody else, any Roman Catholics. I'm a little
disappointed that only one Roman Catholic came out of all
of these yappers, but I'm not surprised. That's usually what
we get. That we don't usually get anybody who actually
wants to come to discuss the issues. The one kid
that came that was it. And then all they have
is like two quote ways. They're like, well, Carol said
that he likes Muslims. That's literally what a guy's sending
me right now.
Speaker 4: It's like, so what.
Speaker 1: Orth of gaul?
Speaker 26: Hey, so I have a question in regards to what
do you think about I know, the whole system in
Orthodoxy and Catholicism is different. When they bring up Patriarch
Crill and the humanist comparing that to you know, Orthodoxy
and the Pope.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. I mean there's two things to say here.
First of all, none of the patriarchs are indefectible and infallible.
That's the teaching of the Roman Church about its Roman bishop.
And so it's not equivalent. They want it to be equivalent,
and it's just a two quote way, but they think
it's a defeater when first of all, let's say for
the argument that it is a defeater, well, then it's
a defeater for both positions, and Rome is still false,
you idiot. So it's like, if you think this is
a defeater by just turning it and saying that, well,
Curle says bad things too, well, then that is implying
that Francis and all these people are also saying bad things,
so they're all false. So it's first of all, it's
a stupid ass move to think that a too quoque
proves anything. But it's also assuming that the Orthodox system
is the same as the papal system, So they're missing
the whole point that it's a defeater for your system.
If you're indefectible bishop defects, I don't I can believe.
And we already know that every patriarch it has defected
at some point in the history of the church. All
the patriarchis have had heritics at some point, So what's
it's not even the gotcha that they think it is.
Speaker 26: But that doesn't speak for the whole like Russian Church,
or for the whole orthodomy.
Speaker 1: No, they think that like the it's like that the
patriarchis are popes. They think it's like little popes. So
they think that everybody's underneath a patriarchate and the patriarchs
are little popes, and if the patriarch does something, they
don't understand that it's all decentralized. A patriarch is just
a canonical, privileged title. That's it.
Speaker 26: And they would say, well, then why do they have leaders.
What's the point of having leaders if you're not gonna
if they're going to be a humanists and not follow.
Speaker 1: Well, the Church has had bad leaders in the first
thousand years in many cases. So if a Roman Catholic
wants to make that line of argument and believes that
the Church of the first thousand years is Roman Catholic,
then that's a defeater for their own position. So that
again it's stupid. Yeah, if you think the Roman Catholic
Church was the Church of the first thousand years, and
you think the problems that you're laying out with the
patriarchis are defeaters, guess where the patriarchal the pentarchy system
comes from. The ecumenical councils of the first years. You
guphus I was like, they don't understand that every time
they make this argument, if they think their church is
the church of over sousand years, is the.
Speaker 26: Defeat for the coy Yeah, I think they're not getting that.
I think I don't know.
Speaker 1: No, they're not. It doesn't matter how they time you
explain it, they don't get it.
Speaker 26: I don't know, they don't care to look further, or
I don't know. But do you think the sacraments and
the other church, like the Catholic Church are I don't
want to use the term ballid or invalid, but.
Speaker 1: I think valid invalid is Romancolic terminology that muddies the waters. Uh.
So they can do the rituals correctly, but we don't
automatically think that they're efficacious so that they have the
grace that they signified. The church can determine like whether
or not the rituals need to be repeated. But what's
funny is that even in the traditional Roman Catholic Augustinian mindset,
which is what they think they're all basing their sacramentology on,
Augustin believes that the sin of heresy and schiz them
prevents the grace. So even in the Augustinian ext opera
operatal model, even if the baptisms are quote valid and efficacious,
if you're baptized in heresy, being in heresy prevents you
from actually getting the grace even though the grace is
quote there. So even their own system doesn't work.
Speaker 26: So the pope is probably in I mean you would
say the pope is in heresy.
