Speaker 1: The over has to wait.
Speaker 2: The do.
Speaker 3: The Buddha, the.
Speaker 2: The the the the the the.
Speaker 3: The the the the the the.
Speaker 2: The the the the the the the the.
Speaker 3: The the the the the.
Speaker 2: The the.
Speaker 3: The the.
Speaker 2: The the the the the the the the the the.
Speaker 3: The the 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.
Speaker 3: Build the.
Speaker 2: The the the the.
Speaker 3: The the the.
Speaker 2: The the the the the the the the the the.
Speaker 3: The dop the.
Speaker 2: The the the the.
Speaker 3: The the.
Speaker 2: The the the the.
Speaker 3: The the the the the the the.
Speaker 2: The the the the the.
Speaker 3: The the the.
Speaker 2: The the the.
Speaker 3: 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.
Speaker 3: The the the the the build the do.
Speaker 2: The the.
Speaker 3: The the the the.
Speaker 2: The the the the the the.
Speaker 4: Alright, alright, alright, alright, alright they like hell if you
did what's up? Welcome everybody. It's still ongoing, so we're
still here ready to refute, and today the other Trent,
who is not much better, has decided to chime it.
But I want to remind you that this is the
same guy who not long ago debated with me and
argued that the Old Testament doesn't teach the Triad. The
Old Testament saints didn't have a faith in the Triad,
and multiple times on Twitter before he erased his entire Twitter,
told me that triad is an Aryan term, not even
realizing that it's the term that his own Uniate church
uses for the Trinity. So he doesn't even know that
in the Greek as an Eastern right Catholic speaking of
Trent Horne, the term that's used is triad. So this
is a person who literally has no knowledge of the
differences between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics on the
Trinity at a very serious level. So I'm sure he
knows that there's Philly Oakua or whatever, but this is
not going to be I don't think to academic of
a reply. Trent is a pop apologist. As we saw
in the debate between me and Trent Horn, Trent was
unfamiliar with a lot of very basic philosophical ideas. Epistemology, foundationalism,
self evidence, criterion problem, all of those were completely over
his head. So I don't expect this to be too hardcore.
We'll see what we've got I don't exactly know where
he's going to go. So this came out today. I
wanted to be ready to respond. So like you guys,
I'm going to be fresh on the scene, you know
what I mean, And we're going to see what Trent
Horn presents that could perhaps salvage this position, which it
can't be salvaged. And tens, if not hundreds of thousands
of people are waking up to this. If you saw.
Of course, ap debated the other goober, Trent, last night,
and it was a disaster. That guy said that he
believes that Jews are automatically saved. He says that at
one point, he says, Muslims have the Gospel, kid, you not.
So I mean, totally vindicated on the insanity of this
other guy. But again, Trent Horn is not much better.
Trent Horn, as his other Catholic co religionists point out,
is actually a feminist. So we're talking about a feminist
Roman Catholic apologist whose wife degrades and makes fun of
him publicly and admitted on a podcast that she fell
in love with another man at her workplace, again cucking
Trent publicly. I say that not to be mean, but
to point out that the people that we're dealing with,
especially in this sphere, usually not. In the case of
Tim Gordon, Tim Gordon's pretty stout buff dute. I think
he would probably beat me up in a debate. The
other dudes, for the most part, the rest of the
sphere low tea and soy. So that's another element of
problem that's going on with a lot of these weird, slimy, passive,
aggressive theology nerds in the Roman Catholic world is full
of that. That's why Benedict enjoys the gay acrobats at
the Vatican. So let's get into it. Let's hear Trent's arguments.
He's gonna convince us that Muslims, Christians and Jews maybe
you do or do not. Let's see what he says.
Speaker 1: So there's been a lot of discussion online related to
the question do Christians and Muslims worship the same God.
The discussion was spurred on by a debate on Timpoole
podcast and a debate on Capturing Christian Sianity, where the
Eastern Orthodox guest used it to argue that Catholicism is false.
I wasn't planning on addressing this issue.
Speaker 4: The Eastern Orthodox guest, Trent doesn't want to use my name,
even though we've already had a debate together. My name
is becoming like in David Lynch's Dune, a killing name.
Uh wadeb is a killing word. So Trent doesn't want
to say it, even though obviously he knows who I am.
That to me is funny. By the way, if you
want to support the stream, you can do so super
jazz right there. So let's see what else Trent has
to say.
Speaker 1: Two, Because my colleagues Joe Heshmeier and Jimmy Aiken have
already addressed this question on their own channels, and I
try not to address topics other people have already covered,
but I got a lot of requests to talk about it,
and there are a few arguments that I can offer
that compliment what Joe and Jimmy have already said. And
there's also some objective that have come up since then.
Speaker 4: By the way, Jimmy Aiken is the guy who says
that Nestorius wasn't a Nestorian, and one of the video
clips he says that we now know Arias wasn't as
bad either, So that's the way you're getting from these gubers.
Speaker 1: That I can address. So let's jump right in. First,
I want to be clear that I don't like the
phrasing Muslims and Christians worship the same God. That sounds
like we're saying the God of Christianity and the God
of Islam are identical in all respects, which is false.
Speaker 4: Yeah, but that's the language that your Vatican two documents use, Trent.
Do we need to rehearse this again? Lumingentem sixteen Along
with us, they were ship and adore the One Merciful God?
Are they adore? Excuse me? They value the moral life
and worship capital g God, same God they adore, the
One True God. So Trent's initial objection right away is
admitting that quote. He doesn't like the term, but the
term is his own church's term. So now Trent knows
better than the Vatican two documents. And I would add
that to thank you to Let's talk God, who found
the meeting with the young Muslims that we read in
last Night's Dream from John Paul the Second in nineteen
eighty five, where he says even stronger wording in terminology
than Vatican Two's documents about worshiping, loving, and serving the
same God as Muslims, so Trent does not care apparently
what his own popes and magisterial teachings say. Trent knows
better false.
Speaker 1: The Christian God is a trinity of three distinct divine persons, father, son,
and Holy Spirit. The God of Islam is, in contrast,
a single infinite person who has other different attributes, though
both concepts also have many overlapping attributes as well. It
is silly, though, to say Islam does not worship the
true God. Though simply because Muslims call God Allah Allah
is the Arabic.
Speaker 4: Word for God, nobody here has made this argument.
Speaker 1: It's the same word Arabic speaking Christians use when they
refer to God. So the name Allah isn't the main issue.
But I still don't think it's prudent to make the
claim Muslims and Christians worship the same God. You can
show that claim is true, but you have to qualify it.
Speaker 4: Oh the uh, No, you can't actually show that that
name that the it's true because, as we saw in
multiple streams and multiple responses, worship is a very specific
theological term, and the way that that God is worshiped
will be dependent upon how that God says he has
to be worshiped. For example, a Muslim does not believe
that a Christian worships the same God as him, because
from the Muslim vantage point, we are idolators for having icons,
images or thinking that Jesus is divine. So in their perspective,
for example, it's not the same God because the worship
is not accurate, it is polluted with idolatry, and therefore
it is vain and unacceptable worship. And this is why
it's forced so many Roman Catholics this week when we
bring this up to argue that God accepts even the
worship of Pagans because Pagans, according to Acts seventeen, believe
in and worship one God. No they don't. In fact,
that is not what Paul is saying. So let's take
a look at that. Because I brought that up today
on Twitter. There was a syncretist guy who had a
comment saying that all the religion's words of the same God,
basically making a free Masonic statement, and he was getting
like two thousand likes and shares, and so I replied
to him, No, Paul does not say that Pagans worship
the one True God because in Act seventeen, he says,
the one that you worship, you worship without knowing the
point of the passage, even using the rhetorical example of
having an idol to an unknown God, is that that's
the one that's the true God, the one you don't know.
He's not saying that they actually know and worship that
God in any sense, in any true sense, because Paul
also says explicitly qualifying that in Romans one, the Pagans
exchange the truth of God for a lie and worship
and serve the creature rather than the Creator. In Paul's mind,
it's either or you don't worship demons but also worship God.
You don't worship God through worshiping a demon, you don't
worship God at all. When the sacrifices of the Pagans
are offered to two demons and not to God First
Corinthians ten twenty. So this immediately refutes the nonsense that
just because Acts seventeen says that there's an unknown God,
or that Paul cites a pagan poet that he's equating
the worship. Those two passages right there tell you that
Paul clearly does not mean that both from Paul, so
Roman Catholics don't care that the other passages explain and
qualify what Paul means. They just want it to be
Any worship is accidentally, indirectly, somehow getting to the triying God.
If that's the case, there's no such thing as idolatry.
There is no longer false idolatrous worship, because every worship,
every veneration, passes on to God in some generic, elastic,
lowest common denominator sense. But as we know from Scripture,
God insists many many times over that He must be
worshiped the way He lays down. If you go back
to the time of Moses, when God gives Moses this
pattern of liturgical worship with all of these specifications and
all of these iconographic things like the imagery within the
temple and the show bred and the incense and the
Brazen Sea, and the arc of the Covenant with the
seraphim on it, and the Holy of Holies, all of
this ornate, elaborate imagery is very particular and very precise.
