Speaker 1: Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah bla
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah. Welcome everybody here, we go open
for him. Welcome to Colin. The topics are the coke videos,
cope for the Pope. I've not watched these. I watched
a couple response videos from our boys, so I did
see our buddy Alex Soren did a good video here
responding to Joel Heshmeier. It's a forty minute video. If
you want the full response, you can check it out
right there. So I'll play a little bit of this one,
but I think Brian has a much bigger channel. So
let's hear what the arguments that we're hearing this time
around from Brian Holdsworth are. And as you guys probably
have noticed, you get a new round of why I'm
not Orthodox videos from the pap apologists anytime there's a
significant debate, loss, scandal, or challenge to their position. If
you remember some years back, when we heard Francis doing
all of his skittle stuff, we had to have Matt
Frad and Holdsworth and everybody kind of go out and
do the commiserating cope sessions that they do. Recently, we've
had a bad few months of Roman Catholicism in terms
of public debates, because we had the Trench Doherty breakdowns
and crashouts on multiple debates where he screamed, yelled, cussed,
threatened to fight, and all because he wanted to defend it,
not just gay Catholics literally, but also to defend the
idea that Muslims, Christians and Jews all worship quote unquote
the same God, to defend the Vatican two texts. Now
we've had the more recent three part four five hour
debate between me and Tim Gordon, which seventy five percent
of the audience agreed Tim Gordon lost. Tim Gordon himself
conceded a couple things at the end of the debate.
But now Tim's back on YouTube and on Twitter asking
Chad Gpt to prove I'm not kidding that he actually
won the debate somehow. What yeah, exactly? To me, that
actually signifies their grasping of straws because they know they're
not doing well. But now in their mind, this is
actually proof that I lost the debate. Turns out even
though Tim conceded the Philly Okoy section and after the
debate privately conceded to me that I was actually correct
about universal magisterium and he was misunderstanding it. No, actually
that's all wrong. Turns out I lost all of the
debate and the papist won. So we're not going to
do a debate review because I don't need to do
a debate review. We may do one for fun with
David our hand. But somehow people think that debate reviews
you do them when you lose. Debate reviews are just
fun to do. It's an easy way to have more content.
Doesn't necessarily mean you won't lost or want to do
a review of the debate, because you can always discuss
questions and topics that didn't get covered. Every debate I've
ever done has multiple things that are brought up that,
due to time limitations, actually don't get addressed. So it's
just normal to try to address some of the things
that didn't there wasn't time to get to. But uh,
excuse me, my allergy is going crazy today. I want
to note that people a Romecaloch's apear to not be
aware that what the exercise of the keys is. They'll
just say keys, keys, keys, keys, keys, and you ask,
what are the keys and what does it signify? Well,
it turns out in Roman Catholic theology they've actually already
answered this question. If you deal any theological manual for
Roman Catholics to explain what the keys. The office of
the keys is. It's to preach the Gospel, to remit
and retain sins, to exercise jurisdiction, and to there's one
I'm forgetting, oh, offer the sacraments. That's the exercise of
the keys. That's it. There's nothing beyond that in Roman
Catha theology itself. And when we go to Matthew eighteen
two chapters after the statement to Peter, Jesus says to
the College of the Apostles, surely I say to you,
whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.
Whatever you loose on earth will be loose in heaven.
And surely I say to you, if you agree two
of you agree that my Father is there in agreement
with you. Does this sound like autocracy? Why does he
include two or more of you agree? That sounds like
communal sinodle ecclesiology. So you notice they take Matthew sixteen
out of the holistic context of the rest of the
things that are said to the College of the Apostles,
and you understand that Matthew eighteen eighteen is the exercising
of the keys, and they say, no, no, it's only Peter
in Matthew sixteen. But even in their own Catholic theology,
the apostles have all of the same functions of the
keys the way they define the keys. So then what
is it that's supposedly unique. Well, but see Jesus gave
it directly to Peter first. Yes, and that's because Peter
is awarded this honor because he first confesses when the
apostles are asked. Okay, so notice that I will give
you the keys of the kingdom whatever you buy, whatever
you lose, is said not just Peter two chapters later,
to all of them, and it's Synodyl two chapters later.
So what we should gather from this is that I
don't take Matthew sixteen in a vacuum, excluding all of
the other passages in the texts, in the rest of
the New Testament, the rest of Matthew two chapters later.
But notice that's exactly what Roman Callack has to do
is to take these passages in a vacuum, ignore where
it's said the same thing to the rest of the college,
and then you ask them, what is it exactly that's
here that Peter has that the others don't have. Oh well,
actually turns out it's infallibility. Where is that? Oh well,
that's your faith, never failing faith? Okay, but Peter's faith
did fail three times, and that's why Jesus said feed
my sheet three times. Where in any of that is
indefectibility and infallibility? Where in Acts fifteen in the Jerusalem
Council is any idea of infallibility and indefectibility. Now, one
thing that's interesting that I've noticed from a lot of
the Roman calics of late is there's a new angle
they're trying. And this is particularly I guess, successful with
paup apologists, because pap apologists are appealing.
Speaker 2: To low information Catholic people, low information voters, people that
it choosing. It's probably not for the best reasons, very
low information, low tier converts. If I if I people
a lot of people choosing based on low information, and.
Speaker 1: That's what we would expect for pop apologists to do.
Because they want the broadest appeal. We do very high
tier stuff over here. I don't do the pop stuff.
And that's why they've chosen since twenty eighteen to pretty
much avoid what I do. And their excuse is he's mean. Now,
if you go back to twenty eighteen, when all this
really started popping off, Okay, Loton made a huge deal
about how mean I was to what because of the
original live stream with a Barra. I had asked to
borrow many many times, over many many years to do
a debate, and Eric said he would not do it,
even though we had linked the exchanges on Facebook for
hundreds and hundreds of comments for many many years. And
I'm like, well, why won't you just do a debate
and he said, well, it's got to be on a
Catholic channel and all this kind of stuff, and I
was just like, yeah, whatever, So there was no neutral ground.
And then the reason that original debate happened, and they
never tell you the full story, is they were doing
a live stream saying that I would never debate I
was too scared to debate a Borro, which was not
the case. I simply asked that we do it on
a specific topic. On this or that channel, and he
didn't like the channels I suggested, and I said, I'll
hop on right now and have this argument. When I
got on there, I said, I want to talk about
Vatican one Vatican two contradictions. That's the strongest arguments against
the papers. It shows that obvious, easy contradictions right there.
I don't want to talk about that. Let's talk about
the historical evidences. Because this is their stick, is to
go through the quote minds, pile up a bunch of
quote minds and craft a narrative out of a growing
seed doctrine that turns into a tree that by the eighth, ninth,
and tenth centuries she's supposed to prove something, maybe like
Vatican one. Well, I don't grant that the quote mind
stacking them up proves anything, because as Eric admitted, if
I recall in that debate, if you could show one
dogmatic contradiction, then it would invalidate the system exactly. That's
all that's ever been needed was one dogmatic contradiction. I
guess what, there's many, there's not just one. And so
what happened after that point was this sort of war
that erupted between what was originally a UNI eight channel
that had Orthodox and Eastern Catholics on to Lofton booting
Craig Trulia, and then there was a huge bunch of
arguments and drama, and then it turned into Lofton just
kind of went crazy and was trying to get father
Deacon to frocked and was calling people's churches just just
crazy stuff. He sent me a lawsuit like he was
gonna assume me for making fun of him. I'm not joking.
I've got the emails still where he said he's going
to sue me for making fun of him on the internet.
And it just turned into a bunch of ridiculousness. And
since that time, other pop apologists have emerged whose channels
have grown significantly, like Matt Frad's, And although Matt has
hosted UBI there, he's made it very clear because I
guess because I impersonated him, I don't know what exactly
it is. I made fun of his accident, I make
fun of me. I do impersonations of everyone. Oh suddenly
that's too mean, and then we don't enter act with him.
He's too mean, which is all just super gay. Dude
is so freaking gay. I don't care by the way,
about interacting with him or not. But what they didn't
learn in twenty eighteen was that it doesn't work to
say he's mean. That's not going to keep people Roman Catholic.
And we had waves of converts since then. Tens of
thousands of people have become Orthodox since then. And now
they're doing the same thing with the latest crop of
pop apologists like Brian Holdsworth or like Joel what's his
face or whoever. Now I'm not saying that specifically named
me these people. I'm saying the tendency is to still
say we're not going to interact with him because he's mean.
And look how aggressive he was in the Tim Gordon debate. Now,
in the Tim Gordon debate, people again Roman Catholics apparently
don't know this. In cross examination, you can interrupt your opponent.
We agreed to that. Tim and I both with Elijah
before the debate, so their excuse of me interrupting is
completely preposterous. Furthermore, Tim interrupted me just as much or
more than I interrupted him during the cross examinations, and
that was because he was getting really nervous and everybody
could see that, and he floundered multiple times in every
section of the debate. So why was I being aggressive
Because I debate in an aggressive way and aggressive style
always have that's just the style of the debate that
I do. To cope that I'm mean is just preposterous,
especially when they follow people online as their leaders who
are ten times more mean than me and do all
kinds of nasty activities in the background, and people like
Loughton who did just absolutely nasty stuff in the background
trying to keep give people fired from their jobs. I mean,
they're nasty and they play like they're friendly upfront, but
it's all afront, right, So that's why you can't. You
gotta be you got to have a little bit of
a thick skin to do this kind of stuff, and
you can't listen to a lot of their whining and
bitching too much. Now, the biggest elephant in the room
is the actual arguments that have been made. Yes, I
was doing blood Sports when it started. First debate we
did was Adam Kokesh and that's still that was about
ten years ago. The next debate that I did was
Worski blood Sports against JF and you can still watch
that debate on my livestream channel. So yeah, I mean,
and it's not just because of blood sports. I come
out of a philosophical background in Underground and grad school
where we did debate. That was part of doing debate.
I mean part of philosophy. Excuse me. We were doing
public debaters, public debates with professors in my sophomore year
of Underground. So that's just what I'm used to. That's
the milieu that I come out of. I mean, to me,
that's how guys are act, right. I mean, Tim and
I went out after when I went out with his family,
I took him out to eat afterwards. I bought him
dinner because I'm a nice dude like that. So now
when it comes to the issues, I will fiercely debate.
But on a personal level, Tim and I get along great.
We were talking about going and playing basketball. We spent
like three hours at the restaurant just chatting it up.
I still think he's completely wrong. He's making huge mistakes
on his Twitter. I mean, it looks silly to me,
but I still like Tim on a personal level. He's
a good dude. Now let's get to the issues. Because
the only reason I bring that up is, like, do
you understand Tim's not acting like a massive Skittles bag
like most of you people are. How come Tim can
handle all this. He's not upset, crying and whining about
how many I am because he's a normal, high testosterone dude.
That's how dudes are. Dudes can handle this. A lot
of you guys are whoosies.
Speaker 3: Dude.
Speaker 1: You guys are freaking weak. You can't handle it. And
that's why the whole point I'm telling you this is
that's not gonna keep people Roman Catholic. None of that
is gonna work. Lofton tried it in twenty eighteen to
talk about endlessly how mean I was, how much of
a bad person. None of that works because at the
end of the day, people that really care are going
to make the decisions based on who has the better arguments.
Which position's true. You can do all this drama all
day long, but do you understand that even if you
did a bunch of drama, and you kept a bunch
of people in your camp based on drama, do you
understand that that's actually a negative, a net negative for
you in the long run, because the people that you're
keeping are low information converts, low tier people that are
gonna convert the first time they encounter some significant challenge
to the position. So you would be better off actually
addressing the arguments than acting like the way to solve
these disputes is to talk about how bad somebody is,
how mean they are, the fat jokes they make about Abora.
I'm sorry, it's too easy to make fat jokes about Abara.
And they're funny too. Everybody thinks. Everybody knows they're funny.
They everybody admits they're funny. It's not my fault that
Abora ended up being a gigantic vagina about all this,
and Tim hasn't been a giant vagina. Tim has been
super cool about it, even though we totally disagree. Notice
the difference of the attitude and the actions of Tim
versus giant vaginas like Abora totally night and day. Now,
let's get to the issues, because that's really what matters,
and all of this other stuff is just smoking mirror deflection.
Let's listen. Know what Brian Holdsworth argues, I don't think
I'm gonna hear anything. It's very very high quality. Joshua
Finch can't remember. J B Pilti a five month members
what's up? Troy orthodox ten dollars. What do you think
about Mark Dice? You know, I haven't kept up with
Mark Dice in a while. It seemed like he kind
of transitioned into just kind of doing a lot of
the daily news politics commentary stuff, which I think is
super boring. His content is similar with you in terms
of geopolitics. I didn't know you even covered geopolitics. I
know you covered, like you know, kind of media stuff,
but I don't think he really does interviews. But I
would definitely have a conversation with him if you wanted to,
if you want to reach out or tell him. Now,
let's have a conversation with Troy. Thedox became a member
of five month membership Gorilla Biscuits membership. What's up? Christopher Scott?
Five dollars, Thank you so much, Derek. Five dollars. Since
Andrew doesn't do invasions when normal people are awake, I
will give you this gift. Thank you, Derek. Hushtones five dollars.
Here we go, Baptism, PSA, diet, calendar, jurisdiction. J will
you be my spiritual father? JJJJJJJ Yeah, he does. What
to expect on open Calls Day. Now again the topics
are pretty broad today. I don't care what you want
to talk about. I'm specifically right now addressing these Roman
Catholic cope responds videos because it sort of stirs up
the questions, and I think they actually think that they'll
just placate people with these kind of easy answers. In fact,
there's a new Roman Catholic response that I'm seeing going around.
They kind of try out these new arguments every few months.
The latest argument cope is, oh, God wouldn't expect us
to learn all this theology, and He's made it easy,
and thus the papacy. Now, isn't that interesting. That's exact
argument that Daniel Hoikikachu made to me when we were
debating the last time we had her debate. God would
not make it difficult, and so therefore the position that's
the most simple must be true. And since Islam has
the most simple shahada, God is one all as one,
et cetera, boom, it's true. Now, no Roman Catholic would
agree with that. No, no, no, no, you say that's
a it's actually a fallacy. By the way, So notice
that we're not even concerned with what are fallacious lines
of reasoning every Roman Catholic that eventually spends years doing
apologetics has actually spent countless hours responding to, for example,
Protestant objections. Now, wait a minute, I thought it was easy.
Why are we having to actually go into all of
these specific textual objections of Matthew sixteen? And what does
the you know, the actual letter of Pope Agatho mean,
does it actually teach the Vatican One model of the papacy?
And you know what about Leo? You know, Peter spoke
through Leo a chalcidon And then you actually have to
explain the context when you're actually a debating's money knows
the history of the church, like you understand that as
time goes by, the Jesus made it easy. Argument doesn't work.
And let's say orthodox as Alex Warren pointed out in
his video, let's say orthodoxy false. How do I know
between Roman Catholicism, Protestantism and Oriental Orthodoxy which one's true?
