Speaker 1: So, uh, how long ago? Was this a couple of months?
I can't remember. We were hanging out here.
Speaker 2: At the old tim Cashiers right before the show, and
I'd made a comment about fertility rates being low but
among conservatives still around like one point eight, to which
I think it was Phil Lebanti responded that Catholics have
a higher than replacement rate fertility at like two point four,
and then I was like, is that true? And Mary
Morgan was also on the show, and then I think
she mentioned something about divorce rates are also really low,
and then I jokingly said Catholics are the superior Christians,
and to which everyone chuckled, and I antagonistically said should
I tweet that? Because I just knew it cause a storm,
you know, ish storm, and then Mary and Phil both
said yes, and I was like, okay, so I did.
Speaker 1: And here we are.
Speaker 2: Now do I have the uh, we don't have the
oh I can pull well whatever, we don't have the
people to do. But now we actually we're actually gonna
have that debate because admittedly I am a lapsed ethleic.
I was ten years old and my family left the church,
so what do I know? So I brought in a
handful of gentlemen to have this conversation and have this
debate over the religion the denomination.
Speaker 1: Sir, would you like to introduce yourself first?
Speaker 3: Yeah, Jay Dyer, I host the Alex Jones Show, have
done that for the last five years right for the
Sam Hide Show doing comedy. I've debated all the top
atheist Muslims that are out there and looking forward to.
Speaker 1: This one right on.
Speaker 4: I'm Aiden Mattis. I'm the host of the lore Lodge,
The Weird Bible and History Unhinged on YouTube, and I
have not debated all that many people, so this is
going to be an interesting day for me.
Speaker 5: I'm Timothy Gordon. I'm the representative of the superior religion
here today. You know me from YouTube. Rules for Introgrades
is the name of the show. I'm the author of
five books and I'm excited to defend.
Speaker 4: Your position that you meant totally literally today. Can we
just end with that?
Speaker 1: So well, I'll start with why it's not the superior legit.
Who wants to go first?
Speaker 6: I'll go first. So I used to be Catholic?
Speaker 1: Where are you now?
Speaker 3: Orthodox? Been Orthodox for the past eight years? Orthox Christians.
So I think there's some key things that stand out
as the reason why Catholicism is not superior. One would
be the contradictions that I think have occurred in Catholic dogma,
particularly after the first millennium. You have the notion that
the temporal supremacy of the Roman bishop is necessary for
salvation from the time of Dictatus Pope in ten ninety
all the way up to thirteen oh two when I'm
sunk them. So you have to believe that the pope
has basically Quiza's hotterog type status. He's the world emperor,
and if you don't believe that, you will lose your salvation.
So that was clear dogma in the Middle Ages. Nowadays,
post Vatican Two, when we go to the documents of
Vatican two, that is no longer even mentioned. In fact,
it's de emphasized, and in fact many of the Vatican
two popes have called for the decatholicizing of various Christian states.
So one would be that there's a contradiction there the
relationship with the Church to the other religions. For example,
in the Middle Ages you have the condemnation of Muslims
at the Council of n As the abominable sect of Muhammet. Nowadays,
post Vatican two, post Acumenism post notes rotate, which are
Vatican two documents. Not only is Islam a selvific religion.
We can actually go and pray in the mosques towards Mecca,
which the last several popes have done, exemplifying their faith
that they can't know. There's also the Abu Dhabi Faith
Center which has been built now and I'm sure Tim's
going to take issue with whether you actually can. But
the Vatican two documents actually do promote, especially the Vatican
two Acumenist documents, the notion that we can participate with
and engage in inter religious faith ceremonies and dialogue, which
is in direct contradiction to Mortalium animos in nineteen twenty
nine from Piss eleventh, which says that to do so
is quote the surrendering of the faith. So these are
a couple contradictions. There's many more than death penalty has
recently been changed according to Catholic Catechism. Now according to
Pote Francis, it is quote contrary to the Gospel. If
you go back to the Catechism of Trent, it was
said to be part of natural justice or natural law.
So certainly nobody would believe that the papacy can change
or alter natural law.
Speaker 2: But is the implication then that the Orthodox Church is static,
it doesn't change.
Speaker 3: Yes, we would argue that the first thousand years of Christianity,
as you look at it from the Council's perspective and
the canon law and the church father's teachings, that the
Orthodox Church is absolutely synonymous.
Speaker 6: With that church.
Speaker 3: So it's exactly the same as the first thousand years
of Christianity Rome and the papacies. What has departed, particularly
in the eleven, twelve thirteenth centuries.
Speaker 1: What about you? You're what denomination are you?
Speaker 4: So I have been a Methodist for many years. I
have recently began inquiring into the Anglican Catholic Church, which
is not the Anglican churches in the Church of England,
nor is it the Episcopal Church and actually split off
from that, and I want to say nineteen seventy eight
with Episcopal Church's decision to begin ordaining women. So it
is a conservative Anglican theology. And to be perfectly honest,
I don't really disagree with much of what Jay just said.
Our church largely does tie itself back to the pre
twelfth century Christian Church tries to emulate that. And that's
kind of the position of the Anglican Catholic Church is
we are not the one true Church. We are not
the perfect representation of Christianity. We are doing our best
to retain Christianity prior to councils like the Council of
Trent that we felt changed the religion too much. So,
like Jay said, it's very much the eleventh century and
back is what we consider to be the unified Church.
Speaker 2: I have a question, but I'm gonna wait until you
can set your position on Catholicism.
Speaker 4: Great Catholicism is the one true Church.
Speaker 5: We make this claim based on many premises, but the
first ones are this indefectibility.
Speaker 4: The Church can never defect. It won't affect.
Speaker 5: Our Lord promised that when the spirit of truth comes
in scripture, he'll guide you into all truth. In John's Gospel,
Gates of Hell won't prevail against the Church of Matthew's
Gospel and Firs.
Speaker 4: Timothy.
Speaker 5: The Church of the Living God is the pillar and
bulwark of truth. And therefore our Lord is a liar.
If there is some change and you know, this is
a little bit funny because what I'm going to be
doing is talking about super specific church terms religion terms
with Jay today, and then we'll be talking about more
broad things, because really Protestantism isn't technically a religion, it's
a faith. But we can talk about things like the
ecumenical councils, the first seven ecumenical councils, about which Orthodox
and Catholic agree in something like four of these first
four ecumenical councils.
Speaker 4: I'll read you chapter in verse.
Speaker 5: But so Orthodox, the Orthodox has a the you of
the Pope, which is the church's view, the church's second
millennium view of the pope, and the Orthodox defected on this.
Now Protestants defected. They represent the soul of defectibility. Indefectibility
means that nothing's going to change. Protestants are are religion
that sprang forth from the earth like Athena from Zeus's
head in the sixteenth century. It's it's proto Enlightenment, abstract
rationalism that's vaguely pro Jesus. But Orthodox Catholic debates are
are more specific because we have to talk about what
the at the very least the first seven ecumenical councils
require and the first second ecumenical councils about which Jay
and I agree. If you go to like number three,
Ephesus involves the Patriarch of Constantinople, the highest guy in
their second millennium church, being fired by being requested to
be fired by other Eastern Orthodox guys like Cyril of Alexandria.
He writes the Pope and he says, can you excommunicate
the Patriarch of Constantinople. Thestory is because he's saying this absurdism,
like like unto what many Protestants say today that marries
the Mother of Jesus but not God, and so kind
of like Dwight Schrut says in the office, if you
are the guy that can, that's actually boss, you can
make a firing.
Speaker 4: And tons upon tons upon tons.
Speaker 5: Of first millennium Eastern thinkers from the Eastern lung of
the Church associated with Orthodoxy, but also Catholic saints like
you know, the Cappadocian Fathers, all the Gregory's say, Bowsel
the Great. They acknowledge the unity, the visible sign of
unity that is represented on earth by the Pope and
the headship of the Pope. Just tons upon tons of
these guys, and tons upon tons of the councils also
Nicea two, Constantinople, three, Constantinople four. We kind of disagree
with it about it, and even the union of Florence
at the Council of Florence, which is an ecumenical council.
Speaker 4: It was called by an emperor. Well, a lot of
people don't know this.
Speaker 5: We had a reunification of the Catholic in the Orthodox churches,
and it was a legit unification. Thirty one out of
thirty three bishops in whatever it was, fourteen thirty nine
of the Orthodox came and voted for unification, including the
patriarch of Constantinople, and then they went home and essentially
they were strong armed into nullifying the unification.