And even in that dispensation, I'm not saying dispensationalism. That
dispensation when someone who did know and worship the True
God did it in a way that was not appropriate,
that is rejected. So Nadab and Abaihu being in the
Covenant and knowing the One True God, worshiping him in
a creative, made up way in Leviticus results in them
being killed and their worship being vain and not accepted.
How much more so outside of the Church, outside of
the Covenant people would the vain, superstitious worship of the
Pagans be to a demon and not to God. This
is the kill shot for this stupid perennialist argument, clear
as day now. And let's do another reminder, because people
apparently don't know that is Islam is a religion like Judaism,
that is predicated on Unitarianism and the explicit rejection of
Trinity and deed of Christ. Therefore they do not love
Adoor or worship the trying not. Therefore, as John says,
whoever denies the Son, Muslims and Jews does not have
God the Father. Therefore they do not have access. Their
worship is not accepted, it is vain and superstitious.
Speaker 1: Wise, people will think that you're committing religious and differentism.
It's sort of like the claim Catholics worship Mary that
claim is true, but it has to be qualified so
people don't think you're committing idolatry. Catholics give Mary the
respect she is worth. They give Mary her worthsship, since
Luke one forty eight says all generations will call Mary blessed,
but Catholics do not give Mary honor that is due
to God alone. Otherwise, Muslims and Christians both worship God,
but Muslims and Christians don't offer God the same kind
of worship. And when we look at the question in
this way we can find clarity amidst disagreement.
Speaker 4: What makes this But the point is that you can
only worship God the way that God lays down. That's why,
for example, in First Corinthians, Paul castigates the church at
Corinth for polluting and messing up the divine liturgy and
the Eucharist by doing it in an irreverent way, and
thus them bringing upon themselves a potential death sentence by
eating and drinking unworthily, just like Native and Abay Whu.
Eating and drinking unworthily makes the worship worthless in vain
even within the Covenant. Thus, outside of the Covenant, it
is not really proper at all to think of worship
in a true sense other than the way that Roman
Catholics are doing it, to retool the word, to make
it mean an assent mentally to propositions of the magisterium,
or to propositions that Muslims, Christians and Jews hold in common. So,
in other words, it's a stack it up sort of.
Let's go from the bottom up and say, okay, well,
look we believe in one God. It's an eternal being.
It's a first cause those are in common. So isn't
it therefore the same reference as far the deacon showed
in the original debate, they're the second debate. The way
that we go about explaining a type of deity or
a thing that is not a natural object. It's more
like a set of things, and if you remove any
one thing, you don't have the same set anymore. So
it's like the same with the attributes of God. If
I start listening divine attributes and I remove one of them,
even if I have the other nine correct, it's a
different reference now because I'm saying that I worship the
God is that is these nine attributes, but not the
tenth attribute of being on to present for example, Muslims
do not believe that God is omnipresent. I don't know
if Trent knows that. But God Allah is not present
in time and space. He does not come down into
time and space, so he's not omnipresent the way that
we think. Allah also is a deity that creates and
destroys creation at every middle millisecond in an occasionalist sense.
So creation and creator doesn't mean the same thing as
a Christian. Thus, even the attributes that many people think
are quote in common that would somehow make it a
common reference a common deity, are actually not common. Their
words are similar, but the meanings given to the words
are completely different. But really all of natural theology hinges
on a word concept bait and switch, And that's exactly
what Trent and I debated, and that's why most people
believe that Trent lost the bait, even Roman Catholics, because
Trent taught that the Old Testament is a Unitarian revelation
and it's not a revelation of the Trinity. Because Trent
doesn't know what the scriptures actually teach. And what we're
learning through a lot of this debate and discussion is
that many Roman Catholics are woefully ignorant on biblical theology
and the basics of biblical theology.
Speaker 1: Question difficult for people to discuss is that many people
have a very narrow definition of worship. Worship is just
giving God all the honor God is due, and.
Speaker 4: That is not what worship essentially is. That's a very
broad statement that you could say, Okay, yeah, we give
God the honor, but how do we give God the
honor in the way that God lays down. This is
why Roman Catholics always argue against Protestants that Protestants are
essentially failing at worship because they don't have a eucharistic
altar and sacrifice. Yes, Protestants believe that Jesus died on
the cross and that was a sacrifice, but they have
discarded that eucharistic central to worship that's ongoing at an altar,
and to most pop apologists in the Roman Callic sphere,
they love to make the argument that Protestants therefore do
not really worship God. They might have a mental assent,
but the actual holistic worship, which is the entire person,
the entire being of the person. This is why the
liturgy both in the East and the West includes the
whole man. It's not just a mental assent. It's also
actually eating God, it's actually partaking of it's bowing down,
it's crossing yourself. It's all of these actions that are
including the physical body just as much as the mind.
And Romancalolics don't even have this. For Orthodox the heart.
Keep in mind, in the Roman Catholic system, there is
no noose or heart doctrine. They don't believe that. They
believe in the Augustinian and Thomistic idea that its body
and soul, and for them, soul is essentially primarily identified
with the intellect. So for them, salvation is ultimately an
intellectual vision of the divine essence. This is known as
the Beatypic vision. This is why for them, when they
talk about worship, it's in that context of a mental
assent to a vision of God's essence. Ultimately, that's the
highest form of worship. For the Orthodox, that is not
the highest form of worship. We do agree that there
is an intellectual faculty in man, but we think that
as Romans one says, man's heart as a result of
the fall is darkened, and the heart is not identical
to the intellect or the mind. The heart is the
innermost being, the spirit in man, which is why Paul
talks about body, soul, and spirit. He lists three things.
Roman Catholics, they only believe the two. So the whole
man is deified. The whole man participates in worship, which
is why we taste and see that the Lord is good,
the fountain of immortality as we see in the liturgy,
and why the whole body is involved in worship. Kissing, praying, kneeling, bowing.
All of these things go into the holistic element of
man being involved in worship, which is because the resurrection
is not just an intellectual resurrection. It's a resurrection of
body and soul and spirit coming back together after death. Thus,
the body plays a key role in the esketon and
in the resurrected state. These people don't really realize that
because for them, the eschatological state is an intellectual vision
of the divine essence. For the Orthodox, there's a new
heavens and a new Earth, and it's mirrored and patterned
on the resurrected body that you see at the end
of the Gospel of John that Jesus possesses. Jesus has
a new body that walks through walls, and that can
appear and disappear, and yet he can still eat and
it still has physicality even though it's deified flesh. According
to Saint Cyril of Alexandria, that's the deified flesh that
we're eating in the Eucharist, which, by the way, disproves
the Roman Catholics in the debate with Father Deacon Antonius,
because they argue that you don't actually taste and see
God in the Eucharist, because they're being consistent with their
Tomistic theology, that it's all created causal effects and not
the actual uncreated divinity that you're participating in. I hope
you see this, because this, all of this nonsense the
last two weeks, three weeks is simply illustrating the vast
differences between the Orthodox view and these other pagan systems.
And I will include Rome in the pagan systems. It
should be evident now and on display for everyone all
the things that I've been telling you for the last
ten years. The entire Internet e religious world is able
to I'll see this that Rome has a severely heretical
and deficient position on all of these topics, whether it's
the anthropology and restricting man to a body soul duality
and leaving out the heart, or whether it is participation
in uncreated grace with their official created grace doctrine, or
whether it is the natural theology position that leads to
the perennialism that they're all end up defending now, or
whether it's the magisterial contradictions amongst the papal documents which
they ignore or explain away or just handwave or just
say it doesn't count. This is the rot of this
system that I've been telling you about for so long,
and people are now beginning to see it and figure
it out, and they're going into damage control. And every
time Cameron and his goober crew does another podcast and
another stream, they just keep tripling down and it gets
even worse for them. In fact, Trent Doherty is s
saying that Muslims have the Gospel. Wow, if that doesn't
show and tell you that this system leads to this
blindness and darkness, there's nothing that will tell you that.
Speaker 1: Is the Father's Son and Holy Spirit deserve honor. Refusing
to honor each of these persons as God means a
nontrinitarian can't worship God. Critics also say that the Bible
teaches that whoever denies the Son does not have the Father,
and that Pagans offer worship to demons, not God. Therefore,
they say, Muslims cannot be worshiping God. But we have
to be careful about taking a few proof texts and
using that to answer a complicated question. Zeus and Thor
do not exist, and if they have any effect on
the world, that's just the work of demons. And John
says the Antichrist doesn't have the Father. But in the
same letter he also says he who loves is born
of God.
Speaker 4: And know yeah, but loving is still contingent in terms
of being in the covenant and having the love of God.
So just saying that anyone that loves is of God
is not the sense that John means it. In one John,
He's not saying that anyone, even a Satanist, who loves
their spouse or their husband, is of God. That's completely false.
Speaker 1: Knows God, a person might not have God as a
covenantal father, but the Bible says non believers can have
God as the creator to whom they must give worship.
But before I share those verses.