Without getting into the intellectual heavy issues. Is there some
sort of self evidence? It's just gonna well, just the pope,
he's there, Look, there's a pope. It just makes it
it's self eviden it's true. In other words, it's a
silly argument for an apologist to make that the position
is true, which is the one that's the easiest and
the simplest. Why can't buy that line of argument? Why
kind of Protestant just say this, man, my Bible, that's simple.
This is just ridiculous. I mean, this is the level
of argumentation that we're at with this stuff. It's just like,
this is so silly. Hey, Jamie, could you make me
a coffee? Thank you? Hush tones five dollars. This one
is strictly for Saint Basil the Great. The Acubian brothers
must the Cuban Yeah, Kubian brothers, that's right, apple sy
ten dollars. If Jesus gave Peter the keys, how could
Peter give keys to the other apostles. Well, that's the
thing is I've pointed out in the text he doesn't
do that. If we had the papal model at work,
Jesus would give Peter the keys, breathe on Peter, Pentecosts,
the Holy Spirit would come on Peter, and then Peter
would transmit that to the rest of the college. Is
that what happened, No, that would happened. In fact, it's
the opposite right, Jesus says it to Peter, and he
says it to the rest of them two chapters later,
and the Holy Spirit Jesus breathes on all of them
and says, whoever sends you, they're remitted. Whoever sends you
retten they retained. He sends aly Spirit on all of them.
It doesn't go to Peter and then to everyone else.
So exactly if Peter gave Peter the if Jesus got
Peter the keys, then he would have to give it
to all them. Yeah, did he go to Walmart and
make copies for each of them? That's actually pretty funny.
Eight in eighty two pounds, I got married to my
funk o pop whoe aaaaaa killer one hundred foreign currencies.
When are you going to show us your labuobu collection? Well,
Sam Hid just put out a La Boobuo video, so
you can check that out because I donated all of
my lab boo boos to Sam in age two dollars.
Did Gina become Orthodox? And does Mike hate her? Now?
So Gina and Mike who had that podcast a while
back that had me on, and they're the ones that
hosted the debate between me and doctor Easley the Baptist
and Dave Gordon. Tim Gordon's brother, Gina did become Orthodox,
Mike went tradcat Roman Catholic. I've keep trying to get
Mike to call in and have a debate because he
got salty with me over blocking him. But I blocked
him because he just kept just saying bad arguments that
when it come to debate. So I don't think he
hates Gina. I've not heard anything like that, but I
do know that they don't do a podcast together. Justin
two dollars? Should cornbread be made with corn meal? Bro,
I'm trying to stay in Katosi's dog. I don't know
nothing about no corn meal. That's that's where all the
plebes do. That's a pleb diet. Jack the guitar got
twenty dollars? What about the keys? Jay? What about the keys?
It's weird that, you know, if you go back to
the Nick debates eight years ago, what did he fall
back on the keys? The keys? The keys? Fast forward
to the Tim Gordon debate? What do he fall back on?
The keys? The keys? The keys? There's actually one of
the medieval Orthodox saints actually makes fun of this too, says,
anytime you argue with the Roman Catholic, they jingle the keys.
So Orthodox has been making this joke for literally like
a thousand years. Franke Smelkoite two dollars. The most learning
thing about the Shameless Popery video, this is the Joel
Heshmeyer video, is that he says Catholic and Orthodox both
revere acumenical councils. However, Rome is in communion with the
stories and monophic sites. Now, yeah, exactly, and uh, what
was voice of reason?
Speaker 4: So the culture of Mephages, we don't know, Midiam, mistake
because you did not allow for me to do texting
to girls with pro booties. I'd like a bunch of
booty right now. The culture of Meverages made a mistake.
Speaker 1: So you the idiots listen to this idiot saying that
the Council of Emphysis made a mistake. How about the
curse of ephesis? Maybe he fell under the curse of emphasis.
Suko five dollars. If romccalek's declare Peter is infallible, then
was Peter correct and separate himself from the gentiles in
Galatians too? Well, they're just going to say that Peter
made a moral mistake. So they're going to say that
infallibility only protects his teaching on faith and morals. It
doesn't cover his personal sins or errors, which would be impeccability.
So that's what they're gonna say. But that's why it's
important to specifically find the doctrinal and dogmatic contradictions. Liked
the example that we saw with unum sanctam and the
papal temporal supremacy doctrine. That's why it was so important
to find a dogmatic contradiction and hammer that home. And
you saw he had no answer. Where was this in
the first thousand years? Wouldn't there it evolved? Oh okay,
it evolved to it, and then it evolved away from
it after Vatican two. So does that mean that cathy
theology could also evolve away from the papacy? That's so
stupid me and you g two dollars. Jay is not mean.
He's just an RN a registered nurse or retarded now
retard nation. I don't know what URN stands for, Mark
medic five dollars. Do you think that the keys just
keep talking about guys are the ones that start the popemobile?
Maybe it's always a reference to the popemobile. That's what
the keys are about. Or is it the keys to
the papal dungeon where the human sacrifice happens. I don't know, sir,
Jeff cost us five dollars. My pants are sized thirty
thirty two. That's funny. That's a reference to our joke
a couple of weeks ago. Coolbera cout of two dollars.
What about the keys to your heart? Jamie holds those? Oh,
it's sure as heck. Ain't no skills, pope. Or let's
see what Brian What Brian Gon'll serve up to us
right here.
Speaker 3: My experience of doing this kind of work, whenever I
say anything that calls for reform in the church, you know,
the kind of thing that like a reformer would do
out of love for the church, I inevitably every time
receive replies from people saying, this is why you should
become Orthodox, even going so far as to claim that
Orthodoxy is actually immune to some of the faults that
I cite, which, on the one hand, if people do
this kind of thing because they sincerely want to help
a fellow Christian come to a fuller communion with God
and receive all the graces that.
Speaker 1: Notice that from the outset, it's all assuming the ecumenist
Roman Catholic Vatican two model that we're all in Christ,
We're all a giant, divided church, and some of us
are seventy five percent in commune with Christ, others are
twenty percent in commune with Christ. This is all the
Vatican to a humanist model, which we from the outset reject.
Speaker 3: It can to help them on their way, hopefully to Heaven,
then that's great. I'm blessed by that, but it is
a weird way to expect want to respond favorably to
that kind of an invitation becauseck.
Speaker 1: Okay, but I mean, how do Roman Catholics act on online?
Like ninety percent of the apologetic is just spamming submit
to Rome. Peter has the keys, so tip for tat
on this.
Speaker 3: One, recognizing that there are opportunities, by.
Speaker 1: The way, and I actually agree with what he's saying
that the Orthodox are telling him, like the Orthodox Church
is immune because one thing that they don't understand that
I think should be reiterated. I talked about this on
my Twitter today is that they don't understand that we
have a decentralized church. Allow me to read my tweet
and maybe this will help clear things up. I said
that I think people in the Roman Catholic sphere, when
they see our argumentation and our line of reasoning, they
kind of copy paste onto our system their autocratic top
down model. So they see things in the Orthodox Church
that they think don't make any sense because it's not
the papal model. For example, how come the pentarchy doesn't
just tell everybody what's infallibly true? How Bartholomew doesn't just
solve the issues. The major issue that is at the
root of ninety percent of Romanical Orthodox debates that's missed
is that Orthodox ecclesiology is fundamentally decentralized. This is what
they have a really hard time understanding. So they just
assume that Jesus established a autocratic hierarchy, a top down system,
and anything that doesn't have the top down system is
in some way flawed or doomed or something like that. However,
we actually think that this is a feature of this
system and not a bug. In fact, the church was
always decentralized. It was always sonodal as a fanthropic organism.
It's not a juridical CEO style corporation. They think of
it like a giant corporation with a super powerful CEO,
and the cardinals are something like a corporate board or something,
but the CEO has the final say. That is not
what we think Christ set up. We think he set
up a synodal model and it was always decentralized. Now
when they hear this, this is their mind smelt. They
can't fathom that Jesus would dare to set up a
decentralized church. Now, I didn't say democracy, I said decentralized.
But for the Orthodox Church, especially if you read a
book like Church Papacy Schism by doctor Phil Cherard, he
points out that there's nothing lacking in the local church.
Every local church has the fullness of Catholicity because the
bishop has the fullness of the faith and the sacraments
at the local level. Thus there's nothing lacking in local
churches that Rome has a double dose of. Okay, there's
no double anointing like Elijah to Elisha that exists in
Rome that the rest of the bishops don't have or lack.
But especially if you read Church Papacy Schism, you'll notice
he gets into the chapter where in the Late Middle
Ages the Latin Church develop what they call a juridical
body distinct from the mystical body. This is a principal
Nestorian heresy applied to ecclesiology that you could actually trace
as the papacy comes to geopolitical world power, and doctor
Scharard' is one of the best on that his chapter
is excellent. It's never been really, I don't think significantly addressed.
Roman Calocs are ignorant of it. They don't even know
or understand what we're talking about. They simply assume that
there was always this juridical institutional papacy like a corporation,
and then when you go to the places in church
history where it didn't exist, suddenly it was a thing
in potentia being developed. Even though Satis Cognitum says there's
not a development, it was always understood to be the
case that this is the Vatican One definition and extent
in jurisdiction and indefectibility of the papacy was always there.
But magically it becomes a developing thing when there's a problem. Now,
why are they retreating to look? God doesn't expect us
to become phdsds precisely because they don't have answers to
these very challenging problems. And this is an interesting new
approach because it's almost a concession. It's kind of like
a last ditch effort of exasperation before you're ready to
give up, because you're throwing your hands up. Intellectually you're saying, look,
I don't know, okay, it can't be this hard, okay.
So it's a sign of frustration. It's not actually an
argument to say, look, you got all these problems in
church history. I don't care. I don't care. Guess what,
hand waving the problems of the contradition of the church
history is not gonna make them go away. They're going
to keep eating at your head and at your conscience,
in your mind like a mind virus. And I know
because they did it to me when I was a
Roman Catholic trad cat and I heard these challenges. Don't
you think I went through all of the same stages
of grief? Of course I've done all this, all this stuff,
Tim was saying, I've heard it. I said it back
when I was in my twenties. But none of those
things are going to answer and solve and give you
the peace that you're actually looking for. You're never going
to have peace in the Roman Catholic world. It's a
religion of dead works that doesn't have the Holy Spirit
peace that you're actually after. You're always going to be restless,
You're always going to be wondering because the whole thing
is structured like some kind of weird corporate blockchain transactional system. Anyway,
it's crazy, and I mean, you still believe the doctrine
of the Treasury of the merits of the Saints, which
is absolutely insane. I mean that one alone should really
refute all the Roman Catholicism, and I think they actually
downplay it because it's such a ridiculous dogma. It's still
in the books, it's still a dogma. But do we
hear Roman Catholics defending this very much? I mean, last
one I remember defending this was Scott hand like maybe
fifteen years ago.
Speaker 3: For the church to reform is a terrible reason to
abandon the particular church that you belong to. It would
be like trying to address issues in your marriage only.
Speaker 1: To Yeah, but we're not saying that it's merely corruption
or something like that. All right, we're talking about specific
dogmatic contradictions and dangerous teachings. That's way different than trying
to paint a narrative that what we're outlining and highlighting
is merely corruption or problems with the church and we
need to reform it. No, no, no, it's not a matter
of reform. It's a matter of contradiction.
Speaker 3: I have someone like like I don't know your marriage
counselor say you should just leave and maybe Mary Susie instead.
I bet she won't cause you these kinds of troubles.
Or in recognizing that there is a need to fix
issues in your nation or your city, using that as
a cause is simply abandoned ship instead of helping to
improve the place that you already belong to. Bearing in
mind that patriotism is a.
Speaker 1: Virtue, yeah, hold on now, Patriotism is a doctrine of
civil life and civil existence. And patriotism has limitations. How
much more are the limitations in the in the spiritual sphere?
All these things, So all of these are bogus analogies
that he's making to you know, Oh, look, just don't
jump ship, because you got to be faithful to your marriage. Well,
unless you made a mistake, right unless unless it's just
simply not the true church.
Speaker 3: Need for reform or growth is a terrible reason to
abandon your commitments. That's just cowardlessness and betrayal.
Speaker 1: Cowardessness isn't a word, Brian.
Speaker 3: And in the case of the church, you should only
leave if you detect some fatal error to that particular ecclesiology.
Speaker 1: And assuming yes, there we go, that's exactly what I'm
looking for, and that's exactly what we're.
Speaker 3: Arguing that you found in an alternative, that is in
an actual solution to the dilemmas that you're facing. And
if you're on the other side of that saying hey,
you should come join us, I don't think you should
want to Inherit converts on those terms in the same
way that you shouldn't want to accept like a marriage
proposal from someone who has just abandoned his wife because
he didn't want to work on the perfectly reasonable challenges
that existed in his marriage.
Speaker 1: I mean, I agree with that that I don't think
most people are calling for converts for bad reasons. We're
pointing out that these are significant contradictions in the ram
mecallity paople system and we have the answers. But anyone
who comes to Orthodoxy, and I don't think Brian knows
this most of the time, you're not gonna immediately be
a convert. It's not easy. This is not some Baptist
church where you walk down the aisle and say the
Sinner's prayer and Billy Graham gives you coke and pizza.
Comb Donald Alta will give a hot pizza. We've got
donuts too, Hill. If you'll say the sons probab, I'll
give you a pizza, maybe a little bossyleicle, trustycleo, row home,
just good it up to Jesus and I'll give it
hot Hilza. This says not that you're talking six months
to three years catechumen it to become Orthodox, even if
you were Roman Catholic. So I don't think he understands that. No, no,
you don't get any ease. Now. You could probably find
some Orthodox church that will immediately receive you somewhere if
you like shop around or something, but typically speaking, that's
not our ethos.
Speaker 3: That's the last kind of person you should want to marry.
Someone who's already shown themselves to be fragile and disloyal
in their commitments. But nonetheless, that constant influx of invitations
does often give me pause to reflect and revisit the
question why did I become Catholic instead of Orthodox? And
now that I've matured enough in my affiliation as a
Catholic that it's warts and its blemishes aren't invisible to
me anymore, why would I remain Catholic instead of becoming Orthodox?
Because the opportunity is always available. So to answer that,
let me contrast a few areas where the claims of orthodoxy.
Speaker 1: Okay, come on, get to the point.
Speaker 3: Okay, So the first challenge I have is on the
question of the papacy and authority. Prior to the more
formal schism of the East and the West, everyone recognized
that Saint Peter had a unique position in the church
as the leader of the apostles, including Eastern Church fathers,
Saint John, Chris Astom Freak coach.
