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