Speaker 4: But let's look at Romans one, because this is again
and I don't think in Trent's video he actually mentioned
the Romans One passage because it's not a matter of
a couple proof texts. Thankfully, we actually have an entire
passage from Paul on the darkness of paganism and that
they do not honor and serve the Creator even in
the pagan world, even though they should. So let's take
a look at Romans one, for the wrath of God
is revealed against all ungodanists and russianness of men who
suppressed the truth and unusiousness. So notice that in the
pagan world the truth is not revealed, it is not acknowledged,
it is suppressed. Why well, it is manifest within them.
Notice he's not talking about external reasonings at this point,
about syllogisms or Aristotle having a really supreme high IQ intellect.
And that's why he got a lot further than the
Amazon tribesmen did about who God is.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 4: It's nothing to do with syllogisms and reasoning out in
some Hellenic philosophic Plato Aristotle sense. It's about the universal
world of idolatry that all the nations fell into after
the fall, except for the Covenant people who maintained the
true worship of God, the only acceptable worship of God,
by the way, and he says that these people had
a manifest witness to them in creation, that they should
have come to the conclusion that there is only one
true God and that he lives and exists and so forth.
But did they come to that conclusion. No, Paul says,
they are without any excuse. According to the Roman Catholics,
they're all excused. Paul says, they're without excuse. Roman Catholics say, well,
but they didn't know God, but they reason from creatures
to a creator, so they are given a free pass.
Paul says, they're without excuse. Even though they knew God,
they did not honor him as God. Now, I think,
and there's different ways you could exedute this passage. Some
people might exitute this as if talking about any individual
pagan at any point in their life. I think Paul's
talking about the original connection that man had to God
in Adam, and that all of Adam's sons should have
had to God had they been faithful. But since they
felt they are patterned and lived after their father Adam
and not after Christ. And so what happens then is
that there's a sense in which back to Adam, man
knew God and had a relationship with God, but the
fall led to idolatry and universal pagan worship of the
demonic and anything other than God. And so that's the
sense in which at one time man knew God, but
we have all then fallen from that uh oh, and
have not glorified or worshiped or honored him as God. Now,
this right here futes the Roman Catholic Vatican to excuse
and invisible invincible ignorance arguments, because they're trying to say, well,
in the case of Pagans, they're still worshiping God, they
still acknowledge a creator. But Paul is saying that even
if they acknowledge the proposition that there's a creator, they're
not worshiping and serving him in any way that God accepts,
because they actually end up committing idolatry and their hearts
are darkened. They profess to become wise, like Plato and Aristotle,
but they end up being fools, as Saint Gregory Palama
says in the very first Triad, the whole first triad
is about Roman's one and the worthlessness of Aristotle and
Pagan's idea of God. Palamas says, did they get a
couple propositions right about God? Yes? Where did that get
them nowhere? It's demonic, he says, the initiatory, demonic rights
of Plato, for example, got him nowhere, and the knowledge
that he got of God was worthless. So Palamas is
faithful to Romans one. Trent and Vatican two are not
faithful to Romans one. They retool and reword it to
make it be the opposite of the entire point of
the passage. Rather than meaning that pagan darkness is what
dominated the world before the Gospel or without knowledge or
access to the Messiah, they make it to me. No, actually,
there's all this goodness and all of this truth in
the Pagan religions, and we just need to weed out
a couple of the bad parts. It's the exact opposite
of the thrust of the passage. These Pagans thought they
were wise, but they actually made themselves into fools, and
they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into creatures, animals, idols, etc.
So what's the punihment of idolatry being given over to lusts. Therefore,
God gave them over to skittles. That's what are you saying?
Why because they exchange the truth about God for what?
For still worshiping God through idols? For still worshiping a creator? No,
they worshiped and served the creature. They do not worship
and serve the Creator. This passage destroys all of the
sophistry of these people. It's so ridiculous that we even
have to debate this, and every passage that we go to,
the Roman Catholics engage in the wildest reversals to make
it say the opposite of what the pastor says. What
does God say throughout the Book of Exodus and Deuteronomy?
Do not go after other gods? If these people were correct,
you could never go after other gods. No other gods,
because all the other gods are just imperfect worship of
the One True God. But nowhere in the Old Testament
at all is that accepted, and neither is it accepted
in the New Testament. God gave them up to vile passions,
and then you get a bunch of skittles as the penalty,
and then it says they didn't put they didn't retain
God in their mind, So God gave them up from
the cavil saying, well, no, they did retain God in
the mind. Oh but wait a minute, Paul says that
the Pagans are haters of God. Oh but they still
worship the One True God. But they hate him. How
do they hate him? That's why these people are saying
the most ridiculous things, like Trent Doherty saying, Jake the
Muslim at a physician, the apostate from Christianity, still worships
in the doors the One True God who is a trinity,
even though he rejects the trinity. That's how silly. This
is the insanity of Like, why do we even have
to debate that? Like even having to explain this illustrates
my point of the endless maze of papalism. This is
what you get, darkness, confusion, sophistry, ignorance of actual divine
revelation the scriptures. I can't tell you how any Roman
Catholics who are refuming and mad and seething are literally saying,
you're a Protestant because you're quoting the scriptures at me.
Why are you quoting Scriptus at me? In fact, at
one point in the debate with ap and Trent Doherty.
People were sending in super chats that were just scripture
texts and they started groaning, Ugh, more Bible. These people
actually hate what is in scripture. They hate the divine Revelation.
Their idol, the Pope and Vatican IWO in the magisterium
is their real God. You'll notice the religion of Michael
often is the Majestereum that made your star with jump.
That's his God. There God is the papacy. They will
die on this hill to stress and prove and go
to every mental gymnastics insane length to try to save
the vaticantued documents. Rather than just simply admitting that divine
revelation says the opposite about a thousand times over.
Speaker 1: Consider this thought experiment to help us examine the issue.
Imagine you're hiking up a mountain with an agnostic friend.
He thinks the Trinity is illogical, and so he rejects
that doctrine, but he is open to the existence of
one infinite, perfect God who created the universe from nothing.
As you reach the top of the mountain and your
friend sees the beauty of nature before him, he says
out into the void, thank you God, and then you
look out into the same beauty and say, praise be
to God.
Speaker 4: Now here's the problem with this passage, and it's notice again,
it's the exact opposite of the way that Paul approaches
this question in Romans won. So let's go back to Paul.
In Roman's one, Trent is saying, look, my friend, who
is a agnostic opening himself up to some form of
Unitarianism or perhaps Islam, is in some better position of
better worship than an atheist or a polytheist. But he's
not because it doesn't matter what propositions you list that
you've got right about the deity, if it's not the Trinity,
as Trent already said at the beginning, by the way,
contradicting what he said earlier, it doesn't matter. So from
Paul's perspective, the guy that's your buddy, that's the agnostic
opening up to Unitarianism walking up the mountain, Paul says,
this guy is still in darkness. And it literally doesn't matter.
If you get nine essential attributes right, but you reject
the tenth, it's still not the same reference. The only
God is the triad revealed in Christ. That's the only one.
So anyone that is not that by definition that says
I do not accept the trinity, but I do accept
a monad that is perfect. That is the first cause,
et cetera. Right, Aristotle, it's not good enough. It's not
the worship that God lays out. It's not the same
God or referent because there is no lowest common denominator
set of propositions that identifies an abstract object or entity
like God. That's what Father Deacon was arguing.
Speaker 1: Now, which of these statements better describe this situation? One,
you are friend along with you adores the one and
merciful God. Or two your friend is giving worship to
a demon or some other creature, but he is not
worshiping God.
Speaker 4: See this is perfect. I'm glad Trent did this because
this right here illustrates the divide between the Orthodox worldview
and pronema and mindset and the Roman Catholic pronema and mindset.
Why is this false? Well, the answer is actually, in
the truest sense, the second option. If Trent knew what
Romans one said, which is odd because it seems like
he's going to have to argue that the agnostic friend
that's opening up to Unitarianism is the first option, right,
But that's the opposite of the way Paul talks about
all of the universal pagan systems and a Brahammock monotheism
doesn't exist. So this argument has shifted from the original point,
which is that Muslims don't have the Trinity and that's
the true God wich Trent said at the very beginning
of this post. But now he's trying to argue that
there's a graded scale. Okay, you can still kind of
halfway worship God if you get half the attributes, right, No,
you can't, and you don't. That's the point. Just like
Arians do not get access to half of God or
get half Catholicity because they agree with a lot of propositions,
they just don't believe in trinity or deed of Christ.
Just like Toe's witnesses aren't eighty percent or thirty percent
worshipers of God. Any one heresy excludes you because all
heresies in the Patristic teaching are a deviation in the
creation of a mental idol. So if you have a
heterodox idea of God and that's what you worship. And
even worse in this case because in Trent's example, the
guy explicitly says, I'm not worshiping the Trinity in Christ.
I am worshiping this Unitarian deity that I believe in.
That is a fiction. It does not exist, any more
than Trent's earlier examples of a deity that doesn't exist.
Speaker 1: Most people will find statement one far more plausible than
statement two. Your friend knows that demons are creatures and
that they are evil, he isn't intending to worship them.