Speaker 1: So the whole church, oh, I know, we do not
believe the Roman Calley Church has the faith. They are heterodox,
meaning they're outside.
Speaker 26: The completely like no, yes, oh.
Speaker 1: It only takes one heresy to be outside the faith.
That's the faith is the packaged deal. And ironically, get this,
before Vatican two, Roman Catholic theologies said the exact same thing.
You can reset these Cognitium and Mestici Corporus, two famous
Roman Catholic and cyclicals, one by Leelald thirteenth the other
by Pious A. Twelfth. They actually already say that if
you deny one of the dogmas, you're outside the faith. So,
in other words, I can't be a Roman Catholic in
terms of traditional Catholic theology and be like, I'm Roman
Caloch but I don't believe the Imaculate conception, but I
believe everything else. If you deny. If you deny, I know,
but that's not consistent with their own theology. If you
deny one dogma, you're outside the faith. That's their theology.
Speaker 26: They don't even know that, So then there can't be
healing right in their church.
Speaker 1: That's the whole point of why this is such a
dangerous thing. Like it's not just quibbling over the words
of Vatican two. They have lost the healing of the
sacraments and of the faith by all of these crazy
heresies and all this nonsense and madness. I mean, it
should be obvious everybody that the whole like the rampant
homosexuality must the clergy and the pedophilia, is a clear
sign of curse, like their curse. Dude, Like, can you
not see that with spiritual discernment that if this institution
is a giant money laundering Vatican bank scam.
Speaker 26: Full of do you think that their church produced saints
like their saints? Are theyy different from our saints?
Speaker 1: No, you can't do saints without the uncreated energies which
are found in the Orthodox sacraments, in the life of
the Orthodox.
Speaker 26: Church, even the saints in the past, like all the
like Padre Perrot and all of them are they like
were they?
Speaker 6: No?
Speaker 1: If you know? Again, so the idea of an Orthodox
saint is vastly different from what Roman Catholics think saints are.
Contrast the life of you know, Basil Gregory, uh, you know,
Paul Simon, the New Theologian. It's vastly different from the
histrionics of you know, Francis of a CC and you know, no,
it's totally different. We don't have all this not blood
letting and all this crazy stuff.
Speaker 26: Okay, do you recommend any books you can just throw
out there.
Speaker 1: On what specifically?
Speaker 26: What I like, you know, the Catholic an Orthodox system.
Speaker 1: And well, I mean there's a good critique of the
papacy by Michael Welton called Two Paths. That's a really
good readable book. Okay, so I was I would start
with something like that and then just read my just
read Pomezansky's Orthodox Dogmatics to get a good basic idea
of Orthodox sacramentology. I wish what some of these Roman
Catholics would actually discuss. Why just saying that Kirol said
something bad, It is not it doesn't work, but they
won't do it. They just want to have like a gotcha,
go ahead, and I'm mute.
Speaker 25: Oh okay, sorry, yeah, I think there is a little
bit of delay. Can we back up to where the
orthochiic just came up? Are you saying that our Catholic
saint padre Pio is not a saint or how do
you look at that?
Speaker 1: No, we do not accept Roman Catholic saints. Correct.
Speaker 25: Interesting, So padre Pios stigmata means what to you?
Speaker 9: Nothing?
Speaker 1: Or I mean, I don't know that he had stigmata
other than that Roman Catholic claim that he did. Do
you believe in all the religions and mystical gurus claims
that they can do magic, mumbo and jembo?
Speaker 19: No?
Speaker 25: But I mean in terms of just taking Padre po
just as an example, I mean, have you ever done
research into him?
Speaker 19: Or no?
Speaker 1: I have a fact. I used to be a traditional Romancolic.
So yes, I know quite a bit about Him've read
a whole book on him.
Speaker 25: Oh okay, so you used to be a Catholic. Okay,
I'm not familiar with you, so just I'm sorry about that.
