Speaker 1: The the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the.
Speaker 2: The the built, the the the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the.
Speaker 1: The, the, the, the.
Speaker 2: The the the.
Speaker 3: The the the the.
Speaker 2: The dot, the the.
Speaker 1: The, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the.
Speaker 3: The the the.
Speaker 2: Built, the the the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the,
the the the the the, the, the, the, the, the,
the the the the the.
Speaker 1: The the.
Speaker 3: The, the, the the.
Speaker 2: The the the, the the, the, the, the, the, the, the,
the the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the,
the the the the the.
Speaker 1: The the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the.
Speaker 4: The the do.
Speaker 1: Don't they.
Speaker 5: Built the.
Speaker 2: The, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the,
the the The.
Speaker 1: Black gangs, black.
Speaker 6: Bishops, black players, people of the chocolate persuay lang gangs,
black bishops, black players, people of the chocolate versus way
lang kangs, black bishops, black players, people of the chocolate
vers way lang gang, black bishops, black players, people of
the chocolate persuasional.
Speaker 5: But the dark ages at the time when black people
ruled Europe.
Speaker 7: So when you go into the real history.
Speaker 5: You'll see King James with that's King James, or that's
James Lebon, that's.
Speaker 1: King Lebon right now.
Speaker 5: Black. He was not a white guy. You'll see his
whole lineage of.
Speaker 1: Kings, black kings, black.
Speaker 6: Bishops, black players, people of the Chocolate Persuade, black gangs,
black bishops, black players, people of the Chocolate Persuade, black kangs,
black bishops, black players, people of the Chocolate persue, lack King,
black bishops, black players, people of the Chocolate persuasional who
was a.
Speaker 5: Homosexual himself, who was in love with his sisters.
Speaker 2: Lucretia, who they made the image of Lucrecia to be married,
and that became the Renaissance era queen.
Speaker 5: So all, are you telling me a little Cretia that's
a black game right there? Are you going to say
that the people that was framing the black people were
also black?
Speaker 4: That don't make no sense.
Speaker 5: Lucretius are black as hell named Luquetias. The Church even
allowed it, you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 6: The Church allowed for straight pempers that have been suppressed,
that have been suppressed.
Speaker 5: Listen to my brother from fifteen hundreds, it was legally
black kang, black.
Speaker 6: Bisiops, black players, people of the Chocolate Persuasion, black gang,
black bisips, black Players, People of the Chocolate persuasions.
Speaker 8: More space. Let's create moment spaces. God, it's a very tube.
He looks good good, more space wise, more manus space wise.
Speaker 5: Space space space.
Speaker 8: Magic underwear fitting type, magic underwear.
Speaker 5: It's feeling right.
Speaker 8: More men space wise, more space wise, Lords of the Cool,
I would like to have intimacies with you.
Speaker 5: On the planet of the.
Speaker 8: Boom space wise.
Speaker 5: Magical under.
Speaker 8: Where right by there? Ye, more man space, Let's create
lies more space wise. God, that's a body money. It's
a very tomb. He looks good good, more space wise,
more space space space magic underwear fitting tape, magic underwear.
It's feeling right, more man space wise.
Speaker 5: More A lot of people said it was their favorite Lords.
I would like.
Speaker 9: With you.
Speaker 5: On the planet it's supposed to be Naboo and the
other one. I what's up, everybody? Welcome right the more space.
Speaker 10: Space all right, all right, welcome, it's time for another
live stream. You know what, I just about can't stand
this booger whistle song. I'm gonna be honest with you.
It's tough playing it. Uh he gets in my head,
and I actually actually I'm getting a little a little
frustrated with that booger whistle setting.
Speaker 5: You know what I mean. I'm just over here looks
Max and looks Max before you guys are here with
me and Derek Zulander. I mean clavicular.
Speaker 10: Clavical clavicular to antiquity over here, he got me, looks Maxim.
What do y'all think that these are the These are
when I do these faces, These are pictures.
Speaker 5: These are for the thumbnails. So that's your ask, Why
looks Maxim? Why do you think?
Speaker 10: Do you know how much work goes into being a
diva like myself and having to look looks Max all
the time?
Speaker 5: And uh, you know, people act like, oh, you don't
have a good a real job. You just scream at
the internet. Excuse me.
Speaker 10: The makeup and hair people that are in my trailer
right now, you're saying that they don't deserve a job.
Speaker 5: They should just go get on EDT's and Welfare's. Excuse me, bro,
I looks maxed in the nineties and I'm still looks
Max in because I looks like I'm in the nineties.
Speaker 10: I mean my face and styles as well. This is
like a ninety shirt. It's got cassette tapes on it
and boomboxes. So all I almost say is when I
look at you, any of you, when I look you
in the eye, you better believe I looks maxing you.
Every look is it looks Max. So that's what's going
on anyway.
Speaker 5: All right, we had a hype debate, So that's another
reason why there wasn't really much point in popping on
a live stream when that big debate was going. And
actually forgot the time that debate, so uh, it just
ended up working out to do it later. And I
know a lot of y'all was whining.
Speaker 1: Where is he at?
Speaker 11: Why is he on bipop time?
Speaker 12: Why?
Speaker 10: Because I'm a I'm an indigenous person. Okay, it's not
part of my culture to arrive when the clock right
all you people that oh time is real. Oh I'm
part of the boomer time matrix. I must submit to
the authorities of the time zones.
Speaker 5: Yeah. I don't live that way. I live free. And
so we're gonna be analyzing the debate. Cleaves already clavicular
clivicular to antiquity has already got clips up. Let's just
see this clip, because this is the hype clip already.
We know this about to pop off and.
Speaker 10: Now I've only watch the first thirty or twenty minutes
of the debate because I.
Speaker 5: Was trying to.
Speaker 10: Get it's long, and I'm gonna be honest with you.
I think, and I've said this for a long time,
what's his face?
Speaker 13: Here?
Speaker 5: Is the worst debater And that's why I never accept
the debate with him. All cuse you're scared. No, I
just knew all along. We knew UBI and I both knew.
Speaker 10: UBI tried to set up a debate with him for ages,
and it's all this hassle to get it actually going.
And then he demands a formal debate with me, and
I don't owe you a formal debate. Plus I think
you suck at debating, and everybody sees that. Once again,
I think I've be indicated. Now it's the your patience.
Speaker 5: So you know I'm going to struggle and try to
not get to not get it. Uh, you know it
too sassy. I won't get too sassy. But here's the
clip right here.
Speaker 14: You talk about pop Pios in ninth who he was,
and thank you so much, Alex for for that presentation.
You talk about pop pioson ninth who he was and whatnot.
None of that matters.
Speaker 10: Okay, hey, it turns out none of it even mattered
because all we needed all along was these dudes. You see,
we needed Tim Gordon and Elijah to come along and
explain papal minimalism, and now the system works.
Speaker 5: And I saw Tim Gordon when he was defending Stranger Things,
or as I like to say, Stranger's Thing, which was
like the gayest show of all time, now right. I
noticed Tim's defense of it was I will craft a
story to make it work. Literally, so he like crafted
the story of Oh, it's actually a bazed narrative that Vecna,
you know, was touching butts and that's what made him evil,
and that's why Will is touching butts. Right, And I'm like,
wait a minute, I thought I was.
Speaker 10: Watching any and it's an insidious show targeting the youths.
Turns out, no, it was all bathed the whole time.
Speaker 5: It was all based.
Speaker 10: Okay, not really right now, that's a pretty ridiculous Tim
Gordon narrative. But I started realizing Tim Gordon and the
Papist they do the same thing. They actually think, all
you gotta do is craft narrative that makes it all work.
And I really think that a lot of people's world
views and religions. They actually think that it's a system
building enterprise where you just kind of construct some things
and come up with some stuff like the Scholastics did
new distinctions.
Speaker 5: This and that, and that makes it work.
Speaker 10: So if there's a theological problem and a parent contradiction
and actual contradiction, just craft.
Speaker 5: A new story and it works, just like Tim does
with Stranger's thing.
Speaker 10: All right, we'll go to calls here in a moment.
We've already got somebody on the line. We're gonna talk
about the debate. We'll be talking about some other cultural
stuff too. What's up man, Well, he can't connect, so
you can call in at the link in the show description.
Speaker 5: It's the Twitter space link if you want to call in. So, Yahsi,
did I think what everybody expected?
Speaker 10: It's all the same classics sort of you know, quote
mind stuff, he says Pope Celestine latter in six forty nine,
the stuff that most of the papists do in every debate,
probably just Eric Obara's stuff repeated. It's not I'm not
going to replay his whole opening statement, Nick con what's up?
Speaker 1: What's up?
Speaker 14: Man?
Speaker 5: Did you want to say? Something.
Speaker 4: Yeah, can you hear me, I can hear nice?
Speaker 3: Nice, Yeah, I was listening last night.
Speaker 7: I wanted to respond to.
Speaker 15: So you guys are talking about figurations, types of things
having to do with the Crucifixion.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 4: I did think of one a while ago I was
lifting weight, and.
Speaker 15: That is, if David is a type of Christ, perhaps
the harp is a type of Cross.
Speaker 3: And then it comes to come to find.
Speaker 4: Out that actually is something that the Father wrote about.
I think it was sane from it. I can't remember correctly.
Speaker 5: I haven't heard that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, harp and then uh, that was pretty much it.
Speaker 10: I just wanted to you were trying, Yeah, how does
the harp relate to the cross? I don't understand that,
but I mean, I'm not saying it's not true, just there.
Speaker 3: Was some stuff like I guess I could have brought
my quotes.
Speaker 15: But if you look this up, if you searched, like
church fathers harp, you know prefigure man, Just do a
Google search.
Speaker 5: Now, now harp.
Speaker 16: HARP is the auroral atmospheric project that their weather control.
Are you trying to tell me that the harp was
mentioned in the Old Testament and that David was pretty
figure in Darpa.
Speaker 5: I couldn't help going full skitzo dude, I'm sorry.
Speaker 4: Exactly.
Speaker 15: Yeah, but I think with sanfre was saying something like
God the Father was playing christ on like as a
harp on the a song or something like that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I got it was kind of a beautiful typology,
I guess.
Speaker 15: Also, I was curious switching over to movie soundtracks.
Speaker 4: Always a big fan of your movie analysis, and I think.