Speaker 1: So this is what we always hear as the sort
of first point that they go to, and I think
a lot of these Roman Catholics are actually just surprised
when they hear that Orthodox don't deny that Peter had
an apostle ship, that set up a bishopric and a succession. Okay,
everybody knows that. Everybody agrees that what we have is
to rival accounts of the first thousand years, Right, So
what happens? And I've been through this for twenty years
almost now, at least fifteen, maybe seventeen years, looking at
this issue, getting into these debates, debating Roman Catholics on
this point, being a Roman Catholic. Formerly, what's always going
on here is there's two stories, two narratives explaining the
first thousand years. The Roman Catholic narrative alternates between assuming
that the Vatican One model of the papacy was always
there and clear, and then it vacillates over to it
was in potential and developing when there's problems. So it
vacillates between these two narrative contradictory explanations to make that
thing work. And a lot of times what they do
is they pick a strong statement of the papacy, say
in the eight hundreds, that we would agree is a
strong statement that has evolved to that point. Okay, but
they think that because it's within the first thousand years
and the pope makes a strong statement late in the game,
that must be a definitive proof for their system. The
other thing that they do is they assume that the wording,
the language, the flowery language that's used oftentimes for many
bishops somehow is like kind of loosely akin to what
Vatican One eventually says. Both of these are non sequitors,
and both of them can be explained by two different
rival paradigms. I'm not saying their position is true anymore
than I'm saying my position is true, because it has
a narrative explanation. Right, So this is I mean, this
is exactly what we'd expect people who are evidentialists in
their apologetic to try to do. Stack up a bunch
of quote lines and doesn't that kind of tilt the
scales over to papacy. That's how they approach all these questions. Now,
I've consistently argued against this evidential is apologetic this entire time,
because this is another part of the problem. You don't
actually solve this question, just like in philosophy it's called
underdetermination of data thesis. You don't actually solve this question
when you've got data that can be explained significantly and
in a good way by two rival paradigms. And this
is what they don't understand because they don't understand paradigm thinking.
Everything for them is like one layer and piling up evidences.
I'm looking at it from two rival paradigms and systems
and which ones are coherent and not tim That doesn't
make me a coherence theorist as if I'm some sort
of secular epistemology person. I'm just talking about coherence, not
coherence theory, just like if I talked about empiricism or
empirical data, that doesn't make me an empiricist of the
school of empiricists. So I've got to make some of
these distinctions because these people get very confused over basic
ideas and word concept fallacies. So when Brian pulls out
various quotes or pastors or whatever, the assumption is that
you can read iogetically into that the second millennium of
Roman Catholic developments and as Orthodox we have been calling
this out and critiquing that forever does it. Do they
hear this? No, it just goes right over their head.
They don't ever hear what our responses are. And I
would say too that if you want the specifics, Alex
did a really good video Alex Soren here responding to
Joel Heshmeier on the specifics. So Joel mentions a bunch
of what he thinks are papal proofs, and actually all
three of his three were actually not papal proofs at all.
They actually proved the opposite, particularly with Saint Cyprian being
someone who went against Rome. So obviously his quotes about Peter,
which Roman Catholx's assum is about all of Christendom. No
Cyprian says all bishops are Peter, and Cyprian had no
problem going again, it'st Pope Saint Stephen. Now we believe
that that Pope Stephen was ultimately correct and Cyprian was
wrong in the conflict. But what it shows, just like
with Saint Aeronais, is that their statements about Rome do
not come with an unqualified autocratic authority. Because both aaron
Ais and Cyprian opposed Rome very significantly, and as did
Saint Augustine. They always leave out the fact that Augustine,
in that letter where he talks about Rome, goes on
to say, perhaps the bishops of Rome also could make
significant errors, and thus we could leave it up to
a universal council clear as day, Augustine is saying that
ecumenical councils or synods are above one Bishop of Rome.
And in both cases of Cyprian and Augustine, they were
resenting the fact that African bishops were having the Roman
bishop speak to and step over their jurisdictions because nobody
believed that Peter, because he was the mouthpiece, somehow suddenly
had universal jurisdiction. That's why the chi eighty document admits
that they didn't have or that there was no universal
jurisdiction of Rome in the first millennium. What is paragraph
nineteen of the chiady document from Rome say appeals to
the Bishop of Rome from the east expressed the community
of the church, Bob, the Bishop of Rome did not
exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East. That's
the Vatican.
Speaker 3: He could only refers to Peter as the chief of
the apostles. Saint Basil the Great refers to Peter as
the foremost of the apostles along with thee.
Speaker 1: So notice chief foremost. This is supposedly somehow translating into
Vatican one. It's just non sequiturs. And this is the problem.
And look, I made the same mistake. When I was
in my twenties, I fell for the low tier pop
apologetic quote minds. This is partly why I left Protestantism
for rome Caanthosism. I thought, without context that all these
quotes piled up proved the papacy. However, when I converted,
guess what, I hadn't read Vatican One. I didn't know
what Vatican On actually said. I didn't know the nitty
gritty details of the specific controversies. But there's no other
way around it. You have to get into the details
of these things. Otherwise we're no different than I mean,
what does a Roman Calvic say to an Aran when
an Aran says, well, Jesus says the Father's greater? Well, no,
wait a minute, do I need the context or could
I just appeal to simplicity because an Aran could say
like the like the Muslims do. Look, the Trinity is complex.
Why not just say it's simple, It's a Unitarian deity.
This is literally what Arians and Muslims say. Now does
any Roman Calvic appeal to quote simplicity and pragmatism for that?
Speaker 3: Of course, not Cyril of Jerusalem, who also refers to
him as the chief and simultaneously.
Speaker 1: Yeah. But Basil, for example, in his letters, says the
same thing about the Bishop of Antioch. He is the
head to whom all the body of the Church receives
its sustenance and guidance. Oh really, does that mean he's
the Pope? No? Well then, so what does that mean? Well,
flowery language doesn't really get you anywhere. And that's exactly
what the Ibarra and Ubi debates have shown. Right. Ibarra
relied heavily on this flowery, strong language. And then when
you point out the same language being used of other
bishops and the Emperor, well, suddenly that those don't count.
Now that one doesn't count. It only counts when it's
about Peter, you say.
Speaker 3: See, there's little room for doubt that the Bishop of
Rome was widely recognized as the successor of Peter, with
people like Maximis the Confessor.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but does he not realize that Antioch and Alexandria
are also the admitted successors of Peter. So what they
have to then prove is that where does the special
prerogatives and privileges of the descent of Peter in Rome
come from? Oh? Guess where that comes from? Tradition what tradition?
Where is this? Where do we prove the tradition? Oh well,
you see Peter died in Rome. Oh so dying in
Rome is what grants indefectibility and infallibility. Where is that?
Where does that come from? What's tradition? Notice this ridiculous circle.
Speaker 3: When his twelfth Epistle says that the Roman Church has
received the universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of
binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God.
Speaker 1: But Maximus is the same person who also said I
will go against any number or authority in the Church
if they abandon the faith. And so he actually qualifies
this statement and says that what makes them authoritative is
their orthodoxy. They're not orthodox because they're an authority. They're
an authority because they're Orthodox, and if they lose that orthodoxy,
they lose that authority. So even Maximus's quote is qualified
by Maximus to even say that I would be amongst
the small band of true Catholics rather than being against
the largest number of those who affirm heresies. In other words,
for Maximus, truth is not determined by number or externality.
It's determined by what's true. The true Church I'm saying
the true Church is not a number. And the other
reason that he's writing that way is because he's opposing
the patriarchal constant who was a heretic read the disputation Paris,
And because he's appealing to Rome because he wants Rome's
approval for his teaching. And everybody did this. But wait
a minute. Does appealing to the Bishop of Rome as
a final court of appeals actually occur? Oh? It doesn't. Uh, oh,
wait a minute, Shady Document nineteen. Over the centuries, many
appeals are made to the Bishop of Rome from the
East in disciplinary matters, such as the deposition of a bishop.
An attempt was made at the Council of Sartica in
three forty three to establish the rules for this procedure.
Sartaka was received at the Council of Trollo, which Romanchelics reject.
By the way, the Canon of Sartica determined that a
bishop had been condemned could appeal to the Bishop of Rome.
Now all the Romancanthic apologists use this, and they stopped there.
Why do they stop there? Because the rest of what
is argued and discussed in this disproves their position. So
they're lying, they're dishonest, or they just see quote minds
and they don't know the context. Because, as it goes
on to say the latter, the Bishop of Rome, if
he deemed it appropriate, could order a retrial. It's not
a de facto divine fiat decision. They always want to
That's exactly what Vatican one says. That's how they paint
this picture. It's the opposite. And when he orders a retrial,
is it where is it? Is it in Rome? No,
it's conducted by the bishops in his providence that bishop.
Guess what. Appeals regarding these things were also made to
Constantinople and the other seas, Because if you were in
a snodal church and you want to support like Saint
Maximus did, obviously you're going to appeal to the number
one see Rome. If you can get Rome support, that's
a big deal when Rome was Orthodox. That's why Maximus
writes that way and why he appeals to Rome. But
you also want the other sees Alexandria, Antioch, et cetera
could get them, And similar types of appeals were made
to other patriarchates. So this shows anodal pentarchical model, not
top down de facto, just let Rome has spoken cases closed.
Do you notice how out of one side of their
mouth they'll say Roma spoken cases closed, because it's an autocratic,
final arbiter decision. And then it turns out it turns
out it's not that at all. In their documents, you're saying,
this is not an Orthodox Church document, this is a
Roman Catholic document, paragraph nineteen, the Chady Document. In fact,
when the Chady Document came out a few years ago,
there were Roman Catholic apologists writing articles in Catholic World
Report saying, what do we do with this? This means
Vatican One is wrong and we're dealing with giant hordes
of normy pop apolog just who've not read any of
this stuff. That's why this is so frustrating. They're like
ten years behind in the reading. And I don't mean
to be Tim Gordon, but it means to Tim Gordon
because I liked him on a personal level. But Tim
didn't read any of the material that I sent him.
What he did was he relied on whatever Catholic apologetic
websites or persons he talked to. I get it. He's busy,
he's got a large family and that's great. However, if
you're going to step into the debate world, and this
is almost five years of Tim and I being buddies,
we first started talking smack on Twitter, setting up and
arguing for this debate. It eventually happens five years later.
I gave Tim a pretty significant reading list five years ago.
He didn't read any of it. And I can tell,
and everybody in the audience can tell, especially if you
read Saint Photios, that Tim had no idea what he
was talking about when he saw about Potius the Philio quick.
Tim didn't have any conception of what the Cappa Docian
model of the Trinity was, none whatsoever. And I'm not
being mean, that's just the facts. So how are we
supposed to convey this information and explain this when we've
got people that won't do any of the primary reading
or the secondary reading, don't have any idea what the
actual literature says on these topics, and they're appealing to
very low information voters and duping people on the basis
of this sort of low tier stuff that Brian Holdsworth's
doing here where he just says, well, look Peter's listed
as first, He's called first. This this this quote, my quote,
my quote. Mind. Okay, but you understand that none of
these quotes prove Vatican one's claims, and your own Vatican
has admitted that. So you're fighting an uphill battle.
Speaker 3: Here throughout the whole world, or perhaps most vividly in
the Council of Chalcedon, in which the bishops proudly proclaimed
that Peter has spoken through Leo, who was the pope
at the time, after the Pope's letter had been read.
But today the East claims that the Bishop of Rome
never had a supreme authority or universal jurisdiction. What was
simply recognized as a first among or universal jurisdiction. What
was simply recognized as a first among equals, like a
position of honor.
Speaker 1: Now, Brian, it's your papal documents. Do you understand that
we didn't just make this up? Now Orthodox are claiming
that there wasn't universal jurisdiction. No, can you read your
own documents? I mean, are these people just super lazy,
Like I don't understand why they can't just read their
own documents. Appeals to the Bishop Realm expressed the communion
of the church, but the Biser Realm did not exercise
canonical authority over the churches of the East. That's exactly
what Nicia's canon say. What does Canon Ford Nicia say
a bishop should be appointed by the bishop of the province.
Did do you see anything about the pope appointing all
the bishops in the world there, Canon Ford and I
yah Canon two Constantinople three eighty one that defined the trinity.
Which again he was wrong when he said that constantin
Noble one was not out of comuny. Yes it was.
He didn't know basic church history. Tim didn't even know
his own positions when we got into universal order magistarian
So canon too, bishops are not to go beyond their diocese.
Where do you see universal romanistiction there? In fact, the
argument here is that it leads to confusion amongst the
laity if they go beyond. Now you know what the
Roman catholic answerest all these Now, remember this is a
This is a canon written while this council has had
out of commune with Rome. So you can't argue Roman
Catholics that well, they just assumed Romans supremacy even though
this canon has written not mentioning it. That's what they
say about Canon six of Nicia. Right, So Cannon six
and Nicia. If you remember, Gabara said they didn't need
to mention the universal supremacy because everybody knew that. He
had argument from silence is just assumed that it's there.
But now, wait a minute, would you say the same
thing about the same wording in Constantinople three eighty one.
They didn't need to mention it because they all knew
it was there. Oh, they all knew it was there.
But wait a minute, this is the council out of
community with Rome. They right, they wrote these canons while
they were not in commune with Rome. So that doesn't
work here. Oh so guess what turns out? The Empire,
for the most part, didn't believe that the Bishop Rome
had jurisdiction throughout.
Speaker 2: The whole world.
Speaker 1: Do you ever hear Robin Catholic apologist going to the
canons of the councils? Do you not understand that alone
should tell you their position is wrong. They don't even
go to the ecumenical mind of the church. But the
cons Arendy Poble didn't say they were not making the
argument that the cans are infallible. I'm making the argument
that they reflect the mindset of the church at these councils.
So would Rob McAlley say they believe in the actumenical councils.
They don't really. All they care about is giving verbal
credence to them and whatever the pope says, that's it now.
Romancallly was on the talking to smack that today, saying,
who could you could call a council? Do you understand
that the emperors called the councils, not the popes. So
what are you even talking about. Let's go to Ephesus.
Ephesis grants autocephaly to the Church of Cyprus. What do
you remember me mentioning that in the debate, Tim didn't
even know what that was. He had no idea what
I was talking about, and he was so not aware
of this that he didn't even understand that it refutes
his position. Why are you thumbing down? You're making a
big stink, unmute. What's your problem? I'm mute, Ortho, I'm mute.
This is not orthodox person, that's the persons the romancalag
making a profile. Ortho, unmute, you're thumbing down? What's your problem?
Speaker 2: All right?
Speaker 1: Just blocking? Good job, wasting everybody's time. So let me
once again, for one hundredth time, share the article that
now people will talk about the Ortho Bros Seraphims. Last
I heard was a deacon. He might be a priest now,
so we've already this is already people that converted, like
in twenty seventeen are already becoming deacons and priests. There
is the article that he wrote right there, and it's
just a list of cannons in the seven Cheminical councils
that refute the Vatican one view. This is one of
the strongest arguments if you want the easy pragmatic approach. Okay,
what's the easiest way to show that the Vatican one
position is not true, that the papacies falls this right here,
All of these canons and every one of the ecumenical
councils doesn't fit with the autocratic, pivotal papal model. It's
it's a nodal model. And when you notice that none
of these mention the universal jurisdiction of Rome, do you
know what the Roman Catholics say, Well, we don't care
what the canons say, it's just what the Pope says.
