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