Speaker 1: The human guinea pig stuff in Africa.
Speaker 2: It's so insane.
Speaker 3: It's so insane, so insane.
Speaker 2: It is so insane.
Speaker 4: Fuck up, fuck of Boo, Fuco, fuck of bo.
Speaker 5: I got married. I got married to a funk Oh.
Speaker 6: We got wedded, come joint in the subway, he shot, Oh, well.
Speaker 5: I am married. I'm married to.
Speaker 2: My funk o.
Speaker 5: But do we get joined? Go white as soon as
subway he shot?
Speaker 7: Four specimens and biscuits and minerals they come to even
to my whole life is spit go.
Speaker 5: To m mother, rather offer I'm married to I don't hooper.
Speaker 6: We got wedded, but we got joining in the subway,
shut over the road.
Speaker 7: Visiting and minerals they come to you visit it and
minerals they come from it too.
Speaker 2: Don't talk about for.
Speaker 5: Buck.
Speaker 6: I got married, I got married to my don't go hooper.
Oh we got wedded. Ah we get joy says shocking.
Speaker 8: First sight, first sight? What should I do with the
first sight? Put it in my head, throw it on
the ground, and who knows? Just what will I do?
Speaker 9: Sweet?
Speaker 5: How you joined me as some way?
Speaker 2: Shut love.
Speaker 1: The human guinea pig stuff in Africa, It's so insane.
The human guinea pig stuff in Africa.
Speaker 8: Oh yeah, welcome to a nice cozy evening with me.
Speaker 10: You're not gonna get me being weird. You're not gonna
get me being spurgy and energetic. You're gonna get me
being very calm and very loving with you.
Speaker 8: I'm not gonna be debating. I'm gonna be calm, and
I'm gonna be soothing. I'm gonna soothe you. So instead
of debating, we're just gonna listen to me say the
word sooth. So is that the kind of asthma that
you like? Do you all like the asthma? Welcome everyone
to evening debate time. That was all not true. Everything
I said was complete lies, disinformation, and deception, straight from
the source. It's an evening debate. Everyone was so used
to my afternoon debates that I thought I'd throw a
curve ball at your face. Now you don't know what
to do. Now you're over there shaking, shaking in your crib,
shaking in your adult diapers because you're a gamer, and
you don't need to get up to go to the
bathroom because you're gaming, pooping yourself like a Matt Delon monkey.
Evolutionary being, achieving ascendency, achieving initiation into the mystery of
the maya maya being the illusion, the illusion that you're
all encapsulated in the matrix. AKA. Today we're going to
break the matrix by breaking your mind, by breaking your psyche,
but breaking your soul, because we're going to open up
to debate. There's nothing more contrary to the ethos of
our era, of our society, of our times than this old, forgotten,
dusty ass art of debate, which nobody believes is an
art anymore. And that's why even though I debate all
these people, nobody really cares that you would debate. The
debate is not seen as anything debates. What is that
People think debate is arguing No, no, no, it's proving your
case through abstract mental chess games. That's what I like
to think of it as it's thought chess. I saw
videos of people playing chess, and I thought, that's what
debates are. Debates are mind chess, mind chess. Now we're
pretty fair, I would say. Over here on my channel,
we've been opening it up to debate for many years now,
almost two three times every week, and it's a lot
of fun. Sometimes I get tired of it gets old
because it's usually the same old stuff, you know. It's
sort of like everybody's just rehashing crap that they just
heard for the first time, and they don't even realize
that what you just heard has already been addressed like
five hundred times and you just didn't know. So but
that's the nature of the game. That's where we're at this.
Speaker 11: But video popped up.
Speaker 8: And I'm like, what is this? And so this random
I don't know. He looks like a worship leader. He
looks like he would be I don't know the he's
the stuntman for Scott stat Can you treat me higher?
Speaker 5: Cool a parish?
Speaker 8: We're blind man and shee. But he is a convert.
His name is Keith, not Keith Urban and not Keith Chief,
Keith Nestor. No idea who this person is. He's already
got merch. He's the next level three thousand, six hundred convert.
He's part of the Rosary Crew, the Rosary Crew talk
about cringe. Dude, let's go ahead and give this a
thumbs down right here. And he's gonna tell us what
convinced him Catholicism. How there's all these killer arguments. We're
gonna make this quick as this kind of our introduction.
Of course, it's not restricted to Catholic stuff today. We're
gonna be talking about any topics you want to bring
to the table, Baby, you want to bring into the spotlight.
And of course Apple update made my volume all.
Speaker 11: The way low.
Speaker 8: I'm sorry for y'all, but you just had to turn
up me singing. So we got Scott Stapp over here,
converted and he's gonna tell us his reasons. And it's
just a little frustrating, honestly, because you know, I look
at this channel and this is a pretty recent video
a few months ago, what two hundred something two quarter
of a million views on this low tier stuff. Come
over here, and we got Bobby's perspective mega grifter from
two three years ago. He's still going strong. Look at
the Look at the kind of garbage Bobby has on
his channel. First of all, we've got this nonsense about
sam Shamun is caught lying because Sam she Mun says
Allah is Satan, but the word can also refer to God,
as in God of the Bible, and Bobby thinks this
is like a massive own. This has one hundred and
sixty six thousand views. We come over here, what is
Bobby uploading Islam and ayahuasca? You can't make this stuff up.
I mean, we are literally dealing with just armies of
dummies that are everywhere. And I don't know what to
do here because people are getting so dumb that, let's say,
for the sake of argument, I refute fifty dummies in
a five hour livestream. People are so dumb they can't
even see and know the dummies got refuted. People are
so dumb they can't recognize bad arguments, are people losing debates?
And also they don't even care. For example, many things
have happened over the years that you would have thought
would end a person's career, like you would think that
Taylor Marshall is saying that Mary appeared to him in
a vision and he saw giant breast milkers and that
was some object less envisioned. No, no, no, His channel
grew tremendously. So it's almost like the dumber you are,
the stupider your stuff is, the more hard headed you are,
the more you're actually exposed and refuted, the better you
are off. I mean, Hawk Tua is now she's probably
gonna do better now that she had a giant rug
poke coin. Everything is in working opposite in this we're
in upside down world. We somehow went through the stranger things,
but whole dimension to the other side, and everything isn't verse,
everything's reverse. So the stupider you are, the more ridiculous
you are, the more you get refuted, the more people
will listen to you. What And also, of course I
suspect I can't prove it, but I think these kinds
of things are given boosts, right, boosting the algo. So
when he was a vegan pseudo Orthodox channel, he had
like fifty thousand subscribers. And then when he started to
tell you not believe in the Trinity anymore, I did
not even know that Orthodox who he was the teaching
of the Trinity. So he's supposedly a cradle Orthodox and
he didn't know that it taught the Trinity. Uh So
then he realized if he grifts with a bunch of
Islam videos, he would appeal to this rising, giant horde
of idiots that believe Islam and believe the low tier
stuff that they push. And you know, unfortunately it's not
much better for the Catholic side of things. I mean,
I would say that the Catholic YouTubers are at least
more intelligent on the average, But the quality of the argumentation,
oh my gosh, like it's just so it's so low tire,
and I'm just at an impasse. I don't know what
to do. How do you combat super dumb arguments that
convince hordes of people to believe dumb stuff? Like what's
the solution here? I'm not sure how to People are saying,
debate me. This is for you, dummy, this is why
you can hop on tonight. You're telling me to debate you.
These streams are for you to come debate me right here,
here's the link, call in right there. What's the solution?
We have a really smart audience? Does a collective audience
have a solution here? How do you combat millions of idiots?
I don't know, because you can't make them smart. And
it's almost like it doesn't matter how many times you've
been correct, how many times people have been demonstrated to
be just complete bozos, complete goobers like that, it just
marches on. So, like, what is the secret to helping
many people understand? Is it simpler? Videos. Are we too cerebral?
I know it's I understand prayer, So thank you all.
You have very pious people. I'm speaking at the level
of compacting and packaging information. Is that what it is?
Because I mean, is this guy winning over here with
his numbers on his video because he did too many rosaries?
Like is that what you're saying? Like he prayed a
lot more than I'm joking, But more people have to
speak up. Well, it's good that we're getting more clergy
and priests doing this kind of stuff then used to
you know, in twenty seventeen eighteen, there was hardly any
and now we got a lot more clergy trying to
do this stuff, which is good. Hey, Jamie, could you
make me an expresso? Thank you? Signs of the times
could be somebody said, just talk from your toilet probably
would get way more subscribers.
Speaker 11: Like toilet bowl pologetics.
Speaker 8: Right, I'm serious, Like you would probably get like your
channel would blow up doing a poop apologetics on the toilet, right,
like one minute TikTok videos. Anyway, I don't know, maybe
there's not a solution. Maybe it's like we're just doomed
with dummies or something. Like dummy doom, dummy doom. Anyway,
So again, so people in the chat, we're gonna do it.
It's a cozy evening debate stream because I was in
the mood. I just saw so much stupid stuff on
Twitter today and then these these videos popping up in
my feed and I'm like what. And there's a bunch
more too. I noticed a bunch of other dumb videos
popping up. It's just today we want to combat the idiocy,
the idiocracy, combating idiocracy today. We already got five people
in the queue here. Let's hear a couple arguments here
from Scott's Stapp as to why he converted.
Speaker 12: Is Catholicism based on circular reasoning?
Speaker 13: What is circular reasoning?
Speaker 8: Sometimes I get this, well, this is INtime because this
is a thing I said in a video many years
ago one of my early critiques of Rome, I talked
about the papacy being circular. Let's see if that's where
freaking I can't say he is Billy Ray Stap.
Speaker 12: Scott cyrus over her injection to some of my videos
where people say things like, well, you're just saying the
Catholic Church is true because the Catholic Church says it's true.
Speaker 13: Is that a circular argument.
Speaker 12: Yes, Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the
reasoner begins with what they're trying to end with. And
circular reasoning is an argument where the premises are just
as much in need of the proof or evidence as
the conclusion. Is this what Catholicism teaches? Are we exposed here?
I think we need to look at this. A circular
argument when it comes to Catholicism would look something like this.
Speaker 8: I'm already starting to WinCE and cringe because I already
feel like this is gonna be way more low tier
than I expected. I was a little impressed that he
started off with dealing with a fallacy, but I'm afraid
it's gonna go downhill. Let's see, catholic.
Speaker 12: Church is true because the truth is Catholicism. That would
be a circular argument. The conclusion is dependent on the premise.
Is this what Cathosis does? Are the arguments for Catholicism
just simply based on Catholicism is true because what it
says about itself. I say, no way.
Speaker 8: Is he sitting there with like his drum? Is that
a drum set in the background or some kind of
weird drink dispenser. And who is this person? Like, is
he some kind of musician or something like? What is
this a rock star who became a Roman Catholic? Who
is this dude a former pastor? Oh my gosh, So
here we go. So he had to shift his ministry
into papism, So here we go.
Speaker 12: Claims for truth are not based solely on what it
says about itself, but rather on the Bible, history, reason,
and ultimately faith. So I'm going to break down the
case for Catholicism one by one here, and I'm going
to begin with the Bible.
Speaker 8: But wait a minute, So there is actually an element
of circularity here because, as is often utilized by Roman
Catholic apologists, they will say, well, the Bible is actually
true and we know what it is because of the papacy.
We would not have the Bible without the papacy telling
us what the Bible is. That's a classic Roman Catholic argument. So,
depending upon where he goes with this argument, that actually
would be a circular argument. If he goes the route
of saying that if you're a Protestant, you need the
papacy to know the Bible But wait a minute, the
papacy is proven. You're arguing here, and as many Roman
Catholics city from the Bible, so that would actually be
a circular self referencing argument.
Speaker 12: Hey, Keith, the Catholic Church is not in the Bible.
I hear this all the time. Where are the words
Roman Catholic in the Bible.
Speaker 8: Well, Keith, you're just assuming that the Bible is when
it refers to the one universal body, that it's the
Franco Latin papal Church. In the first centuries of Christianity,
especially up into the Ecumenical councils, the locus of Christianity
was in the Eastern Byzantine Empire. All the ecumenical councils
were in the East and had pretty much nothing to
do with Rome itself until later in six forty nine,
where the Pope first tried to call his own ecumenical
council without any reference to an emperor. Roman Catholics do
not count later in six forty nine as an ecumenical council,
which they ought to do if the Roman Catholic principles
of Vatican One were the case. In the first thousand years,
whereby the papacy determines the true and false councils, so
already from the outset, Keith has no idea actually about
the progress of the early Catholic Church into the later
medieval East West split in ten fifty four between the
Eastern Church, the Buzinessing Empire, the other the Four Patriarchs,
and the Franco Latin Papal soon to be Church.
Speaker 12: Is that objection alone enough to blow up my argument
for some maybe, but I suspect.
Speaker 8: By the way, that is not my opinion. That is
two day's top Catholic scholars like Devornik or Kongar to
write about that they.
Speaker 12: Would be in trouble if they apply that same standard
to themselves. I mean, where is independent fundamentalist Baptist King
James only or reformed Calvinists found in the Bible. There
are many things not explicitly mentioned in the Bible that
these same objectors will usually accept the Trinity.
Speaker 8: Well, that's true, but that does not lead to the
conclusions that Vatican One's teachings, nor that the Franco Latin
Papal dogmas from the first thousand years and the second
millennium are found in them Bible either or that they're
true or that just because, in other words, it doesn't
follow that because something is or isn't mentioned in scripture,
then that you could erect an evolving dogmatic tradition outside
of the scriptures either. So this is a two pronged problem.