And we all know that they all believed in our position,
So it's literally that I'm not kidding. That's the other
Their argument is an argument from silence that yeah, there
might be all these canons that contradict peoples supremacy, but
who cares what canon? Say? Well, I wait a minute,
I thought you cared by the ecumenical councils because the
canons are the ecclesiastical law of the councils, so you
don't actually care about the ecmical councils. All they care
about is what the Pope of Rome approves in the
ecmitical councils, which means that they're schismatics because they don't
listen to the totality of the might of the church.
They follow one dude, and you'll notice over and over
and over in these canons they just talk about the
limited jurisdiction of bishops not transgressing their local jurisdictions. There's
nothing about universal jurisdiction of Rome in the canons. That's
why they ignore this argument because it's so strong against
their position, and then when you ask them about it,
they just say, yeah, that's because they all everybody already
knew that romeh had universe jurisdiction, even though their papacy
admits that dead this is so insane.
Speaker 3: As Peter's successor, and then in terms of actual governing authority,
he had no more authority than other Apostolic sees with autocephaly.
Speaker 1: Yeah, which is what the Ecumenical Canons literally just said,
and what your own Vatican says. So autocephaly is not
every bishop is not autocephalus. That's a specific thing that's
granted by councils to certain churches. I hang up with that.
Speaker 3: I would say that from the very beginning of my conversion,
when I started reading Scripture, it was obvious that Peter
was the chief and the head of the Apostles.
Speaker 1: It's actually a fallacy, right, because these are highly contentious
versus with two thousand years of accretions and Exejesus and
is of Jesus attached to them. So the fact that
you picked up the Bible, notice how Protestant this is.
It's just so obvious, it's just clear in the text. Now,
this is a fallacy of simplicity that again it's just obvious,
it's just clear. It's just there, it's self evident. Right.
But again, there's two competing models or paradigms of interpreting
this massive data. To keep using your paradigm model against
ours is what doesn't work, and it's very I don't
know why it's so so hard to convey this to people.
People just don't have the ability, I don't think to
think in this sort of paradigm level way.
Speaker 3: And it's but it's hard to defend that Peter is
that which the East recognizes, but that his successors are
not somehow ahead of the successors of the other apostles,
that they have autonomous authority apart from him. There's always
been a logical challenge to disclaim in my mind, because
let's explore something that both East and West affirm, which
is the hierarchical and nature of the church. The Church
is not a gallant.
Speaker 1: So notice it's true that the church is not a galitarian,
but they just cannot compute that the church is decentralized.
So when they hear decentralized, they assume chaos and democracy.
That's not what decentralization means. Bitcoin is a decentralized network.
It's not chaos, it's just simply decentralized. Now there are
within a decentralized system, authorities and hierarchies but there's nothing
about the word higher or the word authority that necessarily
proves or leads you to the conclusion of papacy. You see,
that's the fallacy here. That's what I was trying to
argue a minute ago when I said ninety percent of
these debates about ecclesiology ends up being a missed understanding
that they can't grasp that our church is decentralized and
they think that that's somehow necessarily a defeater. Maybe Jesus
just didn't set up an autocracy. Did you think about that?
Maybe Jesus institute to day synodal decentralized church, But they
have any they can't even think about that, Like that's
just so far out of their paradigm. Every time these
topics and these terms come up, they interpret it in
their way. Does that make sense? This is why paradigm
level thinking is so important, and it's very so difficult
to convey to these tomas and to these.
Speaker 3: Evidentialists pulitarian the church is organized and structured, and this
is that's a good thing, which I know is hard
to hear to our modern liberal democratic instincts to notice.
Speaker 1: He did it right here. He assumes that because there's hierarchy,
it must be the pyramid Roman Catholic model. No, no, it
can be a decentralized hierarchy. Hence a sonodal model.
Speaker 3: Conditioning that we've been raised in. We tend to think
that equality across the board is actually preferable.
Speaker 1: By the way, have you noticed, and I've seen this
many many times over in probably the majority of Romancalic debates.
When the problems and the challenges come up, have you
noticed the first thing that they go to is their
idea of what authority necessitates. If you believe in authority,
it must be this model. Well, maybe there's other accounts
of authority. Did you even think about that? Maybe there's
another type over structure or model of authority that isn't
your model of authority. So this is just another basically
question begging exercise. It's just assuming that we need authority,
we need hierarchy. The papacy offers authority in hierarchy. Therefore
the papacy is true. But how do we know that
it's your model or that your idea of what authority
is is self evidently true. That's what this is. That's
all this is.
Speaker 3: But a society, especially a political society is one that
agrees to organize itself in a particular way. But the
more egalitarian you are, the more disorganized you are.
Speaker 1: And so it's a false dialectic between either the papal
model or its egalitarian democracy. No, no, that's not the
only two options here.
Speaker 5: Therefore disordered.
Speaker 3: The more hierarchical you are, the more organized you are.
Speaker 1: And there this is precisely why I've said for so
many years Roman Catholics worship authority. Have you have you?
Have you caught this? Notice that he's not going to
the Patristics to explain all the passages about synodalism, collegiality, conciliarism, canons.
He's starting with a self evident what he thinks his
obvious idea of what authority must be, and anything that
isn't that is by default egalitarian chaos democracy. This is
just a false either or. It's not a choice between
papism and chaos democracy anarchy. That's a false either or.
But that's what they have to do to make these
positions work. Is just kind of appeal to what they
think authority has to be, ignoring the actual Patristic teaching
on the church. Do you see that that's huge. Well,
maybe he's not ignoring the Patricia teaching. Okay, if he's not,
then why doesn't he talk about the canons of the
Commenical Councils. I will bet you dollars to donuts whatever
that even means that he doesn't know what the canons
of the councils actually say. They never do, they don't care,
but one thousand dollars Brian Holdsworth has not read the
Canons of the Commenical Councils. Now you can't come to
me after this. And then he watches his video and
goes and reads them and they get your thousand dollars.
I'm saying that I bet you, at this point you
cannot prove to me from this point back in history
that he knows anything about the canons the Ecumenical Councils,
any of the councils, because there's no way you could
really argue this unless you're just being deceptive without being
aware that, like you know, there's tons of canons that
don't work with Vatican one right.
Speaker 3: Or ordered, and there's great strength in being organized. Imagine
a grocery store in which nothing was categorized.
Speaker 1: Or organ So here we go again. The corporate model.
This is what Romancalics always appeal to, is the state
in corporate I'm not joking, state and corporations. So look,
Jesus clearly was setting up some kind of corporate state.
By the way, do you know the Vatican is a
corporate state. It's the world's first one. That's precisely the
criticism that we have. Jesus didn't set up a corporation.
It's not Jesus inc. It's not Vatican Bank run by
the Rothschilds. Oh wait a minute, that actually is what
the Romanchelics think. Jesus said, the Vatican Bank run by
the Rothchilds, which is true, which is the fact. But
we're supposed to be tradcats and anti jew even the
Rothchilds are running Vatican Bank. Oh but they don't tell
you that. No, it's like, the corporate model is not
the church. You understand, the Church is a unique institution.
So every time a Romancallic deviates into trying to make
these analogies to human institutions, they're missing the point of
a theanthropic institution whose head is Christ governing through the
Holy Spirit. The big glaring mistake in all of this
is to not believe in the work of the Holy Spirit.
It's as if the Holy Spirit can't speak through a synod,
even though he does in Acts fifteen. Ever, since Acts fifteen,
the Holy Spirit can only speak through one guy. He's
that weak. Only Rome apparently is the choice voice box
of the Holy Spirit, whereas in the Book of Acts
he falls on all the College of the Apostles. Why
is it that only Peter is the voice of the
Holy Spirit. Isn't it interesting that as the philioquay heresy
rises to prominence in the eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth century,
at the exact same time the papal heresy arises that
only the mouth of Peter, in the mouth the Holy
Spirit in the mouth of Jesus are in Rome. It's
like there's a connection between the phillioquay and the papacy.
Of course there is. In fact, Philip Grard has a
whole chapter on the infallible connection between the papacy and
the Phillyoquay and why this is such a massive delusion
and a massive heresy. The two go together because ultimately
it's the pope that ends up sending the Holy Spirit
to the Church. Jesus is no longer the economia. Right,
the incarnate Christ who breathes on the apostles and sends
the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, that's economia, that's not Philly Okuay.
And once the papacy rises to its geopolitical power, it's
only natural that the papacy would then say, I alone
give the Holy Spirit to the bishops. I alone the
declare all the bishops in the world, even though I
just showed you Nicia says that all it takes to
have a bishop is the bishops of the local province
appointing him. How do you not understand that this is
a massive deviation in ecclesiology. Well, he's the pope. He
could do what he wants. The pope can do what
he want. Oh, can he change natural law to say
that the death penalty is now against the Gospel? Well,
apparently he can. To these people, this is how insane
this cult. This is a cult, dude. Look, it's a cult.
That's a lot. That's that's what we have to Nobody
can reason rationally about this within this system because it's
a freaking cult. That's it. Well, you can't know the truth.
The pope, he has to solve all the problems in
the church. Oh okay, then how did anyone know the
Christian faith in the year three hundred? Without access to
Rome and without any ecumenical councils, they had to write
a letter to the Bishop of Room. Remember when I
asked a Borrow When this came up with a bar Well,
the pope couldn't solve every controversy because if he did,
the better cand to be full of papers. He wouldn't
be able to walk around the better because all the
papers were I'm not joking that was well wait a minute, idiot,
you're the one that argues that the whole point of
the papacy is to solve the disputes. Then why do
we need ecumenical councils? What a waste of time. In
the ancient world, we have hundreds of bishops traveling hundreds
of miles of risking death and disease to get to
some imperial city. All they had to do is write
a letter to Rome. Case closed? Why are we having
councils at all? If ro spoken? Cases closed? And you
know what it Borrow says about this will dude the
for Domini centuries the church he head the Poe, buddy,
did he use it? Oh, thank you for failing the church.
Thank you for making this a thousand times more difficult
than it has to be. You could have just solved
all these you just do an extra showe to Poe
with duddy hood. I'm not kidding. This is the people.
They think. This is the fat guy they think is like,
is the greatest apologist? Is this guy who says this
kind of stuff? No. One five two dollars. Debate the Mormons.
If the Mormons call in, I will debate them. Please
call in Mormons. Chandler White. A long time ago, I
gave you four and a half inward passes because I
have four one fourth black children. My wife is half black. However,
I found out that a fifth child is on the way,
so you can have one more one fourth inward pass
Thank you. I mean, the dude, those are racked up.
I mean I basically could just be like super racist
for a year and nobody can do anything because I've
got like it's in the twenties now of passes. Austin
Alverarez five dollars. I went to Saint Mary's Orthodox Church
in Minneapolis, and it turns out a girl from this
parish was hit in the tra n Z event. On
the twenty seventh, everybody prayed for Sophia at Saint Mary's
Orthodox Church. Yes, please do That's terrible. I mean again,
I go watch my stream yesterday on what I think
is going on. Schmuck, schmuck. Two dollars. Do you know
anything about the Bahai faith? I mean it's a syncretous,
relativistic cult. I haven't. I don't have done. I haven't
done a specific video on it, but I mean any
sort of basic presup would refute be high stuff. G
twenty six five dollars. Jay was actually teaching Tim Gordon
in the Catholic position the whole time that debate was
going on. I was very embarrassing for the papers. Yeah,
and he tried to play like he knew what he
was saying, that he was right. But then again he
conceded to me, not just the Philly oquay. He conceded
the Philly oquy part publicly at the end of the debate,
and then he privately afterwards when we were talking, said Yo,
you were right about universe magistrate. Well, thank you, silent
juice five dollars Jay, What happened to that Chris guy
from Hookbusters is John, the same guy that calls in.
I'm not going to speak to who the John of
the Chriss are. But Chris did pass away, so pray
for Chris. He was a great guy. We hung out
with Chris in person. We missed Chris quite a bit,
but he did pass away. KL five dollars. I rewatched
the Tim Poole debate with Tim Gordon. You actually cited
lumin Gentium where it says together we adore the one God.
Tim Gordon quietly said, with us monotheus. I missed that
the first time exactly exactly. So he tried to say
together with us just generic monotheus, but it actually says
together with us Catholics. So he's trying. Tim is like
a lawyer who will immediately try to paint the narrative
in some opposite way. Buddy p two hundred dollars. When
is a debate review? I'm not sure because I'm trying
to organize with David Rhon and Rhan is in Turkey
and he's, you know, he's got his own life going.
He's got exciting things happening in his life right now.
So props are our buddy, our old school orthobro David Erhanu.
But I think we'll probably trying to make that happen soon.
Swinter is two dollars? Would you debate James White? So
James White offered to only debate me. I'm tired of
telling the story because they it's just so dishonest. They
act like I ran from James White. James White didn't
offer to debate me on what I've been asking him
to debate for years. He changed the topic and said
he'll debate icons in the Seventh Council if I live
within RB driving distance. I mean, what the hell is that?
First of all, I'm not telling he doesn't need to
know where I live. I don't trust that dude at all. Secondly,
it wasn't a debate on what I want to debate.
And third it wasn't actually offered to debate. It was
only if it was in driving distance requires me to
tell him where I live, and I'm not. This is
just all super gay. He can easily hop on it
on the internet and do a debate, which he's not
gonna do. R M two forty nine. Why do we
call God the Father? Well, he's revealed as our father.
So beyond that, I mean Lexus crash out one dollar.
A good proof that Catholicism is faking gay is all
the Calolic priests actually act like weird skittle salesmen and
customer service people. Orthodox scourgy actually act like normal people,
like nineteen eighty TV commercials, authentic exactly. That's funny. It's
a good way to put it. John, I'm sorry, Let's
go to you, because I saw you were waiting. I
want to go ahead and go to you, and then
we'll go to our Protestant friend here who's been saying
he wants to chat John. What's up, John? Are you
able to talk? If not, I'll go to Seoul? Hey, Jay, Yeah,
and then we'll go to Salt. I mean to John,
what's up?
Speaker 6: So?
Speaker 7: I watched the Tim debate, and I don't.
Speaker 5: Think Tim is really representing their position. Well, so I
kind of want to see how.
Speaker 7: You're going to move if it's represented the way I
think probably Iborrow would represent it. So if you'll give
me like thirty seconds all the way out what I
think they're saying. Okay, So, in Catholic thought, the trendy
is explained by eternal notional acts and God generation aspiration.
Speaker 5: Each act has an active side and the.
Speaker 7: Passive side, and each terminates in its proper effect.
Speaker 1: So well, first of all, that I mean, that's problematic
from the outset because it's not the capit doc teaching.
It's not called out number one. The persons are not
notions or notional effects or notionally distinct.
Speaker 7: Yeah, from this seems to be like almost like some
type of logical prior.
Speaker 5: It's like a logical framework they use for.