Speaker 4: But the debate is not about intention. The debate is
about whether this worship is acceptable or vain. Many Pagans
do not intend to worship the Christian conception of a demon.
They're worshiping Apollo or Odin, whom they do not think
is a demon. So the intention of the person is
not relevant in the topic under discussion, which is what
is the worship that God has laid down, that he
expects and that he demands. Nadab and Abai, who were
not worshiping a demon when they offered their own strange
fire before the Lord, yet their worship was absolutely rejected
and not accepted. So the debate is not, as Roman
Catholics are trying to shift, it about whether Muslims believe
or think they're worshiping the true God. This is the
point that we made with Kai's post last night. Kai
made a really good point, which was, if I buy
a fake Rolex from the dude on the street, I
can hope and want and desire all day long that
that be a real rolex. That has nothing to do
with whether it's a real rolex or not. Literally irrelevant,
and the topic of debate is who worships God in
each system. It is not up to the individuals or
the philosophers of the academics to decide how you worship
God and what God accepts as worship. God determines what
the acceptable worship is. God has always only accepted worship
at an altar and at a sacrifice. As these hypocrite
Roman Catholics do every time they argue against a Protestant
they make this very argument. Now they have a double
standard where they throw that out and say that you
could do like a half fifty percent worship if you're Muslim.
Muslims are worse than Protestants on this point because they
do not believe in any kind of alter or sacrifice.
But Trent doesn't know anything about Islam. He's not debated Muslims.
He doesn't even know the Muslim positions on the attributes,
so how is he going to even make sense of
saying that it's the same position. Really, if they mean
by creator occasionalism, that's not at all. That's the opposite
of the Christian position of creation x nilo.
Speaker 1: However, he is expressing gratitude to the all good, uncreated Creator,
even if your friend is rejected.
Speaker 4: So you notice he's already contradicted himself. He began the
video by saying that Muslims don't actually worship the Triune
God in the example that he's giving, He's now flipped
it to say that your friend, who is more or
less the equivalent of a Muslim, actually does honor and
worship the One True God. So literally, this goofus, as
I knew he would do, has contradicted himself within five minutes.
Speaker 1: Amazing to Christian theology. At least for now, you can
still commend him for rejecting the error of atheism and
for giving praise i e. Worship to the One Creator God.
Speaker 4: This doesn't yeah, but Paul as again, it's like these
guys have no idea what divine revelation actually says about
these topics. Let me give an example. You know, I
can be a pagan monotheist, right, there's nothing about a
bra Hammick monotheism, which I reject out of hand. But
even if there was such a thing, there's nothing about
that that means that that has or lays the claim
on the exclusive title of quote monotheism. Monotheism, by the way,
is a very late sixteen hundreds term doesn't even exist
in the ancient medieval world. And so I could take
the example of I mean, we listed, we listed on
my debate page. It's over there on the stack of notes,
many different unitarian monotheistic so called positions. Right, So you
could be a Zoroastrian version of monotheism. You could be
a shock t Hindu version of monotheism. You could be
a perennialist like Frital Shuan or renegan On. You could
be a Sufi mystic. You could be a theistic Satanist.
They are monotheists, some of them. These are all monotheistic positions.
So according to trent As, as long as I say
that it's one God that's the creator, and he didn't
even list any other attributes. But that's a pretty low bar. Okay,
So theistic Satanists who identify the reference as creator, sustainer, cause, omnipotent,
maybe it's just set it's satan. According to Trent, we're
still honoring the same reference, which is the opposite of
what he said at the beginning of his video, by
the way.
Speaker 1: I mean, his mere theistic worship will save him from sin,
or even that God accepts this worship.
Speaker 4: Well wait a minute, So now it's that he worships
and adores it, but it doesn't save you and it
doesn't get you in and God doesn't accept it. Well,
the whole point of the debate was worshiping God in
the way that God accepts. There's no other version of
this that even matters. Obviously, we're not going to debate.
Does a person who's a religious person think that he's
worshiping his deity? I mean, that's they're shifting the debating
something so stupid and such a move of sophistry. Will
they think they're debating that they think they're worshiping the
ones you God. Everybody thinks their religion is true, of course,
so what that's not what's in question? That'd be like saying, well,
people who believe that tuplus two is four, believe it's four. Okay, Well,
I'm sure there's some people who believe that tuplus two
is five, and maybe they really believe it. But what
does that have to do with whether tuplus two is five. Nothing,
It's irrelevant. The question is worship. The system defines what
worship means. The system of the theology we're talking about,
whether the Romancolic system, the Orthodox system, Muslim systems, whatever,
the system will define even what the attributes mean. Hentce
why Creator in Islam means something radically different than what
it means in Orthodox Christianity. I mean, they don't even
know that. Muslims don't believe typically most of the most
of the Sunni majority, they don't believe in secondary causes.
They believe in a predestinarian occasionalism, even more radical than
most Calvinists. So creation means something very different than it
means in Orthodox Christology, where God creates a world but
also in plants within that world secondary causes. Islam says
there are no secondary causes because you are taken away
from Allah's greatness. If you give power to creatures like
free will or causation. That's the Sunni majority. They don't
know this, but they use this bait and switch as
if the same words and hence why of a Mormon
argument is so damning to these people, it's a kill shot.
The same people will say that Mormons don't make the cut.
I mean, I don't know what Trent thinks. Maybe he
thinks they do. I don't know. But the other guy says,
and they're basically split on this. Half of them thinks
that more. Okay, fine, Mormon's worship God too, because they're
worshiping a god, the Father. Yeah, who's a man and
has a body and had physical sex with Mary to
impregnate her. That's the Mormon teaching you idiots. Okay, well,
I guess that's it's a little too far different. Okay,
so what's the standard here? It's arbitrary, it's at hoc.
In fact, when Tomashevsky was asked this on Twitter, he says, uh,
Mormons are just too weird. That's literally his The Tomas
philosopher PhD answer is the the Mormon position is just
too weird. Uh. The Muslim position not that weird. Actually,
the Muslim position is as is as weird. If you
don't because that's just again, they don't know what Islam teaches.
These people have no idea about it other than generalities.
We've spent seven years now debating the Muslims, and I'm
not an expert in Islam. I've seen enough of Islam
in the last seven eight years to see this shit
is crazy, dude, And only an idiot would think that
that religion is synonymous with us because of similar words
and because they claim to have in a braind of heritage.
It's just so childish and stupid.
Speaker 1: It just means you and your friend have more common ground,
and so you can use this to move him closer
to the fullness of divine revelation. And that's what Vatican
two is talking about when it comes to Muslims. Here's
the passage in question that's often debated, but the Plan
of Salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator in
the first place. Amongst these there are the Muslims who
professing to hold the faith of Abraham along with us
adore the one and merciful God, who on the last
day will judge mankind. This passage was approved in a
vote of two thy one hundred and fifty one Council
fathers in favor and only five against.
Speaker 4: So what was that tell you? So even at the
time of Vatican Two, like the prelates in the Latin
Church were already pretty much apostate.
Speaker 1: It was very uncontroversial at the Second Vatican Council. However,
in two recent debates, the Eastern Orthodox apologist Jay Dyer
use this statement to argue that Catholicism is false. Redeemed
Zoomer and Gavin Ortlund have also take an issue with
this claim. So let's look at some criticisms on this
side of the issue. First, even if this passage were
in error, that wouldn't prove Catholicism is false. To do that,
you'd have to falsify a statement the Church infallibly defined
to be true.
Speaker 4: Yeah, Trent, the Magisterium has defined that Vatican two is
universal teaching and that you have to hold to it.
So now Trent is shifting to say that, well, this
document doesn't count, so Vatican two can now have errors.
Notice how far Trent is having to bend to make
the system work. And by the way, Trent, it's not
just Nostra atat it's also Lumingentium sixteen, which is also magisterial,
and we can look at a moment and see that
the Vatican two documents are magisterial as loten even those.
So this is a total deflection, and it's kind of
laughable because now Trent is going the direction of saying
that the Vatican two documents might not even be binding
and they amount of errors.
Speaker 1: Where you'd have to show two infallibly defined statements contradict
each other. But no doctrines were infallibly defined at the
Second Vatican Council.
Speaker 4: Oh, that's not true. At least Michael Lafton accurately understands
that Vatican two is infallible. That means that it cannot
contain error. So Trent is saying that, well, it doesn't
magisterially say that you have to believe these things. No,
but it does. And even if it didn't make that statement,
the Roman see cannot teach error at all when it's
teaching on faith and morals for the church. Clearly, Vatican
two is intended for the entire church. All of the
documents are intended for the entire church, and they deal
with faith and morals. They are also signed off by
the popes, both John and twenty third end Pole the
six from the chair officially for the entire church. That's
how the documents begin. By the way, now let's look
at the proof that you do have to adhere to
all of the Vatican two teachings because they are infallible,
and that means that their magisterial and cannot contain error.
So this is immediately going to refute Trent right here.