If you go the route of saying that, well, not
everything that's dogma is in scripture, which we would believe,
we would agree as Orthodox, but what that means is
very ambiguous until you start to pin down what the
romancalogy means on those topics, on those subjects with specificity.
And these pap apologists never go into the actual documents
of Vatican One or Vatican two. They only repeat pop
apologetics because that's all they know. And this poor guy,
which I've been exactly in the same situation he's in.
I was a Protestant who became Roman Catholic in two
thousand and three from these kinds of pop papal arguments,
and I was duped by fake papal quote minds. That
was one of the reasons I went into it. I
thought a lot of those papal quote minds were legit,
and later I found out they weren't, where they were
out of context or They didn't tell the whole story,
the whole picture, and they also didn't prove or demonstrate
what Vatican one claims. Hence why rom Catholicism argues for
doctrinal development, eventually.
Speaker 12: The canon of the Bible, the sinner's prayer. Those are
just some examples, but I don't want to play that game.
Using a Lowsi argument to expose another Lowsy argument is
sometimes necessary, but it really doesn't get us anywhere. Whenever
someone fires up the where's that in the Bible argument,
I prepare for not getting anywhere. Usually these arguments evolve into, well,
that's not what that means. For example, when arguing for
apostolic succession based on the Bible, I take people to
Acts chapter one, where the apostles literally chose a successor
to Judas is Scariot because Peter applies the scripture from
Psalm one oh nine, let another his office take as
the reason to elect Matthias to his office.
Speaker 13: That's a pretty clear cut.
Speaker 12: Example, sure, but I rarely hear someone go, oh, you
got me on that one. They instead argue, well, that's
not what that means. We can do the same thing
about Mary's immaculate conception, which is rooted in Gabriel's greeting
to her in Luke one twenty eight and in what
God said to the serpent in Genesis three point fifteen
about the woman who would have enmity with him.
Speaker 8: Who's wait a minute, where's immaculate conception in either of
those passages.
Speaker 13: See would crush his head?
Speaker 8: Yeah, but that isn't Where do you get that that's
immaculate conception? So he's not even aware of the divergence
between East and West on this issue. Nor is he aware,
apparently that you do not find immaculate conception in the
first several centuries of christian It's a very late idea.
In fact, even the Eastern Catholic churches still retain the
feast of her dor mission meaning her going to sleep,
meaning she died, meaning that she's a daughter of Adam
who experienced the effects of sin like everyone else. As Orthodox,
we also agree that does not mean that Mary he
became a sinner. She is a spotless virgin, but spotless
virgin does not equate to immaculate conception, which would have
exempted her from the effects of original sin, namely death.
But even they celebrate her going to sleep her death,
so she's not exempted from original sin, and the immaculate
conception doctrine is also bound up with the Augustinian doctrine
of inherited guilt. That's the early origins of the idea.
I'm not saying that Augustine taught necessarily immaculate conception.
Speaker 12: All that you did this is a clear reference to Mary, who,
if she were born into sin, would have at one
point in time been an enemy of God rather than Satan.
Speaker 8: No, this is still based on the assumption that being
born in sin in some way is a bound up
with inherited guilt. Only the Orthodox Church maintains the ancient
Patristic teaching, and you'll notice that no church fathers, probably
to Augustine, taught that infants had guilt. Why is Augustine
the first church father to speak of in an explicit
way in having the guilt of Adam. If you read
The City of God and other writings that we've covered
extensively on my channel over the years, you'll notice that
Augustine makes it very clear that he believes that all
men were in Adam as in an archetype, and he
calls them the mass down nod of the damned Mass.
That's the basis for why he thought everyone was guilty
for Adam's sin, even an infant, even a zygote. But
no other church fathers ever taught this. Were they all Pallagian? No,
But they understood as Ezekiel says, you're not guilty for
the sins of your father's until you commit an actual sin.
The Roman Colloty Church eventually even qualified and rejected the
notion of inherited guilt. Yet the argumentation that they use
to prove immaculate conception, ironically still goes back to these
confusions of inherited guilt and actual sin. You do not
have guilt until you sin. Actually, you're not sin actually
until you are able to sin with will and reasoning.
That does not mean that infants are quote guiltless, or
that they don't have the effects of adam sin. They
have the effects, but not the guilt. That's why so
many church fathers. As you read, if you get really
get into the church fathers, you'll notice that many of
them quite often have no qualms about calling infants innocent children,
innocent babies, innocent infants. In fact, there's a feast the
murder when the murder of the forty innocence. They're called
the feasts of the murder of innocence? Why are they
called the feast of innocence forty or whatever?
Speaker 9: Many?
Speaker 8: It was murdered infants if they have actual guilt, Well
they don't, and so this is a distinction that's later
confused in later Latin theology, which leads to the Augustinian doctrines,
which the rest of the Church does not teach.
Speaker 13: Oh, that's not what that means.
Speaker 12: We can also look to Matthew sixteen eighteen, where Jesus
renamed Simon to Peter, which literally means rock, and then
says upon this rock I will build my church, and
the gates of Hell will not stand against it. That's
not what that means. We can do this all day.
When you ask deep questions about Catholic beliefs, you will
discover the scriptural roots of everything. The issue is are
those interpretations accurate? So I want to ask this question
differently because we must avoid using circular reasoning.
Speaker 8: So here we go. Now we're going to get an
argument for how do we know the right interpretation of
these passages. I'm gonna bet he actually does engage in
circular reasoning. But you'll notice that he quoted Matthew sixteen eighteen,
which everybody would agree. Okay, yes, Jesus is speaking to
Peter because Peter confessed the deed of Christ. There, you're
the son of God. And Jesus says, you will have
the keys, you will have the ability to bind into loose.
But how often do Roman Catholics ever quote or bring
in two chapters later, where Jesus says the exact same
thing to the other apostles, I mean to the entire college.
He says, whatever you guys bind on earth, it'll be
bound in heaven. Whatever you loose on earth, it'll be
loose in heaven. Again, I say to you, to the
College of the Apostles. That's the audience here, not every
evangelical praying in his basement. To you, College of Apostles.
When you guys agree, my father will agree. Where two
or three of you are there, I am with you
in your midst. Now this does not specify something that
is unique to Peter. Two chapters later, the first statement
is and Peter, I think, is given an award, a
kind of a honor. And the Orthodox Church agrees that
Peter got that honor. He's the mouthpiece the corythais of
the apostles. However, at the same time he says the
same thing to the to the apostles later on, which
is to bind into loose, which is the office of
the keys is not restricted to Peter alone. It's said
to be the entire college of the Apostles. And hence
why the Orthodox Church has always said that it's a
collegial synodal form of church government. Why would Jesus say
that any of you, if you the two or three
of you agree, God will agree with you. Why would
all of them have the ability to open and too loose?
If it's something that is specific only to Peter, But
when we have verses out of context, it can give
the impression that it is, oh something that only Peter has. Likewise,
when Jesus breathed on the apostles and says that you
can forgive sins, does he say this only to Peter?
Does he say does he breathe on Peter and then
tell Peter to breathe on them? When the Holy Spirit
comes a Pentecost? Does it come on Peter and then
Peter hand the Holy Spirit off to everyone else? At
pentecost or does it come down in a elective, collegial way,
in the same way as Jesus breathing on all of them?
So where is there any of the Vatican one ideas?
So notice that this happens, because this duped me when
I was a young twenty one two three year old
reading a lot of these verses, reading a lot of
these apologetics. Where is the Vatican one claim in any
of this? And it's not there. Vatican one is very precise,
very specific, that Peter is being given universal dominion over
the entire Church in a unilateral way to do essentially
whatever he feels is necessary to govern the Church. There
is no collegial situation. It's an autocracy according to Vatican One,
and Peter and his successors have that power, that authority
for all time until the end of the world. And
that it was always this way and it was always
this case in the church. That's the Vatican one dogma.
But that is not anywhere in the New Testament, nor
is it anywhere in the first eight hundred years of Christianity.
You do have a first among equals place for the
patriarch of the West of Rome, but none of that
equates to Vatican One, and in fact, the Vatican nowadays
has admitted most of these Orthodox criticisms, even to the
extent of saying that the pope did not exercise universal
jurisdiction in the first thousand years. Rome has admitted this.
Speaker 11: Where did Rome admit in the Chady.
Speaker 8: Document at the very end Chad Document right here, chapter nineteen,
section nineteen, Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the
churches of the East. Yet that's exactly what Vatican One
claims Rome always did and had. So Key is new,
obviously to a lot of these arguments. He probably converted
in the last few years, but is not aware of
the more broader context for a lot of these passages
and how much is being read into these passages. Another
point that's brought up in the Edward Denny Papalism book
is that it's entirely possible to read Matthew sixteen as Peter,
even though that's actually the minority interpretation of most of
the Church fathers. The majority interpreted as the Faith or
the Confession. There are about fifteen or sixteen I think,
if I recall what Denny says church fathers that interpreted
as Peter himself because of the naming and the new
naming being the Rock and so forth. But none of
that necessarily translates into Peter being the super bishop above
all the other bishops. In other words, when you have
some church fathers who do think it's Peter, such as
Saint Cyprian, Cyprian says every bishop is a Peter. So
this is a promise not just to Peter as a
civic singular bishop, but that every bishop has Peter functioning
in him in this way. So there's a lot of
assumptions in this very low level pop apologetic that is
not being dealt with or is not taken into account.
It's precisely this kind of stuff that dupes two hundred
and fifty thousand people.
Speaker 13: How can we do that?
Speaker 12: We will take the questions out of the realm of
personal interpretation and instead ask it this way. Does the
Catholic Church accurately teach the Christian faith? This leads to
the question what is the Christian faith and how can
we know what it teaches? Who gets to define what
Christianity is? The Catholic Church claims that it is the
fullness of the Christian faith.
Speaker 8: Right, so every time I try to hit the unmute.
It doesn't always work, does it doesn't always register. So basically,
all I've been outlining for all the people in the
Twitter space, they're hearing it. But basically what I've outlined
is just simply that when of Santem makes it clear
that you have to believe in the universal supremacy of
the Roman Bishop in an earthly sense to be saved,
and it makes us very clear within a few centuries
after Dictatus Pape in ten ninety and so this is
something that's no longer required, right, And I made a
video on this. You can go watch the video I
made the other day called this one dogma really refutes Catholicism.
So if I no longer have to believe in the
temporal supremacy of the Roman Bishop to be saved, then
clearly Roman Catholic dogma does change, and it does contradict.
And this is a very explicit, obvious, easy contradiction. There
are many more. For example, Cantate Domino says that you
can't be a martyr outside of the Roman Communion. Well,
the Roman Catholic Church today recognizes countless quote martyrs outside
of Rome and other religions perhaps who knows. I mean
there's at least Anglican martyrers Coptic martyrs. I mean the
Roman Catholic erst now accepts Orthodox Saints that used to
be for centuries considered excommunicated heretics. So these are all
just clear examples of one hundred percent dogmatic contradiction. And
that's why so many a Roman Catholics. You noticed they
do not deal with this argument. When I had an
hour plus debate with that Crisp Plants guy, it took
him an hour to even understand what the argument was.
He thought I was saying that the pope doesn't have
authority over the body. I'm like, no, no, no, it's authority
in a sense of like temporal power, like a king. Now,
does anyone believe that Jesus was handing to Peter a giant, global,
worldly empire with standing armies and a bank utilizing usury,
utilizing the raw childs who have been the classic people
bankers since the seventeen hundreds? Does anyone believe that's what
g This had in mind? But you understand that if
you become Roman Catholic, this is what you're adopting. And
it's very similar to this this pattern that you're that
I'm pointing out here, this is very similar to what
happens when Muslims or people who are interested in Islam
think that it's about this simple thing and they don't
realize you go, you gotta believe all these Hadiaths too, Bro,
you got to believe the fart had deaths. You gotta
believe the Semen had deaths. You gotta believe all these
crazy hadeaths. And you don't get to say, oh, I
don't believe any I just believe the Koran because it's
a simple message. That's all bologney. But a lot of
these religions world religions, particularly Roman Catholicism as well, do
the exact same thing, where there's this claim of simplicity
and it's very clear and it's just this these basics
and oh, you only have to believe the extra Cathedra statements.
None of that's true. And that's why when the honeymoon
wears off and you realize what the rest of Roman
Catholicism teaches and all the stuff that you have to
exc that's when you start to notice this vast matricey
of history of all of these contradictions and problems.
Speaker 12: So therefore that's the claim we must test. How do
we know what the Christian faith is? And how is
Catholicism the fullness of it? This is where the argument
from history comes into play. We know what Christianity is
because we can see what the earliest Christians believed and taught.
We find this information by studying their writings and the
writings of others about them. These writings show us their beliefs, practices,
and their history. Some of these writings are found in
what became the New Testament, which was added to the
Hebrew scriptures the Old Testament.
Speaker 8: Yeah, but it isn't interesting When Roman Catholics talk about this,
they conveniently ignore all of the patristic evidence for collegiality, cynidality,
and anything that would be against the Vatican one papal
idea because it doesn't really exist first several centuries.
Speaker 11: Now.
Speaker 8: One example that we might think could be an indicator
of that would be perhaps when Pope Victor in about
one point eighty thinks I'm going to excommunicate everyone in
the East over the dating of Easter. And you can say, okay,
maybe this is a early unilateral papal move but when
he did this, how did it work out? Did the
rest of the church accept it? In fact, no Irenaeus,
Saint Ernaeus, whom Roman Catholics try to utilize as a
papal proof, famously rebuked Victor and this was not worried with.