Speaker 7: Verbalizing this stuff, and it seems to have some type
of priority involved in it, where like logically you kind
of start with this essence that yeah, doesn't do these powers,
but it kind of has the logical capacity to do them.
Speaker 5: They're always actualized.
Speaker 7: But in their way of explaining the trinity, I guess
in their head they're kind of doing the one torch
lights another torch which lights another torch type of.
Speaker 5: Thing in their head. But so they that is what
they say though.
Speaker 1: Okay, but I asked him, Gordon, h if the son
has the power of cause, because he said the father
is the cause and he's giving that power of causing
to the son, and so if that's what shows equality
between the father and the son. Then what is the
spirit's power to cause? And it's not a cause. Passive
aspiration is not a cause. But he actually said it
was a cause. He made that mistake there.
Speaker 5: I don't think he should have said. I think he
should have you know, admitted to misspeaking there.
Speaker 1: Okay, Well, I mean you've read the mystagogy, right, yeah, okay,
So what in the mystagogy in any way lines up
with this tomistic idea of notional distinctions? With it, it
almost sounds like a it's an appropriation of the Augustinian
idea of the psychological analogy of the trinity, that the
Father is the mind, the Son is the will, or
the son is the Father is the mind of the
Son is the speech, and the Spirit is the will.
But they're trying to appropriate that for these relations within
a within a glob. So they have this idea that
the Trinity is this essentialist monad or God is an
essentialist monad, and then within this mona there are these
relational distinctions. But the best critique of this is when Loski.
Have you read Loski's a I can't remember if it's
mistical theology or the the vision of light book.
Speaker 5: I've read bits and pieces of mystical theology, but.
Speaker 1: I haven't read that. Okay, the other one is necessary
because he has a great critique of person is relation
and that's the that's what this Tomistic idea is grounded in,
that persons are the relations between the two.
Speaker 7: Or between So when I was talking with Ibara, he says, essentially,
there's I don't know why they state this principle other
than arbitrarily, so maybe you can help me figure out
why they say this. But he essentially says all things
are equal except where relative opposition.
Speaker 1: You know, Okay, I just shared the papers that critique
relative relations of opposition. It's there's a Lossky paper that
critiques it. And even Eves Kongar, who's the Roman Catholic,
has a paper saying that this development that Thomas has
out of Augustinian ideas is not the Cappudocan teaching.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 7: Well, I agree with you that it's not the Cappudocean teaching, right,
But I also don't think this is.
Speaker 5: The view that Tim put forth into debate to you, right, like.
Speaker 7: He was trying to clearly, but I mean the notion
of passive uh, you know, spiration or begetting has.
Speaker 5: Nothing to do with cause ation.
Speaker 1: Okay, but I mean that's a medieval scholastic invention. There's
nothing about paths of spiration any of the Church fathers
to my knowledge. So this is this is something that
they've made up to make sense of what it means
to have a power, just because again, if the spirit
lacks this power, then what does he have. Well, he
has the power of spy. What spiration is what picks
him out? How could he have spiration? Oh well, it's passive.
What does that I mean to me? It's just a
nonsense term.
Speaker 5: Does mean well to me.
Speaker 7: What they're trying to say there is that like in
their mind, the son doesn't forget because his personal property
is to be the effect of the generative act of
the essence of the Father, I guess, because the essence
doesn't actually generate according to Lattering.
Speaker 1: For again, I mean their their position equates a relation
with a person. Okay, Aquinas says persona at rolatio a
person is relation. So this is a fundamental blunder because
they think person and nature are identical. They don't think
they're really distinct. Orthodoxy he thinks they're really distinct. So
they think that if that's the if person and nature
are actually identical, then what how would we distinguish them?
And I don't think they understand hypostatic properties. You're calling
impersonal properties, but that's why they would go to There's
no there's literally no reason why you would do relations
of opposition unless you had a struggle with trying to
distinguish the person's. Even Augustine, when you read on the Trinity,
he struggles with how to distinguish them, and he does,
in one point admit that, yeah, it does seem like
the father is the principal cause, but because he's given
cause to the son explicitly, he then has to figure
out a way. Well, I can't distinguish the persons strictly
with cause because that's something that father and son have,
So I need another way to actually distinguish these persons.
And he talks about relative opposition. I'm going from here.
I think he does, but more specifically, Aquitas builds on
it and flushes it out even further. But the problem
with relative opposition is that number one, God is equally
triad as much as he is Monad. He's not. There's
no die ad at all to have relative opposition requires
a diead. This is a critique that's made in God
His Should Dialectic, Volume one. I didn't make this up.
It's his critique. But beyond that, and it also gets
into Patristic ways of number theory and how they count
it counted by division. That's why you don't have in
the In the Creed it says one and undivided, because
the Patristic means of counting was particularly for the trinity
in terms of his nature. He's undivided. But the persons
are divided. Right, how do I get father and son?
While I divide the father, the father is not the son.
It doesn't mean that you're actually you're not. It doesn't
mean you're literally dividing them. It just means counting by division.
So persons are counted by division. The essence, I assume
mean by identity. The essence is counted by division. That's
why the Creed says one and undivided. Are you familiar
with this? Yeah, okay, so it's I'm not trying to
go off topic. I'm saying there's a reason why I'm
saying this. And Ambiguo one Maximus talks about the Patristic
way of counting, and he talks about monad diead try it. Okay,
that's how you count patristically when you're doing like when
you're when you're picking out the persons, you have to
put this was this was the Jake debate when we
had to do the LPT. Anyway, those are all separate
topics that I mentioned in passing in the debate. But
the main issue is that the whole reason why there's
a problem is because they think that person and nature
are identical in the trinity. They're only notionally distinct. Aquinas
says that explicitly, Augusta.
Speaker 5: They wouldn't admit to that in a debate.
Speaker 1: Like, no, no, it's not. It's not controversial.
Speaker 7: So you think if I ask the bar or nature
in person the same thing, he'll tell me.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, he's he's said that in the past on
a record. Aquinas says, they're ration, they're notionally distinct.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So now they want to say, okay, well, how are
we really going to distinguish the persons? Then? If person
in nature are identical but only from the human Vanture's point,
conceptually distinct, how do we distinguish them? It can't be
on the basis of relation to origin. That's the orthodox view,
because that would mean hypostatic properties, right, Yeah, because the
son also has the power to cause. So cause can't
be the thing that picks out the father because two
people have cause. Okay, so how do we distinguish them
relative opposition, relationship opposition? The father is not the son,
the spirit, The son is not the spirit, not the father,
et cetera. It's stupid because that is a quality that
all three share, all three share, not being the other two.
It's really stupid.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And a person is not a relation. A person is
a subject. A relation is a predicate. That's Losky's critique
of this nonsense.
Speaker 7: Okay, And how did did Aquinas just kind of look
at Aristotle's metaphysical categories and go, hmmm, I think relation
is probably the best one I can use here or
is there some other basis that he.
Speaker 1: I don't think it had anything to do with Aristotle.
Speaker 7: Well, I mean he's looking at his he's looking at
his categories, right, and he's like, going, relation is the
best thing that I can use here at the metaphysical
level of the trinity to explain the distinctions.
Speaker 1: Right now, he's pulling from Augustine, where Augustine, using Greek dialectics,
consider the possibility of relational opposition from neoplatonism. It's nothing
to do with Aristotle. Gustin is pulling from on the
trinity and opposition and could you cash these out as
distinct through not being the others, which is again not
being the others? Is not a subject, I mean, it
doesn't tell you anything like you could say, is it
true to say Jay is not the chair, Jay is
not the bench, Jay is not the shelf. Yeah, those
are all true, but they don't tell you who Jay is.
They don't tell you. They're just negative qualities that don't
identify the subject. That's why the Cappadocians say it's the
Father that is the principal source and origin of the Godhead,
not the essence the Father. And that's why the Creed
picks out monarchical trinitarianism, says, I believe in one God,
the Father above all right, and that's why his hypothetic
property can't be shared with the son. So the whole
error starts from confusing nature in person, thinking that there're
only no distinct, not really distinct, and granting the hypoesetic
property the Father to the son because they don't start
their trinitarianism. They're they're confused, and they come up with
all these wild and crazy ideas to make this about that.
You understand that in some places Aquinas actually says, I'm
pretty sure I can pull out Sumi countries and teeners.
He actually says the procession of the Holy Spirit is
from the essence. He goes even further, it's abu troque.
I believe, well, how.
Speaker 7: Does how does that job with latter in four? Because
it's very clear that there's a supreme reality that doesn't forget,
doesn't spir rate, isn't you know, it's very clear in
latter in that it doesn't do any of those things.
Speaker 1: I mean again, I think you're looking for uh, harmony
and consistency amongst the situations and confusion. I'm serious. I
mean Aquinas contradicts himself because early Aquinas doesn't have any
position of the monarchy of the Father, and people have
written about this. Later Aquinas then seems to correct that
and admit, okay, actually know the Father is the beginning
point of the Godhead. So how do you make that work?
I mean they're inconsistent?
Speaker 7: Man, Yeah, I guess to me sometimes it sounds like
they're trying to say the same things as us.
Speaker 1: They just they're.
Speaker 5: Scholastic terms that are so.
Speaker 1: This by the way, this if you want to see
where a Quinna says this, it's in Sumicondrad and t
LA's book four, and it's so he raises the question
is the spirit spirted from the divine essence? You'll notice
in section three he uses the human mind analogy. The
Holy Spirit is the love of God, so that he
collapses energy or attribute in person. By the way, you know,
they all, I mean, easy way to refute them is,
you know they teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from
the will of God, which is eron. Do you know
they teach that.
Speaker 7: I've heard you mentioned that I've never dug very deep
in on that argument. So all right, well, I was
just kind of curious how it's interesting because your move
seemed to be to cut me off at notional acts
and essentially say that's a historical for a Christian viewpoint.
Speaker 5: That seemed to be your first move when I started speaking.
Speaker 1: So there's analogies that are made in Tertullian or some
of the apologists to find ways to explain the Trinity, like, okay,
the Trinity is like the mind, the Son is the Word,
and the holy spirits like the will or the breath,
right yea. And what happens is that when a Gostin
writes on the Trinity, he he does a lot of speculation,
and he admits that, he says, I'm doing a lot
of speculation here, and he tries to come up with
all these ways to make the Trinity rational, cogent. He
tries to find trinities in nature, little trinities everywhere, to
try to make the doctrine sensible. He pulls heavily explicitly
from Plotinus. Right, So he goes to the Eneods, and
I can't remember it his book four or five, but
like some of the sections of on the Trinity are
literally just copied and pasted sections. So Plotinus out of
the Ideods, which is wild too, by the way. So
it's a it's a work that's designed to make the
best case for the Trinity and the most rational case.
And one of the things he does is he tries
to come up with models of the human analogy or
the mind, or distinctions within the mind to make the
Trinity work too. So when a quitas and later people
pull from this. They're pulling largely from on the Trinity
when they try to make the case that there's all
of these different ways to make the Trinity work. Orthodox
Christianity only goes with the cappa dootion costs something ople
one model. That's why you see Photius really just repeating them.
We don't do all these like creative analogies type moves.
And that's that's the only way you could even get
this idea of like, I mean, the Trinity, the son
is not a notion in the father's mind.
Speaker 7: Well, I don't think that's what they're I'm not entirely
sure what they mean by a notional act.
Speaker 1: Well again, it's what they mean, is the So they
they try to say, like you can make an analogy
again between a mind and a word, right, like like
the mind produces the word. And because the Bible on
one uses this analogy, right, Like, they go too far
with absoluteizing these distinctions. But I mean, assume me these analogies.
Speaker 7: But so you don't think like I tried moving this
way with my brother, and it's a trying to catch
you a little bit, right, But like what if they
ask you a question at first, where they're like, can
God's actions go beyond their intended bounds? Something of that nature,
And then when you clearly they can't, right then they're
just going to tell you that the reading reason begetting
terminates where it does and doesn't can because one of
our charges against them, right is like, why doesn't the
son or the spirit also beget or spiral.
Speaker 5: If that's a power of the essence.
Speaker 7: And they they their answer seems to be that, like,
because the relative opposition is there's this movement from the thought.
It's almost like a line. There's a movement from the
father to the son, and that terminates in its proper effect.
And then, because spiration is not at odds with that
the way paternity is, it continues onwards and then terminates
in its proper effect.
Speaker 1: Okay, what is the termination of spiration?
Speaker 7: The termination of spiration is the person of the spirit
in their view.
Speaker 1: Okay, then how do two people have the power of cause?
Speaker 7: Well, the act of spiration moves through the son. And
I'm saying this as they would right like, not as
if the son were a secondary cause, but because the
son receives the divine essence complete, including the notional power
to spirrate, but he does not originate the power that
belongs with the Father, who's principal without principle, and he
exercises it together with him.
Speaker 1: Okay, so is there one cause or two causes in
the triad?
Speaker 7: Well, they want to say that because he's exercising the
same exact power as the Father, that there's only one.
That's what they want to say. I don't know if
that actually works logically.
Speaker 1: But and again to reiterate Photius's point, does the spirit
have that power?
Speaker 5: Does the spirit have the.
Speaker 1: You said that the son has the exact same power
as the father. According to them, m hm, does the
spirit have that exact same power?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 7: Is it because the ones that are kind of cleaved
off by what in their mind is a logical necessity
between two diet between a diet, Right, there's an opposition there.
Speaker 1: I don't understand what that means. Again, if the Father
has the power to produce a person, and that's what
it means to be the principal cause, and the son
also has that power, who is the spirit also then
a cause.
Speaker 5: Of I don't think they believe he's a cause.
Speaker 1: Yes, they do. The council lions in Florence say that
the Father and the Son together are a single principle.
Speaker 5: Oh, I don't.
Speaker 7: Believe they think the spirit is a cause of a
divine person.
Speaker 1: I know that they don't. That's what I'm asking is
if the power of the Father is to cause the son,
and that's what it means to be a cause, and
the son has the same power, then why does the
spirit lack that?
Speaker 7: Well, the spirit lacks that because there's two notional powers
in their logical scheme, and essentially because God's actions terminate
in their proper effects and are properly actualized from eternity.
They think that essentially there's like this logical movement within
the Trinity, and in.
Speaker 5: Each step you lose portions. Right, you begin with paternity.
Speaker 1: I mean that right, there's to tell you that like
this is nonsense. You lose portions of this power as
you move to the Trinity. That's insane.
Speaker 7: Like well, that, well, like relative opposition bars those from
continuing onward in their logical.
Speaker 1: Movement, right, Like, I mean, how does that even follow?
Relative opposition is just a way to try to distinguish
something from being not the other two? How does it
follow from that? That there's this diminishing power of causing
as it moves through the trinity.
Speaker 7: It's just just well, like it's not possible for my
son to be me, right, Like I beget my son,
but it's not possible for him to be.
Speaker 5: Me the begetter. Right.
Speaker 1: But the question is not does he produce you? The
question is does he have the power to produce? By
the way, is a person a notional power or a subject?