Speaker 2: So let's try and simplify as much as we can
real quick to make this point. Like I do, I
do have a question, but is the Orthodox argument is
you want to stay true to the original view of
scripture and what it dictates, and is the Catholic view
that it can be updated and changed by the political
structures of the religion.
Speaker 5: Absolutely not, I would say, I would say you have
that reverse the Orthodox always being centered in Constantinople, were
close to the emperor. The first thing Constantine did you
know after he legalized Christianity with the Edict of Milan,
is he moved the capital from Rome to Constantinople. He
named the city after himself, which is a badass move,
chad mu and is tim city Constantine city. And so
the Orthodox over the remainder of the first Christian millennium,
they had the patriarch of Constantinople who would be elevated
to the second most powerful under Rome eventually, and they
always had they were next to the emperor, and so
they were always alongside the emperor. And of course there's
multiple Orthodox churches, so they don't even agree on things
like whether they can't be one because they can't be
true to the Gospel, because they don't agree on things
like whether you can have divorce, whether you can have contraception.
Whereas the Roman Catholic Church, under the single you know,
sign of unity, the pope, which everybody hates, they are
kept together. And the second millennium Catholic view of the
pope is exactly what the first.
Speaker 4: Millennial review of the pope was.
Speaker 3: But Rittinger emits it's not so that he was a lefty.
Speaker 2: Again, I'm not, you know, I don't follow any of
the organized religions or anything like that. But real quick,
I'm just the reason I asked the question is different
popes have had different positions on cultural issues. I think
you mentioned the death penalty just now, but there's also
questions of gay marriage and abortions.
Speaker 3: Gave the lessons that are allowed in the Francis's and cyclical,
which was a change from the previous Congregation for the
Doctor of the Faith, which is basically the successor to
the Holy Office.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I mean, and I'm not trying to be rude to Tim,
but Tim didn't actually mention or address any of the
actual contradictions that I listed. He came up with a
list of sort of I would say, equivocations on the
way that different church fathers used the word head. Bazil
in his letters, for example, talks about the Bishop of
Antioch being the head of the whole body, the head
of the world because in his region it was the
chief see right, because he was dealing with the a
schism in Antioch. So this flowery language a lot of
times is used amongst many of the Church Fathers. You
have at the seventh the Commenical Council the phrase the
gates of Hell will not prevail against and then guess
what they use the Emperor. I don't think anybody believes
that Matthew sixteen is about the emperor. But we can
find in the acts of the councils, if you have,
like Prices, books and whatnot, multiple examples of the sort
of language this use. But that doesn't equate to the
idea of Vatican one. And like Temple said, not only
do you have changes in practice or practice, such as
the complete revolution in the most holy thing in the
Roman Catholic Church, the liturgy itself. You have a protestantization
after Vatican two, a liturgical revolution that's more important than
other types of issues.
Speaker 6: Like you know, can we have the death penalty?
Speaker 3: And I think for Roman Catholic theology, the liturgy itself
is more important. And the post Vatican two popes have
all enforced the.
Speaker 6: Dogma of the New Mass.
Speaker 3: In fact, Francis said in I Think twenty seventeen, I
have the reference if anyone wants to look and see.
But he said that the reforms of Vatican two are
dogmatic magisterial and irreformable. That means that you cannot reject
any of the things of Vatican two that you don't like,
even if you want to debate the status of them.
So not only have the morals and the ideas changed
and the dogma has changed, even the worship of God
has undergone a substantial Protestant change.
Speaker 4: There's no dogma that's changed, there's zero dogmas that What
about what I'm sunk in the deposit of faith? Ununk
wait unam sanctum doesn't represent a dogmatic view?
Speaker 1: What does that mean?
Speaker 6: So necessary for salvation?
Speaker 4: And what Nsinger is not the deposit what it's.
Speaker 3: The collections of Catholic dogma. So it does include what
is the normative dogma? So how could you think is
unam sanctum is the thirteen oh two decree of Boniface
that to be saved, not only must you be in
co union with the Roman Pope, you must also accept
the Roman sees temporal supremacy, that he is queizots Hoterac,
the Roman bishop is the emperor of emperors. In fact,
all the same terminology that's used in the first statement
about this in Dictatus Pope in ten ninety is repeated
not only in When I'm Sanctum, but also all the
way into the eighteen hundreds into the Syllabus of Errors
attached to Vatican One. So you're telling me that from
the thirteen hundreds, from eleven hundred, thirteen hundred, all the
way up to Vatican One and the Syllabus of Errors,
all the rejection that they had of the proposition that
the churches in the state could be separate and that
you don't have to believe in the temporal supremacy. That
wasn't dogma, even though it was necessary for salvation.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Yeah, So what I would say to this is that
the contradictions which in here in the heart of Orthodox
Christianity tim are are are more are fundamental, and they're
literally going to address what I call her Is that
just too?
Speaker 6: Yeah?
Speaker 5: No, is this is really important because the so called tensions, contradictions, developments,
and things like uh, two swords theory are not at
the heart of what's considered doctrine. There's reformable doctrine and
the irreformable doctrine.
Speaker 6: And what i'm doctrine?
Speaker 5: What about Because we're looking at people that are are
Protestant we're talking to Orthodox. The most important thing for
the listeners out there is if there's a head of
the church, then if there's a meaningful head of the church,
then Roman Catholicism is true. And this so we have
to start at the beginning. Literally, it's not equivocation. This
is as direct as we can be. If there's a head,
and we should we should be specific. Let's let's be
specific to the actual councils about which we agree, and
that This is what Jay is going to be trying
to avoid today, is that the seven councils that they
accept defines what the pope is and the specific kind
of headship that the visible sign of unity on earth
that they are. I'll read some to you in a
second from Emphasis from Nicia two from Constant Noble.
Speaker 4: Three to four.
Speaker 5: And if there's a pope that is a meaningful boss
that is appealed to with a kind of appellate supreme jurisdiction,
then Roman cathals is a mass to be true, because
it's the only one of the three sects that represents this.
So listen to what was said at Ephesus, signed onto
by the Orthodox Holy and Blessed Peter the Prince and
head of the Apostles, the column of Faith, the foundation
of the Catholic Church. The Prince of the Apostles received
the keys of the Kingdom of from our Lord Jesus Christ,
and that to him was given the power of binding
and loosing sins, who until this day and forever lives
and judges in his successors. Now, what happened leading to
the Third Ecumenical Council Ephesus is you have this guy
in Nestorius that's teaching falsely. He's the patriarch of Constantinople,
that that Mary was mother to human Jesus, but not
God Jesus dividing his natures. Lots of Protestants today say
this neither Orthodox nor Catholic.
Speaker 3: Clust or lots of person, not the nature's right.
Speaker 4: Sorry, yeah, dividing his person, not the nature.
Speaker 5: So Cyril of Alexandria writes, the pope writes the boss
of the churches, or early early on, this is the
exact view of the papacy that the Roman Catholic Church has. Now,
it's a collegial first, but the Orthodox are going to
hit you with this idea that the pope was merely
the first among equals. This is one of those nonsense
terms that would mean like a roundtable where he's not
actually appealed to. He doesn't have a kind of appellate jurisdiction.
He would not be able to excommunicate any of the
other patriarchs. And so they they write to him, and
Cyril says, to the Pope, we rely on the authority
of the blessed Apostle Peter, on whom the church was founded,
and whose success of the Blessed Celestine, who his pope
at the time is.
Speaker 4: He also says, your holiness.
Speaker 5: Who holds the place of Peter, the Prince of the
Apostles has rightly judged this matter and condemned the stories.
Now what Jay and the Orthodox have to say is
that it's merely honorary position.
Speaker 4: But he could fire people well like you would tell me.
Speaker 6: I can I address that up.
Speaker 4: I just want to I want to cut I mean,
I think the term prince here is very important because prince.
A prince is not an emperor. A prince is not
a king. A prince is first citizen princeps That's what
the word meant, princess prerogative. Prerogative goes with sure, but
what what the orthoro appealing to his prerogative. What the
Orthodox position is and what the Protestant position is historically
is that the pope has primacy, he is first among equals.
That does not mean that he gets to unilaterally make
decisions in in an objection, in the objection to the
other pope.