So here's one. This is the address of Paul the
sixth to the audience hall. I'm sure excuse me. This
is the address of Francis, right and Francis talks about
the magisterial reforms of Vatican two in this document, talking
about Vatican two, Francis said, after this magisterium about Votican two,
after this journey, we can affirm a certainty the magistical
authority that the liturgical reform is irreversible. So there's one
statement from Francis right there, and that is Francis's sixty
eighth National Liturgical Week in Italy address. This is John
the twenty third, Pope John the twenty third's opening speech
at the council, where he proclaims it a dogmatic ecumenical council.
He says it is about repressing errors, which is what
the tribes always say. It did defined no new doctrines,
and it didn't go against any errors. It didn't excommunicate anybody. Well,
you can read his opening speech right there, saying that
it is authoritative doctrine, which is another reputation of the drycats.
This is another text that you have to put into
a translator because it is in Italian. This is a
speech by Paul the six in nineteen seventy six. I
haven't looked at this document in a while, so I'm
trying to remember where it is in this Oh man,
it didn't translate the whole document.
Speaker 2: Dang it.
Speaker 4: Somebody can translate this because the Google Translate for whatever reason,
is not translating the whole document. So I'll put this
in the chat for you guys here for this example.
There's there's more examples. So Pope Pious the eleventh wrote
an encyclical called Casti Kanubi, and we're going to look
at paragraph one oh four In Casti Knubi, let the
faithful be in their guard against the overrated independence of
private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason, for
it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of
Christian to trust his own mental powers, the Church sent
by God to teach and God all nations, and not
conversant with president affairs and circumstances, or even that he
must obey. This is what's being condemned. You must only
obey in the matters that the Church has decreed with
solemn definition, as though her other decisions might presume to
be false or putting forward insufficient motive. Quite the contrary,
all true followers suffer themselves to be guided in all
things that the Supreme Pontiff touches on. Does that say
that you only are bound by the ordinary magic, or
should be the extraordinary.
Speaker 2: A.
Speaker 4: Trent doesn't even appear to be aware of that. You're
not just bound by the universal extraordinary magisterium. You're also
bound by the universal ordinary Magisterium, which Vatican one says
cannot err. So Trent's missing the point that it doesn't
really matter the authority put behind the document. When Vatican
one says the Roman Sea cannot teach error, it doesn't
matter what authority they placed in the document. The Roman
Sea doesn't teach error. See the Legus a Pius the twelfth.
This is about obedience and obedience being necessary to the
Roman Sea. Even if you think the pope is wrong,
so it's not very long see the leagus, I will
give you this think as well. This also refutes the
papal minimalists. And let's look at Canon seven point fifty
two of the Roman canon law. Although not an assent
of faith, a religious submission of intellect and will must
be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or
the College of Bishops declares concerning faith and morals when
they exercise the authentic magistarian, even if they don't proclaim
it or intend to proclaim it by a definitive act. Therefore,
as I've been saying for the last ten to fifteen years,
even if Vatican two were optional, which it's not, but
even if it were, if the magistarian proposes it for belief,
you don't get the right to say that you disagree
or you think it's wrong. You submit with docility and
you shut your mouth because the Roman seed doesn't teach her.
So notice how far Afield Trent Horne is from what
the documents actually say. And this is because within the
Roman sphere they're trying to figure it out as they go,
and so they don't even know within this miasma of
thousands of pages of papal doctrines and teachings. They don't
even know the maze of papacy. But I spent almost
a decade in it, and I know it pretty good,
So I know these documents. Now, let's look at Vatican
one again to remind you that you don't get the
option of picking and choosing, and the Roman seed does
not teach error. Now, is the Roman Sea or the
Roman Church preserved from error only in ex cathedra statements. No,
And in fact there's more, by the way, there's four
more statements I can go to in Vatican one that
condemn the idea that you only have to follow the
ex ca theater statements. That's condemned four times, that idea
in the Roman dogmatic system. Wherefore, by divining Catholic faith,
all those things are to be believed contained in the
Word of God, scripture and tradition, which are proposed by
the Church as divinuly revealed, whether by solemn judgment that's
ex cathedral or ordinary universal magitstarian that those two things
are covered by infallibility in errancy, in the Petrin chroism,
the ordinary teaching could be wrong, but according to Canon
seven to fifty two, you still have to believe it
with facility even if you think it's wrong. Look how
far afield the pap apologists and the papal minimalists and
Tim Gordon and all these people are from what their
documents actually say. There's no papal minimalism here. That's a
position that they've invented to have flexibility to make the
system work, and it still doesn't work.
Speaker 1: In a worst case scenario, a Catholic, if he had
good reason, could privately refuse to assent to this statement.
Such an act would not.
Speaker 4: Be no, you cannot. Let's look at Trent Horn explicitly
rejecting his own canon law. Now, I'm pretty sure that
in the Romancholic system, Trent Horn is not above canon law?
Speaker 3: Is he?
Speaker 4: What did Trent say? Even a Catholic could theoretically reject
this statement? Why is Trent thinking along this once? Because
he's seeing and he's even in this video you can
tell you grappling with the obvious contradiction and problem here.
He knows that it's foolish to say that Muslims worship
the Trinity, or that worshiping a demon is still somehow
worshiping the One True God. So we'll go with perhaps
the option that this document isn't binding and I can
reject it or think that it's in error. What does
Canon seven to fifty two say, even if it's not dogmatic,
you must submit with intellect and will on faith and morals,
even if it's not definitive. So Trent does not follow
his own canon law. I bet you he doesn't even
know that's in his canon law, because he doesn't seem
to be aware of extraordinary magisterium and universal ordinary magistarium
being covered by the terroism of Peter.
Speaker 1: As sinful as rejecting an infallibly defined dogma like the
tren a heretical act, which always involves grave matter. I've
also found that some Eastern Orthodox commenters are inconsistent on
this point.
Speaker 4: By the way, he's saying basically that defined dogma is
like the Trinity or the Incarnation. No defined dogma and
infallibility cover any ecumenical council that the Pope approves, because
the Roman see can't teach error. He doesn't even know
Roman Catholicism. This is the top pop apologist now thinks
that you can make Vatican two statements optional.
Speaker 1: They will say Catholicism is false because the Pope said
in an off hand comment that Christians and Muslims worship
the same God.
Speaker 4: It's not an off hand comment. It's two documents in
Vatican two and countless John Paul the second speeches, which
people are digging up now. As we just saw the
address to the Muslim youth that we found meeting with
the young Muslims in Casablanca, who worships, love, adore, and
serve the same God as us. The whole message of
dump all the second is the same as us. So
Trent is not telling you the truth, trying to minimize
this as an offhand comment that the Pope says, the
popes have been praying in the mosque. Do what are
you talking about an offhand comment. By the way, Trent
is intentionally not talking about the last several popes praying
in mosques and synagogues because he knows that's so damning
to his position. The fact that he's ignoring this and
saying maybe in an off hand comment the pope acted
like we worship and served the same God. No going
into the mosque and the synagogues as the last three
popes have done. Is not an offhand comment, Trent. Why
are you guys even following Trent Horne? I don't understand
why people think that this is at all convincing. You
have to be like pretty mid tier IQ to think
that this is like solid stuff. He's not even mentioning this.
Why doesn't he at least mentioned the scandal? You don't
talk about patriochs. Yes we do. I've talked about ecumenism
Orthodox Church and opposed it and called it out for
over ten years, even before I was Orthodox.
Speaker 1: Or a non infallible teaching at an ecumenical council, says
Christians and Muslims each.
Speaker 4: Where does he get that it's not infallible or that
he doesn't have to follow it? Do you notice he
just said that he's not provided any sources. I've given
you all the freaking Vatican sources. In fact, let's just
go ahead and put this to rest with the actual
Vatican source that loft Dog mc loft doog pulled up,
which refutes what Trent says. The Holy Spirit that guys
the Church is at work in the religions, the universal
presence of the Spirit cannot be compared to the presence
in the Church. Although one cannot exclude the salvafic value
of the false religions, this does not mean that everything
in them in them is selvi effic However, they can
be self effic given the explicit recognition of the Spirit
in these religions, the false relig the Holy Spirit's working
in the false religions, one cannot exude the possibility that
they exercise as such, not in spite of, but as such,
as false religions a salvaffic function. Even though they're ambiguous,
they help men achieve salvation. This is the nineteen ninety
seven Vatican document clarifying what you see in Vatican two.
So notice they don't explain things the paup Apologists because
they have some idea that this is absurd and obviously
a contradiction. They don't explain things the way their Vatican
does have. You notice this.
Speaker 1: Adore God, but then they will ignore their own tradition
when it speaks of Christians and Muslims having recourse to
the same Creator God. Here's video of Russian patriarch caill
saying Christian and Muslims each turned to the same God,
the Creator and here's a twenty twenty three address where
the Russian patriarch said, we Christians and Muslims no one
confess that God is the true creator of the world
and the only lawmaker.
Speaker 4: Well. Yeah, the difference is that Kirol has no authority
or power to bind me to his erroneous statements. The
Vatican Two documents and the papal normative teaching is binding
on Roman Catholics, as we just saw. So that's why
this two quoque way and this false equivalence doesn't work.