Speaker 15: We have similar tastes in the sense that you even
spoke about analog sense and John Carpenter and Twin Peaks
and these kinds of soundtracks, eighties music, you know, eight soundtracks,
all kinds of stuff like that Tangerine Dream, right, and
sort of these you know, evangelists and sort of these
electronic composers. You know, those can be kind of a
gateway into watching certain films.
Speaker 3: You know, sometimes I watch.
Speaker 15: Movies based off of directors, are based off my favorite actors,
et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 4: You get on the rabbo hole music is one way
to approach it as well.
Speaker 15: With that being said, I wanted to hear what your
thoughts were on, you know, the Safti brothers and their
collaboration with one on Tricks Point never Daniel Low Patton,
which I don't even know if you're familiar with that artist.
Speaker 4: So if you don't know, then you don't know.
Speaker 3: But have you seen the Safti Brothers.
Speaker 4: Films at least of you? What what?
Speaker 5: What's what's their stuff?
Speaker 15: So they did Uncut Gems, they did good Time, and
then they just did one of the Safti Brothers did
Marty Supreme. I'm kind of surprised you haven't heard of
these these films.
Speaker 5: Well, I mean I've heard of Uncut Gems. I just
never have seen it.
Speaker 4: Oh you should see it, man.
Speaker 3: It's kind of like it's kind of a new it's
kind of.
Speaker 4: A new wave of film direction, kind of genius stuff. Okay,
but anyways, if you haven't seen.
Speaker 5: It, then it never mind.
Speaker 10: Well no, I mean I appreciate the recommendation. I mean
always like those film recommendations. So yeah, I should I
should watch that if you think it's.
Speaker 4: Good watching Gems. There's like some Jewish identity stuff in it, exactly.
Speaker 15: Uh, but yeah, there's like some Jewish identity stuff there's
but it's it's kind of surrealistic realism.
Speaker 3: It's kind of next.
Speaker 5: Level, all right, Like film. Appreciate that. Appreciate that. Call
back in if you have more. I want to move
on Cleave clavicular to antiquity. What's up man? He looks
Max and over there.
Speaker 4: Yeah, what's going on?
Speaker 5: Really? How's it going good? What's on your mind?
Speaker 1: Hey?
Speaker 4: Check out that? Check out that clip I just tagged
you in. That's like a kill shot of the debate.
Speaker 3: There.
Speaker 4: Somebody else clipped.
Speaker 3: It and.
Speaker 5: Okay, I see it. Let's see Uh yeah, is this
the okay? Here we go instantly rewind this here?
Speaker 10: Yeah, I was I was hoping that you would call
in or somebody would kind of give me some uh,
because I don't think we have time to watch this
entire debate, but I would like to hit you know,
the highlights and whatnot.
Speaker 5: So let's play this clip here and.
Speaker 3: Let me ask you this.
Speaker 11: Actually, what is the pope obligated to do to issue
an infallible statement?
Speaker 14: What is he obligated to do?
Speaker 11: And what is it obligated to do?
Speaker 14: In in a Jordical sense, he does not obligated to
do anything.
Speaker 11: Okay, So do we see that in the first millennium church?
Speaker 5: Yes?
Speaker 11: Where show me actually?
Speaker 14: Let me rephrase that. We don't see that in the
first millium or the second millennium Church.
Speaker 11: That can so you don't see hi Vatican one.
Speaker 10: Then rum mccale will be like, yeah, that's where he
won the debate. That's where Yasi won the debate and
owned Sooran. I'm telling you man, they'll pull uh creative
fiction writing out of the butt and and do like
Tim Gordon is doing defending strangers things as not gay. No,
but you see it's based and you see this, This
point that Yas made was actually so deep and profound
that it went over Cleve's head, It went over Alex
Soren's head. The entire audience except for the Roman Catholics
there're the only ones that got how profound what you
thought was a contradiction in a conceding. The whole debate
was actually sore and basically getting demolished and cooked.
Speaker 3: It was pretty bad.
Speaker 14: He did.
Speaker 13: He did.
Speaker 3: He said stuff like that.
Speaker 4: About three or four times in the debated.
Speaker 17: Even the Roman Catholics were catching on. They were like,
wait a minute, actually he's actually doing terrible. They did
a poll and after Roman Catholics said he lost.
Speaker 5: Let's play this one more time.
Speaker 11: Let me ask you this actually, what is the pope
obligated to do? It's to issue an infallible statement.
Speaker 14: What is he obligated to do?
Speaker 11: And what is it obligated to do?
Speaker 14: In in a joritical sense, he does not obligate to
do anything. Okay, so do we see that in the
first Millennium Church?
Speaker 5: Yes?
Speaker 11: Where so many?
Speaker 14: Actually let me rephrase that. We don't see that in
the first millium or the second Millennium Church.
Speaker 5: That I love that silence there.
Speaker 10: Even Alex was like, Alex made the same face that
I met my face made when Tim Gordon said that
God's glory is a creature, And I was like, are
you are you sure you want to say that? I
wanted to give I wanted to give Tim like a
moment to be like are you just miss misstating?
Speaker 5: Like do you want to rephrase that?
Speaker 3: Man?
Speaker 4: That was cobsmacked?
Speaker 10: I didn't even know, Like, yeah, so you're having that.
That's exactly my reaction in the Tim Gordon debate.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I didn't, Like, I was why are you confessing?
Like this is the whole debate? Like I didn't even
cross my mind to think like, oh so I win.
There's like there's no points that issue anymore exactly. I
was sobs back. I was like, so, so you're saying
Vatican too, did that happened? And I didn't even cross
my mind to go there?
Speaker 5: Right? But Yeah, yeah, great, great work.
Speaker 10: I'm looking forward to seeing I've only seen the first
two statements. I'm looking forward to seeing the rest of it. Cleve,
what's your overall assessment? Did you watch the whole thing?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 4: I was there the whole time.
Speaker 18: I mean I think.
Speaker 4: Elijah just seemed to kind of run the entire time.
Speaker 17: After the when in his first rebuttal, the clip that
I sent you, the first one that you watched, was
his response to Alex's opening statement.
Speaker 4: He said, none of that matters.
Speaker 17: He's talking about Pope Pius's definition of papal supremacy.
Speaker 4: He's like, none of that matters. Let's move on to
my pre canned nonsense and.
Speaker 5: Just see that clip. But why do you what does
he mean none of that matters?
Speaker 11: Like he's just like he was trying to reduce the
papacy to like a set of propositions from pastor attorneys,
And in my mind, I don't think you can do
that because so much has happened since the schism, you
have the Gregorian reforms, the Tridentine reforms, and then the
Vatican One is just another reformation of the Roman Catholic Church.
Speaker 4: It becomes the ultramontane Church.
Speaker 11: All this stuff is like, if you're asking the question
what is the Vatican one papacy, it's not just a
few chapters from Pastor Atturnis.
Speaker 4: It's Pope Pius the Ninth. That is the Vatican one papacy.
Speaker 11: He's a king, he has an army, he conted his
own currency and he put his face on the coins.
He has a special chair where he has papal servants
that pull him around.
Speaker 4: Like that is relevant. That is a part of the
Vatican one papacy. So for asking a question, is this
guy pope he is the.
Speaker 11: Ninth the same as Pope Saint Leo the Great? Is
he the same pope as Pope Gregory? The dialogue is
like absolutely not. They would be sickened to see that
the pope has turned into a king.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 10: Absolutely, And did that ever come up with yasi the
whole temporal supremacy?
Speaker 5: Did you get into that just in passing?
Speaker 11: I really just wanted to pin him on, Like, Okay,
so this is what Vatican One teaches that the pope
without restriction, he can pass infallible statements, and I wanted
to expose that.
Speaker 4: Really all he does is he plays the God card
and say whatever he wants.
Speaker 11: But it's not going to be bad because God. I
think it's a little bit of a childish argument. I
just that was like my whole point in the whole debate.
So I think likely the rebuttals would probably be worth
going over, and maybe the cross exams. The open discussion
was a bit lame, but otherwise I think the rebuttals
and the cross exams maybe, if you're interested, maybe worth
going over.
Speaker 10: Yeah, I will look to that. I mean, my wonder
if this is where he said. Did he say that
that doesn't matter early on.
Speaker 5: Or was that later on?
Speaker 4: That was like the first thing he said in his rebuttal.
Speaker 10: Okay, I'm sad that's where I go. I've got the
cursor right there, so that's perfect awesome. Yeah, thank you guys.
I'm looking forward to analyzing a little bit more of this.
I'm sure the clips channels out they were going to find.
Speaker 5: The really meaty ju see deats already. Anything else from you, guys,
I'm gonna play a little bit more of it.
Speaker 4: No, that's pretty much it.
Speaker 17: I mean that the Cross, like you said, was kind
of boring. It was basically Yasse filibustering the entire time.
Speaker 4: So yeah, Yass's Cross was boring.
Speaker 11: And maybe I think I've made a few points maybe
in mind, but yeah, the rebuttals I think would be
worth going.
Speaker 4: They're like, they're only.
Speaker 5: Five minutes, the rebuttals at the very beginning here.
Speaker 11: Yeah, so it was, uh, we each got an opening statement,
we each got a five minute rebuttal, and then it goes.
Speaker 4: Into the cross exams.
Speaker 11: The Seventh at the beginning of the eighteen hundreds, issued
one incyclical, pull Pious the Ninth in the mid eighteen hundreds,
who presided over Vatican One, issued thirty eight encyclicals, and
Leo the Thirteenth, the successor of Pious the Ninth, issued
seventy five in cyclicals. So pre Vatican one and post
Vatican one we go from one incyclical to seventy five encyclicals.
It's because the pope has become a legislator. He's no
longer just a witness and protector.
Speaker 7: Of the faith.
Speaker 17: That is time.
Speaker 11: That is time basically to conclude it was a change.
Everybody agrees on this, only Elijah Yassi disagrees.
Speaker 7: All right, thank you, Phyllis. Now at this point in time,
we are going to go to our rebuttal rounds, so
it will be five minutes and yep, mister yah See,
it's on you, my man.
Speaker 5: Thank you so much, real quick.
Speaker 10: One thought I had while I listened to the opening
statements was it's an odd position that he's arguing for
to argue for papal minimalism, that he doesn't do anything
without the rest of the church. But also papal infallibility
is in the first millennium. And as he was going
through these papal quotes in his opening statement, yah see,
I'm saying he's using these quotes to try to prove
the thing that he's saying. Vatican One doesn't teach that
there's this universal jurisdiction. He seemed to be arguing that
the pope can act unilaterally, but he's also arguing that no,
papal minimalism is the case, and the pope doesn't do
things without the rest of the church. And his opening
statement said Orthodox place a division between the pope and
the church now we don't do that. The statement of
Vatican One that the pope does not need the consent
of the bishops.