Speaker 5: Well, that that fault that runs vul of ephesis. I'll
read you and I see it too, after Jay says.
Speaker 3: So I'll answer his claim from emphesis, and that the
idea of an appleate jurisdiction.
Speaker 6: Everyone is well aware of this.
Speaker 3: In fact, the Vatican itself has a great commentary on
the meaning of this appellate structure in the recent document
from Chi eighty, which is a Vaticant approved document on
exactly what.
Speaker 6: Was not authoritative, it's a proved document.
Speaker 3: So this is what. This is what Rome nowadays says him.
Doesn't like what Rome says nowadays, but this is what
not dogmatic what It doesn't matter because this is what
Rome says nowadays, not a Church document.
Speaker 4: It's dogmatical, dogmatic.
Speaker 3: Your quote mind isn't dogmatic either, So allow me to
allow me to.
Speaker 1: It is just real quick. This is one of the
most esoteric debates.
Speaker 2: Ever, it's going to be there are even Christians of
each denomination been like, what are they talking about?
Speaker 3: So what Rome nowadays says about this is that Sartica
was received at the Council of Trello. The Canons of
Sartica determined that a bishop who has been condemned can
appeal to the Bishop of Rome, and that the latter,
if he likes it or deems it appropriate, can order
a retrial. Notice it is not a unilateral statement, very
contrary to exact to the reading that you gave of it.
He can order a retrial to be conducted by the
bishops in the province neighboring that bishop. It is not
real room unilaterally deciding it totally contrary to the reading
that he gave of it. And then it says such
appeals it doesn't matter. Such appeals two major seeds were
always treated in a sonodal way. Appeals to the Bishop
of Rome from the East expressed the community of the church,
but the but Rome did not exercise canonical jurisdiction over
the churches of the East. So when Athenasius gets appeals
to excommunicate people, does that make athenacious The head of
the church.
Speaker 6: Of course not that's eighties.
Speaker 3: It doesn't matter because it's Rome's present statement on what
your church's tradition is. These are so this is what happens.
Pick and choose the documents that you don't like. So
this is Rome so more then the Roman theologians. Now,
because Rome actually says what I'm saying about apple jurisdiction,
I understand a retrial. Can you name a single scholar
that talks about this that doesn't have the giady of view?
Speaker 5: Oh yeah, yeah, all of the scholars who aren't with community.
Speaker 6: Yeah yeah, that is.
Speaker 4: That is not one.
Speaker 6: Let me name one.
Speaker 5: Let me see, scholars aren't the mind of the church.
Speaker 4: By the way, really, I'm talking about dogma. It hasn't changed.
Speaker 3: I mean, like the three dogmas I listened to, Dogma
one is the contradiction those were in dogmas.
Speaker 4: See it too, so was on the christ Book.
Speaker 3: When I'm sicked, When I'm sicked them all the way
up until syllabus of errors is necessary for salvation And
it's not.
Speaker 5: Dog But we're talking about the first seven councils. Let's
get to you talking about that. I'm the reason I'm
talking about it is because Jay, because well if the.
Speaker 4: If the first seven councils didn't be with the current
position of the church.
Speaker 5: But see the trick is that. So what we have
we have is quote my perio, you have thirty nine
thousand sec. Nine thousands. Okay, no we are there are
fourteen Auducephalus. There are fourteen Autocephalist churches. So the tensions
resides in for for we're autphalus fourteen.
Speaker 6: Do you know where it comes where?
Speaker 5: But so autocephalus churches what relatively unified with themselves? He
dates we have when you have a business back century,
when you have one holy Roman Catholic Church, the fore
marks of the church. This comes from nicea one. When
you have one, there's of course, this is what they're
playing on. It's a strong rhetorical position. Naturally, there's going
to be lots of disparity within the religion, and so
documents have to be ordered hierarchically. What's called the depositom fide,
what never changes in the church, best represented in real
time by something called the act of apostolic Ascetus is
something that is airtight. And there are tons and tons
of liberal scholars since Vatican two, since Vatican One that
present opinions that they alied on. Francis is probably the
worst pope we've ever had that do not make it
into the act Apostolic ascetis, and certainly don't make it
into the deposit of Faith. I thought we'd come here
and talk about the first seven Councils because it's that
which we agree about. Me and I see it too.
Let me just get this out.
Speaker 4: It says this.
Speaker 5: If you think that that I was quote mining Ephesus Jay,
primatial authority everywhere on earth was given by the Redeemer
of the world himself, Jesus to the blessed Apostle Peter,
through the same Apostle the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman
Church has held till now and will hold for all
time primacy and sovereign authority.
Speaker 4: So you have the lineage there.
Speaker 5: It's for all time, it's primacy, it's sovereign authority. If
there's a head of the Church that can fire other guys,
then this is the kind of pope that the Roman
Catholic Church describes as.
Speaker 3: A huge objection to this. First of all, Pope Virgilius
at the Fifth Ecumenical Council in the Acts of Constantinople two,
the council decrees that he be excommunicated and removed from
the Diptys Virgilius submitted to the council. Does that sound
like a autocratic position or does it sound like the
councils above the pope collegial?
Speaker 4: No, it's not. No, the pope is collegial.
Speaker 5: This is exactly what Vatican one says. Vatican one says
that the pope has a collegial relationship to the rest.
Speaker 6: Of the bishop, but does it say that he relies
on the church to doing it?
Speaker 5: Submitted to the pope, same as you know, i'mius.
Speaker 3: The people ain't gonna fall this, but bill to the council,
not the pope. Yeah, but Jillius was excommunicated by the council.
Speaker 5: Right, According to Richard Price, the pope submitted to the council.
You said, Yeah, that's what the post one view.
Speaker 4: The pope submitting to the council not prove that the
council has.
Speaker 5: At all, No, no, no proofs that the pope bears a
collegial relationship.
Speaker 3: Listen, Vatican one says that the council is not above
a pope. You know that, so of course it's not
above a pope. And why is Vigilius submitting.
Speaker 5: Because everyone else, Protestants and Orthodox misunderstand what the pope's
primacy that seems quite convenient primacy exactly well it is,
it's it's well, it's highly inconvenient to the Catholic argument
that you misunderstand it. The pope's relationship to all of
the all of the other churches is specifically this.
Speaker 4: He is sorry to the bishops. Is this he's collegial.
Speaker 5: He has this ex cathedral power to declare infallible truth
when and only when he makes the claim, and most
of the time the only two times we know that
he's used the power in the last thousand years. Everyone
misunderstands it. What he did first in eighteen fifty four
and then in nineteen fifty is he pulled all the
bishops of the world to make sure that this ex
catho draw power which is not oracular. He's not divining
out of his head magical truths that have never been
taught the pope. Because the Roman Catholic Church is the
one church that goes all the way back to Scripture,
the pope wants to make sure that bishops always and
everywhere have taught the immaculation objection.
Speaker 4: Thought also, how does make rich alone? Go back to scripture.
Speaker 5: You see the distinction, though, tim So when the Pope
says I'm going to say something the ex cathedra and
everyone goes apious. This is not he's divining when he
special the pope has a collegial relationship to the bishops.
Speaker 3: I got their boss, I got community. Then he can't
be he can't be fired if he's their boss. And
that's exactly what happens with the vigilius.
Speaker 4: It's more like the board of a company firing.
Speaker 3: This one says that the pope is not superior to
a council.
Speaker 6: He doesn't submit to the council.
Speaker 2: Okay, let me ask you said it, you said it, Okay,
I got a question. I'm not a Catholic. I got
no idea. What half the stuff you got your and
all these Latin things and everything you said? The Pope
can decree infallible truth?
Speaker 1: Am I wrong?
Speaker 4: Is that he say when he speaks from his special
chair from pastor.
Speaker 1: So if he's if he's in his is it actually
a special chair?
Speaker 4: Like? What is it? From the chair?
Speaker 2: So from the chair he can declare something to be true,
like if he said gary marriage is never a thing.
Speaker 1: Is that an example of what he might say.
Speaker 4: Yeah, he could also say the opposite. He would have
to respect it, of course, right, And here's the proof.
Speaker 5: He could say something ex cathedra has never been declared
that wasn't held from all time, the beginning of the church,
which is what happened.
Speaker 4: I didn't really get it out.
Speaker 5: When the pope has made ex cathedra claims, there are
things that he pulled the bishops on first to prove
that Vatican One was not a new lone ranger view
of the pope.