This is just insane, Like all this shit is just
like gibberish, total gibberish nonsense. I don't even know why
anyone would find this convincing.
Speaker 7: I do think it's odd to metaphysically reduce a person
to a relate shit rather than having it.
Speaker 1: It's not just odd, it's like it makes no sense
the word the word person is a subject, a relation
is a predicate. So grammar should tell you that that
doesn't make any sense. I'm serious, Go read I appreciate
your questions, but if you read Losky, he just says
it's not it's not even grammatically correct. What's up?
Speaker 8: John Greeky slotsp pull up Charard Nobody, that's what your
The callers should recommend the person he's.
Speaker 5: Talking to No.
Speaker 1: Actually, I mean I don't disagree that that's a good
one for like energies. But let me let me pull
up the actual Losky book that addresses this specifically. I
have it over here.
Speaker 8: Well, the part where he's talking about Platinus, particularly being
Platinus and Aquinas, Yeah, talks about that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's true, so most lost but to actually kind
of talk about some of the same stuff. But I
think Vision of God is the one that I'm thinking of, Yeah,
where he goes into quite a bit of depth about
what we were just talking about. But if you want
specifically the critique of the relations of opposition, I'll link
this paper again. What's on your mind? John? By the way, well,
look all of this, I don't mean to cut you off,
but like people need to understand that none of this
is in the Cappadocians. Okay, the Cappo Doceans teach not
the august aniantomistic model. They teach relations of origin. And
it's exactly what Photius repeats in the Mystagogy. If you
read the Cappa Doceans in depth as I have, and
if you then read the Mystagogy, you realize that he's
really just repeating the Cappadocians. So the Orthodox Church is
consistently teaching what the constant and noble one, the Second
Ecumenical Council teaches officially about Trinitarian theology. It's the Romans
that has departed with all this weird philosophical scholastic speculations
that are not in the Cavedoceans, not anywhere in the
Eastern Fathers. But they'll quote mine for a similar term,
right where like if gregor Nissa says that they are
the persons are related to one another, yeah, they I
don't didn't disagree with relations. Really, it's not distinguishing persons
through relations of opposition. It's relations of origin to their
unique singular cause the person of the father. Every capped
Doocian says that the everything the father has, the son
has accept causality. That's their dictum. That alone tells you
they don't teach pillioqui. This is not that hard. I
know it sounds confusing if you don't know this stuff,
you're new to all this stuff. But it's like what
they say is clear, all this speculations about philosophical relations
of opposition. It's the Roman Catholics that are deluded in
confusing people with their garbage theology.
Speaker 5: What's up many, Yeah, but the the Cappadocians and the
early church fathers say the word pope. Say what they
say pope?
Speaker 1: Well, they say Alexandria to so what I know.
Speaker 5: They used the word pope.
Speaker 1: That Oh, that right, that's it.
Speaker 8: They used the word pope in the early Church. I
don't even know why anybody's arguing anything. They said the
word pope. Speaking of popes. Once again, this is also
a good time to go back to my favorite quote
from Pope Benedict the sixteenth. These churches have an authentic doctrine,
but it is static, petrified as it were, the remain
that remained faithful to the of the first Christian millennium.
But they reject the later developments on the ground that
the Catholics decided upon.
Speaker 5: These developments without them.
Speaker 8: For them, questions of faith can only be decided by
an ecumenical council, one which includes all Christians. Therefore, they
regard as invalid what Catholics have declared since the split.
Speaker 1: And is that introduction of Christ and theology of Ratzinger or.
Speaker 5: His other book that's the Ratzinger Report.
Speaker 1: Rising report. Yeah, he's got two or three versions of
the same statement.
Speaker 8: And then he says, but they cling to the idea
of autocephaly, according to which the churches, even if the
United and Faith, are also independent from one another, and
they cannot accept the Bishop of Rome. And once again
making the point is that when he's writing this in
nineteen eighty five, he's writing it from the perspective of, hey,
where the modernists and these old fuddy dudy Orthodox are.
Speaker 5: Still stuck in the the first thousand years. That's all
old stuff.
Speaker 8: He's not thinking ahead to where there might be a
time where people start to question development of doctrine as
being something maybe bad. So he's writing it from the
perspective of like, hey, I just owned you Orthodox with
this statement right here, you see. Yeah, And so now
that's turned around to bite everybody in the butt, that
statement alone, because that's a pope who's post Vatican two
saying that the Autolas Church is.
Speaker 5: The church of the first thousand years.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't. I mean, I think even the other
you know, knowledgeable Roman Catholics will admit that. But again
the problem is that the normy pop apologists don't know
any of this stuff. They're not aware of it, and
they just want to gloss over it and be like, look,
this is just a simple position. Just accept it. Okay, Well,
then my position is a simple position. If we're just
gonna pull out simplicity, then the cabin dotionan model of
the triad, is simple. It's simpler than the tomistic gibberish.
So there we go. It's true, Cory, what's up? And I
don't know you've been waiting to come chat. What's on
your mind?
Speaker 5: Oh?
Speaker 1: By the way, I want to give this to the
guy that called in our buddy soul there just one second,
because this is the specific critique of what he was
calling in about. Go ahead, what's on your mind?
Speaker 9: What's up?
Speaker 5: Dog?
Speaker 1: What's on your mind?
Speaker 5: Hey?
Speaker 10: So I had a tweet that kind of took off
that actually got your attention the other day basically where
I had said the reason that I remain Protestant is
church history and why I don't become Catholic. And we
had this back and forth where I told you I
actually agree with a lot of Orthodox things, but there's
some stuff that prevents me from actually becoming Orthodox, and
you asked, well, what is it? So I came on
here just to bring those things up and see if
you helped me out a little bit, because I'd love
to be convinced quick back.
Speaker 5: So I'm a Presbyterian pastor.
Speaker 10: I was an inquirer in twenty twenty during COVID it
was an OCA church.
Speaker 5: I ended up not joining for a couple of reasons.
Speaker 10: But actually some of those reasons that I had back
then I actually agree with now. But I'm just still
not all the way there, and I'm getting to the
point where I'm gonna have to start teaching Orthodox things
to Presbyterians from the pulpit because I believe them so much,
but there's still some things that hold me back. So
I'm gonna lay out my biggest thing, and I want
you to take over from there.
Speaker 5: If that's okay.
Speaker 1: Sure, what's the first one?
Speaker 5: Okay?
Speaker 10: So my big thing that I studied during my Master's
of Divinity, and pretty much every single graduate paper I
wrote on had to interlink Hebrews eight and nine with
Leviticus sixteen. Basically, how Jesus fulfills the great high priesthood
and his atonement is the perfect atonement as compared to
the atonement sacrifice and everything from Leviticus sixteen.
Speaker 5: Okay, so that's kind of where I'm coming from.
Speaker 10: And I came to the conclusion in reading Leviticus sixteen
that it seems like the Roman Catholic and not as much,
but still the Orthodox Church have a conflation of terms
when it comes to sacrifice and atonement to where I
just believe it's been bad ex to Jesus and Counsel
of Trent has dogmatized and made it anathema that you
have to believe that the masses are sacrificed. In particular,
they use these words that I can't get along with.
Speaker 5: They call it the altar of the cross. Are you
aware of this? The altar of the cross? Okay? So
the thing is is alters in the.
Speaker 10: Old Testament and in the New Testament are not where
atonement is made. So if in Mass you're going in
this transcendental, timeless place and you're revisiting the sacrifice, okay, cool.
Speaker 5: You're not getting any effects from.
Speaker 10: The sacrifice because the sacrifice has nothing to it. It's
just one step in the process of atonement. In Leviticus sixteen,
if you want to look at the Orthodox, sell you
Bible if you want to look at the NKJV. There's
a step by step process that the Great High Priests
has to go through. The Atonement is not done until
every step is finished.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, first of all, I'm not sure why you
think that we have to agree to Trent's definition. Why
are you asking me about Trent?
Speaker 7: Well, because because we're going to get to the liturgy
of the Orthodox Church, where I believe how you treat
the Eucharist and where all of this kind.
Speaker 5: Of falls apart. But this has to lead up to
it or it's not going to work.
Speaker 1: Okay, Okay, So.
Speaker 10: First steps are the priests has to wash himself, you
have to put on new garments.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 10: Step number two they kill the animal out.
Speaker 5: Side of the tent. This is important.
Speaker 10: So animal is killed and the blood is shed outside
of the tent. Step three, they're going to take that
animal once it's killed, and they're going to carry it
to an altar, still outside of the Holy of Holy
so it's closer inside of the tabernation.
Speaker 5: Bro.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm not trying to be rude, but like
I'm aware of the process of how the Jewish liturgy happens.
But what's what's the point of this.
Speaker 10: Okay, atonement is not done until blood is sprinkled on
the hillosterion on the mercy scene. Okay, so Jesus's atonement
is not finished on the cross. Jesus has just done
his sacrifice on the cross. The atonement from what I'm
getting in my reading and my extra.
Speaker 1: Jesus, Yeah, yes, he has to ascend into heaven, right.
Speaker 5: Exactly correct, Yeah, I believe that.
Speaker 1: So what's wrong?
Speaker 10: Oh you do believe that? Okay, this is great, this
is awesome, this is going to help me out. Then,
So it seems to me that the Roman Catholic Church
skips this step. And they're saying that it's the cross,
where it's the altar, it's the hill, it's everything that
all happens at the cross, even you know, the penal
substitutionary atonement for the Protestant, it all happens on the cross.
The atonement happens on the cross. But I don't think
that's the case that happens in the ascension. So you're
saying the Eastern Orthodox.
Speaker 1: Teach this, Well again I don't. I mean, it's not
an either or, it's like all of those things are
necessary aspects of Christ making atonement or reconciling us to God.
So you can't pick out one part of it and
say that that's the totality of it. But there's nothing
wrong with using terms to speak about one part that
encompassed the whole. That's just kind of the way language works.
Like you can say, you know, Christ made atonement, even
if you're only speaking about one aspect of it, we
wouldn't conclude that because one aspect of it is just
one aspect of it, you can't make the general term
about that one aspect. Does that make sense?
Speaker 5: I get that. So your thing you can refer to.
Speaker 10: The cross as the thing that atones even though in
real reality it was just a step in the process.
Speaker 5: Yeah, okay, cool, I get that. I mean I can
drive with that.
Speaker 1: As long as that's I mean, just like, I'm trying
to think of other examples where you might speak this way, like, uh,
the arc of the Covenant, right, Like, is the arc
of the Covenant Jesus's human body or is it Mary
or is it us walking around as individual people? All three?
So if I call Mary the arc, that doesn't exclude
the other senses of it. I'm got you. That's just
the first thing that pops in my head as an example.
Speaker 10: Okay, So now so what you're gonna say then, is
if you know, in the liturgy, if you call it
an altar of sacrifice, it's it's it's technically okay, because
when you're referencing this thing, you're you're talking about the
totality from beginning to end, not just yeah, okay, Well
that kind of changes everything there.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm not I've not heard this objection, so yeah,
but that's just my initial yeah response.
Speaker 10: It's something that came up to me, you know, in
my graduate work that I hadn't heard either. And you know,
so I think I'm just some retard who's thinking of something,
you know. But you know, when I look things up,
there's only been one other guy who's written stuff on it,
so it's like I'm probably the one that's wrong. But
when I'm looking these things up, it's, well, I can't
get around it.
Speaker 1: One thing I would say about a lot of Protestant
objections is that most of the time they hinge on
false dialectics or either ors. So it's sort of like, oh, well,
do you believe in grace because it sounds like you
believe in works. Do you believe in you know, Bible,
or do you believe in tradition? Sounds like you believe
in tradition. Like it's sort of like a lot of
either ores and they're usually false constructed either ors that
you know are based around misunderstandings of language or work
cause of policies.
Speaker 5: Okay, I can track with that. So there's gonna be
one more thing.
Speaker 10: So I agree with the orthodox view of ancestral sin.
Speaker 5: I do not believe in original sin.
Speaker 10: And I even had a pastor preach a sermon series
against Ballagianism because of me.
Speaker 1: So like, well, you're not gonna be able to be
a Presbyterian very long with.
Speaker 5: That, That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: Bro.
Speaker 5: So like I'm getting there.
Speaker 10: But anyway, so, what's up with the intinction in the liturgy?
Speaker 5: And and why do we choose it to go that way? Then?
Then take eat, take drink?
Speaker 1: I don't understand what what.
Speaker 10: So why does the so I see in scripture when
Jesus commands and he institutes the Lord's Supper, he says
take this all of.
Speaker 5: You and eat, and he says drink this. So he
says two separate things. He wants you to eat and drink.
Speaker 10: Separately in scripture, you know, I don't see a valid
reason for intinction to be the way that the Eucharus
is consumed. And then if you're looking at anything up
right now, I just want to.
Speaker 1: Say, like, no, I'm just again, it's not an I've
not heard this objection. I mean, I I think that
there's a lot of things about what's happening in the
upper room, right, because that's a it's still a passover meal, right,
So what's happening in the upper room is a transition
from the passover meal to what Jesus is instituting. So
there's aspects of that meal that are not necessarily going
to carry over into the tradition of the church. I mean,
that would be my first inclination. It's like, it's not
the case that everything that happens in the Gospels or
even the Book of Acts is necessarily perpetually, eternally the
case for the history of the Church. That's why Jesus
didn't establish a specific ritual for the apostles. He let
the apostles craft a liturgical tradition for the apostolic seeds
that they set up. So there's probably some something that
happened within church history like that caused the church to
do this that I'm not aware of. Yeah, and you
you'd ask the liturgical historian that I don't know.
Speaker 10: I'm seeing a similar problem, you know, just speaking out
loud with myself as where I'm being hyper autistic about
the steps given in scripture. And I get it my
Protestant background, but it's like, if it's not detailed in
this order in this way, it can't be r Yeah,
but but there's something I'm rewired.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's there's not in the New Testament a written
instruction of a liturgy. And you know, I keep making
this argument that that's on purpose because Jesus wants us
to trust the Apostolic tradition, and that's precisely why he
didn't put a divine liturgy within the Bible, Like you know,
in divine providence, Jesus could have ordered it to where
you know, Paul has an extra epistle that is the
worship service, and then everybody would have had easy answers
to you know, to their worship service procedure questions, right,
but there isn't one why. Well, there's some necessary reliance
on tradition, and that's just one example. It's not the
only example. I mean, the cannon itself is another one
of those examples. But if there's not a liturgical pattern
of worship, explicitly a worship service in the Bible, the
only other thing we could go to is traditions.
Speaker 10: So yeah, yeah, it was funny to me because, you know,
one of the main arguments I would make, and I
also have taken up time because I wait, it's a
long time.
Speaker 5: I'm sure other people are too.
Speaker 1: But let me let me one last point is just
that I don't think any uh, any church explicitly does
every single ritual or operation identical to the New Testament.