Speaker 5: That's in Vatican One. It's not us creating a division
between the pope and the church.
Speaker 10: So it's an odd position to pull out proof texts
that appeared to try to prove universal jurisdiction and autocracy,
but then turn around and say, but really, Vatican one
isn't teaching universal jurisdiction and autocracy in some non synergistic way.
Speaker 5: I thought that was very bizarre right away, Alex.
Speaker 14: For that presentation, you talk about Pope Pius in ninth,
who he was and whatnot. None of that matters, because
what matters is what was actually dogmatized and defined. We
don't have.
Speaker 10: This is where it would be good to get him
or any of these goofballs to give a clear epistemic
principle by which we identify the infallible and non infallible.
Because I've never heard that, and I've asked that to
countless Roman Catholics and they never even understand the question
because you ask them that and they start listing, oh.
Speaker 5: This is execathedis No? I said, no, No, I'm not
asking you what you think are the execa theater statements.
I'm asking you for the epistemic principle that allows you
to identify the infallible from the non infallible. Alex, you
wanna say something, Yeah.
Speaker 4: I think they have a few conundrums like that.
Speaker 11: I was listening. I was reading Klaus Schatz his book
on papal primacy, and he pointed out not the same point,
but something similar similar, basically that if there are only
a handful of irreformable statements by the pope, doesn't that
kind of by definition open up every single other papal decision, Yeah,
to scrutiny that you can reopen it now all the
other ones are reformable. There's only like Elijah said, there
are four. There are some people that say there are two.
Some people say only one irreformable infallible statements. And by
making that category, Klaus was saying, like this category was
not known before, right, and they didn't really consider the
downstream effects.
Speaker 10: Yeah, when did anybody in the first thousand years of
the church even remotely discuss anything like that?
Speaker 5: Never?
Speaker 10: Well, then our position is the one that's correct, because
that means that that idea evolved so yeah.
Speaker 11: And there's like a weird circularity to it too that
I think you were pointing out, which is like, look,
there are no conditions for the pope to speak infallibly.
He can do it at his own discretion. But then also, well,
he's never going to act without the bishops. Okay, but
I'm asking you, how do you he's really he is
assuming the thing in question.
Speaker 5: Exactly becomes a circle.
Speaker 10: Yeah, well, didn't some of his suppose it proofs at
the beginning argue that the pope was acting without the bishops.
Speaker 11: Yeah, it puts them in a very awkward situation to
where he's saying people minimalism. Well, then now he's forced
to talk about the pope being an autocrat. So it's
just like, like, strategically, it's also just a bad does
it Not only does it not make sense, it's also.
Speaker 5: Very hard to do well.
Speaker 10: And as Trent Horn showed that their canon law says
it's infallible in binding when it's evidently manifest that it is.
Speaker 5: So yeah, literally, yeah, that's it.
Speaker 10: And that was the entire debate that I have with
Trent over natural theology was about the epistemic principle. That's
the closest that any of them have even gotten to,
giving a kind of epistemic principle. And it's literally just well,
when it's evident, when it's clear, Well that's the thing
in question.
Speaker 5: So when is it clear? How do we know by
what standard? Who decides?
Speaker 10: And again I think, you know, this whole system, if
it was legit, why wouldn't they just have a clear
you know, why wouldn't pup just say, look, I am
sitting in the chair, I am now binding the entire church.
Speaker 5: Infallibly to these forty eight statements and doctrines. Why not
why not just do that.
Speaker 4: Things they don't want to commit to xit amounts of statements.
Speaker 5: Well, that's the thing, is like, yeah, that makes the system.
Speaker 10: Much more rigid than it actually is, in the sense
that the more open and ambiguous it is and elastic,
it allows people to craft their own papal position, which
is exactly what y'as's doing.
Speaker 11: And there was a weird part in the open discussion
where he was saying, late, yeah, these these doctrines are reformable,
and he was talking about contraception, and I was like, okay, well,
if it performable, that means at some point it's possible
that contraception is no longer a sin. So you have
a bunch of people who are sinning for like two
thousands of years, and that suddenly nobody's sinning anymore for
the exact same behavior. It leads to absurdities in like
really silly positions.
Speaker 10: It does exactly by the way, I have to say,
Elijah looks really intelligent in that amazing library that is
totally not CGI. It's funny because everybody used to joke
that I tried to look smart and that like the
books behind me are fake, and then like Elijah comesoni
actually has a CGI fake, a literal fake, a literal
fake bookshelf that he thinks looks well anyway. The other thing, too,
is say, Alex she goes, did you think about this?
There's a similar sort of conundrum that you when you
were saying that, wouldn't this make any of the other
statements than dubious. You made this appoint a minute ago
about PayPal was paid lea binding and if there was
only a handful or whatever, it would conceivably make all
the other statements then just sort of like non binding
and everybody can kind of do what they want there's
a similar problem that I remember when I was a
trad cat came up and I remember debating countless other
trad cats and struggling with this issue, which is over saints.
Speaker 5: So, in other words, if you get.
Speaker 10: Into the SSPX circles and the set of a concist
trad debates, they have very difficult times with canonizations in
the question of whether canonizations are part of ordinary universal magisterium,
because some people argue they're not, and they do that
to try to get away from having to honor John
Paul the second as a saint, because he did so
many wild ecumenist synchrotous things and even blasphemous things. For example,
he said made John the Baptists protect Islam, and you know,
and so worth and so on, and even worse things
than some of his homilies about Islam.
Speaker 5: So well, how is he a saint? Well he's not.
But then the problem immediately becomes evident.
Speaker 10: Well, if if sainthood isn't in the romantholic system part
of the universe ordinary magisterium, then you can conceivably debate
and doubt all the saints, couldn't you? I mean, you
could go back and start, Well, maybe afthenations, isn't in sane?
Speaker 11: Yeah, it opens everything up to the question at that point.
That's a good plus, an excellent point.
Speaker 5: And also in the set of a conscious world.
Speaker 10: The same principle applies with the acceptance of the papacy,
because most set of a constiest, you know, end their
lineage at Pious to twelve. But there were actually some
knownists who would say no, actually, Pious the ninth was
the last valid pope because after Vatican One, some of
those other popes began to do early reforms of the liturgy,
which actually prepared the way.
Speaker 5: For Vatican Two.
Speaker 10: So, I mean, I think that position is kind of crazy,
but all those positions are crazy. But you can if
you if you think about it, like, well, if I
can doubt the last several pips back to pies of twelve,
why can't I dealt back to piece to night. I mean,
there's no it's a Pandora's box that gets open, as
Alex is saying, kind of undoes the whole system. Yeah, exactly, Uh, Hercules,
did you did you want to say something? You're feverishly
emoting what's up?
Speaker 5: I'm mute?
Speaker 3: You hear me?
Speaker 5: Yeah, what's on your mind. I'm good.
Speaker 19: I'm good.
Speaker 3: So the thing is is I'm critical or thucks.
Speaker 19: And I've been hearing a lot of different positions, specifically
on the topic of original sin. So I mean, I
already have a position that I hold to, but I
really wanted to know what you would think, like, because
I know this is like going around, especially on the
online space, about like our views on original sin, like
all these like turns being thrown around, like you know,
guilts and stuff like that, like what would you affirm?
And then I could just tell you, like if you
want to know what I affirmed something like that, And.
Speaker 10: Yeah, there's no such thing as inherited guilt. Guilt by
its very very by it's very nature, and according to
the Book of James, is a specific individual action when
you violate God's law. And there's countless quotes from Orthodox catechisms,
Orthodox Saints, Church fathers that point out that when we
say everyone is under adam or condemned an atom, it
is not referring to the guilt of Adam. It's referring
to the inheritance of the consequences of the.
Speaker 19: Civil Yeah, I agree, Like we're not personally guilty in
any sense, like that's completely condemned.
Speaker 3: But like I agree, like we don't affirm any sort of.
Speaker 19: Culpability, but we affirm like liabilities, so like we would
have affirmed that we inherit the the consequences of his sense,
like Saint Cyril speaks of guilts, and we also have Seenrette,
Like we have multiples like church follows who speak upon
guilts when the sense of like liability. But I don't
think like any Orthodox would ever affirm any sort of
like personal guilts. I would think that's absurd.
Speaker 5: You know a lot of these people online are doing
that and they're confused.
Speaker 3: Huh do you think people online are firm like personal guilts?
Speaker 5: Like, yeah, I've argued with many of these people for years.
Speaker 19: Okay, that's interesting because I've never heard about anybody who
afirms personal guilt.
Speaker 10: But like, well, these are new converts who think that
they've read Augustine a little bit, and then they think
that we affirm Augustine's view and we don't.
Speaker 3: What do you think Augustin affirms a sort of personal.
Speaker 5: Go, yes he does.
Speaker 13: He could.
Speaker 5: He affirms masked them at a wait, could you elaborate
on what that is?
Speaker 3: Real quick?
Speaker 5: That we are all a damned mass in Adam?
Speaker 3: Well in what sense, right, because like we would have
to understand like what he means.
Speaker 5: By that if he means infants are damned.
Speaker 19: Wait real quick, so this is going into unbaptized babies.
Now do you think like unbaptized babies go to heaven?
Speaker 5: No, I don't think they automatically go to heaven. We're
not told.
Speaker 10: But we're also told that, uh, they're they do not
receive the condemnation of damnation because they haven't committed actual sins.
Speaker 11: Yeah.
Speaker 19: Wait, what do you define damnation asks? Because like I
would just take that to be when we're speaking of
like damnation.
Speaker 10: You didn't even know what the mask I'm not a
doctrine is, So why are you trying to debate me
on Augustine? That's a fundamental teaching of his theology.
Speaker 19: Yeah wait, I understand what you mean within like a
normative like English terms, but when it comes like the
line on like the best when it comes.
Speaker 10: To okay, but that's a basic idea in his anthropology
and his doctrine original sin.
Speaker 5: Why are you interrupted me?
Speaker 3: Oh? Sorry, sorry about that.
Speaker 5: And the people online that I've been arguing with for
years promote and affirm that. Yeah.