Speaker 1: But that's fine. I'm just telling you. Yeah, I was
a traditional Galic for about ten, maybe eight or nine.
Speaker 9: Years, okay, and then what made you leave?
Speaker 1: If you don't mind me asking some of the contradictions
between the pre Vatican two and post Vatican two teaching
is one of the probably the biggest issue.
Speaker 25: Okay, So can we just talk about is it okay
if we talk about Padre Pio?
Speaker 1: Is that okay? I don't mind about Padre Pio. But
what I'm gonna say is what the claims of these
phenomena can't prove the religion when literally every religion or
cult out there has similar types of claims. So how
could that be the thing that proves the religion?
Speaker 25: Well, I mean considering that, I mean if obviously because
you were Catholic and you've done research on it prior
hare Po, I mean he literally had this. I mean
it's been scientifically proven as well as you know, just
proven anyway, just that he had.
Speaker 1: Yeah, do you know, do you know what a Muslim
says about the Qoran?
Speaker 7: No?
Speaker 9: I don't care, but go ahead and.
Speaker 1: Scientifically proven that there's miracles to show that the Qoran
has to come from a law. Like the Muslims use
this argument for like ten years online, like between two
thousand and five to twenty fifteen. So the point is
that that's not a good argument for why the religion
is true, because it's just there's no way to It's
a non sequitor from the claims about the person and
even claims that there's quote scientific proof to therefore the
religion is true because every group has the same competing claim, right.
Speaker 25: No, I mean I understand that. I think it's just
when I look at somebody like Padre Pio as a
as a Catholic, I mean, how do you not even.
Speaker 1: I guess, lets that would just be purely subjective. It
would be begging the question because the thing in question
is is it legitimate? And is he a true saint?
And it just I mean, you're already it's already assuming
the Catholic idea of what a saint is that a
saint is somebody who dumps buckets of blood out of
their body or something, and they don't just literally just
follow what the teacher of the church fathers are for
the first thousand years, like that's what a saint is. Right.
Speaker 25: But I mean, as far as if we're going to
take Padre Pio, I mean he literally was. I mean
that the Vatican hid him for ten years because of
his stigmana. So they weren't even quite sure themselves what
to do with him, and so they were like.
Speaker 1: Let's again, I don't the Vatican has a history of lying,
so I don't even know if any of that's true.
How are we supposed to know that all that's true?
The Vatican's an extremely corrupt organization and entity. I don't
trust anything about against.
Speaker 9: Those, Okay, I mean that's that. Yeah, I understand that.
Speaker 25: But I mean, if you're you can read ten books
about Pajepo and his life and they're all the same.
And yes, I know that that doesn't prove anything to
you or to anybody else, but I mean as far
as he I mean.
Speaker 1: And so look, don't you understand that there has to
be a better way to delineate between competing claims like this,
Because every religion, every cult that Cybaba has followers in
India that will swear by his powers in terms of
his miracles, right, and so there, I'm sure there's Hindu
theologians that have quote scientific papers and proofs. So if
there's a million different claims and so called scientific proofs,
there has to be some other way to delineate between,
which is the true and which is the false. It
could never be done through infinite regressions of miracle claims
and science tipic papers. It just it doesn't get anywhere.
So there has to be a better way to do it. Well,
the best, the easiest way to do is to see
which religion contradiction which one doesn't. I'll talk about contradiction
an internal critique sense.
Speaker 25: Okay, So in the Orthodox religion, did they recognize the
blessed Mother as as the same as we do in
the Catholic faith.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, Mary is the Theotoko, she's the god bearer,
she's the Mother of God. But we don't believe that
she was immaculately conceived. She's not some sort of like, uh,
goddess or something. And I think sometimes Retolism tends in
that direction.
Speaker 25: Oh no, I mean we don't. We don't think she
was markedly conceived. I mean she was conceived within with
she was shared full grace.