Speaker 4: He's not an autocrat.
Speaker 5: It's just a quick way of safeguard or something that
was always taught the bishops.
Speaker 4: He did claim to be an autocrat. He fully claimed that.
Speaker 2: Clarify my point. He is not deciding that he wants
gay marriage when he says it. He is sitting in
the chair and saying what the church believes, based on
what the church believes.
Speaker 5: That your point, well, the church doesn't have gay marriage,
never has never en.
Speaker 2: My point is if the pope went to a chair
and said there is no gay marriage, it's not that
he's deciding it. He's saying, this is what the Church
has always held to be true.
Speaker 5: Precisely, yeah, and that's what everyone misunderstands at Pastor attornis
Vatican One the most important thing?
Speaker 2: And so hold on, sorry, And then it would sound
to me the issue of removing a pope would be
if he was clearly stating things that were fallible untruths
from the chair.
Speaker 3: Well, the first question, yes, correct, is the notion of
that authority, whether he actually possesses the Vatican One authority.
That Tim is reading back into the many examples that
contradict his reading. For example, Pope Vigilius is literally excomunicated
and suspended at the Fifth Ecumenical Council. That's from Richard Price,
the famous Catholic scholars translation of the Acts of the Council.
And so the argument is not that the pope has
no relationship to the bishops, so he deflected and defeated
a strawman. The argument is that at the time of
the Fifth Ecumenical Council, the Pope submitted to and was
excommunicated by the council. And then now at Vatican One,
it says the literal opposite that no council is above
or can't fire the pope. So it's a complete contradiction,
and it's not just Vigilius. Tim said in his opening
statement that the Church via the roman Sea cannot defect.
If it could, it would lose one of its constituent components.
And yet at the next Ecumenical Council, the sixth Council,
Pope Honorius famously is a heretic.
Speaker 6: He did defect.
Speaker 3: All he did was write one letter that contained heretical statements,
and the Church at that council said he is a Heritic.
He's defected, and then three subsequent councils after also reaffirmed
that condemnation. So again, indefectibility.
Speaker 6: The notion of.
Speaker 3: Authority is all fluctuating and elastic, depending upon what Tim
needs to be the case at the time. His only
answer was a too quotua and he didn't address any
of the things that.
Speaker 4: I want to build on what he just said too,
Because if if Enorious had declared monothelitism ex Cathedral to
be the truth, what would you have to believe?
Speaker 5: Well, the claim of the Church is that the church
is indefectible. This is Christ's promise.
Speaker 3: Roman Sea is ineffectible. Says the Roman sea is indefectible. Okay,
the Roman Sea is indefectible. Insofar as this this requires interpretation.
What if you get an honorious What if you get Yeah,
if you get it's a system.
Speaker 5: The theological opinion, whether we're going to Suarez or Bellaman
or Francis Xavier, theological opinion can vary on this because
what what happens?
Speaker 4: Then? Obviously we know the church has to be one.
Speaker 5: It's got to be whole holy, it's got to be Catholic,
it's got to be Apostolic the Roman.
Speaker 4: Church, why does it have to respect the pope? At
least let me get an emerald prince.
Speaker 5: I don't to talk to two two barking dogs, so
let let me just let me get it out.
Speaker 4: We have to make these things really clear.
Speaker 3: First, Jodd Nelson's getting met uh more of a bobcat
really uh And I see it too, primacial authority everywhere.
Speaker 5: What what does this mean to you, Tim if you
were to hear Constantinople three, Because if you're if your claim,
if the claim is that I'm expanding upon the view,
you know, the Catholic view of of what the Orthodox
view of popes might have been in the first millennium.
Then just explain what this language means, that that the
Church has never aired from the path of apostolic tradition,
nor she's been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations. But
from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from
her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and
remains undefiled to the end according to the divine promise
of the Lord and Savior himself. Now, because there are
there are bad popes in history, there are lots of them.
Speaker 4: We've had two hundred thirty seven, not just you have to.
Speaker 5: Differentiate between which you know one in this audience ten percent,
between material and formal heretics, right, which is going to
take another five minutes. I'm not going to get out
what i want to say because I'm defending this position.
Look at Constantinople four. You can't have material heretics, you
can't have formal heretics. Constant Nople four. What does this
mean to you? This is a the the eight hundred
and seventy nine version. It was originally convened in eight
sixty nine. That's the Catholic version. I'm reading from the
Orthodox document. Listen to this, What do you do with this?
For just the Apostolic throne, having received the keys of
the Kingdom of Heaven from the First and Great High
Priest Jesus Christ, through the chief of the Apostles, Peter,
he has the authority of universal binding and loosing. Binding
and loosing is the power to forgive sins, which Protestants
don't have at all. Orthodox have it. But except this
is an Orthodox document, this is an Orthodox council. We
hold this council to him, he Peter, that's my whole.
Speaker 4: We have this council. If he don't disagree with you. You
don't have bishops, Yes, we do. The guy in the room,
we do have bishops. And they go all the way
back to Aristobola. They're Britain.
Speaker 5: What does this mean to you, Bishop? And as the
authority of universal binding and loosing? They say, this is
just a symbolic power. Jolli honorific. It's merely first emoment.
Now now hold on, if you're appealed to.
Speaker 4: I think that all twelve apostles have the power to
forgive sin, of course, of course, but only one has
what's called here at in this particular council the power
of universal binding and loosing, which is why you would
appeal to a pope to excommunicate the second in charge
of the church. You have to get you have to
tell me how.
Speaker 3: And that's why a council can excommunicate the post, because
the councils above communicate.
Speaker 4: I just read the bishops are above the.
Speaker 3: Pot The acts of the council say the Julius was excommunicated.
Your translation of your people say he was.
Speaker 2: I would like to hear from you, guys, what about
the arguments you've made or believe makes your denomination superior
in the true sense of the word superior. Are you
saying that it's because you are right, you are correct,
or is there something about your belief that inherently better
serves the people and God.
Speaker 4: The I mean, just to be very clear, the Anglican
Catholic position, and by extension, the Methodist position, because Methodists
are Anglicans, is that the Methodist Church, the Anglican Church,
all of them. They're not the superior, one true church.
They are a group of Christians in their genuine, best effort,
attempting to follow Christ in the most proper way possible.
Using the seven Ecumenical councils using the seven sacraments. We
are Catholic up until the end of the eleventh century.
Why what happened then we began to disagree with the pope?
I mean it's a long process. The Reformation did not
happen in fifteen seven.
Speaker 2: Eleventh century. A pope came in who was saying stuff
that was like way wrong.
Speaker 4: I would argue it started with Gregory the seventh, probably
with the Dictatus pape and him coming out and because
of a literal political situation, this was not a theological issue.
If here's a political.
Speaker 3: Question, you're an Anglican, then do you agree with the
Anglican Catholic?
Speaker 6: I don't agree with the branch.
Speaker 4: Can you elaborate on the branch theory?
Speaker 3: It's the typical Anglin idea that the Church is split
amongst a bunch of different branches.
Speaker 4: I think I think that would probably.
Speaker 3: Do you think that any of the people who compose
the documents and the canons at the seven Ecumenical councils
believe that the Church was divided amongst a bunch of
different sects?
Speaker 4: I don't, well, I I mean orthodox.
Speaker 3: Now, could you name anybody that believed that about the
nature of the church.
Speaker 4: I don't know that I would agree that it was
necessarily divided into several sects. And I don't know that
my church would agree with that either.
Speaker 3: I think, don't you agree with the idea that Protestants
are trying their best and whether they're Methodists or whether
they're Anglican doesn't really matter.
Speaker 4: No, I would say that there are Protestant sects that
are is.
Speaker 3: The church divided amongst those branches.
Speaker 4: Today? Yes?
Speaker 3: Okay, did anyone in those seven councils have that idea
about the.
Speaker 6: Nature of the church.
Speaker 4: No, But I'll so don't think that your so, your.
Speaker 3: Church is not in communion with those ideas.
Speaker 4: My church is not in communicant with the Anglican communion.
We're we're not Anglicans. We're Anglican Catholics.
Speaker 3: We hold our asking you about the first thousand years
of Christianity, yes.
Speaker 4: We have, but you have a we are in agreement
with all seven you're.
Speaker 3: Not because you just you couldn't name anybody that had
your ecclesiology of those.