If we thought that Kirol was infallible or he had
madgisterial powers, this might be a good argument.
Speaker 1: And Jay Dyer saw this post it on x not
knowing its source, he said, thanks for proving you're not Christian.
Speaker 4: Lol.
Speaker 1: And here's Patriarch Bartholome you of Constantinople.
Speaker 4: They thought this was a gotcha, but they don't realize
that I don't have a problem saying that that statement
is not Christian, and I don't care if it comes
from Kurrol or anyone. If it comes from our priest
or our bishop, it's not a Christian statement. And it
shows a doubt because we don't know the source and
so if it turns out to be Kerrol, it's entirely
possible that Kirol is a heretic. Bartholomew probably is a
heretic too, And why is that, Well, guess what. Many
patriarchs in the history of the Church have been heretics.
This position, however, doesn't have any contradictory power. Within Orthodox ecclesiology,
we recognize that no bishop is infallible. Every bishop can
become a heretic, every bishop can say things wrong. So
they're applying the papal system to the Orthodox system and
saying you don't meet up to our standards of what
the Roman bishop has to do, and say, okay, we
don't have your system. So it's a two quoque way
and it doesn't work within our system. So this gotcha
was actually ridiculous because I actually affirm that it doesn't
matter who says it, it's a false statement. Are all
created by this By the way, how many patriarchs have
been heretics. Four of the five patriarchs at the council floor,
it's ended up heretical. Nestorius is the most famous patriarchal
Constantinople who's an arch heretic, Bartholme, you can easily be
a heretic. How does that disprove Orthodoxy? They think that
if I can show that you got problems or that
you have a humanist then haha, we got you. It
only works if you have the same system of ecclesiology.
If we built everything on one, dude, then you would
have a good argument. But they don't understand that the
Orthodox Church is decentralized. It is not a papal system,
and it doesn't have a pentarchy five head, and it
doesn't have an eight octarchy eight head. They're just bishops
with canonical privileges. They're not super bishops like they think
the Pope is a super bishop and as such we
are brothers and sisters. See this is funny too, because
we have for so long been opposing ecumenism anywhere. I
call it out in Rome, and you can go back
ten years where I've done podcasts calling out of humanism
in the EP and if it's in the MP, two
is wrong. Between ourselves. We have the same heavenly Father,
whatever we call him.
Speaker 1: Now, Orthodox apologists say this doesn't matter.
Speaker 4: No, I didn't say they have no authority. I said
they're not infallible and they don't bind us magisterily. This
is the sophistry of you guys. You assume that we
look at a bishop the way that you look at
a pope, and it's not our view. The Orthodox Church
is decentralized, Bishops are not infallible. Bishops can become heretics.
You're just showing your ignorance of Christian history because you
don't know how many patriarchs have been heretics. Do not
understand that this works against you, because if you're a
Roman Catholic and you think the Church of the first
millennium was Roman Catholic, then all of the patriarchs who
became heretics, that would be the same problem in your system.
Speaker 1: You idiot, matter because the patriarchs aren't infallible, but the
pope and ecumenical councils aren't always infallible.
Speaker 4: In fact, they that's totally wrong. The Pope cannot teach
a an ecumenical council error because they are guided by
the spirit of truth and do not teach error. Trent
does not know what Vatican One says. The Roman Sea
has never taught error. According to Vatican One, this is
totally false.
Speaker 1: Rarely teach infallibly. If the patriarchs can err on Islam
without refuting Orthodoxy, then the same is true of non
infallible Catholic teaching.
Speaker 4: So his whole argument hinges on this being non infallible.
But in Canon seven fifty two, even if it were,
he still has to assent to it and agree to it.
So this ends his whole argument. But it's also false
because Vatican two, according to Francis, is magisteriel where'd it go?
Speaker 1: Things on the same subject. But more importantly, how does
the Eastern Orthodox apologist know that the Pope Vatican two
and these Orthodox patriarchs are wrong about Muslims worshiping God? Like?
Speaker 4: Does he think that we can't know until there's some
definitive statement that gives us epistemic certitude. Actually does think that,
because when we had our debate, he didn't even know
the distinction between like existential certitude and normativity or like
normative authority, where whereby somebody pronounces something to be. So
that's not the same thing when you bind someone's conscience
to how I go about getting certitude or knowing something
for sure? John says in the Book of John, you
have an anointing, and you know all things. So I
don't need a magisterium to know truth and falsehood, because
every person who has been chrismated in the Orthodox Church
has a direct connection to God. This blows the minds
of the Roman Catholics because they actually think that knowledge
and certitude are contingent upon the Pope saying something with
certitude and with magistarial authority. And then you know. But
of course, where is the Roman Catholic list of the
ex cathedra things. No Roman Catholic can give you that,
because there isn't. There isn't such a thing. In fact,
Trent doesn't even seem to be aware of Denzinger. Now
let's go to Denzinger because I want you to see
the specific places in Denzinger where this idea of Trent
that you only have to follow the infallible statements or
the ex cathedra statements is condemned. This will put to
rest the entire nonsense of Trent. Watch this, Okay, we're
gonna get our Denzinger out, And knowing Denzinger well is
really the kill shot for all the Roman Catholic stuff.
This is the famous sources of Catholic dogma. This is
essentially from their vantage point, all of the papally approved statements.
And if I go to Abadikan one.
Speaker 2: Okay, here we go.
Speaker 4: We're gonna go to Denzinger sixteen ninety nine first mhm
uh ninety eight.
Speaker 3: Yeah, m hm.
Speaker 2: Hm m hm.
Speaker 4: Nor do they blush to profess openly and publicly the
axiom in principle of heretics from which so many perverse
opinions and errors arise. For they repeatedly say that the
ecclesiastical power is not by divine right, or it's not
distinct from an independent from the civil power, and that
the distinction independence of the same could not be preserved
without the essential rights and civil power being invaded or
served upon the Church. And we cannot pass over in
silence the boldness of those who, not enduring sound doctrine
contend that without sin and with no lass to the
Catholic profession, one can withhold assent and obedience to the
judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is
declared to relate to the general good of the Church
and its rights and disciplines, so provided it doesn't touch
on dogmas. That's exactly what Trent just argued, and that
is the position that is condemned. So Trent just stated
a literal condemned proposition that you only have to follow
the ex Cathedrais statements and not the disciplines and decisions
of the Roman Curia and the Roman College and the
Roman see. Can everybody see that there is no one
who does not see and understand how opposed this is
to Catholic dogma, Literally the position that Trent just said.
And if you don't know this is pious, the knights
quanta cure. Okay, now let's go to the next one
sixteen eighty three. This one explicitly condemns Trent because it's
exactly what Trent disargued. Again, these people don't even know
that they make what were considered modernist proposition in the
eighteen hundreds. They make the modernist propositions, and then they
didn't even realize that the papacy has condemned the very
modernest propositions that they're saying. So let's go to another
Denzinger sixteen eighty three. We persuade ourselves also that they
did not wish to declare that the perfect adhesion to
revealed truths, which they recognize is absolutely necessary to attain
true progress in the sciences and to refute errors. Could
be obtained if faith and obedience were only given to
the dogmas expressly defined by the Church. For even if
it were a matter concerning the subjection which is to
be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it
would not have have to be limited to those matters
which have been defined by express decrees or ecumenical councils
of the Roman Pontus of the Sea, but would have
to be extended to those matters which are handed down
as if only revealed by the ordinary teaching power of
the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore by
universal and common consent, are held by Catholic the Olgiens
to belong to the faith. So you have you're bound
by more than just that. And then we got seventeen
ninety two by divining Catholic faith. All those things are
to believe what you are containing the Word of God, tradition,
and which are proposed by the Church, either in a
solemn pronouncement or interordinary universal magisterrum. That's from Vatican one.
All right, now, we're going to go back to fifteen
seventy eight, because this one works through a fuge Trent too,
this is a Jansenist position condemned in Octorum fe day.
I think this is what this one is. This is
describing the Jansenest positions. And it says as if the Church,
led by the Holy Spirit of God, could have established
a discipline which is useless or burdensome for Christian liberty,
but which is even dangerous and harmful and leads to
the superstition and materialism. This position is false, rash, scandalous,
and dangerous, offensive to the ears, and injurious to the Church.
So if you think that the Church can establish any
disciplines or any rights, and by extension, if you think
that Nostra ataate or Luminagentium sixteen are false, are bad,
or are bad, or if you think that the New
Mass and the New Sacraments are bad, you are condemned
because the Roman See cannot produce rights and disciplines that
are harmful to the church. So that refutes Trent. Again.
By the way, there's more, but I think you get
the point that you don't get the liberty of picking
and choosing amongst a much broader magisterium than the papal
minimalists want to make it. And the only reason they
argue papal minimalism is to get around the problems that
they have with these Vatican two documents.
Speaker 1: An Orthodox apologists might say, well, we have the tradition
and consensus of Orthodox saints and fathers to guide us.
But does he centuries before Islam existed the Church fathers
affirm that Jews who rejected Jesus still worshiped God.