I know a lot of groups like Messiana, Jews or
people like a lot of people want to try to
do that, or you know, restorationist reformist movements, but I
don't think anybody actually does it because there's so many
things in the written text itself that we don't know,
and there's aspects that were occurring at the time of
the Upper Room and then into the Book of Acts
that were in that transition period which are literally kind
of impossible. In the Book of Acts, are still going
to the temple to pray, right, Yeah, and like, we
can't do that, there's no temple, so should we build
temples because the Book of Acts has the time. That's
like the logic of like evangel I'm not saying you
have this few, but like Evangelical pre millennials have this
logic of like, well, we got to do everything that
is happening in the Book of Acts, and there's a temple,
and Paul and the believers are still praying in the temple,
so the jew we should support the Jews to have
a third temple. I mean, that's ridiculous reasoning because you're
not understanding that the closing of that whole redemptive historical
period is the destruction of the Temple seventy eight is
a big part of this, right, So when the Temple's removed,
there's no more need for Jewish temple. The Orthodox Church
is the Jewish Temple, the true spiritual Jewish Temple, right, yes.
Speaker 10: Correct, Yeah, you said it exactly. It's right to call
me out on that too, because I am that way.
You know, I don't want to intink because in John
thirteen twenty one through twenty six, the only one who
intincs is Judas you know, in the King James. They
say the one I give the thop that's sow me
on in Greek. It's like a piece of bread dipped
in the common dish. So I'm like, cute, this is
the one.
Speaker 1: Okay, but like okay, but again, remember we're not having
a passover meal, Like it's not literally like we're not
literally redoing Jewish Passover. We're doing the new passover, right,
so not every aspect of Jesus's Upper Room passover meal,
it's going to necessarily transition into what we do. Volpe says.
His argument is the Orthodox do intinction because in the
early Church there were false converts that were stealing the
Eucharist to do rituals, taint nothing, twenty dollars to shut me.
Never mind, that was a different, different topic. But so
that's one response on that.
Speaker 5: Oh yeah, and that still happens today with black masses.
So I get it. Yeah, I appreciate.
Speaker 1: You, No, I hay great questions and feel free to
hop on any time. I appreciate your your questions. Corey,
there we go, nice cool Protestant dude. All right, we
got a bunch of people on the line, all got
what's up, dude? Hej how doing what's up?
Speaker 5: I just had a quick question for you.
Speaker 11: So a friend of mine, a Catholic friend of mine,
we're discussing when I'm saying them, and.
Speaker 5: Especially after the debate that you had with him.
Speaker 11: So my question is with the Council of Chelcetton the
canons where it talks about how clerics are pretty much
forbidden to participate or be involved in civil matters like
you know, being a civil authority for example, are.
Speaker 5: These councils are excuse me?
Speaker 11: Are those canons, especially the ones in Carthage that address this,
Are they reversible?
Speaker 5: Are they binding? And are they infallible?
Speaker 1: I don't believe that any any church laws are necessarily infallible.
I think they're normative and they're binding. And it really
depends on what kind of a church law. So, for example,
you could have a church law that relates to something
moral like murder. Okay, even if it's not quote infallible,
the principle within that canon might be unchanging because the
penalties or the the problems with murder never change, right.
But you might have a canon that deals with what
to do in a certain region, and over time wars
happen in that province or that region doesn't exist anymore,
So how do we keep a canon that doesn't that
applies to a talent that doesn't exist anymore. So, in
other words, it's a little more nuanced than that, depending
upon what the canon is dealing with. I would say,
in the case of specifically clerics and civil duties, the
canon is actually based on a theological dogmatic principle that no,
they can't. That could never change. You could never have
a situation where it's appropriate and right for clerics to
be civil authorities and rulers. Now that has sometimes been violated,
and even in the East that's.
Speaker 11: Happened, right right, That's that's one point that he brought up,
because we were talking about the pope having temporland spiritual power.
He also brought up and it was kind of too
col quay in a way, because you brought up the
East also having done the same thing where you had
bishops basically getting rid of kings or reinstating them.
Speaker 1: Well, that's not that's not the same thing as having
temporal supremacy. The Church can excommunicate a wicked ruler. So
what do you I don't know what you mean by
getting rid of them? What we mean is like there
there been I think like Serbian or maybe even Russian
bishops at times who went out into battle. Right, That's
not supposed to happen because that's a civil office going
to war, being soldiers. It's not proper for a bishop
to go to war. But that's not the same thing
as like the church. The churches who coordinates the king
or the emperor. So they are the one that because
that's a higher authority, they invest or coordinate the king.
That authority comes from the higher But that doesn't mean
that the bishops then become world rulers, right right.
Speaker 11: That was a point in a to them because I'm
saying them basically, it makes the pope, the church and
the state an autocrat exactly.
Speaker 1: That's the last paragraph.
Speaker 5: Yes, right, that, That's what I brought up to him.
And Okay, my other question is, I'll make it quick.
So they claim this authority, but doesn't you know, after
looking at doesn't the.
Speaker 11: Whole issue with Cypress having and being granted auto sphally
just destroyed the entire argument of this pope having all
this authority. I mean, I think that in itself, the
Church of Cypress does it in and that's in four hundred.
Speaker 1: AD, and it's a documenical council which they claim to
adhere to right. Correct. Yeah, it's it's like one of
the many kill shots. I agree.
Speaker 5: Okay, let's a look.
Speaker 1: No, there's are absolutely great questions, yeah, really solid questions. Yeah.
I think you know. The reason for the separation of
powers is precisely because of the dangers and the duties
involved in being a soldier or a head of state. Right,
And so when you get bishops and clerics as heads
of state, it's a nightmare. And the Church early on
saw that that would be a problem, and they forbade
it in the canons. And so just because canons are flexible,
we're not. We believe in the spirit of the law.
We're not Pharisees and Talmudus that are worshippers of the
letter of the law. The purpose of canon law is
for man's good. What does Jesus say about the Sabbath? Right?
The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
The purpose of the laws is man's good. We don't
worship law for the sake of law, right, And we
also don't dismiss Church law because were anarchists or revolutionaries.
So thousands of years of church law is going to
have to have some degree of flexibility, especially when there
are canons that don't make any sense anymore. Like clerics
can't ride a horse. Why well, because in the Middle
Ages that was a sign of nobility and rulership and
authority of the state, reinforcing the principle of the law
that clerics are not members of the state, they're not
civil rulers. It's that simple. It's not like super complex. Now,
there have been situations, yes, in the East and in
the West, where at times bishops take on temporal power,
and that's not ideal, it's not supposed to happen. But
it's not the same as the Bishop of Rome. Let's say,
let's take a Serbian bishop in the year twelve hundred
who ends up, for whatever reason, going to war against Muslims. Okay,
is that right? No? But did it happen? Okay? But
did he bind everybody to salvation for not accepting his
kingly power? I doubt it?
Speaker 12: Do you?
Speaker 1: I mean this is night and day like the pope
is literally saying like, if you don't accept me as
the queis outsider rock you're damned. Even a Serbian bishop
who goes out to fight. It's not gonna say everyone
who doesn't fights damned. I mean that's just this is
like insane levels obviously of like just arrogant pride. It's
it's obviously Antichrist too. Brian two dollars are their moral
contradictions in Rome Catholicism? I would say yes. I would
say the uh a morise letitia that Tim Gordon always
talks about is a moral contradiction in their system. For them,
I would say saying that the death penalty is against
the Gospel is a contradiction. Another one that's forgotten about that.
I used to use a lot, which I don't use
a whole lot anymore because it takes a little bit
of knowledge of Tomism. But I would argue that, for example,
Thomas think that mortal sins are mortal sins and they're
unchanging because they're based on what they call quote eternal law.
Eternal law is a reflection of the divine nature. So
for example, of Astoral Macaltholic, is it a mortal sin
to have polygamy? Yes? Okay, then how did David and
how did Saul? How did God gives David Saul's wives.
So God gave a giant mortal sin to David. Oh well,
that's a different time. Oh but wait a minute. You
said that mortal sins are mortal sins because they're based
on eternal law, which is based on the divine which
is unchanging. So how can something be not a mortal
sin throughout the Old Testament and now it's a mortal sin.
So there's this lack of flexibility again because they don't
have the scesce entergystinction, and because they identify the moral
law as equivalent to the eternal law, which is the
divine essence basically or based on it. So to me,
that's another way you could argue that. But that takes
a little too much thought process for these people, so
you might not want to. You might want to use
the easier examples with these people. Cody twenty dollars for
all these load tier arguments. Couldn't you play the mind game?
I couldn't play, Oh I felt, okay, I'm sorry, I
misread that. Cody says I fell for these low tier arguments.
I could not play this mind game anymore, and so
I was received into the Orthodox Church last week. Thank
you for your work. Hey Gret, glad to hear that, Cody.
I appreciate that. I think a lot of us have
been in the same situation too, where we thought the
initial you know, arguments for we're really strong. We got
into it, we spent time in it. We saw serious problems,
and I agree with Brian Holdsworth that it's not just
any old problem. It's got to be systemic level, contradictory problems.
I agree with them on that point. Okay, I miss
somebody's super chat about Philly Oquay where to go? Oh
taint nothing twenty dollars. Aspiration does not mean cause. Then
the Roman Catholic model doesn't tell us anything about the
origin of the Holy Spirit. Yeah, great, exactly, Like every time,
I think they don't understand what spiration is because they
think that this is the person of the spirit. They
think the persons are their relations and so, oh, well,
the spirit just is spiration. Person is relation, right, that's
a quittas But spiration is what produces the spirit, it's
not the subject himself. And that's what's confusing is that
they don't even understand the basics of distinguishing nature in person,
the trinity they don't even think of the person's as
three subjects or agents. Like that's how insane this is
and why it's so difficult to talk to them is
like they're not using the Cappadocian causal framework and they
don't understand when we use this terminology versus them, it's
all getting all jumbled up because it's different. It's different models.
Gum chewy two dollars. If the keys still rattle after
two thousand years, then they must work exactly. That's the
level of argument that we're using here. I'm really kind
of pissed off about this Internet because you know, I
I don't really understand why this is an issue. It
shouldn't be an issue with the internet here, but there's
actually like literally like the speed of the Internet is
like dropping right now, which is pissing me off because
it's not supposed to. Jose, Hey Dreck, can you hear me?
Speaker 5: Yeah? I just got a quick question for you. So
I just started a book recently.
Speaker 13: It's called Antichrist and the Fulfillment of Globalization.
Speaker 5: I founded on Amazon.
Speaker 13: It's been pretty interesting read so far.
Speaker 1: But is that the first Davis guy, the Orthodox guy.
Speaker 5: GM Davis.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he's Orthox. Yeah, I didn't.
Speaker 13: Know if he was or not, but it was clear
in the beginning that he was writing it for that perspective,
as opposed to Protestant or Catholic. But I don't know
if you've read it, but I'm about sixty eight pages
in and he's doing a great job pretty much.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I thought the chapter, I've read some of it,
maybe three chapters. The chapter's critique and Puritanism and all
that stuff was really good.
Speaker 13: Well, I know you're pretty well read on some of
the Church Fathers and everything, and a good part of
the first portion of this book it's just making a
part different Church Fathers quotes about what the different characteristics
of the Antichrist would be. And so I don't know
before I finish the rest of the book, do you
have anything you can pick off the top of your
head from Church Fathers that you've read it about, or
I don't know things that you might know about the
characteristics of the Antichrist.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's a little book put out by Jordanville Monastery
called Aposse and Antichrist, and it's about sixty pages and
it has a whole section on exactly what you're asking
for the Only problem is that it's sometimes it's hard
to find in print. But if you go to YouTube,
there was a guy who read the entire sixty page
thing in a series of videos. Just type in Orthodox
or Aposse Antichrist, Orthodox and it'll come up. It's really good. Yohannis,
what's up man, I'm mute.
Speaker 5: A mister Dyer, thank younglish. I don't know if the
other speaker was finished speaking.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he was, all right, so glitch on my end.
Speaker 7: All right, So I'm coming from the SSPX side of things,
been a category in for about two years, and I'm
having trouble still seeing the way comedian functions.
Speaker 1: Hold on, you're a orthodoxed catecumen or you're an SSPX person.
Speaker 5: No, no, no, Orthodox catechuman. I'm coming out of the.
Speaker 1: SSPR Okay, okay, yeah, So.
Speaker 10: Of course I see the discrepancies that the Roman Catholic
comedian model poses, the way heresy affects.
Speaker 11: The complete capitulation of that comedian.
Speaker 7: Now the Orthodoxy, of course, there's this current situation.
Speaker 5: With Ukraine and uh well.
Speaker 7: Russia mostly on patriot content and noble So what's a
section or how is communium preserved in.
Speaker 5: A situation like this.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so if you look in the early Church, there's
many parallels and analogous to the situation of the patriarchal schism.
There's a book on this that was put out by
Jordanville as well, and I've done some podcasts in the past.
So I mean, you've got the Accacion schism, You've got
the Malician schism, which was again with Rome. So having
these such aschisms isn't a defeater when it's normal in
church history. It's not good, but it's normal in church history.
So uh yeah, just check those things out. Demon Hunter.
What's that man? By the way, guys, if you want
to the Church Papsy Schism book, we did a whole
podcast on that. I forgot it's right here, the Scharard book.
So if you're interested in church papsy Schism, highly recommend it.
It's not very long, it's only about one hundred page book,
but we have a podcast on it there. I'm not
gonna have time to do the whole Joel Heschmeyer video,
but it's okay because Alex Soren's whole video is pretty
much refutes all the arguments in it. We will probably
finish the Brian Holsworth video. What's up, man, demon? What's up?
Speaker 5: Hi? Bro? I'm I'm Orthodox Christian. I have one question.
Speaker 12: I'm a little bit unsure about one specific topic.
Speaker 9: Okay, how do we differentiate what is a holy.
Speaker 5: Tradition and recognized church history?
Speaker 12: I mean.
Speaker 1: Recognized church history? What do you mean?
Speaker 9: For example, we have many stories about a life of saints,
ther mission of Most Mary John Apostle and said, and uh.
Speaker 5: This is what we believe.
Speaker 12: That's a that's within the sacred holy tradition.
Speaker 9: And also another church.
Speaker 12: History about ecumenical councils and and everything that and the
writings of some patristics about Urineus and Antioch, and that's.
Speaker 9: A that's a somehow scholastically approved. How do we how
do we difference?
Speaker 1: Well, I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're asking your
as scholasticism, life is all over the place, man, Andreas?
Speaker 5: What was.
Speaker 1: I'm you? Andres?
Speaker 5: Hey, what's up?
Speaker 1: J what's talking about?
Speaker 14: I had a quick question, so I'll watching your video that.
Speaker 5: You did to a convert to the conversation you had
with Stephen Mueller Stephen Mayfler.
Speaker 6: I don't know his name.
Speaker 14: Aout Yeah, Muffler, Yeah, Stephen Muffler, Yes, the atheist Stephen Muffler.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 14: So I senior guys as a conversation, and I got
kind of held up on the whole seven coconuts and
that the way I took it was that we can't
do I mean, the concept of seven is not external.