Speaker 4: I don't think we're having I don't think we're having converse.
Speaker 3: Maybe you should get on this conversation and answer the question,
because that's what we're doing here today.
Speaker 4: The terminology you're using is confusing to me.
Speaker 6: Is common no.
Speaker 3: Ecclesiology that the people the first thousand years had, Did
anyone of them have a branch theory?
Speaker 6: Or that the church is divided amongst a bunch of groups.
Speaker 4: Again, I don't think we're having the same conversation. I
think we got off base at a certain point here.
Speaker 3: Does your ecclesiology have any basis in the first thousand years?
Speaker 4: Yes, we trace all of our ecclesiology back to the
first thousand.
Speaker 3: Name a church father or or a council that has
your branch the review of the church.
Speaker 4: I think branch theory is where we're having a disagreement here.
Speaker 3: It's a classic Anglican term for the nature of the church.
That's how they justified their reformation position. So tell me
one church father or a council that has that position
about the church is a very simple question, I I
off the top.
Speaker 4: So it's a historical Off the top of my head,
I can't give you answer.
Speaker 5: With Jay's asking him for people out there listening about
a historical When when a Protestant claims that I'm with
the Church. I was with the Church the same way
that the Orthodox were until ten fifty four. Set aside
who excommunicated whom for a second. They might agree in
abstracted which is why I called it abstract enlightenment rationalism.
They might agree in abstracted with what was going on,
you know, with the Orthodox or with the Catholics. They
might favor They're always going to favor the Orthodox because
none of these groups like the pope or the unity
required by a papacy. But what Jay was asking here
is for it to be true Christianity, true true Christianity
in its truest.
Speaker 4: Sense, it's got to be one holy, Catholic and Apostolic.
Speaker 5: There's a problem for the one mark and the Catholic
mark for Orthodox. But Orthodox are actually Christian in so
far as they have the seven Sacraments and all of
their bishops can be traced back to one of the apostles.
Speaker 4: That's what he was asking about ecclesiology.
Speaker 5: So when they say, all, I agree with this, but no,
no Protestant has the seven sacraments or a bishop.
Speaker 4: We have the seven sacraments, I have bishops.
Speaker 2: I'm gonna I'm gonna get very reductive and simplify everything
to a ridiculous degree and ask questions that maybe are
ridiculously rudimentary for the Christian. Do you guys all like
when it comes to like Mosaic law, laws of Leviticus,
do you all follow those or are they considered archaic?
How does the Old Testament play a role in how
you live your lives.
Speaker 1: And what rules you follow?
Speaker 4: We have we're under the New Covenant. We yeah, So
what does that mean?
Speaker 2: I just don't know, like the New Testament, So the
laws of Leviticus, don't know?
Speaker 4: Yeah, the laws of Leviticus are specifically made for a
very specific period in Jewish history, and there are that
Jesus does not come to erase the law. He comes
to fulfill the law. So his position in the hierarchy
is not as somebody who washes things away, it's somebody
who fulfills it. The law was basically a series of
things that Jews had to do to stay in communion
with God. Christ gives us a different set of rules.
That doesn't mean we'd ignore everything, but it means we
take his authority over the old law.
Speaker 2: So does that mean that when it comes to all
of the old Testament's rules. Are there some that remain
based on Jesus said outright, these are still to remain,
and these are not to remain. How do you and
this is not a question, how do you know which
I don't imagine that Jesus addressed literally every single rule
or law.
Speaker 1: How do you know which ones to fobiably?
Speaker 6: Well?
Speaker 3: One way we disagree with him is to a degree,
not totally, but I mean Orthodox and Catholics agree that
there is an oral tradition that's passed on from the apostles.
So you have with the written text of the New Testament,
which the early Church didn't have a Bible, they had
some documents, they had some letters, and they had tradition,
and they had the church service, so everything was kind
of done.
Speaker 6: In a liturgical service way.
Speaker 3: You would be getting catechized orally, and then eventually the
Bible gets collected in later centuries to be the canon.
But so basically, tradition and the Bible lets you know
what things carry over and what don't. And that's one
of the reasons why the councils have Church law. So
church law kind of helps interpret that.
Speaker 1: So I have a question. I'm prively pouncing this wrong.
But how do you all view who to writes?
Speaker 6: Is it the word Anabaptists?
Speaker 1: Like, yeah, yeah, how do you how do y'all view them?
Are they we.
Speaker 6: Would say they're heterodox.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they're outside of the.
Speaker 2: I think you guys would all agree it's a documinish
So this is going to be a kindergartener level. Uh,
you know urban liberals argument for the Christians right now?
Why I say this, but is it not one of
the instructions of God to be fruitful and multiply?
Speaker 4: Yes?
Speaker 2: Sure, So we're having a conversation over what is the
the superior denomination?
Speaker 1: Watch look it up. I don't think Mormons count no
offense to Mormons.
Speaker 2: I think for the purpose of this debate, Mormons are
a different area.
Speaker 4: They're right, Mormons are nontrinitarian. They don't believe in the
same God that we do.
Speaker 2: Pentecostals have a two point one fertility rate and hooter
Rightes have six to two seven fertility rate. After that,
Conservative Protestants one point eight, Catholics one point nine, Orthodox
one point nine. Jovah's witness slight less than two Protestants
one point five to one point six. Liberal Protestants one
point five and unaffiliated Christians one point three to one
point eight. So the Pentecostals and hutter Rights, according to
just a cursorysearch, are the only actual groups that are
being fruitful and multiplying, and that's to be honest, only
the Hooterites, the Amish, Anabaptists, everybody else and having kids.
Speaker 3: I think traditional Catholics are having kids.
Speaker 2: Uh, just a cursor research, it is around one point
nine two. I thought it was a little higher than that.
Speaker 4: There's not much of a difference between our three sects.
Speaker 1: Y'all ain't having kids.
Speaker 5: Well, if you go to multiply, what are you going
with the Tridentine Latin mass It's a very different group.
Speaker 4: And I'm going to ask Chchi and know it's going
to be above the part I do. I do really quickly.
While he's doing that, I want to come back because
I will have an opportunity to sit down and think
about the branch theory thing. Do you not have a
Russian Orthodox, a Greek Orthodox An Orthodox Church in America?
Speaker 6: Those are not branches.
Speaker 3: It's not at all the same ecclesiology of Anglican branch theory.
Speaker 4: That's all I would point out that branch theory is
not dogmatic.
Speaker 6: It's but I was just looking for whatever it was.
Speaker 4: I know. But the Anglican position is that we were
part of the one true, Holy Apostolic Catholic Church, and
then you're not and then that church.
Speaker 6: What's dogma in your church?
Speaker 4: How do you determine it the same way that Catholics
and Orthodox But we don't have we no longer have
a pope, but we are.
Speaker 3: Councils of bishops, So how do you determine them?
Speaker 4: We have councils of bishops?
Speaker 6: Okay, but what's a dogma?
Speaker 2: Like?
Speaker 6: Do you accept icons?
Speaker 4: No? Well, yes, we were not iconoclasts.
Speaker 3: Well, but is it a dogma or is it an opinion?
Speaker 4: Because most of the same position as the Roman Catholic Church.
Speaker 3: No, you don't because Orthodox and a Roman Catholics excommunicate
people that don't believe in imagery, and most Protestants historically
have allowed it to be something that's an opinion audio offer.
Speaker 4: There is a lot of pious opinion.
Speaker 6: So is it a dogma or not? That's the question.
Speaker 4: I'm not sure exactly what icons. I don't believe that
we excommunicate people for thinking that icons, so.
Speaker 3: It's not a dogma, and thus many of the basics
are not actually settled in.
Speaker 4: It depends on the if we're in again, I'm not
as well versed on the specifics of the councils, but
if it's in this first seven councils, we're in the
same We're of the same opinion.
Speaker 5: But the problem with your ecclesiology is that when there
are no leaders, right, I mean.
Speaker 4: We have bishops, we have archbishops. I don't know why
we keep coming to the.
Speaker 5: Bishops that that can trace the lineage, yes, way back
to one.
Speaker 4: We can trace back to Augustin of Britain, and we
can trace back to ball Orthodox and Roman Catholics. Our
bishops traced back to the first century a d.
Speaker 6: In Britain.
Speaker 4: Okay that according to your if you have a totally no, no,
it's not a broken lineage. The church remained in Britain
even after the Saxons got.