Speaker 19: Wait, I don't see an issue with affirming that, Like
you'd have to define what you mean by like damnation.
Speaker 10: I just said he believed that unbaptized infants are damned.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and what do you think that they suffer?
Speaker 5: In his position, he believes that they suffer all the
way up to Pope Gregory the Great believe that they
suffered hell fire?
Speaker 19: Do you think that Augustin affirms that are seeing Augustina
affirms that unbaptized babies suffering?
Speaker 10: You, Hannah, Well, he says that they have a lesser
He doesn't say it's the same as people who are
have personal guilt.
Speaker 5: Well, what do you mean by that?
Speaker 10: Because like, I don't know what he means by that,
because I don't think his position is consistent.
Speaker 3: So wait, what do you mean? So if you don't know,
why do you keep asking me what I mean? Well,
because I don't understand your position. If you're saying, like
his position, can.
Speaker 5: You tell me what the Orthodox position is because you
know all about it?
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, of course I can tell you.
Speaker 19: Tell me what it is as defined same Peter mochilas Catechism, right.
Speaker 10: We would It doesn't say that. No, you just are
using the English terms. You just said that you don't
know the Latin terms, So you're using these English translations
which you think means the Latin view.
Speaker 5: It doesn't mean that.
Speaker 19: Wait, I don't think there's any distinction between me reading
the normaty of like English term when it comes to
see Augustin's view Peter Mohas.
Speaker 10: You know, Peter Mohela's Catechism is written to a Western audience,
and he uses terminology that sounds like Latin theological terminology,
but it doesn't. So you're reading the baggage of Latin
theology into it.
Speaker 19: No, I'm not, because you're misunderstanding what I mean.
Speaker 5: But like what you mean, you don't even know Augustin's position,
So how are you in a position for your teaming? No,
you don't. You didn't know what Master Ivona was. That's
fundamental to his position.
Speaker 3: I understand the position.
Speaker 5: I know you don't. You didn't know what a basic
idea in his teaching was. Does he believe that we're
all an archetype in Adam, Yes, he does. He affirms
explicitly in City of God that we are all in
atom as in an archetype. So you don't know the
basics of his view. Yes, I do know you don't
because you would have known that in City of God
he affirms. Have you read City of God?
Speaker 3: Uh?
Speaker 5: Some parts of it? Okay, have you read I've read
the whole thing? Any affirms that?
Speaker 4: Okay?
Speaker 5: Does he affirm? Does the affirm that we are all
in Adam as an archetype?
Speaker 3: Wait? What do you mean by archetype?
Speaker 5: So you don't even know his basic ideas of divine ideas?
You don't know his you don't even know his basic ideas?
Wait if you mean so, you're wasting my time. So
you're not in there, you're not because you're not in
a position to debate this. You haven't done the reading.
Speaker 10: Yes, no, you haven't know what the Orthodox position is, like,
you don't even know what Augustine's views are.
Speaker 5: You're not in a position to tell me. I don't
know what it is?
Speaker 3: Intellectual like, you can't actually can keep I'm.
Speaker 5: A pseudo intellectual and you have not read the reading? Yes,
you think you just said that he doesn't teach. You
just said that he You just said he doesn't teach,
all right, So no, you're a heretic because you think
that you just said massa dam nada and the Orthodox
Church he doesn't teach that, You're an idiot.
Speaker 3: Okay, yes it does.
Speaker 5: The Orthodox Church teaches mass dam nada from Augustine. Hold on,
did you did you just say that? You didn't you
didn't know what it was. Yes? Are we are we
all in Adam as an archetype? Are we all in
an Adam as an archetype?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 17: I'm not.
Speaker 5: You don't know his teaching. You just said he doesn't
teach that, and he does in City of God. If
you're asking, does he teach that in the City of God.
Speaker 4: We sit in Adam?
Speaker 13: Sure?
Speaker 19: I can pause?
Speaker 5: Does he teach that we are in Adam as in
an archetype and that's why we have original guilt? Does
he teach that? So this is what happens when you're
twenty and you don't know anything about theology and you
want to come to debate people who've read thousands of
pages of Saint Augustine and you don't know the basic terminology. Yeah,
I don't know how you deal with it.
Speaker 11: And clearly it's unfamiliar with like the basic terms and
like this, just like it's total hub.
Speaker 4: And they're just unfamiliar with the reading and they think
they can keep up.
Speaker 10: With like and they why does he ask me to
define every term? If he's done the reading, he would
know what those terms mean.
Speaker 4: They clear not up to date on the conversation.
Speaker 14: To defend the popes in his person or what he
thought or you know, whether he was he thought this,
he was as king or whatever. What did Vatican one
actually define is the court?
Speaker 10: By the way, for those that are interested, I did
a lecture through the entirety of the City of God.
You can watch my lectures going through the entire book,
and I guarantee you that man has not read the
entire thousand page City of God.
Speaker 5: I lectured through the whole thing, so you know I have.
It's one of the things that made me leave Protestantism
back when I was twenty one. And I go through
the sections that talk about mass dam Nauda and the section.
Speaker 10: Where he talks about we are all in Adam as
in an archetype. This is books one through ten of
City of God right here. I mean, just to act
that way with people who have been reading this stuff
for twenty five years twenty six now, it's just really annoying.
Speaker 5: And it's.
Speaker 10: If you if I can immediately tell, it's the same
with philosophy, right, or anything that you've done for twenty
five years. When you hear people not familiar with terms,
you can identify where they are in their reading or
their understanding, and you know right away, okay, they're not
familiar with the basics.
Speaker 5: So here is part one.
Speaker 10: I think Part two does the second half the City
of God, and I read City of God twenty.
Speaker 5: Five years ago. I have it all marked up over here.
If we want, I can get I can get it out,
and we can find the actual page where it talks
about masks. I'm not. And you knowice he changed his
position to say, no, actually I do believe in mass
I'm not. And then he's what does it mean that
we're in Adam as an archetype.
Speaker 10: Well, Augustine was influenced by Neoplatonism, and so if you
read City on the Trinity, there's sections of on the
Trinity which are basically just even copy paste from Plotinus's
and Neods, and Augustine was pretty open about his influence
from Neoplatonism.
Speaker 5: So what he does is that he uses that archetype
theology or philosophy. I should say to argue that the
reason that Romans five holds us guilty in Adam is
because we are in him as in an archetype. That's
his terminology, which you should be familiar with if you
know this topic and you've read this stuff. I've read
all of the Antidonatus works, I've read all of the
anti Pallagian works. I've read all of City of God,
I have them all marked up. I've read almost all
of On the Trinity.
Speaker 10: I took Augustine's name in two thousand and one when
I became a Roman Catholic because I read him fervently
for all of my twenties, and Aquinas a lot to it.
Speaker 5: I don't read everything in quantas. I'm not saying I've
read everything from Augustin plenty of works that I haven't
got to. But I know this very well.
Speaker 10: So when someone comes and tries to argue with me,
and I can immediately tell that they don't know what
they're talking about. They're getting tripped up, and they keep
interrupting me.
Speaker 5: You're not in the position to debate and argue with
me at that level. Well, he's mean old Lord. You
can't handle it. He can't do it.
Speaker 10: It's you that has the issue. It's the problem is
on your side. Yeah, sometimes I lose my patience, but
that's not the main issue here. The main issue is
not patients. The main issue is I know what I'm
talking about with this, and I'm not even saying I'm
some Augustine scholar.
Speaker 5: I don't really care that much.
Speaker 10: About Augustine's views anymore. I cared a lot in my twenties,
but I don't really care that much anymore. But I
know enough about it to say what his position is.
And also you can go to my talk here, and
everybody needs to read the Mayandorf essay on where Augusta
made a mistake because he didn't know Greek in Romans five,
because that's a big part of the issue here.
Speaker 11: Something that helped me also with Augustin was in the
mist to go Gie. There's a version that has an
introduction by Joe Farrell. Yeah, and the introduction he talks
about like all the parallels, and he goes through all
the parallels between the august Indian view and neo Platonism
and shock, honestly, it's virtually identical.
Speaker 5: Yes it is.
Speaker 10: And also the Neoplatonic archetypal view of how he gets
his original sin doctrine. That's dealt with in a lot
more detail in Pharrell's book Free Choice in Saint Maximus.
And so another book that everybody in this domain trying
to argue this position that they don't understand, is that
they should read Free Choice in Saint Maximus. But Myandorf's
essay is also key here because he shows a basic
mistake that Augustine made, and Augustine admits in book three
of On the Trinity that he can't read the Greek.
Speaker 5: No, that's not it. This is it right here.
Speaker 10: Now, I think this is a uniate site, but this
is from Myandorf and so here is the article, and
I'll put it in the chat. Everybody should read that.
That will help people understand exactly the roots of the
Augustinian mistake. And there is a difference between Augustine's position
on this and the rest of the Eastern fathers. It's
just a fact, and even some of the Latin fathers
before him. So and by the way, all of these people,
they don't have any degree in any topic or subject
related to any of this, and I'm not arguing that
credentialism is all that matters. But think about any other field.
Doesn't some degree of showing that you have proficiency. Isn't
that what's necessary in pretty much every other field. But
for some reason in this domain, whether it's philosophy or
whether it's you know, religion, theology, people just assume, no,
I don't need anything.
Speaker 5: I am sufficient unto myself.
Speaker 10: I don't need any training under any mentors or authorities
or anybody.
Speaker 5: I can can solve these issues. I can do this
and you can't. There's none of that. That is a
thoroughly Protestant modern attitude. I'm not saying that you can't
study on your own, or that you can't learn things
on your own.
Speaker 10: I'm saying it's an issue of missing the point that
in all recorded history, all people in all fields had
menurs and went through a process of qualification to speak
on topics, to debate topics. And today, because of chat,
GBT and all this nonsense, that everybody thinks they're an expert.
I mean, imagine alex is a lawyer. Imagine somebody's saying, yeah,
I don't need to go to law school. I've got
five law books that I bought at the thrift store.
I've been reading them extensively, and I don't need your
stupid law schools and your law classes. I'll just show
up and I'll do them. I'll do it my own myself,
by myself.
Speaker 11: People with law school that didn't get it, So I
thought that you think you'd be able to do it
on your own. Is this ridiculous. But on that point
of like just the basic terminology that people use. I
think I was talking about.
Speaker 4: This with Ubi the other day.
Speaker 11: He actually he sent me a text because he realized
I was debating, Yeah, who was in that same crew
with Ibarra and Lofta and whatnot.