Speaker 1: No, no, you believe in the maculate exception she was
immaculately conceived. That's a dogma in your church.
Speaker 25: Oh yes, I'm sorry, I thought you meant like her,
but you mean Jesus being no.
Speaker 1: No, her, she is immaculately conceived. Jesus is born of
a virgin. The immaculate conception is her exemption from original
sin and Roman Calloy theology.
Speaker 9: Oh I see, so Orthodox doesn't believe that.
Speaker 25: So then you don't hold her in the same as
the highest esteem is as we do.
Speaker 1: She is the queen of saints, she is the queen
of Heaven. She's just not immaculately conceived because she died,
and everyone who dies is a son or a daughter
of Adam. If she went to sleep, and if the
Roman Callolic church has the feast of door mission, then
she died. Why did she die because she's the son
of Adam. Well, then she's not immaculately conceived and she's
not accepted from original sin.
Speaker 25: Interesting, okay, so but then oh yeah, okay, I see
what you're saying.
Speaker 9: Okay, that's that's fine. Thanks, I'll drop from speaker.
Speaker 1: Oh well, those are great questions. It's open for him
if anybody wants to come up. None of these Roman
galaxies if I'm not much just uh, it's all all
the ones that I argue about today, and I'll talk
about anyone, any any anyone, any of the ones that
I got intok with today. Uh, if you would like
to talk about the subject matter. Uh, here's Ash, what's
up in Here's a couple of people. We'll go to
Ash the whole stuff the other guys.
Speaker 27: Hey, So I was speaking with my wife today. We
were just you know, rolling around and uh, going around
on the buggy around the neighborhood, and we were talking
about how, uh, when it comes to Protestantism and and
their their justification for their canon.
Speaker 7: I had an interesting thought.
Speaker 27: I was like, if they're not basing their cannon off
of tradition, you know a lot of them have to go, oh, well,
it's just the most accurate cannon.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 27: They like to make kind of like scholarly art arguments
and kind of post enlightenment have presuppositions. I was like,
there would be no like moral difference between a Protestant
who accepts all sixty six books and then this other
Protestant who's like, yeah, I accept like sixty four. I
just you know, for example, don't accept Revelation or Hebrews
because you know, the evidence isn't there.
Speaker 1: Right. Yeah. We made this point up many times, all right.
I was just wondering what you thought about that? And
if it would be a good you know, yeah, that's
a great argument. In fact, I mean that's essentially what
Luther did when Lucter started to say that other you know,
some of these books shouldn't be here. Totally agree. Guess
a good fellow, what's up?
Speaker 7: Hello?
Speaker 1: Yeah, what's up?
Speaker 7: Hey?
Speaker 14: J glad I can jump on here and chat with you.
So I've been listening to Refuting Oriental Orthodoxy, the series
you guys did, and just background. I come from like
a Pentecostal oneness modalist background, been exploring Orthodoxy for the
last three years. Uh had a question about, you know,
the person versus nature distinction, and uh, okay, I know
you in that Refuting arthor you see, you guys were
kind of laying out the metaphysics of the Orthodox Church
and the uh, the fact that so the human nature
is something that's shared across all human beings. That's it's
something that's shared. And then individual.
Speaker 1: It's a it's a it's a universal yeah.
Speaker 14: Then and then individual hypostaces is the identities right or persons?
Speaker 1: Yes, it's correct, it's the individual subject, the it's the
it's the mode in which the nature exists, which is
in the mode of the individual subject or the person.
Speaker 14: Correct, right, So I mean I have I have issues
with with modalism. But what I'm trying to kind of
understand is, how do you get around saying that the
Father's Time and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons with
let's share a divine nature. How does that now make
them three gods the same way that three person human
persons who share a human nature are not three distinct persons.