Right the people didn't accept Victor's outlandish, extensive excommunication. But
beyond that, it doesn't even matter that one bishop says
someone else far away is excommunicated, because later on many
patriarchs and bishops do this very thing. It's very common
later on, And this came up in the ubi Ebara
debate that just because somebody says we reject heretic from
five hundred miles away, it doesn't follow from that that, oh,
therefore you have petrine, you know, super universal jurisdiction. That's
another leap that doesn't follow. So what often is the
case is that you get these out of context things
like Peter has spoken through Leo, Rome has spoken cases closed,
and in those instances when you go actually read the context,
they don't back up the Vatican One idea at all.
In fact, in the context, Peter is speaking through Cyril,
which is why he's speaking through Leo, because Cyril's tome
is judged against Leo at Calcedon, but Romancaloq pop apologists
always flip it, twist it and make it the other
way around. Everyone just saw Leo's tome and they all
just submitted when Leo wrote the letter, Well, then why
do they judge it and spend days investigating to see
if it was consistent with Cyril? You don't judge the
first see if the Roman Catholic position is true, you
accept it. That's what Batican one says, you accept with docility.
So again, over and over and over. It's always out
of context proof texting without the broader sense and ethos
of what's going on. Wait a minute, isn't that what
Protestants do? Wow?
Speaker 11: What?
Speaker 8: Yes, the Roman Catholics do the exact same thing as Protestants.
Protestants with scripture, Roman Catholics with the Church fathers, and
in many Roman Cals' mind, it doesn't matter what the
context was or where the Church fathers were teaching. It's
actually okay to pull it out of context and make
it mean some super papal thing. Yet they turn around
and tell every Protestant that it's ridiculous and wrong for
them to do this with the scriptures, but Roman Catholics
are Protestants when it comes to the Church fathers and
with the papal teaching. And what I mean by that, Well,
when Francis says that all paths lead to God, as
he said a few months ago, every Roman Catholic says,
I don't have to accept it. I don't have to
accept it. So there's this total picking and choosing of
what documents they accept as faithful from the pope himself.
When the Pope is supposed to be the epistemic principle
to give us the certitude and the knowledge of which
one's true, which faith is true, which interpretation's true?
Speaker 13: Became the Christian Bible.
Speaker 12: The books of the Bible are believed to be more
than the writings of humans, though they are considered to
be the inspired, infallible word of God, thus carrying the
highest level of authority, along with two other sources of
authority sacred tradition, which means the way the apostles and
their followers have understood Christianity and the magisterium of the Church.
Speaker 8: Is Keith perhaps not aware that almost all of the
modern Roman Catholic magisterium no longer believes in the inerrancy
and infallibility of the Bible. I mean, they believe that
it is a word of God, so to speak. But
pretty much every Roman Catholic seminarian, theologian, you name it
has been infected with modern, higher critical liberal scholarship. And
I know that because I was in the Roman Catholic
ethos and world for many, many years. And I mean
I found some tradcats who believed in the older documents
like Lamentabili and you know Pachindia Pius the tenth, which
condemn modernism in the scripture studies, textual departments. But that's
all been discarded. Rome doesn't care about that, and Rome
does not uphold those teachings at all.
Speaker 12: Which means the teaching authority, the Pope and the councils
think of this as how the Church interprets and applies
God's word. All three sources of authority revealed to the
world what the Christian faith is.
Speaker 8: Well.
Speaker 12: Individual writings of the church fathers are not infallible. They
show us how the beliefs and practices of the Christian
faith were understood and even developed over time. The Magisterium
of the Church, led by the Pope, the successor to
Saint Peter, the leader of the Apostles, leads the church
in teaching and in worship. So the question is is
the Catholic Church the fullness of Christianity? The answer is
much bigger than yes, because it says so, Catholicism is
an unbroken line of succession that traces back to Jesus
and the Apostles, and if you look at the earliest
writings of the Christians, you will find the beginnings of
the Catholic Church.
Speaker 8: Yeah, but there are many groups that claim to have
Apostolic succession, from the Orthodox, to the Coptics to even
some Anglicans and Lutherans. And I'm not saying that they
actually possess it, but they all claim to have it.
So even this argument is not that good because just
because these groups claim to have Apostolic succession, that doesn't
mean that it's the one true Catholic Church church or
that it possesses it necessarily, because that's something that all
those groups possess. So so just Apostolic succession by his
own testament, by his own line of argument, isn't really
good enough to prove anything about Rome being the true Church.
Speaker 13: People get worked up about that.
Speaker 12: They think, if this were true, the church should look
today precisely as it looked two thousand years ago. But
is that realistic? Is that God's plan for the church?
At what point in history do you say it should
stop growing?
Speaker 8: Well, here we get the ambiguity in moving the goalposts,
because yeah, I mean, we would expect commonality, and we
would expect you know, synthesis and harmony with the Church
of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh century. Sure,
but we also would expect some differences in some expressions
in terms of cultural whatever that are different. We would
not expect vast radical changes in dogma or in liturgical expression.
And guess what we have seen vast radical changes in
liturgical expression and worship in the Roman See. We have
not seen that in any Orthodox church or any Orthodox bishopric,
except that I'm aware of. There may be one outlier,
But that's different than comparing it to what the Roman
See itself pushes and presents. Why do I say that,
Because this is way beyond this guy's level of grasping
this stuff. There's a famous document you can look up
in a Roman Catholic dogmatic history is called actorum fide,
and it's a dogmatic condemnation of the Jansenists. And one
of the propositions that's condemned is that the Jansonists were
arguing that Rome could promulgate defective rights, liturgies and sacraments.
This is one reason why, for example, the later Reformers
utilize these same types of arguments which were already condemned
in the Jansenists condemnation. But the pro the response to
the Vatican in doctorum fide is that given the Keroism
of Peter, to the Roman See, it would be completely
destructive and impossible to the entirety of papal supremacy and
authority for Rome to promulgate defective rights and sacraments. And
so that's a Protestant position that is condemned. And I
say that because that means you have to accept the Novasorto.
Because Rome has promulgated and pushed and accepted the Novasorto
mass since Vatican two. Well, what does that mean? That
means there is a drastic change in the style an
expression of worship such that it constitutes a revolution in
worship akin to the Protestant revolution in worship. And that's
why Vatican two was an absolutely one percent protestantizing of
the Roman Catholic Church from the top down, not in
a few liberal bishoprics from the Roman seat dogmatically for
the last seventy plus years. So it is not the
case that the Romancality Church has not fundamentally changed in
fundamental expressions of the faith, one of which the most important,
which perhaps is the worship of God.
Speaker 12: You could make this argument when Jesus called others to
follow him after the twelve Apostles, Hey, this doesn't look
the way it used to look. Or what about a
Pentecost when the church grew by three thousand people, or
when the Apostles created deacons.
Speaker 8: Yeah, but that's also not in any way analogous to
a giant global Vatican bank that utilized his organized crime
and usury literally for the last three centuries with the
approval of the Vatican run by the Rothschilds explicitly publicly.
History is that what Jesus had in mind standing armies,
The Pope says, kiss my feet and my ring as
a worldly emperor. I thought Jesus told the apostles that
do not try to be like the global emperors and
the world powers. With their vanity and their glory. He said,
you are subject to one another through humility. And yet
what is the papas the historically what is when I'm
sanctum infinitely light year? Is the opposite of that seeking
to be explicitly a geopolitical world power?
Speaker 12: When are we supposed to have a snapshot and never
grow from there?
Speaker 13: Do you see my point? The church is on a trajectory.
Speaker 8: Notice the ambiguity that all of these guys utilize. The
idea that the church grew in numbers and expansion and
expression of faith through the liturgy and through when I
say the liturgy, I mean through the linguistic expressions of
the various groups in the church. Roman Catholics called them
the sixteen rites of the of the Church. Are ite,
They'll say, well, look you've got all these sixteen rights,
they all express the one papal faith. No, no, no, that's
not what I'm talking about in terms of growth. So
he's training on ambiguity with growth. And this is precisely
what they do with development of doctrine, because development of
doctrine then becomes a catch all for the papacy tacking
on new things. So when I talk about these medieval
things with unam sanctam and temporol supremacy. Oh well, you see,
that's the natural, organic growth and development that we're talking about.
So now growth becomes a cover for dogmatic contradiction and change. No,
no having standing armies, which the Canons of Chalcedon say,
no cleric can be a part of civil service is
a contradiction. And there's nothing in the Canons of Chalcaton
to say except for the Bishop of Rome, he can,
of course be a world emperor. When Chalcidon wrote it's canons,
they didn't make any exceptions for any cleric, much less
the Bishop of Rome. So if a few centuries later
the Bishop of Rome says, oh, by the way, I'm
also a world emperor. And if you don't accept that,
you're not saved. That is absolutely a contradiction. And yes,
it's dogmatic.
Speaker 12: Grows and develops because it is alive, and as it does,
things will look different, and when you ask why, you
can find an answer. For example, the church became headquartered
in Rome because that's where Peter was bishop when he died.
Speaker 8: However, I love this argument, So where they die is
what confers these special superpowers. Now, keep in mind, Peter
ordained the line of bishops in Alexandra and Antioch. Those
are all patrin seas, all the way up into the
days of Pope Saint Gregory the Great, who writes letters
saying there are three patrin sees, Rome, Alexander, and Antioch.
So how is that Rome that had to come up
with a reason why Rome was so special? Which actually
in the Church Fathers this is mentioned many times. For example,
Ieron Aa says Rome is special because it's doubly Apostolic.
He explicitly says Peter and Paul in every Orthodox icon,
you'll notice that of the church, you see Peter and
Paul holding the church, so they're equal. So it makes
sense why Rome would be called special in that sense,
being doubly Apostolic. Hence, Paul writes the famous Letter to
the Roman Church to the Romans, but Paul warns the
Romans in chapter eleven that if they are haughty and arrogant,
they can be grafted out of the Covenant. Now, why
would Paul write that to a church that could never
fail and could never be grafted out of the Covenant. Ironically, providentially, prophetically,
Paul actually predicts the downfall of the Roman Church, because
he warns that church, you guys could fall into pride
and arrogance and fall from that pride. Do not be haughty,
because if God grafted out Jews, he can graft out
the Roman Church. And he did. And that's the key
point here. This is why the Roman Church manifests all
the blasphemies and the ridiculousness that they've manifested for so
many decades. And Roman Catholics and Tradcats are liars when
they lie to themselves that that's not true. And I
don't have to accept it, and it's not the case.
And I don't have to accept Benedict praying towards Mecca,
and I don't have to accept John Pall the Second
praying in the synagogues, even though that's condemned in the
ancient canons. No, you do have to condemn those things.
You do have to accept those things if you're a Catholic.
And this is what creates the double mind and the
insanity and the craziness in the way that they act.
Speaker 12: Constantine did not start the Catholic Church in the fourth century.
You can't just accept these myths created by anti Catholics
as fact.
Speaker 13: You need to look at history.
Speaker 12: Unfortunately, we have writings before the time of Constantine that
show us what was going on in the early Church.
Over the centuries, the Church has continued to grow and
develop in its practices and theological understanding. That's why we
need an authoritative magisterium to protect and defend the depositive
faith given by Jesus to his apostles. As the Church
grows and its mission and new issues are raised, the
Church clarifies its beliefs and settles disputes. That's what we
see in history and this is important as we look
at Catholicism today.
Speaker 8: Yeah, but we see it through ecumenical councils. We don't
see it through just writing to the Bishop of Rome
to solve the disputes and make it clear, which, by
the way, wouldn't that have been the way to do
it if the Vatican One view is true. And you
know this has been brought up many many times to
the Roman Catholic paup apologists, and they do address this,
but do you know how they address this objection? You
remember what Abara said.
Speaker 11: Well, the pope couldn't answer all those letters, he'd be
walking around in a sea of papers into Vedic. That's
literally that was his argument. So I mean, well, but
the pope wants to do things in collusion with the bishops.
Speaker 8: Why involve everybody else in the world, in the ancient world,
bringing a bunch of people from all over to a
central location which would take months, perhaps even years to
send the letters and to get everybody there. And by
the way, no popes call ecumenical councils. It's all emperors.
So none of that makes any sense with the Vatican
One model of how the church is supposed to be
run and directed. Oh well, but that was a different time,
and you see it change. Yeah, exactly what I thought
rom Kellock Gooma doesn't change. Well, it developed. Oh okay,
so what does that mean. Well, so whatever the pope
says today, that's the true thing you said, that's that's
actually how it operates. So if the pope today says
there was never a time when we condemned the Muslims,
then then it's like quantum papacy. It was never true.
Literally retroactive retro causation. You thought that the or urban
the second called crusades against Islam. No, no, no, you see
that never happened. Retroactive causation. The pope has now preyed
in the Moss towards Mecca with the Muslims, so there
was there were no crusades that didn't happen, So just
papal gas lighting and quantum papacy rewriting history.
Speaker 12: We can see its connection to the past. We can
see how the Church fathers processed and worked out certain
theological concepts like the canon of the Bible, the Trinity, baptism, salvation,
but also practical things like.
Speaker 8: What about communion. Did the Church have a worked out
practice of communion in the first seven eighth centuries? Actually
it did, and pretty much universally it included infants. And
yet when we get the rise of the papacy, at
least in terms of temporal power in the eighth ninth
tenth century, particularly when it comes into collusion with the
Frankish power. Isn't it interesting that that's exactly when there's
no longer infant communion in the West, another liturgical revolution
which is not mentioned or not dealt with, or just
swept under the rug. And when you bring this up
to Roman Catholics, they either deny it, they don't care,
or they act like It's just not the case. No,
Rome never commune infants. Yes they did, Western Latin church
fathers talk about infant communion. Oh well, the pote made
a change because it was necessary. Why how is there
this unilateral change in liturgical practice when the purpose is
supposed to be preservation of the tradition and the practices.