Speaker 5: They're identifying as an Anglican Catholic today, yes, or you're
identifying as a Methodist.
Speaker 4: I'm identifying as a Methodist who is inquiring into the
Anglican Catholic Church getting later this year. I mean this
is part of the pitch right now, we're having a
historical discussion. I am a historian, but we're having a
conversation about history right now. So your church recognizes the
risk of ballast of Britain. Your church recognizes the risk time.
Speaker 3: You're a historian, but you didn't know about branch theory,
which is like the number one.
Speaker 4: I'm not a religious historian. I'm a historian on medieval
historian specifically. So when we're looking at this arista, Ballus
is the earliest week can go back with the Anglican
Catholic Church because of the union between the churches in
Kent andology. No not, I I know that's that's fair.
Speaker 5: It's just you're not You're not a faithful representatively both
in your church is acknowledgeious?
Speaker 6: We don't.
Speaker 3: We don't acknowledge your ecclesiology. You understand that from the
Orthodox perspective, it doesn't matter if you have a laying
on of hands.
Speaker 4: Is Augustine legitimate?
Speaker 3: If you leave the faith of the church, none of that.
Speaker 6: From the Orthodox perspective.
Speaker 4: I can't leave the faith the church. That's our position.
Speaker 6: I know your position.
Speaker 3: I'm saying from our position, our ecclesiology doesn't recognize your ecclesiology,
nor does his. They think that Anglican orders are invalid
via the other thirteenth.
Speaker 4: That's so, that's because that's what's convenient to their theology.
It doesn't actually have any sort of I'm.
Speaker 3: Saying that either of us recognizes your lineage, and I
understand that you think that it's there, But that's why
is there.
Speaker 4: That's why it all the way back to only.
Speaker 3: On the basis of your ecclesiology, and presupposing we haven't lineage.
Speaker 4: We know we have an ordination that goes on.
Speaker 6: The basis of your ecclesiology.
Speaker 5: You understand people out there and need to understand that
there there There is such a thing as Apostolic sacramental Christianity.
The Roman Catholic Church has wrote on this in two
thousand and four and in the nineties as well. We
acknowledge that you can call the Orthodox Church's churches with
a capital. See, they have bishops, they go back to apostles,
they have seven sacraments represented acknowledged by the Church.
Speaker 4: They're valid sacraments.
Speaker 5: You wouldn't belicit for a Catholic to receive there or
vice versa. But there is a shared ecclesiology. What people
don't understand and need to about Protestantism. Anglican Catholics are
slightly different. They're an exception to the rule. But of
all the sects of Protestantism, they don't share any ecclesiology
with us. So they'll say, oh, this is a dogma.
What's a dogma? This isn't something that traces back to
the acta Apostolic ascetis. It's not something that the bishop's
always and everywhere taught together as a church.
Speaker 4: So we have to just say this.
Speaker 5: It's not to be exclusive, but Protestantism is a lay
bastardization of the religion. You guys believe in a Trinitarian
you have a Trinitarian baptism, baptism in the name of
the Father Son, Holy Spirit. So so it is technically Christian.
But except beyond that and baptism even in Roman Catholicism
can be done by a layman, which is what makes
it valid. But other than that, Protestantism is an abstract idea.
I like the idea, I like this book that the Roman.
Speaker 4: So it's you think we're talking about Protestantism that is
a big tense.
Speaker 3: You're part of that that domain.
Speaker 4: Yes, but the Anglican Protestantism is very different from the
Lutheran Protestism, which is very different from the reform projects.
Speaker 3: Was my original point, right, there's not actually any clear
unity there. It's all over the place.
Speaker 4: No Protestant is going to tell you that there is
Protestant unity.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 4: They're going to tell you protism. No, no, it doesn't.
Speaker 5: Council and I see you guys must be one holy
Catholic and apostology that does those four marks has a
very specific.
Speaker 4: Doesn't mean that we have to be in communion with
one another.
Speaker 3: Obviously, it means you have to have those marks.
Speaker 4: We have bishops, we have the sacraments, we have the history.
Speaker 6: It's bishop td takes a bishop. He claims to be one.
Speaker 4: I don't know who TD Jakes is.
Speaker 6: Woman the black.
Speaker 3: He's the black modalist preacher who says he's Bishop td Jakes.
Speaker 4: The bishop doesn't sound like he is.
Speaker 6: Okay, but you're a bishop.
Speaker 4: Your church has My church has bishops because they can
trace their ordination back to August.
Speaker 1: The seventh time the question has been asked and he's
answered the exact same thing.
Speaker 3: Because he's but he's not understanding that you're not.
Speaker 1: Going to get you.
Speaker 4: Guys aren't asking a question that makes sense. Why why
do you have ordinations? Because we do?
Speaker 1: Okay, Okay.
Speaker 2: So I think there's an interesting view between the three
of you and what a superior denomination would be. And
it's largely about what you think to be true to
the religion as opposed to what the religion does and
what it's its adherents do.
Speaker 1: I I And that's fine.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying I don't want to diminish that, because
obviously that's extremely important to know that, to know the
truth and and and you know the history of things.
But from my perspective, I take a look at the
adherence to the really and what they're doing and whether
they can actually follow what they're being told to do,
and it largely feels like they mostly don't. I mean again,
like if I was going to go off with the
sheer numbers, I'm more convinced to be Homish than anything
right right, anything else right now.
Speaker 5: The problem is Gandhi. Gandhi said the same thing. He said,
if I ever met a perfect Christian, I would go
be You don't. There's some validity to the proposition by
a lord and that you judge a tree by.
Speaker 2: I got my point is this? So I looked up
the fastest growing denominations. The Independent Network of Charismatic Christianity
is the largest growth, apparently, followed by Pentecostal churches. Good God,
Pentecostals have like between three to five percent growth.
Speaker 4: You understand the inverse proportionalism at work there though. It's
that they're small, so they can grow really really fat.
If the town's got one hundred people and it gets
two new people, it just increased its population by two percent.
Catholic also Pentecostals. It's terrifying.
Speaker 3: Also the the way the debate is framed, which is
not bad, but superior begs the question of like what standard,
Like what do you what's the metric for judging?
Speaker 6: What makes it suppear?
Speaker 4: I would argue the superior, like, the superior religion is
the one that brings the most people to salvation.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, but maybe what's maybe truth is first and
foremost I think for most of us or all of
us here. Yeah, that because we assume that the true
religion will bear the fruits that go along with what's
true first and foremost. So just having numbers isn't necessarily
an indicator of the true religion, because you can have
a lot of people who convert to a false religion
or who think that they're converting and it's really just
like Santarea or something like that by South America. That's
not authentic, right.
Speaker 1: So to be fair, I want to make sure of
the numbers, right.
Speaker 2: I just I just looked up Catholic to make the
point about inverse three point nine million people in twenty
twenty three became Catholic, whereas Pentecosta was fifty nine fifty
six thousand. So yeah, it's correct, And I'll look up
the other sex as well, because likely the same thing
for for Orthodox they're much larger, so the percentage wise
is going to be smaller. But I guess my ultimate
concern is the initial point of the question of superior
religion is I think, as you put, who brings people
to salvation? Obviously the truth of the religion is going
to matter, because, like you said, if they're practicing Santa Ria.
Speaker 1: Then they're not going anywhere.
Speaker 2: But there's also the fact that, I mean, largely among
all of your sex people are not having kids at all,
or I should say they're having kids, but they're having
not enough, so you can keep converting, but eventually there's
no people.
Speaker 1: I mean, where where does this ultimately go?
Speaker 5: Fair metric in some political sense, but it's also soteriologically
who goes to heaven or not. It's a bit of
a crass metric. We don't we should be having lots
of kids. And obviously Roman Catholicism is marked as the
only solidified version of Christianity on earth that stayed against
contraception after the Anglican l Ambeth Conferences of nineteen ten,
nineteen twenty, nineteen thirty, where all the other sects of
Christianity capitulated. But it's true, and it's fair enough for
people to say, particularly after Vatican two and the liberalizing
trends popular trends among Catholics, almost as many Catholics contracept
as Protestants or Orthodox.
Speaker 4: This isn't quite true.
Speaker 5: If you go to a Tredentian Latin Mass, you're going
to see big, big, big families.
Speaker 4: But which Day pointed out, But I do.