Speaker 1: Right. So if you read the Cappadocians, like Besil's letter,
I think it's thirty eight where he goes into this distinction,
he just he just makes it as an analogy. So
humans are just are created, they begin to be, They're
in time and space, they're discrete, they're separate. So it's
just an analogy that humans have a singular nature, but
they're distinct in person. It's an analogy to the trinity,
and analogy means that not every aspect of it matches
up one to one, some of it matches up as
some of a dozen. So if it was unifical predication,
it would be what you're saying, right. So arians make
this argument because arians say, well, if God is you
know cause and the Father causes the son. Then causation
requires time, because every father who causes a son is
in time. That's based on what we call unifical reasoning.
That would mean that it's used in the same sense,
And we don't believe in unifical reasoning because that would
be arian, but we would say it's analogical. In other words,
there's an analogy between the way that a father causes
a son and that the father is the source of
the son. But there's other aspects of it which don't
match up to God, namely the temporal relations. So the
father didn't start to become a father at some point
in time. The father was always eternal, generating the sun
and hence eternal generation. So the usage of person in
nature amongst human beings is an analogy to the person
nature distinction in the trinity. And it's not unifical.
Speaker 14: Okay, what would be a good you know, coming from
a Protestant background, there's always kind of proof texts and
everything else and involved. I'm just wondering, is there a
good source I could read that would lay out, like
you said, first of all, like the claim, which I
don't have a problem with it, but just to substantiate
the claim that God was always the Father, Like, how
do I substantiate that in scripture?
Speaker 1: Yeah? I mean you could get a good, a good
easy book to read, like Palmazansky's Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. Most
of that is really just going through the scriptural text
for the Orthodox positions, and you're going to get you know,
certainly a lot of positions about the eternality of the
fatherhood of Father, of eternality, fatherhood of God the Father,
and uh separate though from that. If you're looking for
somebody that addresses that specific issue, uh, Athanacius is I
think it's the discourses against the Arians is actually addressing
that very issue because one of the arguments that his teacher,
Saint Alexander made against the Arians was that if God
was eternally the Father, then that requires by necessity he
eternally has a son, or else the word father makes
no sense. So this is a pretty strong rhetorical and
metaphysical argument against the Arians, because you know it, it
necessitates by by definition almost if God's eternally the father,
the father of who, right, So there's got to eternally
be a son. So excuse me. I would also say
you could read something like Vladimir Lowski's books to Mystical
Theology or Vision of God excuse me, vision of God. Uh,
those also cover these topics pretty extensively. Okay, Yeah, good questions,
So appreciate that.
Speaker 26: Uh, what's up, dude?
Speaker 1: Hello, what's on your mind?
Speaker 7: Did you?
Speaker 5: Did you already bring up the relativity of just making
the statements in Vatican two? So that anybody who the
Holy Spirit was just making words themselves be by themselves objective.
Speaker 1: Uh? I think Chase, when Chase was on here earlier,
or maybe the guy before Chase said that, his conclusion
would be that the documents are thus relativized and the
theology of God is relativized if no stretate is correct.
And I think that's true. Now you're probably being a
little more specific with linguistic philosophy, but yeah.
Speaker 5: Yeah, because if you just say, you know, God is
the Muslim God is the same as you know Christian God,
but it takes either a good or a bad pope,
or a good or a bad magisterium to interpret the words,
then the intention of what the way it was written
is irrelevant.
Speaker 1: Exactly. Yeah, I think so. Temp. The last text ten
sent me was kind of going in that direction where
he was trying to make a distinction between authorial intent
and the exact words that are used. And he was
trying to argue that I don't even have to like
he thinks the intent of the authors was nefarious and
malicious and ambiguous, but that the words can be just
simply re read and revised in an interpretive scheme to
make the orthodox, which I think is just silly.
Speaker 5: Yeah, that is that would never work in any other
I mean that would would would that even work in law.
Speaker 1: Only in a only in a in a sophistical legal system.