There were Latin priests that were married. Did you know that?
Did you know that Initially Rome didn't have a problem
with Trollo and then later they did. Why is that?
I thought it was maintaining the traditions and preserving the
truth for all time.
Speaker 12: Do with those who denied the faith and wanted to return,
or how the church should be administered, the interplay between
the church and the various political states. These are real issues,
and they weren't all explicitly fully defined at the time
of Jesus.
Speaker 13: We see a great example of this in action.
Speaker 8: So would that include uhen I'm sanctam and the pope
being the quisas hoder Rock? I mean? Is that where
you're going with this? Is that part of the evolving tradition.
Speaker 12: Chapter fifteen, where the Magisterium of the Church had to
work out what to do with Gentile conference to Christian.
Speaker 8: Yeah, you know some Magisterian by the way, isn't it Peter.
It's a council presided over by James.
Speaker 12: Interesting, Andy, would these people need to obey the entire
Jewish law before becoming Christians? There was a discussion and prayer,
and ultimately, based on experience and the leading of the
Holy Spirit, a decision was made to settle this.
Speaker 8: New How was that decision made? Was it made unilaterally
by asking Peter what the answer is? Or do they
have a synod synodol church government, which is what the
Orthodox Church still does, which is what the Roman Catholic
Church has conceded in their recent synods on sinidality. So
in twenty sixteen they started this dialogue about cynidality and
primacy and this was the first admission in this series
of admissions where Rome was not what Vatican one says.
And then they came out with another document in twenty
twenty three called the Alexandria Document. And what's it on
sinnodality and what councils are they having in Rome right now?
I don't know if it's still ongoing or if it's ended.
But Tim Gordon has been yelling about it for the
last year the synods on sinidality. So if this is
the case, why having to make all these concessions in
their own synods to sinidality issue.
Speaker 12: They didn't just quote a verse from the Old Testament.
This is the pattern that continued throughout the history of Christianity.
Speaker 13: This is Catholicism.
Speaker 12: By the way, for Protestants who get wigged out by
practical or doctrinal development, why do they never apply this time?
Speaker 8: Ah, you notice that that he slipped in, So he
slipped in doctrinal development. Does Vatican want anywhere appeal to
doctrinal development? No, it does not. In fact, it actually claims,
as does satist Cognium of Leo the thirteenth, that the
papal position, the vatican one position, was always the case,
universally known from the earliest days of the Church. But now,
in order to solve the apparent problem of medieval pope
says kings and emperors, Well, it's develops, you see. So
there's a lot of ambiguity and elastic terminology such as
develops and the church grows. Well, at first, it sounded
like you were talking about grows in terms of numbers,
which everybody agrees with. But then that somehow flipped over
into bait and switch to be grows in terms of
doctrinal understanding to where no, there wasn't in Jesus's mind
necessarily at the time of the founding of the Church,
a Vatican bank and an imperial insignia that you had
to believe in to be saved by the Pope whatever,
none of the no, that grew and developed. But again,
which one is it? Was it always the case or
did it have a seed form that developed? I hammer
this home all the time for the last several years,
because they do the exact same double standard. The Romancolic
pop apologies will in one voice sit there and tell
you that it was always the case from the earliest days,
and then contradict himself with a mutually exclusive claim that no,
it wasn't really clear. It was a seed form and
it had to grow. It can't be both, And Vatican
won inside these communitims said that it was not a
seed form that grew. That's Cardinal Newman's theory to explain
the problems. Cardinal Newman's theory does not line up with
what Vatican won inside East Communum actually claim, but Ron mccallack.
Apologies with a double standard movable goalpost constantly utilize both
principles in their apologetic and nobody calls them out or
points this out. When it's a mutually exclusive claim, it
literally cannot be both. Imagine if I said the Orthodox
Church was not clear in the first few centuries, but
it was always the Orthodox Church that was clearly there.
The Orthodox Church was a seed that grew to what
it is, but it was also clearly universally there from
the very beginning, at all times, in all places, recognized
by everyone. That makes no sense. But everybody just believes
these dumb pop arguments and just lets these people just
say all this stuff. Nobody ever calls them out on it.
Nobody confronts the paup apologist with this crap, and none
of the paup apologists will ever debate me because I
don't let this nonsense lie. I called him out immediately
on it, and then they bitch and wine moan for
seven years. Now, me give me a break, us.
Speaker 12: That the Catholic Church has structure and developments. Do they
not see that in themselves? It's so hypocritical, The only.
Speaker 11: People all.
Speaker 8: So wait a minute, so you're saying that the Roman
Catholic Church's development is like the development in the Protestant world.
That's a a one admission that Roman Catholicism is a
Protestant type position that develops and changes. It's exactly my point,
and he just admitted it. When you're a hypocritical, if
you're a Protestant, you believe, and you say that doctrines
shouldn't develop, you believe the doctrine develops. Again, notice all
this ambiguity, What exactly do you mean by doctrinal development?
Do you mean that the doctrines change? Or do you
mean that we have a greater understanding of the doctrines
as an order the docts person. I could agree to that,
But saying that I have a greater understanding of the
theological doctrines and pronunciations by the sixth or seventh century
does not equate to a totally new idea that Peter
is also a world emperor, which is nowhere in the
first seven centuries of Christianity. In fact, it's famously based
on a forgery, the Donation of Constantine, which the Vatican
evinces a forgery. So no, there is no equating better
understanding with doctrinal development. When he's using doctrinal development to
explain new dogmas that evolved that contradict previous ideas.
Speaker 12: This is are the Eastern Orthodox because they too trace
their history back to the beginning. But that's for another video.
Catholicism traces itself in an unbroken line of succession back
to Jesus, and you can say.
Speaker 8: So to the Coptics, so to the Assyrians. So do
the Orthodox like, what does that prove? I'd like to
see his Orthodox video? I bet what do you want
to bet? It's not very high tier.
Speaker 12: As an objective fact. People may not like that, but
it's true. This is why it's so ridiculous when people
say things like, well, Catholics aren't Christians.
Speaker 13: I've even heard.
Speaker 12: People say this about our Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters.
But my friends, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are the original Christians.
Speaker 8: Yes, well wait a minute, So if I'm an original
Christian as an Orthodox, then I don't need the papacy.
And if the papacy has admitted, as Benice the sixteenth
did that the Orthodox have maintained the Catholic Christian faith
in the last thousand years and a Roman Catholic submit
that we have gracious sacraments, which they admit, then why
do we need the papacy? Exactly what exactly is it
doing that we missed out on in the last thousand years?
You see, he's expressing the Vatican two attitude that you
can reject multiple ecumenical councils and still remain a quote
true Catholic or Christian. Was that the teaching of Vatican
one only what a century plus ago? Well, Vatican one
attaches excommunication to anyone who rejects Vatican One. So if
you were consistent, Orthodox who are explicit about the rejection
of Vatican One are not Christian. They are excommunicated heretics
and schismatics. But he's expressing the lovey dove Vatican two
Acumenius attitude that oh, well, we're all Christians, bro or
at least here it seems to be Apostolic Christians, which
whatever that is, I don't know what that that's supposed
to be. Oh, anybody who's quote apposolic succession, Well, who
decides who has episodes excession? Oh Rome does. Oh so
if Rome accepts the Coptics and the Orthodox and whoever
Assyrians may be, so suddenly they're now Christians. That's not
the reasoning or the or the mindset of the ideology
of ecclesiology from Cantate Domino to Vatican One. That's the
idea post Vatican One up into Vatican two and Ecumenism,
when the Roman Catholic Church no longer rejects interfaith gatherings.
As late as nineteen twenty eight, interfaith gatherings were explicitly
called apostasy and heresy and surrendering of the faith. Just
look up Mortalium Anamos a Pious the eleventh. But he's
already contradicted by now expressing a Vatican two specific Roman Catholicism,
which literally says schismatics and people who reject a thousand
years of the papacy are still somehow Catholic Christians in
good standing. That makes no sense oracle fact.
Speaker 12: Now for some people who still find this is completely crazy,
I would challenge you to look at the writings of
the Church fathers. You will see Catholic beliefs on the
primacy of the Bishop of Rome, the real presence of
Jesus and the Eucharist, the Mass as a sacrifice to God,
the baptism of infants and baptismal regeneration, the authority of
the Catholic Church, the Canon of Scripture as the Catholic
Church has it today, the veneration of icons, and prayer
to the saints, and even the veneration of the Blessed
Virgin Mary.
Speaker 13: Now I know the objections.
Speaker 12: Some say I don't care what the church fathers say,
I only care about the Bible. But that statement blows
up when you realize that God used the Church to
tell you which books are in the Bible are other things.
Speaker 8: So he actually did present a circular argument. The papacy
is where you get the Bible. You couldn't know the paper.
And when he says the church, he means the papacy,
because every Roman Catholic apologist is going to date it
to the Roman councils and to Damasists to say how
they know what the canon scripture is. So he decided
the the papacy as the source of the canon. But
I wanted to remind you because many of you are
not familiar with this. Many people have not read Denzinger.
They don't know what's in contate Domino, which is the
pronunciation of the Council of Florence. So it's a dogmatic
statement from the Council Florence. You can look it up,
Contate Domino, not the liturgical music that pops up, but
the actual pronunciation of Pute Eugene fourth from the Council Florence.
This is the bull that he wrote. And I want
you to tell me if you think this famous Papa
Bull at all reads like Vatican two and what this
guy says. The Roman Church firmly believes and professes that
those not living within the Catholic Church, not only Pagans,
but Jews, heretics and schismatics, cannot become participants in eternal life,
but will depart into everlasting fire prepared for the devil
and his angels, unless before the end of life the
same have been added to the flock, the paper flock.
And the said unity of the ecclesiastical body is so
strong that only those remaining in it, that to those
remaining and are the sacraments of benefit to salvation and
do fasting, alms giving, an other functions of piety and
exercise of the Christian service to produce the eternal reward.
And that no one who whatever almsgiving he's practiced even
if he shed blood for the name of Christ, even
if he's a martyr, a Christian martyr outside of Rome
is not saved unless he remains in the bosom and
unity of the Roman Catholic Church. So notice contat Domino
does not accept martyrs and saints outside of communion with
the Bishop of Rome. And this is not some obscure document.
This is one of the most famous documents in the
history of the Catholic Church. Pope Eugene the fourt's Cantate Domino.
Speaker 11: So go look it up.
Speaker 8: You'll find it very easily if you search it, Cantata
Domo Eugene, and it tells you that doesn't even matter
if you're a martyr in some other communion, you're not saved.
Another contradiction because Madicandu says the very opposite. Not only
are there martyrs and Christians that people saved in all
the other schismatic bodies and groups. There's in fact people
saved in Hinduism, as no tretate says Hindus love God
like Catholics do.
Speaker 12: Others will say, well, the church fathers aren't unanimous, so
you guys are picking and choosing.
Speaker 13: I agree, that's precisely why the authority.
Speaker 12: Of the Church is not based only on the Church fathers,
but also on the scriptures and the magisterium. It is
the God given role of the Church to preserve, unpack
and teach the depositive faith pass down from Jesus to
the apostles and their successors. The Bible says in Second
Thessalonians two fifteen, So then, brethren, stand firm and hold
to the traditions which you were taught by us, either
by word of mouth or by letter. And also in
one Timothy three fifteen, if I am delayed, you may
know how one ought to behave.
Speaker 8: Of course, everybody's heard these verses a million times, and
I mean these are good verses to refute, you know,
sol Scripture at presuppositions. But none of these things demonstrate
that the Roman Church is the one true church, or
that the papacy is the case. And in fact, I
can keep going on and on and on, for example,
that it can choose Lumingentium. Paragraph sixteen says that Muslims
have the faith of Abraham, and that God accepts their
prayers and their alms giving and so forth, as does
nos Ratt says the exact same thing. And the reason
I like to bring both of these quotes up is
because they will engage in deflection and dissimulation. If you
mention the fact that the Muslims over here in nostra
Atate say that they have the faith of Abraham, they'll say, oh,
but doesn't actually say that says they believe they have it. No, Actually,
when you compare both documents, it explicitly says they actually
do have it. So notice the they'll say it's weaponized ambiguity.
Well wait a minute. Notice the new guy, our new
guy here, who doesn't really know this stuff and is
new to all this. He thinks.
Speaker 11: That this is all solved. Bro, it makes it all clear.
Speaker 8: Dude, he's not even on he's not even at the
stage where he's gonna have to deal with the tradcat
stuff yet. But give this guy two or three years
and he'll I like Taylor Marshall now, and then give
him about five years. I'm starting to think France is
into pope, all right. So this is the track that
everybody goes on in this domain. So he's not there yet,
but he will be. He'll be forced to be, because
then I'm not trying to be mean or arrogant, like
where this guy's at I was at this stage in
two thousand and two. It's exactly where I was twenty
two years ago. And then you're gonna have to start
digging into these documents. You're gonna realize, Hey, wait a minute,
how do we call crusades against people that we now
say can be saved because they have the faith of Abraham. Hello,
you don't have the faith of Abraham if you don't
believe in Christ, and if you don't believe in the Trinity,
And how are people not recognizing this? In Trent Horn,
the last surviving sole apologist star of the Roman system,
who literally thinks that the word triad is an Aryan term,
I mean, the very term used in Greek Catholic churches
for the Trinity. This goober still thinks he doubled down,
still thinks is an anti Trinitarian term. The one who
says that, yeah, Francis does appear to contradict when he
says that the death pimple is against the Gospel, but
come up with about five different ways to make sense
of it. He says, so these people are sophists. They
use sophistry but how is Muslims have the faith of
Abraham and love and worship God like we do. How
is that at all.