Speaker 4: No, they don't. John chrystalstom we just shared this again.
By the way, I bet you. Let's see. I want
to see what Cody's going to show. By the way,
remember John Paul the Second said, may Saint John the
Baptist protect Islam? Remember that again, refuting the nonsense of Trent.
But what does Chrystalism say about the Jews? No Jew
worships God? Who says this? The Son of God says it,
for he says, if you knew my father, you would
know me. But neither do you know me, nor do
you know my Father? What is more trustworthy than the
testimony that I can offer than this? In other words,
Christalism correctly says there's no higher authority than Jesus in
John at five and John eight. The Jews do not
know the Father because they don't know the son. So
Trent is completely contradicting himself. Here's John Christ st John Christs.
I'm in Homily two. By the way, I went and checked,
this is accurate. It's Homily two against the Jews, and
it's exactly correct. And it doesn't And even if Trent
finds a quote where a church father says something wrong,
uh sorry, but divine revelation trumps a church father in
anybody's system, whether you're Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox. Divine revelation
is above a church father because everybody believes that any
individual church father can make errors and say things wrong.
Roman Catholics believe that even the doctors of the church
in the Roman system can get things wrong because Thomas
Aquinas teaches things that Roman Catholics now believe are false.
For example, about the Immaculate conception.
Speaker 1: In the second century, Justin Martyr said, nor do we
think that there is one God for us, us another
for you, but that he alone is God who led
your fathers out from Egypt with a strong hand and
a high arm. Nor have we trusted in any other,
For there is no other but in Him, in whom
you also have trusted God.
Speaker 4: The Him and whom you also have trusted is a
reference to the Jews and Hebrews of the past who
were true worshippers of Jesus in the Old Testament. The
irony of this passage is that Trent doesn't even realize
that he's citing a book that refutes the very thing
he argued to me in our debate. In our debate,
he argued that the Old Testament saints didn't know the Trinity.
I mentioned in our debate. Have you not read Justin
Martyr against Tripho the Jew Because Justin's entire argumentation is
about how the Old Testament teaches the triad. Trent hasn't
read this passage or this book. And even this passage
is saying to Tripho Tripho, the real true Jews worship
the Angel of the Lord like we do. That's Jesus.
That's the argument of the book. So this is out
of context and not correct. And let me show you
something to hammer this position home. Actually, this is actually
an important point. Watch this what do you want to
bet Shamun is the one who actually put this together.
By the way Church Father quotes on who is the
Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament. Let's see
sixty three. Now, notice what assuming that scam shamou put
this collection together. He begins with Justin Martyr against against Streifo,
and Justin Martyr's whole argument in the book is that
Jesus is the with the Lord, the God the Old
TESTAMU is the Trinity. And Trent is taking that out
of context because it proves what I argued against Trent
in our debate. I hope everybody sees how ridiculous Trent Horne.
Speaker 1: Is of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob. In
the fourth century, Gregory of Nissa said, we can hear
Jews believing in God, and our God too. Even our
Lord reminds them in the Gospel that they recognize no
other God than the Father of the Only Begotten, of
whom ye say that he is your God. Are we
then to call the Jews Christians because they too agree
to worship the God whom we adore.
Speaker 4: He's taking that out of context, because again the passage
is saying that you Jews claim to worship God the Father.
You have worshiped God the Father because Abraham was a
Jew that worshiped God the Father. But he worshiped God
the Father through the Son because he believed in the Son.
So once again it's like Trent is not even aware
of what on five and John five, John eight actually say.
Let's look and remind each each other. And by the way,
even if his reading were correct, Gregor Vnissa got plenty
of things wrong. Gregor Nissa believes in a pocket the stasis,
and that position is eventually rejected by the Church. Which
I'm not granting that Trench's reading is actually correct, But
even if it were correct, and even if Gregor Nissa
spoke out of hand, it wouldn't matter because we aren't
as Orthodox bound by every statement that a church father says.
We're not bound by the varying canons that many church
fathers propose. They're all over the place when it comes
to varying canons. And then as we get towards the
Seventh Ecumentical Council, there seems to be a greater and
greater consensus on the canon scripture. But we don't go
to somebody who's in the second century and say, well,
this church father said this really weird list of a
canonical scripture. So it must be that, and you must
be bound by that if you hold that person as
a saint. Nobody actually operates that way. What does Jesus
say to the Pharisees, the Father sent me. You have
neither heard his voice at any time, nor have you
seen his form, nor do you have him and his
word abiding in you. You search scriptures because you think
that it's in them you have eternal life. But the
scriptures bear witness to Christ. The Torah is about Jesus.
Jesus is the living Torah. He's saying, I do not
receive honor from men, but I know you. You do
not have the love of God in you. Now a
Jew might say, wait a minute, I believe in the tetragrammatone.
I believe that God is Yahweh, and the proposition is correct.
But having a correct proposition is not enough and is
not what we're talking about in terms of worship. Love
and adore do the Unitarian fear. He's in Jews love
the one God. Jesus says, no, you do not have
the love of God in you. And Jesus Trump's gregor
of Nissa even though I don't grant that Trent's reading
of Gregorness is correct. Again, look at all of these
Justin Martyr quotes. The angel who's wrestling is Jesus. Jesus
is the Angel of the Lord. He's the Theophany, He's
the one that's appearing in all these passages. He's the
I Am in Exodus three, Jesus, Jesus. Jesus is the
whole point of Justin's argument. And in the debate with
Trent Horn, he explicitly says they're not worshiping Jesus in
the Old Testament. They don't know about the Trinity. Do
you understand how important this point is. This means that
Roman Catholics are misleading you, and the Orthodox Church correctly
teaches that there is no monotheistic thing. As Father Seraphim
Rose says right here, there's only the Trinity. The God
of the Christians is the God who's worshiped as Holy Trinity, Father, Son,
and Spirit. This is the God revealed to Abraham in
the icon If you just looked at the rublev Icon,
you would know Christian theology. Even iconography would just simply
teach the average lay person or the Russian peasant. This point,
I'm looking for the Saint Maximus picture because that one's
good too. Here is Saint Gregor Palomas explicitly saying Muslims
do not worship God. Latin Skismatics can stop taking him
out of context. Although they knew God, they did not
honor and worship him as God. That's in the context
citing Romans One as I did about Muslims. So Gregor
Palomas has taking the Romans One passage about Pagans and
saying same application of the Muslims. But we need to
see the By the way, this famous icon I forgot
also teaches this point. The true worship of God is
in the arc of the church. And you'll notice it
is the Holy Spirit that guides this arc church. It's
the wind that moves the sails. And outside of this
church are the demons, the Masons, the heretics, the Pope,
the atheist Lenin Luther, the iconoclasts, Antichrist, and the Muslims
at Mohammed. Notice that Mohammed is shooting his arrows out
of the mouth of a giant beast at the church.
And Roman Catholics will don't understand this because they don't
understand that canonical icons teach the correct theology. You don't
have to be a PhD in theology or a THHD.
You don't have to master Patristic Greek and learn all
of this, you know, high falutin logi, logizmoy all this.
You don't have to do that. If you are good
enough at reading an icon, you will get the accurate
faith in the canonical icons. Yeah, but I do want
to find I know I shared it. Where's it at
the quote from Maximus that's just kind of ends this
whole thing. Maybe I already skipped it. Okay, I don't
mean to be showing these dms, but this only place
I can find it. So here's the DM same Maximus
confessor that Abraham was taught and worshiped the Trinity response
to the Lassios ad the Lassios twenty eight two. God
appeared to Abraham, who was perfect in knowledge and who
already possessed an intellect completely beyond matter in figurations. God
taught him that the immaterial principle of the Trinity and
here is in the principle of its unity. And for
this reason, God appeared to Abraham as three and spoke
as one. Abraham believed and worshiped the Triad. And that's
why all of these Roman Catholics are refuted by the
exact same arguments that we used against the Muslims. Isn't
that interesting when we argue with the Muslims? When I
debated Daniel Haikikachu, what was the debate ultimately about? Is
the God of the Prophets unitarian? Or try it? This,
by the way, is why sam Shamun has completely destroyed
himself because he now has contradicted and agreed that Muslims
are worshiping the one true God. Here it is right
here jen whether Islam or Christianity actually has continuity with
the religion that's laid down in the Law and the
Prophets and that image there. We're not going to go
two deep into it right now, but we'll get into
it here in a little bit, and I might go
back and forth between screenshare and some of the stuff
I've got over here to show the first question I
would ask in regard profits are disconsistent with prior revelation
that the Second Temple period was not a monolithic Unitarian enterprise.