Speaker 5: Yeah, yeah, like that would be. And then this idea
of debating over whether there was a the before a
god or an ad in the sentence, like we've talked
about before. That's like, you know, a teenager child debating
will Actually, I didn't say I was coming directly home
after I was.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I said I was coming home, but I didn't
say when I was coming home.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I just wanted to see.
Speaker 1: No, that's a great that's a great point, John. In fact, yeah,
and no other disciplines would this count except for vaticate
to theology and RBIC. But also it also speaks to uh,
like the again the relativizing of this, because if that's
the case here, then well then what's wrong with what
all the modernists did in the Roman Catholic Church in
the twentieth century by rewording all the other stuff? Like
why does it have to only be reworded or reread
in a conservative sense? Like what stops it from being
read in some other liberal sense? And that's and that's
exactly the point that I think you made this point too, John,
which is that that's why it does matter how the
popes act after Vatican Two, because if they act on
the basis of these documents in the way that I'm saying,
which is that they go pray in mosques towards Mecca,
then that is relevant to how the documents are worded.
It's not it's not irrelevant to the documents, which is
what they have to try to say.
Speaker 5: Well, also, that means that the religion see and this
is unfortunately I don't I don't say this like like oh,
and I know you're the same way too. It's not
like we're it's we're gloating like, oh, we're gonna school
these RCAs, and it's it's not a mean thing. It's
like you unfortunately have to say, hey, guess what.
Speaker 7: I know.
Speaker 5: You think that you're going to your TLM and you're
you know, getting the Mass with the most grace because
it was, you know, so reverent. But actually the church
that you believe in is that church is the Novus
Orto Church. That church is the Skittles Church. That church
is the Vatican Bank Church. The TLM is like a
is like a delusion.
Speaker 1: Unfortunately, well they're shutting down TLM, so exactly.
Speaker 5: Yeah, but some somedays, some trad pope's gonna come along
and he's gonna interpret Vatican two in the correct way,
and then once he does that, then we'll be able
to have the TLM.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I heard all of that in two thousand and
six or whatever it was seven, when Rat Singer was coming.
Oh he's going to bring to TLM and he did
a moto proprio. I've been there, done that.
Speaker 5: All right, we'll see if anybody else wants to talk
about those. Yeah, the TLM or trads who are waking
up to this unfortunate you know, you're gonna have to
go through a rough period where you're gonna have to
realize all that stuff. I just know that this is
done in with you know, with good intentions.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And that's what I was saying earlier, is like,
if you buy into this perennialist stuff like, it would
lead you right into perennialism. So and some of the
Romancalloic tradcats just go actually do go in that direction.
I've done several over the years that they went from
Vatican to those trataate perennialism into the straight up perennialisms.
And I don't see why it wouldn't lead you that
way if you go that route, Patriot, Yeah, I got
on mute.
Speaker 23: Man, uh jay may I may I respond to your
Vatican two critiques. Sure, okay, Uh Lifeline Catholic here, Uh
sense baptism and appreciate nice meeting you. So I'm gonna
give you the very basics of Vatican two, and I'm
gonna use an anecdote to kind of push this forward.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 23: So I've heard the orthodoxy debate between the the TLM
and Vatican two sucks, and mattig into is liberalism whatever.
Speaker 4: Blah blah blah whatever.
Speaker 23: Well, you're gonna penalize the novisorder and so on. And
so forth and modernity and whatever. Then you're gonna have
to penalize me for a similar situation because the the
TLM bros Are going to be very mad at me
because I attended a Mass and Chinese. Okay, Vatican two
is not some uh liberalization of the faith. It is
a moving forward to the church. It is putting the
Church in the English language of Americans.
Speaker 1: Okay, hold on, that's that's only that's only one thing. Well,
I mean that's that's.
Speaker 4: A very important thing. Though very important.
Speaker 1: The Orthodox Church has always done it in the vernacular,
so we would agree with that.
Speaker 23: Well now, but because there there's a faction and the
and and the cat and the Catholic body the church,
that's all t l.