Speaker 11: Meshable?
Speaker 8: Mashable smashable with Cantaze Domino that we just read that
says that even if you shed blood in a heretical
sect for the name of Christ, if you're not in
community with the papacy, you're damned. Well, guess what. They're
not meshable, they're obvious contradictions. And that's why everybody who's
honest with himself just says, this is a contradiction, Like
I can't praying a moss towards Mecca and then turn
around and deny that this is who we called crusades
against Hello, it's in your face. And a lot of
times Rome Kelly.
Speaker 11: Said, well, if God was really allowing and permitting a
deception with Rome, wouldn't he make it obvious?
Speaker 8: He has. It is obvious. It has been displayed before
the entire world for seventy plus years, and every day
almost Francis grants us a new scandal that helps us
to see. Yeah, absolutely, he doesn't believe the Catholic faith.
He doesn't believe the Christian faith. In fact, Francis hates
you and he makes fun of you. All you tradcats
are arguing for the guy who hates you and makes
fun of you. He thinks you're ridiculous. He one hundred
percent absolutely serves the globalist agenda. Remember the globalist agenda
that Trent says doesn't exist. There is no such thing
as that. Here's your genius Roman Catholic apologist who's so
normy turbo noormy that he doesn't even know what the
nWo is. He doesn't even know what Davos is, doesn't
know what Klaus talks about. He says that my positions
are the equivalent to chick tracks. You are listening to
a normy on your religious soul decision who doesn't know
that there's Davos in a World Economic Forum and all
that stuff. Why would you listen to somebody so naive
and silly about how the world works, but you think
he knows where to go spiritually in terms of your destiny.
You're foolish, you're ignorant, You're being used. And I don't
think that he's malicious. I think that he just doesn't know.
In fact, in the debate that I had with Trent,
there were like five philosophy basics that he had no
idea what they meant, he didn't even know what I
was talking about. So no, I don't think Trent is malicious.
I just think he has no idea. And that's why
I've asked three times over the years for him to
debate me on the geopolitical entanglements of the papacy, and
he declines every time. And They've suggested multiple other professors
that I've reached out to who also decline. Why will
none of them debate me on the geopolitical history of
the papacy? Why do none of them talk about Gladiol?
Why why do none of them take on the unam
sanctum quisa's Hoderock argument? If this is also clear and
so true, all you gotta do is de book my
arguments prove it right. Why don't they ignore it? Because
they can't deal with it because they don't know and
they don't have answers. How can you guys not see this?
Why are you all still following these people? Taylor Marshall
has over a million subscribers. He says Mary came to
him and he saw her boobs. Are you insane? What
is wrong with you people? Why would you fall for that?
You don't have any discernment to recognize delusion. Mary did
not come to Taylor Marshall. I might as well call
Taylor Swift Taylor Marshall Swift. That wasn't Mary talking about milkers.
That was Taylor Marshall milking you idiots who follow him.
Why do you think Taylor Marshall won't debate me. I've
asked him for over ten years to do a debate
and he just blocks me and ignores me. Why because
it's a grift, dummies? Why do you Roman Celics have
to be so stupid? Why do you have to fall
for the grift.
Speaker 12: In the household of God, which is the Church of
the Living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
And of course Jesus himself, when founding his church, says
to Peter in Matthew sixteen eighteen, and I tell you
you are Peter, and on this rock I will build
my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail
against it.
Speaker 13: I will give you the keys of the.
Speaker 12: Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall
be bound in Heaven. And whatever you loose on earth
shall be loosed in heaven, Christ came to save the
world from sin and created a church to accomplish his mission.
And to that church he has given authority, protection and
power to do that which he he has predestined it
to do.
Speaker 8: And well, you can't type in uh, don't type in
milkers because that you don't get the video that I
thought you're gonna get. So let me find this over here,
because I have to play for you the Taylor Marshall
Milkers video. But if you type milkers into Twitter, you
get something else. Uh, let me find it this way.
I have to play this for you because it's ridiculous.
I have it saved in my bookmarks over here. Let
me find this.
Speaker 11: No, I'll be like, oh, look, look what happens if
you tube in milkers.
Speaker 8: Yeah, don't type that in. But at least they were
all chunky. So we'll have to make this a half
and half stream. You can search your bookmarks now, okay, yeah,
have like a million bookmarks, so let's search Taylor. Here
we go, just a bit of a reminder for you.
Is it true what I'm saying? Where did I get this?
Let's see.
Speaker 13: See.
Speaker 14: Well, I'm not a visionary and turning not a profit,
but I have seen supernatural things in my life as
a Christian of a Catholic and one of those things
happened last night, and I'm reluctant to share it.
Speaker 8: But I think it'll be a comfort to other people.
So yes to a confession.
Speaker 14: And one of the things I confessed was being prideful
and judgmental and worried and concerned about the state of
the church and corruption in the church and scandals, and it's.
Speaker 8: Been a kind of a struggle for me lately.
Speaker 14: So anyway, I confess that, and the priest had some
very good things to counsel me on that. And later
that night, which was last night, I was doing examination
of conscience before bed, and I was thinking on that
point of being worried and concerned and judgmental and all
these negative thoughts and emotions about the Holy Catholic Church,
Mother Church. And as I was suddenly like I saw
this beautiful woman. She had blonde hair, she was perfect,
no wrinkles, no spots, and I immediately discerned that this
was Holy Mother of the Church.
Speaker 8: And she was writhing in pain.
Speaker 14: She was in a bed and there's sheets on her,
and she was very sick. And I noticed that her
breasts were engorged with milk, tons of milk, and there
were babies and children crying out to her that were hungry,
and she wanted to feed them, and she was upset,
but she was so sick she could hardly sit up
from her bed. And then I thought to myself, Oh,
she doesn't want she's poisoned. She doesn't want to nurse
the children because then she'll give them the poison.
Speaker 8: And then there was this voice.
Speaker 14: It was like God or an angel, I don't know,
and it said, no, the milk is still pure. And
so I saw her there and all her beauty but
so sick and struggling and loving those children, and seeing
her all that milk stored up there, and I realized
that the sacramental graces, the dogma, the doctrine, the the.
Speaker 8: Scuba had a damn dirty dream. That he's turning into
a spiritual vision to milk all you idiots to follow him.
It's kind of unreal, really, but I mean, I guess
this shows us the quality of the audience that we
would get in the Taylor Marshalls sphere. I mean, imagine
believing that this dude is like your your ideological leader, right,
a dude who literally takes dirty dreams about boobs and
turns it into like spiritual, mystical, like prophetic words for
the church. I mean, you can't make this up. And
ra mccalics love that. They eat this stuff up, dude,
especially this Mariyan mystical nonsense. They eat it up, dude.
In fact, they actually follow that more than anything else
in fact. And so and ultimately what happens is when
Roman Catholics are presented with a lot of the theological
dogmatic problems, what do they end up resorting to? They
end up resorting to just marrying stuff. Well, Mary appeared,
and you know, I don't care. I don't care about
the theology because Fatima Rosary that's all. That's it, That's
what I got, and that's their kind of fallback. But
eventually they realized this and this is most people who
you know, have the Rmancaloic phase and then come out
of it. I never really, I guess I did kind
of retreat into the Maryan stuff maybe at one point
when I was really struggling with a lot of these
theological issues. But eventually you just kind of realized, like, well,
just praying the Rosary over and over and over is
not actually solving my intellectual problems because I'm noticing big,
huge contradictions and just suppressing it and acting like it's
not there doesn't make it go away. Keeps popping up.
He keeps popping up like Taylor Marshall's Privy member when
he's having his dirty dreams. Right, So keep in mind,
I didn't make this up. It's a classic here it is.
Be sure and following me right there, and we'll open
it up in a second. We're almost done with this
guy's video, just a few more minutes. It was pretty bad.
It's about what I expected, just super low tier stuff.
He kind of surprised me for I thought he was
gonna get kind of kind of deep. When he starts
talking about circular argument, it's like, Wow, maybe this is
gonna have some some meat and bones to it. No,
it was as barren as his Novusorto backdrop that he had.
Looks his backdrop looks like every novusort of church behind
their Masonic altar.
Speaker 12: Right household of God, according to Ephesians two twenty, is
the one that stands today, built on the foundation of
the apostles, with Jesus Christ as the cornerstone, and as
Matthew sixteen says, with Peter as the rock, that church
is the Catholic Church. Now let's talk about reason. Is
Catholicism reasonable? I know this is the most subjective aspect,
but sometimes we just have to ask ourselves does this
make any sense? When I think about Christianity, there are
two main narratives that explain its nature and origin. Jesus
came to the world, lived and died, rose again, ascended
into heaven, and promised to return. Both narratives agree on this,
but the question is how his mission and message were
meant to be spread worldwide. One narrative says that God's
word in the Bible is the only infallible source of
authentic Christianity, and that the way we discover the faith
is by reading and understanding the Bible. There can be
other sources of information, but the Bible alone gives us
what we need to know about Christianity and how to
live it. This is the narrative in which I was raised.
I know this narrative well. The problem with this narrative
is that it doesn't answer some fundamental questions. By what
authority do we know that the Bible is God's word,
and even what it is, how do we account for
the fast difference?
Speaker 8: Uh oh, now we're back to epistemic circles that he
has not figured out. So remember this video was intended
to dispel the circular augmentation that supposedly Roman Catholics engage in.
But now, in order to know that the Bible is
the word of God, it requires another authority, namely the papacy.
But remember he said at the beginning, the papacy is
not a circule circle. That's the Romancalllics says, is not
a circle based on the Bible, but it is.
Speaker 13: This is an interpretation of the Bible by those who
hold to this narrative.
Speaker 12: Who gets to make the call when it comes to
differences of opinion.
Speaker 8: But this is the common conflation once again, between existential
individual certitude and normative authority. Every Roman pop apologist falls
for this category error. It's a category error. It's not
a fallacy. It's more of a category error because at
the end of the day, everybody's in the same boat
when it comes to knowing or finding certitude on the
interpretation of this or that passage or whatever. In church
theology or whatever. We're all individually going to have to
rely on in some way our own reasoning and reading
of those documents that is not bypassed by positing the pope.
All that does is move that problem, the individual epistemic
certitude problem, back a step, because now an individual Catholic
has to sift through all the papal documents and all
the councils and the encyclicals and on on and the
Bible to interpret them properly. So you haven't solved the
epistemic dilemma. You've moved the problem back a step and
said that the papacy solves it. But it begs the question, Well,
that assumes I'm interpreting the papal claim statements and documents
and dogmas correctly. So you don't solve an epistemic problem
with interpreting the texts by adding another external textual thing,
a bunch of papal documents. You see, it just adds
to the problem. What he's talking about is what we
call normative authority. That is, there some group within history
that has the authority to bind people's consciences to an interpretation.
But that's a different category. Normative authority. That's an ethical thing.
I mean, it relates to epistemology, but it's an ethical
domain versus the individual certitude about this or that passages interpretation.
That's an epistemic issue. So every Roman Calariy pop apologist
is only hurting their own case ultimately, even though they
don't see it right away by making this conflation between
a category error two different categories. Does that make sense?
Speaker 12: Does it make sense that Jesus would expect his followers
to know his mission in teaching through a book alone,
especially one he never commanded anyone to write that wouldn't
exist in its final form for hundreds of years?
Speaker 13: Now, what about the people who?
Speaker 8: But that same question can be asked, does Jesus expect
his followers to sift through tens of thousands of pages
of papal documents to know the faith? You just argue
that the papacy and its documents are the thing that
is the key to know the faith. But you didn't
do anything except make the problem even bigger by tacking
on tens of thousands of pages of more documents that
you have to learn.
Speaker 12: Who lived before it was written and compiled? How did
they know what Christianity was how would future disputes about
the Bible be settled? Does it make sense that Jesus
would do it this way, especially when the Bible is.
Speaker 8: So Once again that didn't register. All I was saying
is that I can easily refute this argument by saying,
if the papacy is necessary in the magisterium, as you're saying,
which is the papacy to know the faith epistemically? I
can easily refute this and show this to be a
really stupid, low tier argument by pointing out that how
did a Christian in the year three hundred know what
the faith was who didn't have access to Rome and
there's no ecumenical council yet there's not been a magisterial pronouncement.
So did all the Christians in the first, second, and
third century who didn't have access to Rome and had
not been in an ecumenical council, yet they didn't know
the faith? By this dumb argument, that's what he would
have to say, because you can't know without the magisterium. Yet,
if I'm a Christian in the year three hundred in
Corinth I have no access to Rome, I don't know
what they're up to. There's not been an ecumenical council yet,
and I see as a few years away.
Speaker 11: How do I know the faith? I don't know. I
don't know until Rome pills us.
Speaker 8: This is so silly, it's such a bad argument. But
it's a bad argument that dupes millions of people. Millions
of people fall for this super low tiered don Roman
Catholic argument.
Speaker 13: Says otherwise.
Speaker 12: For example, in Matthew chapter eighteen, Jesus tells his followers
to take their disputes that they can't settle to the church.
But how can this command be applied in the narrative
that denies the existence of a visible church with authority
not to mention when looking at the history of the church,
it didn't function according.