I was kind of lost in that that, you know,
if you could explain that part.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So I was arguing that you can't equate seven
to the molecules that make up coconuts. Seven has to
be something more than that. So basically I'm just pulling
from uh Plato, ancient Platonic arguments and the dialogues about
you can't you can't have these reductionist approaches to give
an account for things like concepts, ideas, and numbers because
they seem to have universal, universal, immaterial invariant qualities and
that's not explained by materialism very well or not at all.
So that's what I was arguing because Stefan seemed to
just equate universals with matter, and anybody who equates universal
with matter has a lot of philosophical problems. So that's
what I was worrying. Here is Alex Soren's video responding
to Joel Heshmeier and then I'm going to finish with
the response to Brian Holdsworth. Let's see extra what's up.
Speaker 15: Hello, Hey, hey Jay, I just want to say congratulations
on your big win against Gordon.
Speaker 5: The other day.
Speaker 1: Thanks Matt.
Speaker 5: And I was just.
Speaker 15: Wondering if I could take a few seconds to like
expound on something you said earlier that I thought was
kind of important. Okay, sure, So, Like something I've noticed
is a lot of like Tradcats and Roman Catholics do
this thing where they kind of like argue for like
the papacy, but they never like they say like these
quote minds and stuff, and.
Speaker 5: It's like they never argue for the temporal supremacy.
Speaker 15: And I was listening to your thing about Gladio and
I went and picked up the book and I started
reading it, like I got five chapters in when it
starts talking about the Freemasons and all that, and it's
I don't understand how you could justify this with what
the first millennium of the churches, And like, I've never
heard of Roman.
Speaker 5: Catholic address it right.
Speaker 15: It's they just handwave it or too quotely and say, well,
the KGB bishops are, and it's just I just can't
even like, I feel like that's kind of the straw
that broke the camel's back on this whole eight of
Orthodox and Catholicism. Just that, and then also that the
news the thing you were talking about recently.
Speaker 5: With I forget what that document was called, but it's
where it's like the Marxist.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this one is crazy.
Speaker 15: They're like saying, they're saying, it's like, we don't there's
no like no politics in the church basically, and then
they expouse Marxism stuff, and it's like it's so first
we're fighting communism in Gladiola and funneling drug money, and
now we're pushing Marxism and but there's no politics in
the church. It's just it's so silly. I don't understand it.
Has any Roman Catholic ever addressed this.
Speaker 5: It's so it's not yet, it's so stupid it is.
Speaker 1: I'm still waiting. I'd like to see some kind of
debate discussion on this, because I think it's another kill shot.
The only problem with this kill shot is that, like
you said, like you kind of have to read the
gladiol book and none of them are going to do it.
So it's just like it doesn't achieve much of its
effect when they won't look at the material.
Speaker 15: Like and like they pretend to be this like it's
like this based church thing, when it's the CIA is
completely infiltrated.
Speaker 5: It's they've picked all these popes. It's so silly. I
don't get it.
Speaker 1: It's a thing. It's the it's the church in their
head that they want to be the case based on
how they interpret and reconstruct various books and Texans and
ways that they like exactly, and it's nothing to do
with the actual on the ground church in Rome, which
is the one that's Oh, by the way, guys, did
you see that they're hosting a giant gay event.
Speaker 15: I was about to bring that up also, and then
like cope, respector and all those people are saying like, well,
they didn't prove it, and it's like.
Speaker 1: They're hosting the what are you talking about? They could
they could immediately excommunicate James.
Speaker 5: Martin and it's like this's on their calendar. It's all this.
Speaker 15: It's like, well they're not, they haven't specifically endorsed it.
And then they like shift the goalpost when they get
called out and it's just it's so stupid. I just
can't do this double think in Rome.
Speaker 1: Right, were you previously Roman Catholic or no? I was.
Speaker 15: I was raised Baptist, but I was kind of I've
been doing for like the past six months. I'm an
Orthodox catechum in now, but I was doing like I'm
in between Orthodox and Catholicism. But this this stuff on
Gladio is just kind of the kill shot in my opinion, Like,
I can't it's either atheism or Orthodoxy at this point.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I appreciate that, and uh yeah, stick to
checking out the Yakoubian memoirs. I think that's what you
need to read, as I detect a little bit of
too much of a white voice there. You need a
little more cream in your coffee, I mean coffee and
your cream. Vatican will host a LGBTQ plus event next
week welcoming and together with Pope Leo. There will be prayers.
But don't worry. It's trad it's based because it's run
by James Martin. Yeah, Brian, five dollars, thank you Jay.
For the moral law contradictions aspect, it seems like contracepting
is part of their Dalla script. Yeah, except that if
you watch the Ubi Petris on Divorce Andary Marriage documentary
ended the interview with Ubi Petris and doctor David Bradshaw
on that it's actually really good and enlightening too. It's
too much to go into with like their natural law
theory position when it comes to because the real reason
that they're against contraception and all this stuff is the
tomistic arguments about the tlose of body parts. And I
kid you not, this is actually what leads them. I'm
not joking when I say this. Nobody believes me to
look it up. This is what leads them to say
that I n ceest is not as bad as m
A S tu r b A t I O N
So you jerking is worse than sleeping with your mom
or your sister in Roman cality moral theology, I'm not kidding.
That's their position, and these are the moral high ground people.
And you wonder why there are a bunch of PDF
creeps fuel my fire. Five dollars. Stream is actually smooth today,
I'm enjoining it. I don't know how the stream is
smooth with the way that the internet is acting weird
as hell. I don't know what's going on, but I'm
glad it's working smooth. It's not coming up well for
me though, Yashi five dollars. I grew up Protestant. The
more I study, I see more points towards Orthodoxy. I'm
still learning, but I plan to go The liturgy or
content has been helpful. Thank you, Yosh. Appreciate that I
make sure did miss super chests over here on stream labs.
Luigi got shrooms. Ten dollars. Will the argument against solid
scriptura apply to Orthodox bishops who are arguing over scripture.
It's a genuine question. I'm trying to find out the truth. Sorry,
the stupid question. It's not a stupid question. Let me
see if I can figure it out. Would the argument
against solo scriptura apply to two bishops arguing over scripture?
The argument against well, the argument against solar scriptura is
basically manifold. It's that you need tradition to know authorship
to know the canon. And would that would a tradition
apply to two bishops arguing over I guess you mean yeah,
I think yes. Like if you're saying, like, if two
Orthodox bishops disagreed over the interpretation of a text, would
tradition kind of supersede. Yes, I think that's what you're saying,
and I'll be inclined to say yes if that's if
I understanding the question correctly. Voll truro five dollars. I
requested to speak. I'm sorry if I missed you. You
want to come back. If I missed you, try again, Harry.
Speaker 16: Hello, Yeah, So my name's Harrison. I'm just kind of
new to your channel. I got watched your debate with
Nick Flintes and then I watched you Hodge Twins podcast.
Speaker 3: But I just I'm not too familiar with your stuff.
Speaker 16: But I wonder how you kind of got into the
rabbit hole of ethan Eastern Orthodox and where I should start,
because I mean me personally haven't even read the Bible.
Speaker 1: Okay, yeah, that's cool. I mean I got into this
stuff because in when I was early college, right out
of right out of high school, I got interested in apologetics, debates, philosophy.
So I studied philosophy and film theory and whatnot in college.
Studied more of that literature and philosophy in grad school,
but I continued to have an interest in theology and
church history and church fathers and so it's just kind
of stuff I've been into for I don't know, the
last twenty plus years, twenty five years, since about the
year two thousand. But like the pathway into Orthodoxy was
kind of a long route through leaving Protestantism for Catholicism
into the year two thousand, I think two thousand and one,
somewhere in maybe two thousand and three, I think, so
as Catholic for eight nine, ten years somewhere in there.
I went to Latin Mass for many years tradcat SSPX attendee,
and then I had a hard time making that work,
and that led me into looking at Orthodoxy back in
two thousand and seven. I didn't convert, though, because I
had a lot of hang ups, a lot of hesitations,
so ended up converting Orthodoxy ultimately in twenty seventeen. But
I studied it for many, many years. So orthodox route
was kind of a long winding route through different ideas
and positions, and I basically studied it for ten years
before I converted.
Speaker 5: Gotcha, Okay?
Speaker 17: Yeah? The only reason I asked is I'm a Lutheran
by you know, way of birth, I guess, but I'm
barely even know my own position and I'm just kind
of getting into this whole world of yeah, Christianity, I guess,
so I just just wanted to ask that.
Speaker 1: I would say, if you're interested in the Orthodox position,
I would start with something like the icon Documentary, which
is a three hour, seven part documentary on the history
of iconography and the Orthodox Church. So it's kind of
a unique, interesting way to go about looking at a
church history. I would get an Orthodox study Bible if
you were if you wanted to start reading the Bible.
It's probably the best study Bible out there. And then
you know, just check out good Orthodox content creators, Christian logos.
What's up. Father Deacon Nis is great, he's got good
philosophy stuff. What's up man?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 6: Hey, I had got on father Deacon Doctor Antonius's live
stream on philosophy a while and we had we had
a discussion on this and we went kind of in depth,
and I want to kind of hear your take on
this and maybe if it would be a valuable approach.
But when I was studying your tag, and especially as
tag relates to absolute divine simplicity, I stumbled across two fallacies,
which were the reification fallacy and the anthropomorphis fallacy.
Speaker 5: And I started playing around with those in combination to.
Speaker 6: A critique with kind of an ADS view, you know,
a platonic view, and I saw, you know, and this
is where I'd like to hear your opinion, as I
saw a lot of value in using those in accordance
with TAG, because the reification fallacy would be treating abstract
concepts either a you know, as if they're not in hypostatics,
but also treating them as if they have causal relations
to this world without justifying them appropriately. And then the
anthropomorphic fallacy kind of critiques the opposite end, where it's
like reading in too much into the divine from from
the anthropology of creation, and in those in those, you know,
those in combination seem to kind of necessitate a a
nature and hypothesis distinction and an essence energy distinction.
Speaker 5: And I was wondering what maybe your take on that
would be, or what your opinion on.
Speaker 1: That would be. I mean it sounds plausible, uh initially right, right,
I mean we were getna. They seem like good lines
of critique. Yeah, I mean, I don't know, I need
to hear more, but it seems like it.
Speaker 5: Well, and what we were kind of getting into is like.
Speaker 6: It's because I noticed in a lot of your debates
and debates with Roman Catholics, debates with whoever kind of
holds to an ADS position, which tends to be a
lot of worldviews, they try to maintain transcendence without really
justifying how the cause of relations of that transcendence could
actually enter time and space.
Speaker 1: Yes, in fact, in fact, it's funny you say that
because before the Tim Gordon debate, I was on the
road driving down to Miami talking to barther Deacon Anonias,
and we were rehearsing and rehashing one of his critiques
of tonism, which is precisely that if you say that
the first actuality or the first cause is cashed out
as basically opposite the created order and nothing like it,
which is what you would say in the via negativa,
But then you turn around and say that, but we
all know from the principle of causality that every effect
bears a similarity to its cause. That's begging the question
right exactly.
Speaker 6: And the thing too is I also see how this
could necessitate a hypothesis in nature, because if you treat
nature as something abstracted from a personal actor or something
to actually a subject that has a Then technically you'd
fall into the reiflication fallacy right there, as treating some
concept that's outside of something that needs to be in hypostesize.
So I was wondering, you know, in the future, maybe
I could see a lot of value in incorporating those
two fallacies in tandem, because you know, if we want
to be logically coherent, which obviously a Tomist or Roman Catholic,
this is going to be their their number one priority
is remaining logically consistent, because you know they're scholastic. Well,
then you would have to argue for a non fallacious
move when you're describing God. Right, there's no way, there's
no way to avoid avoid both those logical fallacies without
necessitating an asincerity distinction and a nature hypostasis distinction.
Speaker 5: And obviously they're not going to be able to actually
uphold that. I don't think.
Speaker 1: No, well, they're going to say that. You don't know
that yet. You just know about the first cause the
first actualizer. You don't know if he's I mean that's
I mean, well, what is he? Is it personal or
is it a heat?
Speaker 5: Like? What is this?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 5: Right?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Yeah, I like this. I like this line of
thought here.
Speaker 6: Yeah, because I was trying to find some way to
necessitate in a sense energy distinction, because that's obviously paramount
to orthodox theology, and a lot of times the debates
kind of end up in that, Like they usually mess
up exactly how God can remain transcended and really truly
be God in his essence being unchangeable.
Speaker 1: Well, you notice in the debate with Tim, even though
we weren't debating a pistemology or anything like that, Like
he was beginning to kind of struggle with At first
he said that Theophanes are the substance of God going
before them. He backtracked that. I was like, no, actually,
it was just a creature. And then he was like
at one point stumbling over whether or not God could
be in time and space, And it's like, do you
not understand that this is going to pose a problem
with the incarnation eventually. Like I think he was sort
of struggling with the tomistic metaphysical God, but also the
Christianity Jesus God in car and eight. It's like those
are two different systems. They're incommntional right.
Speaker 6: And right exactly at their move where He then kind
of fell back on, well, those.
Speaker 5: Are created instantiations.
Speaker 6: By which you right, right there, you're committing both those
fallacies simultaneously, because then God remains abstract and unknowable and rehified.
Therefore you're treating him as if he still has some
relation to this.
Speaker 5: World, but you haven't shown how.
Speaker 6: And then at the same time, you're also anthropomorphizing him
because now you just understand him along the lines of
created concept.
Speaker 1: Yes, exactly. And this is this is basically what Palamos
is critiquing when he says, if you only know the
creative effects, then you never know the God behind the
created effects. There's an impenetrable veil that's never pierced. And
do we actually ever know God?
Speaker 6: Yes, exactly, And right there you know again, I just
I don't see how you could avoid that too, And
this kind of led me and Father deacon An and
I skat and got into this too after after we
talked about this was noticing a conceptual sanction between the
essence and nature of God, which I find kind of
useful in explicating exactly how God can remain you know,
infinitely transcended but also relational within his nature, and so
we kind of got into that too. Obviously, I don't
want to take up a ton of your time, but
I just mainly wanted to bring up the reification anthromorphic thing.
See if you wanted if you saw that as valuable
moving forward in any debates or anything you.
Speaker 1: Had with Roman Catholic, but you actually anticipated that's actually right.
I think you're right on the right track there. In fact,
as I was talking to Father Deacon on the way
to the debate, I was discussing like, if we had
gone in the direction of a histemology or tomistic of bistemology,
I was going to bring up some of these problems.
But I noticed when I got in there and we
sort of were chatting at the beginning, I just felt
like the best way to refute him, for the sake
of the audience as well, is to go to scripture
and to go to Vine revelation and focus on Theophanes
because number one, I knew that was the weakest part
for him. Number Two, epistemology discussions will get bogged down,
the audience will get lost, uh. And I just think
that people are going to easily resonate with Theophanies or
God in space,