Speaker 4: So we just went back and forth.
Speaker 11: But I told him, in law school, we have thesocratic method, right,
so the students get cold called and you can just
tell based on the questions that people are asking, like
whether or not they did exactly the reading that night.
Speaker 4: It's like, oh, this guy has no idea what we're.
Speaker 5: Talking about here exactly.
Speaker 10: And it's the same that I can do in a
lot of this domain. When I hear people, for example,
when you're debating a lot of atheists, a lot of
you know, people that reread it. They think they're proficient,
they know all this stuff. And if you've gone to
you know, undergrad grad school and then philosophy, like you
can tell really quickly when somebody has no clue what
they're talking about.
Speaker 5: Anyway, let's say some more of this.
Speaker 14: The text of Vatican One is what we're defending. Pastor eturnos,
the four chapters. Chapter three in chapter four is really
what we're discussing today. Chapter three on universal jurisdiction, Chapter
four on people in fallibility. And you see Alex going
and all.
Speaker 5: By the way, he seems to not be aware that
there are other elements of Vatican One. It's not just
pastoryturn us. Well, yeah, he does he not know that?
Does he think that? It's just I think he does,
like he doesn't actually know what he's defending.
Speaker 14: His place is because he doesn't want to stick to
the actual text. So let's stick to the actual text.
He quoted Gaser. We're going to get intogether if he
wants to get into gas. I wasn't planning on having
this debate on the minimalist. As you can see, I
had the first millennium proofs of Vatican One. As if
I was defending it as a maximalist right, But that's fine,
let's go with that.
Speaker 10: So he just recognized the point that I made about
the contradiction in papal minimalism for right now for the
Orthodox audience. But he's going to defend papal maximalism in the.
Speaker 5: First safe and he recognized that. Even he recognized my
first thought, he brought up Chietti.
Speaker 11: Uh directory.
Speaker 14: There's a there's a document called the Directory for the
Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism that quotes on
such documents as Schietti, and it says all statements or
reports of dialogue commissions are submitted to the churches concerned
for assessment. Statements produced by dialogue commissions have intrinsic weight
because of the competence and status of their authors. They
have weight because there's scholars there, not because it's binding
on Catholics.
Speaker 10: And here's the next thing, of course, as if anybody
was even arguing that Kiyat is some sort of dogmatic document,
it doesn't matter. It's according to Leo. It expresses his mind.
So that tells us that Leo agrees with it. We're
not concerned about all. I don't do Is it an
ex cathed No, of course, nobody's ever even argued that
it's an exca theater document.
Speaker 14: They are, not, however, binding on the Catholic Church until
they have been approved by the appropriate ecclesiastical authorities.
Speaker 10: So please, So in other words, nothing is binding until
it's approved. And what exactly and when is that happening, Well,
we don't know exactly.
Speaker 14: The Chietti stuff. It's not binding on Catholics according to
US Catholics until the Pope and the bishops have approved
the document, which has not happened yet.
Speaker 5: Conn he said that he agrees with it.
Speaker 10: So so what's the the way this works is it's
never going to be approved until there's some Leo saying
I absolutely approve and you must accept it. That's the
only thing that they would maybe concede.
Speaker 14: To, which, of course that's never gonna happen to a
lot of Orthobros online.
Speaker 5: He mentioned that's a strong man. Though nobody has ever
argued that Kiyati is a binding document.
Speaker 11: I argued it as an authority, and I'm glad that
he like kind of conceded that, Like, yeah, it's a
lot of like top Roman Catholic scholars.
Speaker 4: That's the kind of proof that I cited it.
Speaker 11: We're not as something binding discussion, and he's like, oh, yeah,
I know that it has like a lot of scholars
behind it, like yeah.
Speaker 10: But he just says, Ortho bros. Think it's binding. No, Ortho, bro,
I haven't seen any Orthover argue that it's binding. I mean,
there could have been one arguing in that, But that's.
Speaker 14: So what NICEA Canon six talks about giving the prerogative
to to what's to Alexandria and giving the prerogative to
called the Antioch and whatnot. Well, here's Pope Saint Boniface.
This is a pope in both of our churches. This
is how he interprets Nicia and that Canon six, the
universal ordering of the Church at its birth took its
origin from the office of Blessed Peter, divine institution in
which has found both its directing power and its supreme
authority from him as from a source at the time
when our religion was in stage.
Speaker 10: I believe Peter is a divine authority and foundation stone
and source, but that doesn't mean that every successor is
that and has all those same powers as Peter, and
that it would never fail right, that's.
Speaker 5: The thing that they use terms.
Speaker 10: Like when I debated Tim Gordon and he said, did
Jesus establish the papacy? Well, Tim, we both agree Jesus
established the papacy, But what that means and the extent
of that power is the thing in question, not did Jesus?
Did the divinity establish the papacy? If you remember Lofton
used to make this argument, he would say, anything divinely
established can never fail, which uh oh, God established the
nation state of Israel.
Speaker 5: Uh oh, it failed. So that's a non sequitor.
Speaker 10: Just because divinity establishes something does not mean it cannot fail.
And also every sea and bishop has a divine foundation
and can fail.
Speaker 14: Both all churches receive their call and order. This much
is shown by the injunctions of the Council of Nicea.
Speaker 5: I like how there's a chair sitting in a chair
in his background.
Speaker 4: I didn't even realize that. Well, that's hilarious.
Speaker 10: So Elijah Yassi is definitely not using a an Ai background.
It's a real Oxford. He's actually debating you from the
archives of the Vatican. It's just that the papal chair.
It's like meta, dude, the papal chair the papal throne
actually has a throne that sits in the throne, so
it's doubly papal. When when Elijah sits in his throne
throne that's the double ex cathedral throne.
Speaker 14: Venture to make a decree in his regard, regard recognizing
that nothing could be added to his dignity. In fact,
it knew that all had been assigned to him by
the word of the Lord divine institution. So it is
clear that this church is to all churches through.
Speaker 10: Again, I mean, this was something that Lofton. It's a
divine institution. The divine institution can't fail. I actually, and
he used to do if. I recall quite a few
podcasts with lost and so he's really just loft He's
really just lost in is actually better. He's actually just
copying and pasting this old Lofton argument, which actually UBI
responded to this like five years ago.
Speaker 4: UBI destroyed him, dude.
Speaker 10: But I mean the argument was divine institution. How could
it fail if it's a divine institution. Well, again, even
on the Roman Catholic scheme, they believe that the Bishop
of Antioch, the Patriarch of Constantinople, all of those have
divine founding an.
Speaker 5: Institution behind them, and yet they believe that they fail.
Speaker 11: This gives me confidence that I made the right argument,
because that's precisely what I said to my Oh.
Speaker 5: Did you say that? Okay?
Speaker 10: Yeah, And I know where I remember he's getting this from.
This is an old Lofton argument.
Speaker 14: World asked. The head is to the members, and that
whoever separates himself from it becomes an exile from the
Christian religion since he seizes to be belonged to his fellowship.
So here we have Pope Saint Boniface, He's a saint
in both of our churches, a church father, a champion
of Orthodoxy, saying, I see it did not give anything
to Rome because it cannot add anything to Rome because
whatever Rome has.
Speaker 5: Out of curiosity, Alex, did Yassi ever deal with.
Speaker 10: The canonical statements like in the absolute canons about and
there's many in the canons of the councils too, the
limited jurisdiction canons?
Speaker 5: Does he ever reply to all? Nope? Okay, from the Lord,
I've actually never heard of Roncalvick response to that.
Speaker 10: I'm not saying there isn't one. I'm just saying I've
not really heard them respond to that. I wonder I
guess they would just say, yeah, we don't care.
Speaker 14: One so thank you for the canon six there and
then what else?
Speaker 5: He said?
Speaker 14: The pope does not need the permission. I've been saying
that for the last fifteen years.
Speaker 10: You guys, just if the pope doesn't need permission, then
how is it PayPal minimalism?
Speaker 5: Is that where you go, alex As?
Speaker 4: Uh, yeah, that's the end of the debate in my opinion, Okay.
Speaker 14: Watch my videos and you want to assume what I'm saying.
I have never once said the pope needs permission from
the bishops.
Speaker 5: In fact, okay, so this is getting so preposterous, and
don't I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be mean.
Speaker 10: I just you know, Ubi and I five years ago,
we're talking about debating and setting up debates with this guy,
and UBI said he had a really hard time doing it,
and Yasi wouldn't agree to any of the terms, and
so he just gave up.
Speaker 5: And Ubi said to me.
Speaker 10: I wouldn't even worry whether he's a terrible debater. And
I think we saw again that and I'm seeing now
with my own eyes he's no good.
Speaker 14: I dare anyone to show me where I've said that.
In fact, I have said the exact opposite, and I
have slides on my minimalist video that says, even on
the minimalist view of the papacy, the Pope does not
need permission from the bishops to act when he polls them.
He's not looking for their permission, Hey, can I act
or not. He's looking for the faith of the church.
He's doing his homework.
Speaker 5: So I'm glad. I'm glad the pope's doing his homework.
Speaker 10: I mean, if I was Catholic, I wouldn't want to
put my faith and trust in it unless I knew
for sure he was doing his homework.
Speaker 5: And thankfully we have.
Speaker 10: People like Yasi, people like Tim Gordon and the papal
Apologist to do the grading of the homework for us. Right,
they can grade the Pope's homework to make sure he
got on the multiple choices right, to make sure that
he defined his terms, to make sure he didn't go against.
Speaker 5: The Apostolic deposit.
Speaker 10: Now, when I was a tradcat, I went from you
convert in two thousand and two three in your novasorto
and you have all the same talking points that I've
been hearing for twenty five six years, whatever it is.
And then what happens is you start moving towards papal minimalism. Okay,
I moved towards papal minimalism in two thousand and four
when I started going to the Latin Mass, and then
you moved towards and I don't even know if these
popes are popes, right, So there's like a bell curve
or what's that mean that Snack used to share the.
Speaker 5: Yeah, the trad meme.
Speaker 10: Where you move to full mel Gibson and then you
move towards towards the or the doxy.
Speaker 14: So pulling the bishops, he's looking to see if the
bishops believe this dogma, because, as natkin One says, he
cannot make up new dogmas. He can only decree what
has already been taught by the church university.
Speaker 5: So he's polling the bishops to make sure that they
believe it.