Speaker 8: You notice that demonstrates the very thing I said. He
conflated epistemic certitude with normative authority. So the passage he's
using in Matthew eighteen, which by the way, does not
make it about Peter, It actually makes it about the
whole college of the Apostles, is a passage dealing with
solving disputes in the church by the authority of the bishops,
who can bind consciences. That's the Orthodox position. But remember
he started this section of his video by saying that
the only way to have certainty about theological doctrines was
with the magisterium. Well, then, how did a Christian in
the first, second, and third century, admittedly without any magisterium
or knowledge of what Rome was up to in the
ancient world, there's no Council of Nicea. Yet, how did
they know the doctrines? How did they know the truth?
Did they all just make a hodge pilgrimage to Rome?
Was Rome the mecca that they all we have? We're
going to allosk the pope with the faith?
Speaker 15: Was?
Speaker 8: This is so ahistorical and stupid. Yet if his argument
is the case, he would have to say that the first, second,
and third century Christians did not know the faith until
Rome told them what the faith was. And I didn't
even know was an ecumenical council until Rome said, it's
an ecumenical council. Yet this guy is not at the
point yet where he's going to learn that Constantinople one
was called without Rome was still an ecumenical council accepted
as such, and retroact accepted by Rome a few centuries later,
which disproves the whole Romancolic position and proves that they
didn't think that they needed Rome to know the dogmas.
Speaker 12: That narrative for over fifteen hundred years, and for the
vast majority of Christians in the world, it still doesn't.
Does that seem reasonable? I don't think so. What does
seem reasonable is that Jesus gave his authority to his
apostles and founded a church that would, by his authority,
protection and power fulfill his mission to bring the Gospel
to the world. Through his church, the Bible was written
and compiled, and through his church it is rightly taught
and interpreted. Through his church, the world is evangelized. Through
his church, the fullness of truth is revealed. Even though
its members are sinners. Jesus works in and through them
to accomplish his mission. This is the way things worked
when Jesus was on earth, and that was the way
things were right at the beginning after he left, and
this is how right.
Speaker 8: But none of that was Vatican won. And now he's
trying to argue like it's identically the same communion and.
Speaker 12: Structure things have continued to this day.
Speaker 8: Now wait a minute, in the middle of this video,
he said that there's a lot of things that are
vastly different, which constitute doctrinal development. But now by the
end of the video, oh no, it's actually all the same.
It's basically like papacy functioning in the year one ten
pretty much identically the same as papacy functioning in twenty
twenty four. Uh No, anybody who has a level two
inductory induction to church history knows that by the Middle Ages,
when we've got Quisat's hotarock emperor Pope, that is not
at all in continuity with the papacy in the time
of you know, the persecutions of Diocletian or whatever, night
and day. And he already admitted this, because he admitted that,
Oh yeah, by the Middle Ages, it's like a vastly
different structure. But that's just doctoral development, dude. But now
it's not doctoral development, he said, it's all basically the same.
So all a bunch of assertions, propaganda moving the goalpost, elasticity, ambiguity,
very little argumentation, maybe only a couple arguments here or
there throughout this video, with a couple of proof texts,
and yeah, just just super low tier assertions. That's that's
about what I expected. But this is the stuff that
captures you know, a quarter million people, right, So this
is not that old of a video already been seen
by a quarter million people. And this is why, this
is why there's so much just repeating of bad arguments
all the time. And the whole the second half of
his video was that freaking stupid argument about the papac
He's going to give you certitude, which is a basic
epistemic mistake. How is it going to give you certitude
when it's more documents to come through? Think about it.
This is the Protestant Magisterium, so you only have to
comb through what, however many pages? This is two thousand pages.
So I got to come through two thousand pages of
this to make sense of the faith if I'm a Protestant.
But if I'm a Roman Catholic, you see, oh, the
papacy solves these things. Oh so now I got to read, however,
many thousands of pages of papal documents to know the faith.
So it just taxed on more papers to read. How
does that put me in a better episemic position to
know the faith? Because he literally said to have certitude,
you go to the pope and the magistian which has
a giant, massive doctrines and documents and it is not true. Right,
this is the parallel to Islam. Right when you get
into Islam, all the idiots on the internet falling for Islam.
Speaker 11: It's simple, you just got to believe a few things
about God's one and then they realize, no, you got
to believe like giant sections, pages, thousands of pages of hadiths.
Speaker 8: That's also what you gotta believe. It's not just the Qur'an,
it's all this other junk, and it's full of stupid stuff.
Guess what, no different in Rome. It's not just a
handful of ex cathed doctrines that you have to believe.
Totally not true, pop basic bitch Catholic myth that you
only have to believe a few ex cathed doctors. I
don't even know where they come up with this, Like
who in the Roman Catholic world is telling them you
only have to believe the exca theater statements. That is
just not even close to anything true in any Catholic theology.
Like even the Catholic Catechism is proposed as a totality
catechism for you to believe that you're supposed to believe
in with docility in Catholic moral theology. It's just a
total myth, akin to the myth of the idiot new
converts to Islam who think I only have to believe
a few things. Now totally not true. All right, we're
gonna open it up. We've seen enough of Catholic Scott
Stap over here with his achy breaky heart video argument
don't tell my hort my achy breaking prost and hort
a news don't thank you don By the way, he
literally looks like he looks like a cross between Billy
Ray and Scott Stap We're gonna open it up. I
want to hear your best arguments. It is not restricted
to Catholicism.
Speaker 11: Uh.
Speaker 8: That video just popped up, and it triggered me. I'm triggered,
like triggering pop ever. Hear it triggered me. I started shaking.
I could have I couldn't handle it. I had to reply.
And by the way, after my fourth espresso, I'm lit, boy,
I'm hyped up. We started off straight up evening MPR radio.
I was cool, calm and collected, buddy. But now I'm
going I'm gone insane. I'm like off the hook. I'm sweating.
It's hot in here. I'm ready to get down and
dirty baby with debate. Not what you pers are thinking.
We're gonna open it up open for him. I apologize
for subjecting you to that nonsense from Taylor Marshall, but
we always have to revisit this because, I mean, a
million people plus follow this goofball and he's literally like
a four foot goofball. I'm just kind of amazed, like
people can't. These people don't have discernment, Vain, what's up?
It's not restricted to Catholson. By the way, if you
want to come with your atheist arguments, you want to
come with your Protestant, Calvinist, Muslim, Hebrew Roots, Judaism, whatever else, Mormons, Black, Heeber, Israelites.
It's all on the table. Bring it, bring it, come,
smash me, refute me. I'm so eager, I'm so ready
to be defeated. Please put me in my place, Vain,
I'm you.
Speaker 16: Deal.
Speaker 8: What's up? Man?
Speaker 14: So?
Speaker 17: When arguing tag right, if saying denying God makes knowledge
claims impossible?
Speaker 8: Right?
Speaker 18: So when atheist asked.
Speaker 17: Me, well, well then what is it about a different
theistic belief such as Calvinism, for example, that would make
knowledge impossible. Like would that be related at all to
like problems with the Trinity theology?
Speaker 8: Yeah, So, like if you did want to apply Calvinism
tagged to Calvinism, it's a little more challenging because you
have to know a lot more about Orthodox metaphysics and
Trinitarian structures of the world. But it's not impossible. But
I would just say something like, you know, if the
Calvinists model of absolute divine simplicity is true, then Calvinists
are subjected to modal collapse, which makes God unknowable. So
right there, there's no God that you could know in
that system if you're consistent with their version of absolute
divine simplicity, which they do hold. Calvin is very explicit
about that. It's identical to Augustine's view that would undo
the possibility of knowledge. All right, thanks, and was it?
Speaker 17: I don't know if if I got this quote correct,
but but I think father Deacon and I said in
a or a video will listen to youill before he
said that Orthodoxy is in a privileged position in terms
of being able to justify knowledge claims.
Speaker 18: Is that the correct way to say.
Speaker 8: That, right, And the reason he's saying quote, privileged position
is because in our argument, in our view, we have
a Gods eye perspective, so in others, we're not subject
to the problems of secular epistemology, where in their perspectives
or an atheist epistemology, they're always going to be restricted
to the individual, finite empiricist perspective, so they don't have
any access to anything outside of their mind ultimately, right,
because they're not theists. There's no transcendent realm, et cetera.
So they're restricted to their own individual sense data experience, right,
and that immediately boxes them into a lot of problems
for explaining anything at all in terms of knowledge claims, metaphysics,
external world identity, over time, et cetera, et cetera. So
that's what he means is that we're in a privileged
position because our position is not grounded or starting with
individual sense data. The position comes from divine revelation, so
we have a God's eye perspective. And if you want
the specifics, that would mean that orthodox metaphysics, for example,
would not be subjected to the bootstrapping problem, but pretty
much every atheist would have to have some kind of
way to try to tackle the bootstrapping dilemma.
Speaker 18: Merry Christmas.
Speaker 8: I appreciate Hey, Merry Christmas. Do you thank you so much?
Speaker 11: I don't want to wait in vain for your love.
Speaker 8: It's a little bit of Bob Marley and any lenox
for you there, vain California Prepper. What's up? Thank you
guys for being so generous tonight, Merry Christmas? Do you
all happy? Debate?
Speaker 9: Married?
Speaker 11: Debate? Miss?
Speaker 9: Oh?
Speaker 11: Married debate?
Speaker 8: Miss and may you have a logical Christmas? Go ahead?
I'm you.
Speaker 11: Hey.
Speaker 19: I had a question, uh for relating to like circular reasons.
Speaker 8: So one of my family.
Speaker 19: Members said something along the lines of, like the Orthodox
and Catholic Church, they just introduced like the Book of
Matthew into the cannon just because it said so along
the lines of like gase of Helena are favail against
the church, so they put that in there so that
they could.
Speaker 18: Self certify themselves. How would I respond to.
Speaker 8: This that type of argument, Well, the basis for accepting
Matthew is a long like episcopacy or see relative exercise.
In other words, it wasn't like a bunch of bishops
came together and said, let's put in the Gospel of
Matthew that the gates of Hell can prevail against the Church.
I mean, the Gospel of Matthew, like the other Gospels,
is part of a long historical textual tradition that had
to be analyzed from all the different bishoprics that had
Gospels of Matthew to compare them and to see, okay,
there is unanimity. There is a lot of commonality. It's
usually like ninety five to ninety eight percent commonality amongst
various textual traditions. They're very minor differences that relate to
translations of like grammatical errors or number mistakes here and there.
They're called scribal errors. But I'm not aware of any
like reputable historical textual scholar who thinks that there was
some conspiracy to insert, you know, the gates of Hell
won't prevail. I think that one way to see that,
if you wanted like an easy disprover of that, or
way to disc prove that, would be to look up
all the patriistic citations of Matthew sixteen eighteen across like
various traditions or various centuries. So for example, if you
have you'urinas citing it early, if you've got Cyprian citing
it early. If you've got Jerome Tratullian, if you've got
origin all of whom I assume, cite Matthew sixteen eighteen.
And if you get the Denny book, he'll he'll list
a bunch of these. You'll notice that there's commonality in
other cities across the Empire, which suggests that there was
not some late conspiracy to add the text. Does that
make sense, yep, it does. Thanks also the decision about
canonicity for even things like Matthew and all that. I mean,
it's pretty I would say by the fourth and fifth
century there's not a whole letter dispute that I'm aware
of about the Gospels themselves. The Gospel of John actually
was somewhat doubted and disputed beyond the synoptics. And but
I don't think by like the time of Athenacious or
after Athenacious, like there's not a whole lot of debate
on the Gospels. It's more so the dispute is the
Catholic epistles, and you know, due to canonical texts. So
most of the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh century debates and
questions about canonicity are like the Catholic Epistles and the
Book of Revelation, perhaps even though Athenasio is pretty much
convinced Rome to include it. Heath, what's up, Heath, Bar,
what's up? I'm you dude, Hey, Jay, Hey, going, what's up?
Speaker 18: I'm just going to question about Peter and the Catholic Church.
Speaker 15: Is there any proof that is there any proof at
all that Peter was actually in Rome, like the Catholic
Church claim, unlike Paul.
Speaker 8: I think it is a valid tradition. Yeah, I think that,
you know, the Orthodox Church does accept the tradition that
Rome is a doubly Apostolic see the see of Peter
and Paul. So yes, I would say it is a
valid tradition. But I don't think that Peter being in Rome,
or dying in Rome in any way somehow contributes to
the special terrorism and claims a Vatican one. I mean,
when you when you really ask them, why does Rome
get it? But not Alexander Antioch, It's like, well, he
died there, Okay, Well why does him dying there contribute
this vast you know, power and authority that we don't
really see elucidated until very late.
Speaker 15: Yeah, because I just seem to use that scripture with
the Keys to the Kingdom with Peter and relate everything around,
just to centralize everything. But really it was Paul who
had more authority in Roman was preaching to the James
Tarlsien rhyme. So if anything, he should have more authority
in relation to being at the say.
Speaker 8: Of Yeah, I actually I actually agree with that. I
mean yeah, I mean I think theologically speaking, I mean
it's Paul, that's the quote star of the New Testament, right,
I mean he rebukes Peter and Peter's wrong. So it's like,
you know, just just basic stuff still kind of I
think undermines what the Roman position develops into. And this
is a key thing to understand, Like the Roman Catholic
Advanced Medieval, late Medieval position, it takes a long time
for that to develop. It's an evolution and it doesn't
start with Peter or Victor or Damasis. You know. It's
like it's a thing that builds on a legitimate tradition
that becomes insane. Lo fi, what's up?