Speaker 5: M taling no disorder.
Speaker 1: Mm.
Speaker 4: But I'm arguing, wait, what are you arguing?
Speaker 1: I'm Orthodox. I'm arguing that Vaticans who has theological contradictions,
I don't care about the.
Speaker 4: Vernocular like what like what the Hindu thing?
Speaker 27: Uh?
Speaker 1: Well, among many, one would be that it encourages interfaith
prayer and gathering, and that's a direct contradiction from Mortalium
animals in nineteen twenty nine.
Speaker 23: Well, the ecumenical councils are not infallible.
Speaker 1: Clarification, Are you serious? Okay, yes, correct, No, Ecumenical councils
are magisterium and they are infallible in the Roman Gallic Church.
So you have no idea what you're talking about. No, yes, literally,
no idea what you're talking about. Nine nine nine. I
want people to take note of that that the people
that we're dealing with, that we're debating with, don't even
know if Roman Catholic theology believes that cumenical councils are
infallible in the Roman system. That's Tilly says, thank you, brother.
Speaker 28: You know, I just wanted to share one thing on
on the Buddhist side, just because it relates to Hinduism.
So the practice of Buddhism is is actually one part
of Christianity, and that is thou shalt not want It's
a it's a very big it's very big in Christianity.
It's actually underrated. How important that is. Thou shalt not
want anything but a relationship with the Father.
Speaker 1: And and I'm not I'm not trying to rude, but
that I don't really have anything to do with what
we're talking about today, Jacob, what's up. Hello, can you
hear me? Yeah?
Speaker 29: Okay, yeah, So I've been dealing with Mormons, right. I
don't know if we can get into about like the
one of the many, but I've been running it on them, right,
and the most coherent answer I've got in is that
the three share like a relational unity, and that that
somehow accounts for the one.
Speaker 1: You wouldn't say that's correct, right, that's still by definition polytheism.
Speaker 29: And to solve the one of the many has to
be ontological unity, because if it's not ontological united, it
wouldn't be one.
Speaker 1: Right. Yeah, I would say they're not ultimately one because
you know, human beings are separate beings, but they're not
ontologically one. I mean, their nature is one, but they're
still separate beings. So I would say a better argument
might be about grounding the one and the many in
a single mind. And that's why we believe that God
has a one mind, even though there's three hypostases that
one divine mind exists in the mode of the three
persons that possess it. So the the mind of God
is a better means of grounding than I mean, I
don't even see how three separate beings could ground something
in a units of way when they don't have the
same mind.
Speaker 29: Yeah, because another thing I've noticed too is that they
also say that they're divine in some way, but divinity
doesn't equal uncreated because when I ask.
Speaker 1: Them, they believe that God evolves. There's an infinite regress
of evolving gods that are creatures, so it makes no sense.
So they literally just redefine the word God to mean
an evolving man. So it's like they don't actually believe
in anything uncreated except for matter. So basically what so
God isn't actually uncreated? Matters uncreated, but God is a
man that evolves to become God. It's just total nonsense.
I mean, anybody who tries to get into Mormonism and
doesn't see how stupid it is. Within like a little while,
I don't know what to say any other Roman Catholics.
I'm going to be at my hotel pretty soon, so
I want to give another chance for any remaining Roman
Catholics to pop up. He requests to speak. We only
had one Roman Catholic who actually came to a dress
Vatican two, and which is pretty telling, and I gave
him a chance to speak. He was not honest with
what he put on Twitter. It didn't go well for him.
He said he didn't know what Vatican two meant. He
doesn't know why No Strett says what it says, and
he would not go into the issue of the Muslims.
And what does that tell you? Max? What's up? I mean?
Speaker 7: See, I just wanted to act to Jay. Why don't
you debate Eric again? Hello? Eric Yaborrow.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he's basically said he won't have anything to do
with me.