Speaker 10: Okay, well, but it's also kind of not necessary because
the bishops aren't the ones that tell us or determine
what the pap what the faith is.
Speaker 5: So I'm glad to know that the pope.
Speaker 10: Is polling in an irrelevant poll, which has nothing to
do with whether or not it's actually dogma, because the
pope is the one that decides at the end of the.
Speaker 14: Day for the last two thousand years or whatever the
time period was was said in eighteen seventy. So this
is not a permission that the pope is seeking.
Speaker 5: He is seeking the.
Speaker 14: Faith of the church, which is called agreement of the church.
The agreement not permission. Those are two different things. That's
not a distinction without a difference.
Speaker 5: Okay, where is he getting this? So he's decided that
the role of the pope is to find agreement and
not permission.
Speaker 10: This is just linguistic ambiguity because as he will say,
as we already saw, actually at the end of the day,
he doesn't need permission.
Speaker 5: Okay, does he need agreement?
Speaker 10: I mean, if seventy five percent of the bishops disagree
and the pope decides that the doctrine that he's defining
in some case actually is the faith, then he doesn't
need agreement, and it doesn't matter whether you redefine it
as a quote permission. Again, these people craft kazustri and
come up with ideas to make the system work.
Speaker 14: Or different to that distinction, what have you? He looks
at O'Malley, great, congratulations. I look at polpious and knights
with bishops who are at Vatican one. German bishops were
a Vatican one. Gasser, who was set out in the
Vatican one to explain people with fallibility before they voted
Fessler Newman.
Speaker 10: Yeah, but I'm pretty sure Gasser doesn't teach minimalism, right, No,
Gasser teaches what I was.
Speaker 5: Saying exactly, Like, why is he signing Gasser?
Speaker 11: Yeah he can, Gasper doesn't really help him. Gasper explicitly
says that whether there's like talk about moral obligation, right,
does the pope have a moral obligation to pull the bishops? Well,
Gasper says that the person who decides whether or not
there is a moral obligation is the pope. So it's
always the pope at the end of the day, Pope
decides everything.
Speaker 14: VP two, Paul Benedict and I have consensus of scholars
here in front of me. If you want to get
into what Vatican One actually taught from actual Catholic theologians.
Speaker 10: So wait, why do we need the consensus scholars that again,
that's not even actually a principle in Rome Catholicism.
Speaker 14: I think I ran out of time.
Speaker 7: You have about ten seconds left if you want to continue.
Speaker 14: He says there were two ex cathedrals since eighteen fifty
four where doctor John Joy theologians of the Catholic Church
would disagree. He would look at a human vite as excral.
Speaker 10: Now he's citing fallible theologians of the Catholic Church to
dispute the number of ExCathedra statements of recent note. But again,
as I pointed out, doesn't that itself show that the
system is fraudulent. I mean, it's not even clear. And
he's going to fallible Catholic scholars and theologians to tell
us the ones that are infallible in the last century
or two. Hello, Like, that's epistemic nonsense.
Speaker 14: Will trump all the second saying females can be ordained
as ex cathedral as well. So it just depends on
who you ask.
Speaker 5: It just depends on who you ask. Well, Elijah, go ahead,
go ahead, Alex Oh, yeah, there's a big problem.
Speaker 11: And like, well, there are certain statements that are irreformable,
but we don't know.
Speaker 4: What they are exactly.
Speaker 5: I mean, he just said that it depends on who
you ask which ones are infallible. Oh good, because I
thought the papacy was there to tell us the things
that are infallible. But it turns out it depends on
who you ask.
Speaker 7: Oh right, all right, well, thank you, thank you for that.
Speaker 5: Ya. I got to hear that again because that was
the scholars here in front of me.
Speaker 14: If you want to get into what Vatican One actually
taught from actual Catholic the elosions, and I think.
Speaker 5: I wait, so how do we know who the actual
Kloic delogions are too?
Speaker 10: By the way, because he's saying Vatican One is elucidated
by the actual klic de elogians. Well, I thought the
infallible document was the thing that is the deciding final interpreter.
But no, no, we need the fallible interpreters to interpret.
We need the fallible to come and interpret the fallible.
Speaker 3: This was my.
Speaker 10: Critique in my papal circularity video seven years ago. And
then he's basically just repeating that the time.
Speaker 7: You have about ten seconds left.
Speaker 5: If you want to continue, I want to hear that depends.
Speaker 7: You have about a difference.
Speaker 14: Or difference with that distinction, what have you? He looks
at O'Malley, great congratulations. I look at polpious and knights
with bishops who are at Vatican one. German bishops were
a Vatican one gasser who was set out in the
Vatican One to explain Paopal fallibility before they Votedfessler Newman,
JP two, Paul Benedict, and I have consensus of scholars
here in front of me, if you want to get
into what Vatican One actually taught from actual Catholic Theolosians.
And I think I ran out of time.
Speaker 7: You have about ten seconds left if you want to continue.
Speaker 14: He says there were two ex cathedrals since eighteen fifty
four where doctor John Joy, theologian of the Catholic Church
would disagree. He would look at a human vite as excathedro,
and Pope Trumpaul the second saying females can be ordained
as ex cathedral as well. So it just depends on
who you ask.
Speaker 5: So it just depends on who you ask in terms
of what's ex cathedral. I mean, do you do you
guys in the audience not see the epistemic problem that
I constantly harp on there?
Speaker 7: Oh my gosh, oh right, all right, well, thank you,
thank you. For that, y'all see. And at this point, yeah,
he would lose justin I'm with you, it's you had
a five minute I do.
Speaker 11: Have another PowerPoint slide for that.
Speaker 5: Okay, Dang, dude, Alex is over here drawing up freaking
PowerPoint slides on the on the flash.
Speaker 4: Dude, I already what I wanted.
Speaker 10: I was gonna say, it'd be funny if you like
made the PowerPoint as he was doing.
Speaker 14: Okay.
Speaker 11: So I did anticipate that Elijah would go into honorifics
a bit. For basically for almost every quote exalting role,
there's a corresponding quote to other major sees, like Saint
Ignatia says that the church in Philadelphia was established by
God Elijah standards.
Speaker 10: This is great because this is a again classic loft
Lofton Loftonism here.
Speaker 11: And the church in Philadelphia also was divinely instituted because
it was established in the agreement of God. If you
apply Elijah yasse standards to I of Antioch.
Speaker 5: To his church.
Speaker 10: I remember when Lofton first said this argument against UBI,
and I was talking to Ubi on the phone, and
my first thought was God established the Jewish Temple.
Speaker 3: So what I mean.
Speaker 5: Was immediately destroyed. Multiple temples were destroyed.
Speaker 11: So Ephesians, the Church and emphesis was forday ANDed before
the ages by God, which I mean that shows divine
institution of the Church and Ephicods. Saint Ignatius also says
that the Church and Smyrna is second to none in
every good gift, which.
Speaker 10: By the way, and I'm not trying to claim like, oh,
I've found this, but I did notice reading Basil's letters
back in twenty twenty or twenty nineteen, I did a
livestream on Basil's letters on this that he was using
all this terminology calling the Church of Antioch the head
of the body from which all the other you know,
churches draw sustenance, et cetera.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 10: And I've never heard Roman Catholics make that work, right,
if you wanted to make your system work, as they're
trying to do to make all this mesh together, they.
Speaker 5: Never touch on those.
Speaker 10: They just really handwave. Yeah, it doesn't matter what Basil
said about church. Well, but wait a minute, because you're
saying that that honorific terminology about Rome proves vaticant one.
But that's selectively choosing evidence and ignoring other evidences that
would go contrary to it, because if you're going to
be consistent and make this whole thing work, you're just
assuming the thing in question, right, Because if the Roman
Catholic position is true, then it makes sense why you
would dismiss Basil calling Antiog the head. But if the
Roman Caalthy position isn't true, and if it's the thing.
Speaker 5: In question, you can't just appeal to.
Speaker 10: The Rome is the head, et cetera without dealing with
the other patristic doctors of the church, citations of the
other churches having the same honorific terminology. It just becomes
a double standard and it becomes arbitrary supremacist.
Speaker 11: Well, yeah, I was like it was a question doing
a super chat that were like, how do you just
thing which between the honorifics that have meaning and the
honorifics that don't. So my point here is that, like
he's totally inconsistent which honorifics have weight in which a don'ts?
Speaker 5: And why is it only the word Why is it
only the honorifics about Rome to have weight? That's the
thing here, right, because.
Speaker 11: He asked standards and his method of interpretation to this letter.
Speaker 5: And you know what we're going to say.
Speaker 10: And I don't mean this to be again mean, but
you know something I've noticed for twenty years plus years
debating Roman Catholics and debating within Roman Catholicism. You know,
they just don't understand like questioning and and they don't
understand internal critiques. They don't understand system level defeaters. They
don't understand questioning presuppositions. They just cannot grasp it. And
that's why the whole thing, as we saw with Trent
and as we see in other Roman Catholic apologists, is
they just appeal to things just being self evident. It
just is, it's just just the execut theeds, what's manifestly executhed.
But yeah, but don't you understand that that doesn't work.
Speaker 5: That's a circle and you believe as a classical foundational
list that you can't be circular?
Speaker 11: Second to none in every good gift? Wait, I thought
Rome had the most powerful spiritual gift? Did they forget
about the gift of Infallida?
Speaker 5: Oh that's a good point, right, Why would Basil speak
that way? Did he forget that that honorific is actually
not appropriate for Antioch? That's a really good.
Speaker 11: Point second to none in every good gift. Uh, the
Saint Ignatius says that the only bishop above Saint Paulycarp
is God, the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. So
I mean, I guess he forgot also universal jurisdiction and supremacy.
Speaker 10: Now, this is something that I always point out, and uh,
this quote from Alex here illustrates it. When you say
stuff like this, this becomes the oh, we'll see the
papacy evolved. You see, it's a doctrinal development. They didn't
really it wasn't really clear yet. But at the same time,
all those same apologists argue that as Vatican One and
sideast coming uten say, no, it was.
Speaker 5: Actually always the case stood from the earliest days. So
this is a movable system.
Speaker 10: It's a if you need to argue on the one
hand that it was always there, it's always there, when
you have all these quotes like this, I'd say it
wasn't always there. It was something that was you know,
doctrial developments.
Speaker 5: Came to understand it centuries later. So it can't be
both of those. Those are mutually exclusive positions. And I
hammer this for years, and I still don't understand why
they don't get this. It should be.