Speaker 2: Man?
Speaker 9: Kai?
Speaker 8: Do you hear me?
Speaker 18: Yeah?
Speaker 20: I want to ask you a bit of a stupid question,
but do you think that most of the Catholic apologetics
are dishonest, because from my point of view, it's like
impossible to prove their points because the new documents like
Alexandria or Kiti literally say that the Orthodox are rights
and all the other points.
Speaker 8: Like when I saw.
Speaker 20: You, would you petrust debate, it seemed pretty obvious for me,
What do you say about that?
Speaker 8: I think, so when it comes to a lot of
the Catholic apologists, I mean, unless they openly demonstrate outright dishonesty,
I don't know if I would say they're now necessarily
being dishonest. I think some of them are. I think
Lofton is, but I think typically rather than I mean,
maybe there are some cases. I don't watch a whole
lot of their content because you got to understand that
like today's Roman Catholic online paup apologists, they're really not
any different than the paup apologists from twenty years ago
that I was first introduced to Rome through. So like
the Peter Kreeft and the Scott Hawns and the Stephen
Ray and the Jerry Mattoitics Jimmy Aiken. I'm trying to
think of all the apologists of twenty years ago that
everybody knew in two thousand and three four, like that
whole class of guys, like they were saying the exact
same stuff that today's pap apologists say. I mean, the
Roman sphere of apologetics doesn't get any more sophisticated than
all the same stuff you hear them saying today. And
I mean, Ibarra might be a quote mind collector beyond
what the previous guys have done, because I guess his
book is like eight hundred pages of quote minds, and
you know, eight hundred pages of quote minds? How good
did that? How did he fare when UBI just asked him, well,
what about Virgilius?
Speaker 11: Well, I ain't got a sufficient inswer to that yet,
so I'm not going to see so.
Speaker 8: What did it do? And again like I'm not. I mean,
they literally don't say anything different than they said twenty
years ago. So are they being dishonest? Probably to a degree,
because I think after many years, the more you're exposed
to things and challenges and issues at a certain point,
Yet it does take dishonesty. But you know, I guess
that's for them to in their own consciences to sort out,
because like you, Meg could get away with this on
the in the public sphere with duping people. But like inside,
in the inner conscience and in their inner heart their news,
they know they're not being honest with themselves. They know
that they're coming up with stuff to might to make
it work. I mean, just think of when Trent said,
Think of when Trent admitted that it does look like
France is saying that the death penalty is against the gospel.
Is a change in Caltholic morals and theology? Yeah, because
it is? And what did he say to answer it?
But there's about three or four different ways that you
could come up with to explain it. Come up with
so are we just system building and it's a big
unfalsifiable thing. So yeah, I mean, I'm gonna say that
I know that Lofton operates in a dishonest, snaky way.
I've never seen be openly dishonest. Although I mean to
double down on the fact that Triad is not a
the triad, it's a term that means anti trinitarianism. I mean,
it's just false and it really shows that Trend has
no idea what the Eastern tradition is on the Trinity,
not interested in any of that. I mean to go,
why be involved in any of that when you can
do a pop Roman Catholic video that gets two hundred
and fifty thousand views. So why deal with the actual
challenges from somebody like myself or UBI? When like there's
a giant market you can become a tailor Marshall and
get a million followers and talk about your you know,
your wet dreams or somehow special revelations from Mary. I
mean there's a million idiots that are ready to fall
for that. Do those million idiots want to talk about
the Alexander document? No, So maybe you're right, maybe it
actually has a lot of dishonesty. That's what's up? You're there?
What's something?
Speaker 19: Man?
Speaker 21: Hey can you hear me?
Speaker 16: Hey?
Speaker 22: Thank you for taking my call. So I have two
things I want to ask or get your opinion on. So,
like if I'm a Protestant, I'm not a Protestant, I'm
an Orthodox.
Speaker 21: But from a Protestant perspective, when when they're spending time
trying to refute I guess normative authority the Orthodox Church,
or even I guess the Roman Catholic Church for that matter,
when they're when they're doing this, and some of them
would make the assertion and say, uh, well, no church
tradition has it all correct, aren't they, essentially, in your opinion,
refuting Christianity in general.
Speaker 8: Yeah, that's an ambiguous phrase because what does that mean.
I mean, does that mean that no church tradition knows
everything or expresses everything exhaustively perfectly? I mean that could
mean a lot of different things. But it could also
be interpreted to mean that church's dogmas contradict. So it's
just an ambiguous phrase that would require I think, some
degree of specificity to understand exactly what they mean. But
if they mean dogmatically, then yeah, that would undermine the
promise that the church could not fail.
Speaker 21: Awesome, and I appreciate that. And the next thing I
wanted to ask real quick. You were speaking about the
G eighty document earlier, and I was looking it up
and I did just a little bit of reading on it,
and it seems like, Okay, I don't know how much
involvement did the Pope have with this document, because couldn't
the Catholic just say, well, this is just you know,
this is not really dogmatic.
Speaker 8: Well it doesn't matter. But the dogmatic or non dogmatic
status of this document doesn't matter, because these are the
Vatican's own theological commissions. So what that means is that
these are published with the approval of the Vatican. They're
on Vatican websites. Christianity dot v a is a Vatican website,
so it's it is a tacit implicit approval, And so
the Pope doesn't have to come out and say I
dogmatically state that ady is, you know, in accord with
the dogma. It doesn't have to because in Roman Callic theology,
the pope cannot teach error. So if this is a
Vatican approved document, this is a Vatican okay position, you see,
this is a Vatican synom this is a Vatican commission.
So no point is that it doesn't matter about whether
it's dogmatic or not. That's a deflection from the issue
of defectibility and indefectibility, because if this document is an error,
then why does the pope have on his website massive
theological error.
Speaker 11: It makes.
Speaker 18: Time.
Speaker 8: But no, that's actually a really important point because a
lot of rom Meanchaolics will deflect into the status of
the document, which has absolutely nothing to do with whether
it's heretical or not. Just like in as Abara admitted,
do you guys, remember you. Barro admits that Honorius is
excommunicated for a letter that he wrote to somebody about monothelitism.
Did he make the letter dogmatic? No, a pope's letter
to one person is not dogmatic, but the letter preaching
monothelitism was enough to get him ex communicating, condemned. Ibarra
admits that they're top guy now on the pope. What
does that demonstrate? It demonstrates the point of making right
now that the status of the document has nothing to
do with whether it's heretical or not. So it doesn't matter,
because this means that the the Vatican is promoting theological
error on a mass scale to the entire Orthodox world
and to the rest of the world. That you can
believe and accept these theological principles now, and they're no
different really than what stuff was already in Benedict's books.
So if they're going to say, oh, it's not it's
not really, it doesn't matter. Even if it's heresy doesn't count.
Speaker 18: Well.
Speaker 8: Benedict wrote the same types of stuff in his books.
He says that the Orthodox shouldn't be expected to accept
any more than what was the case in the first
thousand years of Christianity and the Orthodox have maintained the
faith without the papers of the last thus year weld.
I mean, that's all the same types of stuff in
this So they love to deflect into a topic that
has nothing to do with whether the document is heretical
or not, because again, if it's heretical, the pope's dogmatic
pronouncement of the document has nothing to do with whether
it's heretical or not. You can be a heretic without
making it mandatory. Martin Luther had no dogmatic authority behind
his documents when the Roman Catholic Church excommunicated him as
a heretic. But Romancalthers are so stupid and so goofy
when they try to make the system work that they
will actually end up literally saying that no, it has
to be dogmatically pronounced for it to be heretical and rejected.
What I'm not joking like, they'll actually say that you
only like, it only counts if the pope binds you,
and then it would be something that we'd have to
worry with. But I'm not bound by this document. Well
that's not even true. This is another tried myth that
you only have to believe what's ex cathedral. That's not true.
It's just a total myth that they make up. I
don't even know where they get it. It's like maybe
some pop apologists says this and they just repeat it
like a bunch of you know, twitter yapping birds or
something like. But that's not to mina birds. That's not true,
like it's been that's actually been condemned four times by
the Vatican. That you only have to believe the ex cathedra.
That's just stupid. It's not true. Noah, sincere hypocrypt five dollars.
One of the copes that I see from Roman Catholics
is that we've had many bad popes. Have nothing to
do with whether or not popes are teaching heresy and error,
so they're always deflecting into morally bad popes. That has
nothing to do with whether popes are teaching theological error,
so they're again throwing up confusion and smoke and mirrors
because the question is not whether there are bad popes
or does a morally bad pope invalidate the Roman Catholic system.
It's about theological error, which would mean that the Roman
see t taches error and thus contradicts Vatican one's claims.
So no, it's not about popes having you know, prostitutes.
We all know that, we know Alexander the six had
a tunnel to the hoe house next door. Nobody's arguing
that a bad pope is what invalidates the system, because
there's countless, i'm sure, evil Orthodox bishops in the history
of the church. So what that's not the argument, it's
another deflection. The point is that in the Roman Catholic
system you cannot have popes theologically teaching error on faith
and morals. That's the point, because that invalidates the system.
That's why we're pointing out that the status of this
document has nothing to do with whether the document is
teaching error and approved by Rome, because it is in
the Roman system. Warren, what's up, warreng g I'm mute,
I'm mute.
Speaker 10: Warren, Okay, I just wanted to ask you about why
government should exist.
Speaker 18: So, the Paternians believe in no government. So how do
you prove that the government is necessary?
Speaker 8: Well, if you even if you believe in nap and
everything being privatized, you're still going to get a government.
Speaker 18: Right, So how we define a government?
Speaker 8: Well, I mean, if we're living on an island full
of libertarians and everybody voluntarily agrees to a private security
firm running the islands h law enforcement procedures. Is that
a government?
Speaker 15: So like everybody are so everybody are having your private probably?
Speaker 18: So if so, that's not a government? So everybody to
have your private what do.
Speaker 8: You mean it's not a government, it's it's a it's
a group of people who have the ability to use
force that other people don't have. Is that not a government?
Speaker 15: But there's no, But there's nobody who is governing uh
that island?
Speaker 8: So there's you hear what I said, Like I literally
just said, if a private security firm is hired by
the island to govern the island voluntarily, is that a government?
Or is it not?
Speaker 18: It could be a government?
Speaker 8: Okay, So so now you're gonna have to tell me,
like what do you mean why should there be government?
Because now you've said that council's government and a lot
of libertarians would accept that as government. So you do
or don't believe in government?
Speaker 18: Okay?
Speaker 8: Okay, I thought we were going to go further places there,
but I guess not. So again, you'll notice, like a
lot of times debates Hinge on ambiguity and terminology, not always,
but a lot of atheists overuse this, like uh, theists
that have ambiguity and terminalogy. But sometimes it's true because well,
what do you mean by a bad pope? What do
you mean by government? So right, I feel like Jordan
Peter depends on what to mean, but I mean sometimes
that's true. Well, what do you mean because if a
baby is born on an island where all the libertarians
consented to a private security firm being the government being
the enforcers on libertarian an island, fantasy island, deplain deplay, right,
we're gonna have Tattoo designated as the judge, dread jury
and executioner of the island. And if a baby's born,
uh oh, has he consented to Tattoo being the governor
of his island? No? Uh oh? Violation of the nap
Now that sounds silly, but actually it's not silly because
the premise behind libertarianism is typically that it has to
be voluntary, has to be you have to respect the
non aggression principle. So I guess we have to let
babies born on the island govern themselves in little baby
cribs until they get old enough to voluntarily contract to
have tattoo on fantasy Island be able to kill them.
Tell me that one the good analogy. I'm actually cracking
up thinking about this, like Libertarian fantasy Island. But I
mean that seems to follow right, Like and by the way,
what if I visit libertarian fantasy Island and I don't
consent to you know, what was that tattoos private security
firm governing me? Like what do I do now? So? Like,
am I restricted to some corner of the island that's
like totally savage with no laws. Like the real libertarian
section of Libertarian Island. Fantasy Island is that where I
go until I voluntarily signed the papers that tattoo can
rule me. I mean, it just gets absurd. But the
reason it gets absurd is like you're actually following through
with the logic of the libertarian position that no one
should be governed without their consent. Well, guess what, You're
born into a family and your father governs you without consent, dummy,
And then literally you'll get these like Milton Friedman libertarian
types who are like, no, actually you don't babies. Babies
are their own individuals, and like, you know, or babies
are parasites on the mother, and the mother can brought
a braation the baby because babies are I mean, this
is how stupid the libertarian shit gets. Because libertarians don't
live in reality. They live in a fantasy world, just
like the communists do. That's why none of these costco
liberal idiots will actually debate me. By the way, mark,
what's up? The QR code is for bitcoin. I am
a huge bitcoin supporter. I believe in bitcoin, but I
don't believe in bitcoin because libertarians and Austrian economists invented it.
I can disagree with the philosophy even though I think
bitcoin is the monetary answering solution. That doesn't mean that
every aspect of a libertarian classical liberal worldview is true.
What's up? Man? He dropped off, so I guess he
said he didn't want any of this. What's up?
Speaker 11: Escape?
Speaker 8: We're going to fantasy island, y'all? What's up? Where's all
the libertarians that to defend the private security contractor tattoo
inc tattoo justice, the plane, the plane, the gun, the gun?
Speaker 11: Right?
Speaker 8: We all on libertarian fantasy island? Where you all at?
Speaker 16: I think that's sort of starting to come up and say,
I feel like the monopoly on violence isn't the governance.
The governance is the collective people agreeing to the rules.