Speaker 7: So oh yeah, so we gotta we gotta push him
to debate you. I guess right.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's well, he's not gonna debate. He just
wants to quote mine. He's not going to debate. Like
so when we had our so called debate, I said
I wanted to debate pre Vatican through post Vatican three contradictions,
and he said we can debate that some other time.
So if he wants to debate that, yeah, I'm not
for it. But he says not too mean to interact with.
Speaker 7: So understand if I want to, like look into a
book of understanding orthodoxy more I'm a Roman Catholic, one
book you would recommend in layman terms, not liking a
very theater.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 8: No.
Speaker 1: The easiest readable book is Two Paths by Michael Welton.
Two Paths.
Speaker 7: All right, thank you, Jaed, I appreciate you.
Speaker 1: Yeah man uh noah, non none yet? Biz? What's up nine?
Youa biz?
Speaker 5: No?
Speaker 1: Anybody else? Any Roman Catholics who disagree? Anybody want to
bring hup an issue of contention. You want to make
an argument, I'll give you sixty seconds. I won't talk.
That's a good idea that Jim Jotras had was to
introduce the sixty seconds rule that if people want to
come on and make an argument, I will agree to
not talk for sixty seconds. And then the Roman Catholics
can't say that I'm mean, I talk over them. Paul.
Speaker 12: Just make a little argument and run it by you,
kind of vet it with you. The woman who called
in earlier and was talking about the miracles performed by
these Catholic saints. You know, I have a lot of
family members who are, you know, kind of charismatic, and
they make similar arguments like, oh yeah, but the miracles.
And I just wanted to say, if we're if we're
relying on supernatural proof for things, it's it's not a
very good argument, and I my very simple, small little
argument against it is that that would assume it like
if if we if we're if we're claiming to be
able to identify that which is supernatural, we would have
to claim that we completely understand what is natural, you know,
we would be able to have a knowledge that circumscribes
the natural world.
Speaker 1: And no one is going to make that claim seriously.
And so.
Speaker 12: Since we don't know what's what's possible in nature, how
can we say that something that is that we that
appears to us as a miracle is indeed some you
know proof that you know, Oh God is God is
with me and loves me and supports them.
Speaker 1: Well, this is actually some of the atheists and naturalists
will actually make this line of argument against evidentialists that
try to use miracle claims as truth. And I think
this is actually a good point. Like like I'm being
I'm not an atheist when I say this, but it's
like if if an atheist says, how do we know
that this so called event wasn't just some natural phenomenon
and we just don't know? I mean, is significant enough
doubt because it's very possible, it is not a significant
enough doubt to raise to raise doubt, I should say,
and thus it doesn't become a very good proof. I
just don't understand why people think these things are good truths.
When I mean you just talked about charismatics. I mean,
if you talk to the charismatics, he's going to tell you, oh,
I've seen miracles of my holiness Pentecostal Church. I've seen
God grow legs back. And it's like, I don't believe that, dude.
And it's like, well, I don't care what you believe.
I've seen it and that's proof. That's all proof I need.
And it's like, well, Ron mcalleys do the exact same thing.
It's like, how is that proof.
Speaker 12: It's it's a very dangerous form of proof and a
not a very good thing to rely upon obviously, and
could really lead us, you know, lead us astray.
Speaker 1: They can't can lead it to a delusion. And that's
why Jesus says, a wicked and adulterous generation seeks signs
exactly because they say stuff to Jesus like, if you
are the Messiah, do this miracle, give us some proof,
do something, do some neat trick, And he says a
wicked adulter's generation seeks these things last one. Moroki, I'm you, hey,
j Yeah.
Speaker 7: Quick question about icons. Are icons of God the Father allowed?
Speaker 1: Uh no, typically no, it's the only exception as the
Ancient of days. But that's a that's Christ as the Father. Okay, thanks,
that was it. All right, thank you, everybody, have a
good night.