Speaker 10: Easy to identify as a problem in terms of logic, right, Like,
I can't say, on the one hand that using the
universal quantifier, it was always the case that the earliest
days of the Church, the earliest fathers understood the Roman
see to have the view that Vatican one says. I
can't say that and also say, however, it was not
always the case, and it was a doctrine that developed
over many centuries. Those are mutually exclusive, and I have
yet to hear a Roman Catholic apologist address that objection.
You notice that most of their apologetics, by the way,
it relies on not ever addressing our actual arguments and
only addressing the quote minds, only.
Speaker 5: Addressing and putting out what abouts. That's it. When are
they actually going to address the actual arguments?
Speaker 10: You know, it's been in terms of online YouTube papal apologetics.
This is going back to twenty seventeen, so we're almost
ten years into this and they've not addressed specifically the arguments,
or if they have, I've just not seen it. Maybe
it went unnoticed in some live stream somewhere. But I'm
if you're a Roman Catholic apologist, out there and you're
watching this, I'd like to see some addressing of these
specific arguments, not straw men, not quote minds, these specific arguments.
Speaker 5: Ship of Rome.
Speaker 11: So we have Polycarpian papal supremacy here if we apply
Elijah Yasse's method of interpretation. Yeah, this is Bassi the
Great says that Antioch is the head of the whole body. Says, now,
what could be more vital to the churches of the world,
the whole world than the Church of Antiochy.
Speaker 5: This is the one our church. Return Basil's letters and
by the way, if you want to go back and
watch them, Joe Rogan just said if you type in
a lot of these old podcasts have been kind of
forgotten in the algorithm. But I think there's some value
in these. Right. We went through Basil's.
Speaker 10: Letters back in twenty or twenty nineteen, Roman Catholck's and
Protestants refuted by Nicea and Saint Basil.
Speaker 5: That's this one here, five or six years ago.
Speaker 10: So if you're if you want to go through some
of those letters and what Basil said. By the way,
Bezelos has other things in those letters too that are great,
Like Rome is actual actually worthless. He actually says Rome
has provided absolutely no help with the Malician schism. They
are worthless and can do nothing to help us. I
guess he just totally forgot Vatican want didn't he was
he was not understanding.
Speaker 5: The papal principles upon which the Church was always founded.
Speaker 11: When saying Rome was worthless state of control, nothing would
prevent its affording health in the manner of a sound
head to the whole body. So Antioch is the head,
Rome is the body. If you apply Elijah Assi's method
of interpretation here, Saint Besosa is that Saint Malitias is
the head of the whole body of the church, which
is like, I mean, what happened with that Malician schism?
I mean it was wrong. Rome was just like wrong
for forty.
Speaker 5: Yeah, find we gotta find that quote where says Rome
was worthless forty or.
Speaker 11: Fifty years, and then they just acquiesced, they confessed that
they were wrong for forty years. There's a prime example
of the head acting separate from the body, like forty
or fifty years. Saint Beelos says that Saint Athanasius is
the highest of all, which shows Alexandrian supremacy. It shows
that Saint Athanasius is the head of the church, that
communion with Alexandria makes you Christian.
Speaker 5: It's great.
Speaker 10: Actually, I'm glad that honorifics is now out here in
the apologetic discourse, because if you go back ten, fifteen,
twenty years in Roman Catholic apologetics, there wasn't even a
discussion or acknowledgement of honorifics. It was all just literal
just quote mine, that was it. You throw out twelve quote. Minds,
there we go. Vatican one is proven.
Speaker 5: But I'm glad that we've actually pushed and sort of forced, uh,
the discourse to be way more precise.
Speaker 11: And Saint Gregory the Theologian says that Saint Athanasius is
the fountain and life of the church and that he
had chief rule over the people in charge over them.
Speaker 5: This is a good one. I'm not even seen this quote.
Speaker 11: This is a new one to me the whole world.
Speaker 5: This is the I read the orations, but I just
didn't even notice this quote or didn't think about it.
Speaker 11: Same language that Elijah will point to to like prove
some sort of papal supremacy here or something. These are
just honorifics. Everybody talks like this about everyone. It doesn't
prove anything. Saint Gregory the Theologian said that Saint Tathanasius
legislated for the whole world without the aid of any coadjutor.
What happened to the Pope of Rome. Pope Agatho said
that the Emperor was inspired by the Holy Spirit. He
said that the Christian commonwealth divinely entrusted to your keeping
to the Emperor for these decrees, the Holy Spirit, by
his grace, dictated to the tongue of the Imperial pen.
So the Holy Spirit was speaking through the Emperor. If
you apply Elijah Yasse's method of interpretation to these honors.
Speaker 5: That's great. Guys. By the way, if you want to
support the stream, you can do so through superchats. Superchats
are done through stream lives preferably, but you can also
do it natively through YouTube. We've got a nice crowd.
Speaker 10: We had about eleven twelve hundred a minute ago, So
thank you for joining us today as we review the debate,
and we'll probably get.
Speaker 5: Into some cultural topics here in a little bit. Good Okay,
Thanks Alex, Thank you for your comments and great work tonight.
Thank you very much. By bye. I will take this
call here.
Speaker 10: In Ian curtis. What's up, man, I take a couple
of calls, break up the flow.
Speaker 5: What's up?
Speaker 3: What's going on?
Speaker 5: Man?
Speaker 4: Appreciate you.
Speaker 3: So I got a couple of questions here, come from a.
Speaker 20: Protestant background, actually working my way into finding an Orthodox
church Eastern nearest once like an hour and a half away.
But before I go there, I have a couple of
questions that I would like to be answered.
Speaker 3: Man, things like.
Speaker 20: I have a buddy of mine that that has me
kind of baffled. The the Anglican and Presbyterian Church claims
to have Apostolics accession, and well, I say, they claim,
you know, you see Redeemed Zoomer speaking on some of these.
Speaker 10: Let let's be precise here. They claim that it's a
doctrinal succession. It is not in history oracle laying on
of hands bishop to bishop succession.
Speaker 4: Okay, okay, okay.
Speaker 10: But we say with Saint Paul to Timothy, he says,
I laid hands on you. Don't lay hands on anyone hastily,
because the gift of the Holy Spirit is giving in
the laying on of hands. And the Orthodox Church holds
that and the the Protestant churches specifically, as far as
I'm aware, do not acknowledge a transferring of the Holy
Spirit through the laying on of hands.
Speaker 4: Absolutely, Okay.
Speaker 20: So a couple more questions, So would would meet leaving
the the Protestant Church and views and going into Orthodoxy
be considered ecent of schism because he brought that up,
and I don't understand how that would even correlate. But
I would just like your your your views and understanding
on that.
Speaker 10: No, I mean, what you believe is schism will be
dependent on your worldview and which religion you're in. So
if Orthodoxy is true, they're the ones in heresinan schism.
So again that that really just depends on you know,
which one's right, and that's the thing in question. So
for the Orthodox Church, No, there are not thousands of
churches that are all in schism. There's only one mystical body,
which is the Holy Orthodox Church.
Speaker 4: That's it, okay.
Speaker 20: And I have a bunch of the I was going
to ask which books to look into as well, And
I understand the way that y'all kind of go about it.
You'll start off with Christendom and Christology. I'm sorry, christology first,
instead of working almost backwards.
Speaker 10: Yeah, we don't start with with soteriology. So we start
with like the doctrine of the deed of Christ and
the Trinity, which is what the Council's kind of laid out,
and then so teiology flows from that. So if you
read you know, efthanacious on the incarnation, if you read
uh basils on the Holy Spirit, appreciate that.
Speaker 5: Guys.
Speaker 10: If you want to help me get to the goal tonight,
you can with the super chats. Appreciate that big one there.
Aleron says God bless you and thank you for your works. Well,
thank you, man, I appreciate that. Good to see you
back in the chat.
Speaker 5: I haven't seen you around in a while. Glad you're
back prefix.
Speaker 11: The papal legates at that real eighth Ecumenical Council of Age.
Speaker 5: You want. I'm mute? Is that Alpha Omega?
Speaker 1: Oh?
Speaker 11: Hey?
Speaker 4: Hey?
Speaker 8: What's up?
Speaker 17: Man?
Speaker 14: Hey?
Speaker 13: I was I just came to argue with you about
about miss Candas, but I don't.
Speaker 5: Want to do he no, no, no, we can talk
about that real quick. What's up?
Speaker 14: Oh?
Speaker 17: Cool?
Speaker 3: Well, what was your what did you want to debate?
What was your like specific issue.
Speaker 5: I mean, I'm sure you have a ton, but uh, well,
I think that I think obviously obviously the story that
Mitch snow tells is preposterous.
Speaker 3: So gotcha.
Speaker 13: Do you just have contentions with her the Mitch no
stuff or is it like Candice in general as a.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 10: I just think that that was a huge blow to
her credibility to keep doubling down on that guy who's
obvious fraud on man.
Speaker 3: Yeah, could be. I think it's weird.
Speaker 9: So this is sort of like we all have to
admit that this sort of.
Speaker 3: Open real time.
Speaker 13: Where somebody serves as a central hub for people, like
you know, within TPUSA because a lot of the stuff
we wouldn't even know about. If she wasn't a sort
of person that people trusted they could go to and
know something, it would be disseminated and early on, like
tons of information about TPUSA came out that ended up
being verified because of her.
Speaker 4: So, yeah, I'm with you.
Speaker 13: It's definitely like weird to watch this scenario unfold where
we all have to watch an investigation play out that's messy,
that's super that has super high stakes and everyone's has
an emotional Uh uh uh, stuck in you know, certain
emotional feelings about about the people involved.
Speaker 4: So it is weird.
Speaker 1: I'll give you that.
Speaker 13: I you know, I don't know what's going to play off,
but I think she's doing it in good faith.
Speaker 4: She might be getting played, but.
Speaker 3: I think that it's uh.
Speaker 4: I think she has good intuition, at least so far.
Speaker 5: But you know, how did How would you Why would
you believe that.
Speaker 10: A guy with a criminal record just stumbled on on
on the base in the midst of a bunch of
colonels planning and assassin Do you think that's how assassinations
are are done?
Speaker 3: So?
Speaker 5: I don't know, that's you don't know. Have you ever
read a book all assassinations or how black ops go?
Speaker 14: So?