It feels like in that what the situation you slaid
for and you try to assign governance to the security force.
Speaker 9: But it'd be the people that agreed to the rules,
wouldn't it.
Speaker 8: How are the people who agreed to the rules the
governing force when they're not the ones worth the use
of force.
Speaker 9: That's the idea of what you're saying.
Speaker 16: If four libertarians lived on an island that live there
agreeing to a set of rules, and then the private
security would obviously enforce if somebody felt hard done by
or felt like their property had been.
Speaker 9: Taken unfairly.
Speaker 8: Yeah, so there's a governing body of a security private
security farm enforcing the laws or no, the laws.
Speaker 16: Themselves being constructed. That's the governance, isn't it. It's not
about the enforcement of the laws that.
Speaker 8: Actually So this is why you guys are like, I'm
not trying to be mean to you, but you guys
live in a fantasy world. Laws don't enforce themselves. It's
the power structure that enforces the laws. The actual humans.
There's no abstract laws enforcing themselves to punish people who
are stealing your potatoes from your farm.
Speaker 9: Yeah, that's probably what I'm trying to get to it.
Speaker 16: Just the fact that there's a security force doesn't mean
that they are the only people that are able to
enforce the rules. The social collective can come together and
say that person was wrongly treated, and then they're able
to then enforce the monopoly of violence.
Speaker 9: Also.
Speaker 8: Yeah, but it doesn't matter because the whole point of
the analogy was about the fact that where I was
going with it was if visitors or children are born,
they're not voluntarily accepting the laws, right, So you can't
literally make authority or duty based around voluntary acceptance. It
leads to absurdities like Milton Freeman's idea that like babies
are parasites on women.
Speaker 9: Yeah, think in that sense.
Speaker 16: Obviously, a child comes under the like you said, the
leadership of your parents' house, But when they come of
an age where they're able to make a decision, they
could obviously leave the island if they disagreed with that
rule set.
Speaker 8: Okay, so authority is not based on consent.
Speaker 16: I'm just going to run that through my head, sorry,
is not based on concern.
Speaker 8: Yeah, so because you just admitted that when they come
of age they could decide not to be under it.
Speaker 16: Yeah, but it's I think it's also then justice is included,
like that that authority can enact injustice and break those
rule sets by the force of its power.
Speaker 9: But that means that it's injus.
Speaker 8: Yeah, but like a father can abuse his authority in
the household and that's unjust. We don't get rid of
fathers because there are unjust fathers, that's my point. So likewise,
it's actually impossible to have a scenario where there are
no governing powers or individuals with authority to enforce laws,
and so there's always some level of possibility of abuse
of authority. But I'm just saying that libertarian has been
so fraught with fallacious assumptions and metaphysics that they can't
justify that these are basic examples that really disprove the
fact that you can't make governance literally hinging on consent.
Speaker 9: Yeah, I agree with that.
Speaker 16: I think I do think that that's the role of
government obviously is to to write injustice. So if there is,
but I think that's just lean more towards the fact
that we've put the government in a too big of
a position and we've given them so much power of us.
Speaker 8: And well, I agree with that, yeah, but that doesn't
require me accepting the classical liberal presuppositions to say that, Yeah, cool.
Speaker 9: That's all. I just wanted to jump up because of that.
Speaker 16: I feel like I feel like you were over representation
the authority of the force. But I think that is
most of the libertarians I talk to, we will push
that it's more rules not rulers, like it's the fact
that there's society these days will put an individual or
a government and give them so much control over individuals. Then,
as a Christian, I think that's because a lot of
society has devoid faith, so they have no accountability to
a creator, so they'll need something to fill that spot.
But I think I think I lean more towards I
think it.
Speaker 8: Might not be a.
Speaker 9: Smoother world if it was a libertarian, but I think
it'd be the more.
Speaker 8: I don't know, the world that has less Okay, yeah,
I mean I would actually agree with that. Solution is
just we have a libertarian island that has a monarch
for this for the how's that herk. How do I
call in through the Twitter link? Bro? If you want
to call in, you just call in on the Twitter
space right here. That's up.
Speaker 23: Hey, Jay, I'm a libertarian, but I'm left libertarian, So
I actually agree with a lot of what you were
just saying to the last two gentlemen. I was going
to say to the first gentleman that there's a book
called The Machinery of Freedmen of Freedom by David Friedman
that explains the private court systems, and it makes it
sound somewhat.
Speaker 18: Plausible but highly unlikely.
Speaker 23: Given the state of humanity right now. So we're looking
at hundreds, if not thousands of years of development before
we get to this Star Trek fantasy land where we
don't keep centralized planning and local governments can control everything.
Speaker 8: Yeah. I just saw a video what is the name
of that? There's a community that is being it's kind
of already kind of up and running in Nicaragua. I
forget where it is. So there's some place where there's
like a full on bitcoin community and there's not a
whole lot of people living there that there's like five
people there ten. I don't know what it is, but
so somebody's trying to create something like this with a
community that's libertarian run that is totally on the basis
of bitcoin, and you have to basically voluntarily assent to everything.
Let me find that video. It's an interesting idea. But
the thing is is like, already they are very selective
about who comes, so it's not I mean, obviously like
to go there, you gotta have a lot of money.
So it's and I'm not even saying that that's necessarily wrong.
I don't think there's anything wrong with being wealthy or
moving to an island or anything like that. But it's like,
so libertarian and free and all this kind of stuff
is in reality restricted to like bitcoin zillionaires and people
that pass this private company's background check or whatever they do.
Let me find it so I know, l Salvador. You know,
you could say it's not Bitcoin City. It might be
this one. I'm not talking about El Salvador. I understand
there's potentiality for all of this. I do think there's
a lot of potential for places to become healthy, functioning societies.
They will have some elements of libertarian principles. I do
agree with that. Where is this thing? I just watched
this the other day.
Speaker 23: I would stressed that it has to be done in
steps so gradually. Most people in America are reliant on
government programs and would be totally petrified if there were
any alterations alone cutting them whole scale.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I think those are fair objections and arguments. I
would agree with that that if there is going to
be something like this is probably a long time down
the road, or it's going to be restricted to like,
you know, zillionaires. I can't find what I'm looking for.
Maybe it's I don't know, it was just some weird
video of like, but the point was just that it's
going to be very selective, I guess initially, And I'm
not even I don't even have a problem with that,
Like I don't think there's anything wrong with elitism per se.
But like he's saying that if this was really going
to spill out into like the rest of the world, yeah,
we're talking like centuries centuries for this to affect like
all societies. I do think in the near future, the
like the next say, fifty years, as even Jacques Attealie
admits in his book The Cities That Adopt the in
the areas that adopt the forward thinking technologies are the
ones that become the megacity economic centers of the future.
So the places right now where you have massive bitcoin
mining and acceptance places, maybe in Texas, I'll Salvador Bitcoin
City Island. Whatever I'm looking for, Like these things I
think will probably end up being mega centers in the future. Anyway,
what's up, Alex? But I mean for now, it's like
Golf's gulch, like whatever I was looking at. If I
can find that, oh I know how to find it,
I know where it is. What's up? Man? Got un mute? Dude, Yo?
Speaker 18: What's up? Due?
Speaker 24: I want to know.
Speaker 18: I'm a Catholic, but I want to know.
Speaker 24: I was talking to this other Orthodox, So I'm curious
your view on exorcism. Like you guys as Orthodox, think
that as Catholic believe in like different Jesus than you guys.
Speaker 8: Not necessarily. I mean, I think that you're naming and
intending the same correct Jesus. But how does that relate
to exorcism Because I could say that exorcisms can happen
like in Mark seven outside the church, but that doesn't
approve anything either way.
Speaker 24: Right, That's what I was curious like if so if
a Catholic exorcism, like they're actually casting demons. So if
we were using like a false Jesus name, how would
that work? Or you're saying it's just based on intent, Well,
I think there.
Speaker 8: Is objective power in that name, and I do think
that Catholics intend to reference the correct Jesus. But I
think that and that's why we don't make like judgments
of individual Roman Catholics. What we judge, or what we say,
is that the public structure of the Roman Catholic Church
as an institution is heterodox. It's false, it doesn't give
all the stuff it promises. But that doesn't mean that
I'm judging every single individual Roman Catholic because I don't
know their heart, owner their situation. And now God can
do a miracle. Do you do a miracle anywhere anyway wants?
But that's the thing about like the miracle stuff is
signs and wonders don't prove necessarily which one is the
true or the false faith. Because Johnnys and John Brace,
if you read you, they mimic the first two miracles
of Moses. So does that prove Egyptian theology? No, The
Coptics points out that Mary supposedly appeared in z I
Tune Egypt two thousands of Coptics. Does that prove Coptic Christianity. No,
So you can't base the faith on the signs of
wonders even though the true faith has signs of wonders.
Does that make sense?
Speaker 24: Yeah, that makes sense. Also, if I can ask another one,
what do you make of Like I hear the term
pre list a lot, do you what do you make
of Catholic saints like, for example, Mary Faustina. Is she
hallucinating or are these legitimate encounters?
Speaker 18: Oh?
Speaker 11: I think that.
Speaker 8: I think those are like the best examples of pre
list in fact, and even even many Roman Catholics admit
this is one of the strongest arguments against their position
is cases like Margaret Mary Ala Coquay, who's clearly engaging
in self harm and has really kind of wild, outrageous claims.
I made a video that's only about eight minutes. I'm
going to pull it up on this topic because I
think this is actually one of the stronger points that
refutes Rome. It's right here. It's called Roman Catholic Historyonic
women's saints refute papalism because if you read that. If
you watch this video, you'll see that, like, you can't
question her sanctity in her claims because she's said to
be a saint. So if she's not a saint, then
her like first of all, that would deny ordinary magistar,
because you're denying who the Pope says and confirms as
a saint. Secondly, she's like cutting Jesus's name into her chest,
I mean like self harm, like literally like what the
prophets of a bail are doing that Elijah's like rebuking,
So how is this like saintly when she's doing it
and she says, oh, well, but Jesus says that, you know,
he's my boyfriend, just like Felsina Kowalska does. So I
actually think these are some of the strongest overlooked arguments
against Rome because clearly this woman is disturbed and she
has problems, and it's there's at least two papal encyclicals
that confirm her saint hoods, so you can't reject it.
Speaker 18: Okay, I'll have to look more into that. One last
question if I can ask you.
Speaker 15: Okay, and don't again, I'm not trying to be too
I just.
Speaker 18: Want the real answer here.
Speaker 24: So I'm just like back in the day the undivided Church, right,
would we consider like because nowadays, if Orthodox is the
only true church and there's about I think last time
I looked, take three hundred and fifty million members or something,
and then the rest majority of Christians in the world
are heretics. Does this mean the original church failed or
how do you look at it?
Speaker 23: Like?
Speaker 8: Well, I would just reply that nobody, whether you or
me or any of us, actually believes that the true
Church is proven on the basis of the numbers. So,
for example, in the fourth century the Aryan Crisis, even
Roman Catholics believe that most of the Church had fallen
into the semi arian position and only at one point
it was Athanacious and like a handful of bishops were
the only ones left. So even you guys, you and
Roman Catholics have to admit that you can't make it
dependent on numbers. So say Maximus, for example, when he
was going through his travails with the Monothelites and the
mone Energists, he at one point said, as if the
true number of Catholics was reduced to a small band,
I would be amongst them, right, So that shows us
that whatever century, especially in centuries of a lot of
persecution or heresy, that that creeps in and destroys the
church in areas can't destroy the whole church, but it
can destroy nations. You know, Jesus says to the Seven Churches,
entire churches can have their lampstand ripped away. So you
can have entire nations even that lose the faith. Apostolizing
the fact I was just reading about. I didn't know this.
There were Byzantine cathedrals in Jordan, well what's now called Jordan,
that the Hashami king had demolished, and this actually pissed
off some of the British imperial spies, who you know,
were not they weren't Orthodox, but they weren't they weren't
anti Christian at least, so they actually got mad when
the king of Jordan demolished some of the business cathedrals.
So there was there was like Orthodox cathedrals and business
to cathedrals even in Jordan in places like you know,
like close to Saudi areas, that Christianity had gotten that far.
But there's no Christians in those regions now. So you
can have entire countries, nations, regions lose the faith, and
that's why again I would say, you know, Paul warns
the church at Rome that they can they can be
grafted out.
Speaker 24: Okay, yeah, I guess I kind of understand that. Just
to me, I don't know, that seems a little wild
that we like, I feel like it kind of in
a way, I know what you're saying, like the numbers
don't matter, but in a way it did, like kind
of fail.
Speaker 18: It made more heretics than true.
Speaker 8: Now, well, it's not the church making heretics. Heretics are
people who choose, by their own will and decision to
become heretics. So the Church isn't making heretics.
Speaker 18: Okay, I guess I see that.
Speaker 8: But I mean, it's never been a numbers game. I mean,
in the Old Testament, it was not a numbers game.
You know, even if it's reduced to a remnant, it's
not a numbers game. I mean again, you guys, as
a Roman Catholic, you don't believe it was a numbers
game in the fourth century.
Speaker 18: Okay, yeah, that makes sense.
Speaker 24: All right, Give me something to look into on the
spirit proceeding.
Speaker 18: Not from the sun.
Speaker 24: What would you recommend I look into if I want
to be honest with myself.
Speaker 8: You could read the Edward Skshensky book The History of
the Philly Oaquay. Book is a good introduction to that topic.
If you want to get deeper into the specific so
that theology, I would say from the Orthodoxy, I would
say you got to read Mistagogy by Saint Photius or
Apidictic Treatise