The question becomes, what are the teachings of the Prophets
in the Old Testament. Did they actually teach as Islam says,
a radical unitarianism or is it something more fluid or
is there differentiation in Yahweh? In fact, modern Jewish scholarship
unanimously is undecided on this question. There's a lot of
Jewish scholarship that is listed here. For example, Daniel Boylaren
later I have Summer and I have Siegel, and they
admit that in the Old Testament itself not due to
Christian deviation, but in the Old Testament itself we find many,
many passages that show differentiation in Yahueh. That differentiation is
not just located in rabbinic debates. It also continues into
later medieval debates with Jewish cabbal law, and you could
see there. For example, Gursham Scholam in his book on Kabala,
the respected Cabalist, theologian of the Middle Ages, or a
scholar of medieval Kabbala, he points out, for example, to
be three beginningless lights that are mentioned. Now, I'm not
a cobbleist. I'm just pointing out that this shows that
the Jewish tradition is not monolithic in its presentation. So
I'd like to come back then to my screen. To me,
these are particularly useful for demonstrating this, and that's Jesus
in the triad throughout the Old Testament. I mean, so
it's just kind of exhausting, disheartening and ridiculous that we
have to actually explain to all of these so called
Christians that it's essential to Christianity that the Old Testament
teach the trinity and the deed of Christ. I mean,
can you believe that this is what we're having to
do and something that should be basic for Christians, Especially
if you're going to be combating Muslims and Unitarians and Jews.
You got to know this stuff or else you're going
to be duped. As many people who don't know their
faith fall into Islam because they think the Old Testament
is unitarian. Well, if the Old Testament's unitarian and Deuteronomy
thirteen and eighteen says not to go after other gods
and Jesus comes along and says he's God, then Muslims
and Jews are correct. Then it's another God because it's
no longer a unitarian deity. It's a trinitarian duty. It's
very simple. It has to always be trinitarian. And if
these people understood how to do apologetics against Muslims and Jews,
they would not fall into this stupid error. But they
fall into it because the real God in the determiner
of their system is the papacy. And that means that
their worship is also false worship because it's an idol.
God is not first in their system, it's the papacy.
The papacy decides and determines reality. Remember Trent said, the
pope can now even change the death penalty, which they
thought is natural law and natural justice. The pope can
decide that's against the Gospel. And when I brought this
up to Trent, and when Trent replied, Trent said, as
we covered it in our streams, well, you picked the
answer that you think is the best. This is we're
Roman Cathic Polgetics's so, notice also that the religion and
worship of God, as I pointed out, is done in
a certain way. It's done with a priesthood, an alter
a sacrifice, and it has to have a Messiah. And
we also find other implements like vestiments in sense and iconography,
those are essential and incidental of the worship of Yahweh. Right,
does Islam have those No, Islam has no temple, no priesthood,
no altar, no sacrifice, no heavenly content, no heavenly liturgy,
and thus no continuity with the worship of the Old Testament.
Malchisedec refutes Islam, and it also refutes these idiots trying
to argue that Muslims worship the same God as Us.
Why because Paul says in Hebrew seven that the priesthood
of Christ is an eternal priesthood that's Melchizedecian, and the
only way to worship God is triadic, because Jesus is
the eternal priest, offering the worship in heaven. So unless
you're united to Jesus, the Melchizedekian high priest, you're not
worshiping the Father, even if you think you are. It's
vain and futile. That's what they don't understand, because they
don't know that Islam doesn't have temples, pri says, alters, sacrifices,
or heavenly liturgy. And if you don't have the divine
person of the Son of God in human nature as
a Melchizedekian priest offering in heaven, you don't have the
Father all right now, he's going to quote a bunch
of Protestant stuff. I don't really care about Martin Luther
and Protestant stuff.
Speaker 1: Of Abraham. Note the qualification Muslims profess or claim to
have the faith of Abraham.
Speaker 4: No, it does not say that. It says that. In
one place, it says they profess to have it. Here, however,
in no att it says they do have it. They
take pains to submit wholeheartedly even to God's indiscritable decrees,
just like Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes
pleasure in liking itself submitted to God. So notice the
contradiction between the nostra atat statement and the lumagentium statement.
Here it says they do adore the One True God
and they do submit to God's decrees, just like Abraham.
So it says both things, Trent. It doesn't just say
they think they have it. It says both, And it
says they worship God. Now, remember they tried to play
a word game, many of them that, Oh, it doesn't
actually say worship, It's used the word adore. That's different. Oh,
but it uses worship in the last sentence of three
doesn't Oops, Oh that doesn't work.
Speaker 1: Uh oh, but they don't actually have that faith because
the Quran is an uninspired distortion of the Old and
New Testament delivered by a false prophet. I cover this
in my episode on why I'm not a Muslim linked
in the description below.
Speaker 4: If it's an uninspired distortion from a demon, then the
god of that inspiration is also, by extension, a false god.
Speaker 1: Real fast. At this point, a lot of people would
say in a video, here's the word from our sponsor.
But I love that our supporters are so generous. They
did not honor him as God or give thanks to him,
but they became feudile in their thinking, and their senseless
minds were darkened. Saint Paul assumes a person can not
only worship God if they don't know he is a trinity,
but a person is morally required to work.
Speaker 4: There's nothing in that passage that gives the indication that
Paul is saying that you can still worship God without
knowing that he's trying. In fact, in Acts seventeen, he
actually says the Word is near you, even in your heart.
He actually references Christ, not a generic Unitarian God. How
do I know that? Well, let's look at the passage here,
he says, as I walk through the Areopagus men of Athens,
I perceive that you're very religious. The word there is
also superstitious, and some of the translation for as I
was passing through, I considered the objects of worship, and
I found an altar. Paul is talking about idols. He's
talking about how superstitious the Greeks were, and then that
he found an idol to the Unknown God. Paul is
using a pedagogical teaching at example, through finding this altar.
He is not saying, if you read, as we saw
earlier in Romans One, that the pagan gentiles here are
actually worshiping the one True God because they had an
altar called Unknown God. That totally reverses and changes the
whole meaning and point of this passage. He's saying that
although you ought to have known God, you don't. You failed,
and you worship things that are not God. Notice he
says in verse twenty nine after he talks about this,
he says that God made all the nations and set
up their boundaries in the times of their dwellings so
that they might seek Him, not a generic Unitarian God.
So Trent keeps us assuming that the God that's mentioned
in this passage is a generic Unitarian deity, it's not.
In fact, the god Paul says, is Jesus here in
the hope that we might grow fro him and find him,
although he is not far from each of us, for
in him we live and move and have our being.
This is talking about the logos, right, because in Colossians One,
Paul uses the same terminology about Christ. In him we
live and he sustains everything by his word? Who is
the logos? So in him, who's the hem that we
live in, move and have our being? When Colossian's one,
it's Jesus. It's not a generic Unitarian god. Some of
your poets have said we are his offspring. Paul is
using a rhetorical device of saying that even pagan poets
have pointed out that we're children of God, but we're
not children of good of Zeus. Paul is saying that
you're not knowing or understanding who you're worshiping. Zeus is
a demon. Zeus doesn't have offspring, he doesn't have children.
You don't know that Yahweh is the one true God
and we are his offspring. So this would be like
saying if a Satanist says, I am a son of
Satan and he makes me divine, and I say, you're
right to say that we become sons of God and divine,
but not through being children of Satan or Zeus. That's
what Paul's point is. That's why it's not the known God,
it's the unknown God. And the Roman calarchies are literally
taking his passage and saying, well, Paul actually means that
he's the one they know because they have an altar
and it says unknown, are you that dumb? Really? In
Roman's one, he says they don't know him. They exchanged
the worship of that God for false worship. Then he says, therefore,
since we are the offspring of God, we should not,
like in the divine nature, to idols the very thing
that they've done us invalidating their worship, it's idolatry. God
doesn't accept idolatrous worship. He didn't accept Nate evan Abaye,
who God overlooked their ignorance. So wait a minute, I
thought they weren't ignorant. I thought they knew, because Trent
just said they knew and worshiped a Unitarian God. But
Paul says, no, you're ignorant, because he is appointed today
in which he will judge the world by this God.
Who is the god in this passage. According to Paul,
the man whom he raised from the dead is the God.
So the iron is that the God of this passage,
according to Paul, is Jesus, not a Unitarian God. And
all the Roman Catholic oargmentation stops around here and tries
to make this or no, it stops at twenty eight.
It tries to make this a proof of generic theism,
leaving out twenty nine and thirt in thirty one, where
Paul flips the script and says, no, no, no. Your
demon that you think makes you a child of God
and gives you divinity is a false God. It's a demon.
The real one is the man, Jesus Christ, who is God.
That's the point of the passage. You can't stop at
twenty eight, as these idiots are doing this dishonest nonsense
and ignore twenty nine, thirty and thirty one. Jesus is
the logos, not Marcus Aurelius's logos. Who's the same word
to the same word, do must be the same thing?
Did the day word, do thedame thing, good, good, good, good, good, good,
good good good.
Speaker 1: Worship God and give him thanks as the one creator.
Those who sacrifice to idols worship demons because idols represent
finite creatures, not the true, uncreated God.
Speaker 4: Oh wait a minute, so does the Kabbah and all
of the ideology of the Muslims also represent a demon.
So you see, Trent is confusing the idea of idolatry
only being something external in a statue. Trent aren't heresies
also mental idols and thus impediments to truly worshiping God.
That's the point that they don't understand. All right, let's
get ahead here or here he's gonna play met let's
sho he says, the Samaritans are Unitarians. It's the same
fundamental