Speaker 13: Brian Harple, Brian Harple is so Candice has been saying
that she thinks this is a military op from the
get go, right, and Brian Harple, who's the center point
of why Carli Charlie was assassinated? I mean, it all
really falls on.
Speaker 10: Can you give me an example of a situation or
any piece of evidence where colonels were standing at a
military base and planned an assassination that somebody could just
stumble into.
Speaker 13: So specifically, Brian Harple being at a military base.
Speaker 5: What does somebody being at a military base have to
do with anything?
Speaker 14: Why?
Speaker 5: So, can you hear the question that I'm actually asking.
Speaker 13: I'm trying to give you context because the security apparatus
of people are usually the weakest links of how people.
Speaker 5: What does that have to do with colonels? Twelve colonels
at a military.
Speaker 13: Base, because Brian Harple could be there to talk to
you just.
Speaker 5: Keep saying this guy's name. I'm not regardless of this.
What is the precedent for twelve dudes at a military base.
Speaker 10: That are colonels just standing around planning an assassination? Do
you think that's how assassinations go down?
Speaker 3: So?
Speaker 13: I think you're you made up that scenario.
Speaker 5: We don't know how I made that up. That's that's
his claim.
Speaker 13: He never said anything about them planning an assassination. He
just said he saw him there, that you made up
that story.
Speaker 5: I mean maybe that I made that up.
Speaker 2: Uh huh.
Speaker 13: No one has ever said that they were planning an
assassination there. The question is why is the person who
let Charlie get assassinated, who doesn't have a military background
at a military base the day prior. And that's just
the question who knows, like, because I mean, what do
you do though as an investigator, because if you're like
the FBI, imagine all the stupid roads they go down
in secret that we never know about.
Speaker 10: Have you can you tell me a one book that
you've read on geopolitics or assassinations.
Speaker 13: I've read every single book it exists.
Speaker 5: Okay, it's troll, So hey, thanks for wasting my time. Man,
Good job, dude. So there we go. So there we go.
See the experts are out, the experts are ready, and
uh no one made the claim. Yes they did. He
claimed to have seen.
Speaker 10: What was it, eleven colonels or twelve colonels And well,
you didn't say that they were.
Speaker 5: No, he said that.
Speaker 10: He implied they were assassinating. They're playing the assassination. Because
Erica Kirk was there, he did say that what these
people are just like I think Rachel's right, a lot
of these people this is their first like conspiracy candy event,
and so they just automatically assume that. I mean, I've
interviewed the most famous living hitman, so I do know
more about this than any of these people.
Speaker 18: What's up, man, Jake, how much do you think that
the rise of the papacy as a geopolitical institution can
really be traced back to the decline of the western
portion of the Empire, Like as the center of economic
and military powder started to move east, don't you think
that the papacy sort of stepped in to fill a
vacuum sort of.
Speaker 10: Speak that the Yeah, I think that's universally recognized to
be part of the big part of it.
Speaker 18: Yeah, going all the way back to what Leo the Third,
who's basically had his life saved by Charlemagne.
Speaker 5: So you have to con well, I even remember reading.
I've got old Roman Catholic books like Faith of Our Fathers.
I've got like an old first edition of that, which
I think even it even has its on that. Let
me show you. So, I mean, this is like freaking
you come in this room.
Speaker 10: This is like Dumbledore's layer in here, dude, except except straight,
Like I'm not gay Dumbledore.
Speaker 5: I'm straight Dumbledore.
Speaker 10: And I'm also hot, I'm not ugly like Dumbledore. So
when you come in this layer, dude, you've got like archives, bro,
this is like the anti Vatican library over here.
Speaker 5: Check this out. So this is a Faith of Our
Fathers by Colonel Gibbon. And I want to say, I
haven't looked at this in a long time. This is
an eighteen ninety copy.
Speaker 10: Look at this, So these Ron mcalleys don't even know, bro, Like,
I've got damn archives up in here, dude, it's it's
dumbledoors archives up in here.
Speaker 5: Check that out, Isn't there cool?
Speaker 10: I want to say, even this was arguing and admitting,
I think he has a chapter on.
Speaker 5: The Papal states.
Speaker 18: Go ahead, no, I said, I just think that that's
a history that has to be considered and it doesn't
get talked about enough on the Roman Catholic side.
Speaker 5: And just real quick before I go earlier.
Speaker 10: Yes, I am correct, I am correct, I am correct.
Hold on, so if we look right here, where's the
scene with the freaking I lost a scene?
Speaker 5: Hold on? There we go. So notice here.
Speaker 10: This is funny too, because in this chapter on the
temporal power of the Popes, that right there, temporal power
of the popes, how they acquire that in peral power?
The validity and justice of that title, what the popes
have done for the city of Rome.
Speaker 5: That's one sixty two.
Speaker 10: So get all the way back to eighteen ninety, with
Cardinal Gibbons making that argument.
Speaker 18: Go ahead, right, No, so, just in closing the Hercules,
dude from earlier was clearly trolling. I don't know if
you noticed, but his profile bio said EO Saint Augustine,
pray for.
Speaker 4: Us, which is just why would you put that in
a bio?
Speaker 10: Well, I mean these are probably like twenty year olds.
He claims these cradle orthodox. I don't think that's true.
Speaker 5: Natalie, what's up? We can hop on the canvas we
get in debate.
Speaker 10: Sweet Candy, listen, if you're going to be spitting out
how assassinations go down, I expect that you've at least
read one book on it, at least one. Give me
you've read one geopolitical breakdown. And I don't mean a
conspiracy crazy you know. I'm not talking about you picked
up f and Fritz Springmeer's book and read twenty pages.
I'm talking about some real black ops book something.
Speaker 5: Natalie, what's up. I'm mute. I'm mute, Natalie, unmute, Okay,
don't sky Daddy, what's up, sky Daddy? I'm mute.
Speaker 11: Hello, Hey, hey man.
Speaker 3: I just wanted to say I appreciate all the stuff
you do.
Speaker 12: You've helped bring me and my family into Orthodoxy, and
I really appreciate all you do on YouTube.
Speaker 3: I just wanted to throw something in there.
Speaker 11: I did.
Speaker 12: Uh ten years in the military pop secret security clearance.
Speaker 5: And worked around.
Speaker 10: A lot of information like that, and so all the
colonels just get together and random dudes can just stumble
into the skiff and.
Speaker 4: Exactly no, you're exactly right.
Speaker 12: I couldn't stumble across twelve kernels if.
Speaker 4: I fucking wanted to. And it's not like they're all
just fucking yeah.
Speaker 10: Dude, that's not how an assassination would even be planned.
It's so so stupid, Like, yeah.
Speaker 12: It's so preposterous when I hear people say shit like
that when they speculate.
Speaker 4: But yeah, I just wanted to throw that in there.
It's just ridiculous.
Speaker 5: Appreciate that. Yeah, exactly blaze. What's up, dude, Yeah, were
about to get blazed.
Speaker 4: I've come to talk to Ganda the well straight, not.
Speaker 3: The gay.
Speaker 1: Well.
Speaker 10: I'm Dumbledore the straight, So welcome to my later Harry
I McKellen is gay.
Speaker 9: I know I'm aware, Gandalf Gayham, you know, so i'd
be talking a lot of Roman Catholics, and I bring
up Constance and one a lot.
Speaker 21: I bring up how Melitos wasn't in uh in communion
with Rome. I bring up how the fact that they
basically there was no patriarch of Rome, there there was
no Western legates at the council, and how all this
type of stuff, and Roman Catholics they kind of just
defer to this like statement where they say, oh, well
that council wasn't really considered binding until Rome ratified it.
Speaker 5: At calcl On, so they're just restating the Roman Kellic views.
So yeah, well that's the thing in question. So all
the people who were at the council and all the people.
Speaker 10: In the East to accept it it thought it was binding.
So all you're telling me is that you, as a
Roman Catholic, don't think it was binding until the pope
accepted it, which is to tell me nothing.
Speaker 21: It's just every time I have this conversation, it's just
oh yeah, these guys are just solo tier.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 21: I bring up I bring up, like, you know, the
Phodian Council with John the Eighth literally condemning the Philioque,
and they're like they just handwave it, you know, it's like, dude, it's.
Speaker 5: It's well, that's the thing with with with the wayte
systems work, and that's what we learn from this. Appreciate
that call.
Speaker 10: This illustrates the point that people do not believe or
are they're not convinced by positions purely or merely on
the basis of evidences, facts, et cetera. Sometimes they are,
but there's a complicated human psychology at work here with
the way worldviews work, where a lot of times people
don't have virtuous choices for they don't have intellectual honesty,
and they don't have a virtue ethic. So it doesn't
even require loving and seeking the truth. It's really just
making it what you want to be true.
Speaker 5: That's the difference here.
Speaker 10: We have to first say I'm gonna submit to what's
true no matter what. That's the only way to come
to the truth. As long as you are propping it
up regardless of whether it's true or not, just because
you want it to be true. That's the big flaw here.
That's where you're going to go wrong. That's where you're
going to be caught in some sort of Look every
person in a cult, it's no different than people in cults, right,
People in cults are like, you can't really reason with
them because all the reasoning, all the evidences, all the
counter factual data gets dismissed or reinterpreted to fit the paradigm.
That's why it's so important and so powerful and the
only thing that really cures people coming out of this
stuff intellectually speaking, I mean, you can come out of
it without an intellectual stuff. It's to actually question the paradigm.
That's why we stress paradigms and worldviews so much, is
because that's the key. And Soren said the same thing.
You know, we did a previous podcast on that. Uh, Andrew,
what's up?
Speaker 5: By the way, I was having I'm having fun debating
other topics.
Speaker 10: So if anybody wants to debate Candice or sneak O
or this other stuff, raise your hand. I will bring
you right up, but you better come with some good
information or some good evidence or some something.
Speaker 4: What's up, hi Jay? Not comeing to uh to debate?
Speaker 7: Just just a question?
Speaker 4: So sorry if that's.
Speaker 3: So.
Speaker 22: I'm a prost. I just got I've got two questions
on stuff. I'm just kind of trying to work through
some genuine question not trying to argue.
Speaker 3: They I.
Speaker 22: I guess the two kind of go a little bit together.
The intercessory prayers of the saints I've seen, like the
articulation of like the windows into heaven, or like kissing
the icons, like kissing a picture of like loved one,
or something like that.
Speaker 4: When I'm struggling to understand.
Speaker 5: I make the argument of Revelation five through nine.
Speaker 1: If that