Speaker 5: Think that everyone should, each of the three of us
here should have a segment to state.
Speaker 4: But you know, some sort of answer to.
Speaker 5: The posit if that's cool, Like, what what's your case
for why you are the best version of Christianity, best
major side.
Speaker 4: I don't hold a position that we are. We just
hold a position that you're not. That's incredibly weak and weak.
Speaker 1: We have a lot of Mennonites around here and the Rock.
They're awesome.
Speaker 2: They have animals, They sell food. It's always like real food,
no chemicals, no garbage. They got big families and these
I looked it up that the main the moderate Mennonite state.
There's a shop not too far away twenty minutes we
used to go to all the time. They got ice
cream and cheeses and it's all this really great stuff.
Speaker 1: I love it. That seems pretty cool, you know, so
if I was trying to figure.
Speaker 6: Out which one.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well my point is largely.
Speaker 2: Like looking at the world today and the state of things,
they make a pretty good argument. You know, don't eat garbage,
be with your family, honor like they tend to honor
their families, their communities, their parents, They go to church.
They maintain this. They have lots lots of kids. Yeah,
I know they're small, it's only a few million.
Speaker 3: Well, can I address that, because there's two points. It
actually addressed the point I was trying to make to
you earlier. So, like, if you go back to the
early Church, there was a group called the Arians, and
the Arians believed that Jesus was a creature. But the
Arans were also very into morality and pushing morals, so
they were at least outwardly speaking moral kind of like
Jose this as you could say. But Arians had apostolic succession,
but they lost the church and the faith even though
they had the mechanical succession. Likewise, Christianity can't be identified
as hutter rights or amish because historical. It's a historic religion,
so it has to be tied to the historic succession
not just of the bishops, but the apostles that Jesus
appointed in the Gospel to hand down that authority and
that rulership of the church. So when you look at
the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh centuries, you
don't see anything like anglic Catholicism. You don't see anything
like hutter rights or Amish. You see people coming together
having councils with bishops, with the eucharists, with monastics, with
you know, the episcopacy, with you relics with all the
things that characterize Catholic Christianity and Orthodox identify as.
Speaker 2: To be fair, though, I would argue that in those
time periods, people were more likely to live in practice
and worship as the Hutter rights.
Speaker 3: Do you know the church which is liturgical worship that
you see with icons and incense is literally out of
the Old Testament worship with that you mentioned earlier, like
the levitical laws. The church adopted all of those, many
of those ceremonial things like having the you know, the
priests decked out the way he is with having an altar. Nope,
like typically speaking, Baptists don't believe in an altar for
the purpose of the Eucharistic offering, right, so Baptists believe
in it being a purely symbolic remembrance ceremony. But the
early Church is doing the liturgy. They're doing the Mass
or the you know, the divine Liturgy from the earliest days.
Speaker 4: Everything he just described as what early Church Catholics did
applies to Okay, it doesn't. I don't think he knows
what Anglican Catholicism is.
Speaker 3: You didn't know the basics of Anglican ecclesiology.
Speaker 4: I'm not aware of a non dogmatic a.
Speaker 6: Very well known thing. You're not.
Speaker 3: It's your common doctrine of ecclesiology.
Speaker 6: You didn't know it. You're not gonna lecture me on Anglican.
Speaker 4: Also, don't. We also don't hold to the thirty nine
articles as dogmatic.
Speaker 6: Because there's not dogma.
Speaker 7: As we showed a minute ago, the marks of the
marks of natural religion qua religion are are really important
here and they do set off a kind of rift
where the Protestants are alone.
Speaker 4: They're they're a voice crying in the wilderness, and we
have to acknowledge them. That's what I tried to acknowledge
at the very beginning, the basic marks of religion. Even
the Pagan Greeks had some of these. You would say
Buddhism doesn't, Protestantism doesn't, but even some of the Polytheists
religions do. They have things like smells and bells. Having
an altar is something from even pagan Greek religion. But
but for for incremental Jews. The Jews, Jews had them right.
Speaker 5: Sacramentals sacrifice, blood, blood sacrifice, which really from Judaism to
Christianity became sacrament precepts, the you know, daily things you
have to do. What are the five precepts of Catholicism,
assasserdotal order.
Speaker 4: Or ritual or what we call what we call liturgy.
Speaker 5: These are things that are lacking in Protestantism. I'm not
saying this to be rude or exclusive, but when you're
dealing with what I actually say makes the Roman Catholic
faith the superior form of Christianity is at the first
ecumenical council ever, which was Nicia, where we defined the
most important stuff about the Trinity. There were four marks
of the Church laid out that Christ promised us the
Church would never defect. It would be this way until
the end of time. It would be one. So there
can't be competing sex. There can be arguments within one sect,
but there can't be actual different competing sex. Wholly this
means sacraments Catholic, this means worldwide, and of course apostolic.
This means that there has to be a direct line
of every bishop in the world. Back to one of
the apostles, we would say, with all due respect, Protestantism
by and large lacks all four. Now we do not
make the same. The Church doesn't make the same claim
about Orthodox Christianity. They have real bishops that the Church acknowledges,
and that means that they have all seven sacraments. Seven
This means complete. So there's a different conversation that needs
to happen between Catholics. You heard it because we're talking
about the first seven Councils versus a kind of quasi
religious products.
Speaker 4: Once again, we acknowledge and hold the First seven Councils,
but you don't.
Speaker 3: As I showed from the Seventh Documenical Council, you fundamentally
reject the thing that that council was about.
Speaker 6: You said, it's audiopera.
Speaker 3: They say you're excommunicated if you don't accept images, So
you don't accept the seventh.
Speaker 6: In theory and name.
Speaker 1: What are you?
Speaker 6: That was what you said.
Speaker 4: If I said that we if we.
Speaker 6: Have dogma, you don't know that these terms, I.
Speaker 4: Said, okay, No, if I said that we don't agree
with the Seventh Council, then I misspoke because.
Speaker 6: Of no, you said that.
Speaker 3: I asked you if it was dogma meaning you're excommunicated
if you don't believe in images, and you said no,
we don't believe that, then you don't believe this the
council because it does that.
Speaker 6: It's a simple point.
Speaker 4: Because we don't excommunicate people for not as you don't
have ecclesiologyesiology. But listen, I was gonna bring I want
to bring in another.
Speaker 1: We got another denomination.
Speaker 2: Who's got some words for you, Warpeg with a super
test saying Baptists don't pray to middlemen and call them saints,
and we don't pay for our salvation by giving Rome
our coin. Long live American Independent Baptists.
Speaker 4: What say, y'all, that's got to be a joke, Rock, Yeah,
that's so.
Speaker 3: In First Timothy, for Paul says to Timothy, be good, Timothy,
because you will save those around you. Okay, does that
mean that Paul thinks Timothy is the Savior. No, Timothy
is participating in by cooperating with God, helping and being
a conduit of grace to those around him in the
same way Mary and other Saints are not God. They're
conduits that pray for us and help us, exactly the
way Paul's talking to Timothy.
Speaker 5: If you've ever asked your your buddy to pray for you,
I'm going through something that's that's the Saints thing is
absolutely retarded. Uh when when Protestants spurg out about this,
it's it's literally asking the saints in heaven to pray
for us.
Speaker 4: They're they're closer to God.
Speaker 5: It's the church triumphant rather than the people that if
I ask you to pray for.
Speaker 4: Me, you're still a church militant. It's it's a closer
prayer to get I'm just still confused on why icons
are any show.
Speaker 2: Okay, but I don't want to because let let's just
let's just we have icons, have icons.
Speaker 4: We have icons. If a church did not, If a
church you're missing the icons, you not be recognized as
a church.
Speaker 2: We we've, we've we I don't want to go in
circles on that over and over and over again with
everyone saying the same thing.
Speaker 1: So I have a question. I got a question. Do
each of you think you will meet each other in
heaven or no? Yes?
Speaker 4: My church does.
Speaker 3: Well. I guess it's true if you think that, right,
If it's more liberal, does that I get true?
Speaker 4: It's not liberal. We are.
Speaker 6: It's a liberal position.
Speaker 4: It's not liberal liberal and a different saying you're a trinitarian,
you're a trinitarian.
Speaker 3: I'm a truticized sacraments audio.
Speaker 4: My apostolic succession goes back just as far as yours
and yours.
Speaker 6: All you've done is a start your position.
Speaker 4: So question just haven't rejected, You haven't actually rejected.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna.
Speaker 6: I've already showed you twice.
Speaker 1: We go, we gotta. I'm kidding, don't actually you you
have You have said, you have said that.
Speaker 6: You even't understand the arguments I'm making.
Speaker 1: TikTok.
Speaker 4: Your argument seems to be and you restate the argument.
Your argument seems to be that if somebody doesn't have
icons in their house.
Speaker 6: Yeah, okay, no I didn't. That is so dumb.
Speaker 4: That is you're not iconically.
Speaker 1: Do you think these two gentlemen will meet you in heaven.
Speaker 3: We don't make personal judgments on people's destinies. All we
know is that we believe that the Orthodox Church is
the arc. It is the mystical body of Christ, and
so it's our duty to tell people to join it.
We can't say what God will judge at the end
of time and at the grade, So let's.
Speaker 1: Put it this way.
Speaker 2: Outside of them individually, you think it is, it is
less likely that people who don't follow your religion will
will find their way less likely.
Speaker 1: And then and then how do you guys view it?
Speaker 5: Catholics highly similar, almost identical view. We do believe you
have to be in communion with Rome, but there are
exceptions like baptism by desire.
Speaker 1: Does everyone agree that the Holy Land belongs to Rome?
Speaker 4: Rome depends on how you define Rome.
Speaker 3: I think parts of the Holy Land along to Orthodox
Orthodox ord Our Church is the third largest landowner in Israel,
so technic Jerusalem patriarch, it would probably be the best claim.
Speaker 1: In fact, I was half kidding. It was a joke
from Seamus when over the Israel Palestine debate.
Speaker 4: Ye belongs to Christians.
Speaker 3: I mean there was at one time in the Middle
Ages it was a Byzantine it was it was part
of the Business Empire, so it was at one point
a Christian colony, so to speak.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this is there's a chat here. I'm gonna read
that's that's I guess somewhat insulting to me.
Speaker 2: This h Bros Says this was always the problem with
Tim hosting the debate. You know what's going to turn
into something something he brings up with no epistemic foundation.
Uh my view, it's kind of like, yeah, probably because
I don't follow any of these religions or or I
do believe in God. I guess theist is probably the
best word, not deist.
Speaker 1: But if.
Speaker 2: If I can't be convinced, if you can't convince, you know,
if you find somebody you're like, yeah, they believe in God,
it's like, okay, here's why we're correct. If it's esoteric
and hard to understand and you can't easily explain why
your religion is correct to someone like me, and how
do you convert people?
Speaker 3: But a Muslim that's a Muslim market. Muslims will say
our religion is true because it's simpler. But then when
you get into the religion, you realize, oh, actually there's
a million hadiths that you got to learn, and it's
really complex.
Speaker 2: I'm not I'm saying, how do you convince someone who
doesn't know about the ecumenical councils and all of that stuff.
So I hear I hear a lot of very esoteric
terms that I'm like, unam sanctum.
Speaker 1: I don't know what that is.
Speaker 5: But Jays, I'm not trying to be evangelical right now,
Jay is not. None of us really are trying to
be evangelical, because when you bring everyone into a room,
the Catholic and the Orthodox are going to be debating
counsels and and specifically what the constitutions require. So it
sounds boring and stupid, but but it's actually important the
way anyone would evangelize, I guess, since you do have
a more secular audiences by saying Christianity is demonstrably true,
I was demonstrably suey generous, it's under but I'll pause on.
Speaker 2: Saying I think it's probably like eighty five percent Christian
of different denominations that watch.
Speaker 4: Okay, yeah, well fair enough.
Speaker 5: But then you havestually you have to ask which which
version of Christianity? To the eighty five percent that are
already convinced correctly that Christianity is true, you have to say,
which of the competing sex Orthodoxy is. We would say
a much much, much much closer have the foremarks of
the church and and can trace there the practice of
the religion today all the way back to our Lord
handing the keys to Blessed Peter. That's that's what we
would say, if we're kind of putting it in broad
forward facing terms. And then that's precisely way I.
Speaker 1: See with with recently with the new pope.
Speaker 2: He's from Chicago and a lot of Chicago jokes. But
there was another cardinal who had made comments about supporting
the LGBTQ community.
Speaker 1: I forgot.
Speaker 2: He was the guy from the Philippines, and there was
big concern over his views on overtly political cultural political issues.
And to me, I look at that, I'm like, how
how could there be truth in an ever evolving political
climate that tries to adhere to politics.
Speaker 4: Well, that's the biggest problem with Catholic Church historically is
it's very intertwined with politics, always has been.
Speaker 2: My personally, my opinion is that the Catholic Church is
trying to maintain as large a base as possible, and
so you end up with people like Francis and I
forgot the name of this guy, this Filipino guy who
said something like all these gay websites, I mean literally
gay websites, not insulting them, we're.
Speaker 6: Pregnant vat.
Speaker 1: Oh no, there's like pink News.
Speaker 2: I think it was in like LGBT Nation or whatever.
We're saying like, this is the good guy, he should
be the pope because he was saying things like it's
time to recognize gay marriage or whatever, or like things
like that, going beyond what Francis had said with blessings.
Speaker 5: The Vaticanistas all said that this is what between him
and the Cardinal of Bologna and some of the other
far left cardinals that were considered papabularly popable at the
last conclave last month. This is specifically why they weren't selected,
even though they're considered most to pabaly, because we tried
this with Francis, and it's true. It's I would never
deny as probably one of one of France's is the
best known American lay critics who is Catholic. Uh, the
church is trying a bad approach to winning over converts.
Speaker 4: Since a little bit. It's like we're a Vatican too.
Speaker 5: And what they're actually finding now and the boomers and
the dinosaurs in the cardinal it are finding to their chagrin,
is that they're they're really mad about it. France has
hated it. He said, these people have psychological problems. They
like to go to the Latin mass, they like to
go back to the mass of the ages too.
Speaker 2: That's this is what I see in the trends as well,
that we're finding that gen Z, younger gen Z, not
older gen Z, are finding faith in Jesus Christ.
Speaker 1: That that's that That polling was not a nomination all.
Speaker 2: It was just they were saying it the men are
leaning more conservative, and then, uh, you know, I suppose
it's a it's a it's a factor, and that Catholicism
is so big and when the pope, you know, when
the pope passed away and they were choosing the new pope,
it's the biggest story in the world, so I can
understand it. It just feels like they're lying to people
to try and build up membership numbers.
Speaker 1: That's what it feels like.
Speaker 4: When to get into the lies of the Roman Catholic Church,
this is not this is not some time that his
church told the world that Constantine gave them the entire
Western Empire.
Speaker 1: To be clarify, I'm not saying this of Catholics.
Speaker 2: I'm saying that that the current leadership seemed to be
their political strategy of we need more converts, so let's
say what we have to say.
Speaker 4: Again, and my church is doing the opposite thing. We
separated from the larger church because we felt that they
were doing that.
Speaker 6: Again, separating makes you not a part of that thing.
Speaker 1: Sure was.
Speaker 6: So the the point that I raised earlier about the papers.
Speaker 3: Let's let's move on, Papa, we didn't separate.
Speaker 6: We believe they left us.
Speaker 4: And we believe they left us.
Speaker 3: That's why I did an internal critique WHI you don't understand,
But no.
Speaker 4: You didn't make your was veiled in esotery. We don't
say communicate, I.
Speaker 6: Guess language the basically make your point on.
Speaker 3: So the the issue with when I'm sonctum all the
way up to the Syllabus of Errors in the eighteen hundreds,
where you had to believe in the temporal power and
supremacy the Roman bishop to be saved. It was mandated
all that time for those centuries to be necessary to
be saved, which the Vatican no longer believes for salvafic purposes.
They might theoretically still believe it, who knows, but I
think Vatican too contradicts that with the de Christianizing principles.
But the point is that ever since the Papal states,
ever since the eleventh century, especially with the Gregorian reforms,
the papacy has united itself with and tied itself into
politics at a.
Speaker 6: At an intense level.
Speaker 3: And that's not all totally the fault of Rome or
just power seeking. You had the collapse of the Roman Empire,
which led to the vacuum that allowed.
Speaker 6: The papacy to step in.
Speaker 3: But by the time that we get to Dictatus Pope,
just a couple of things that we have in this document.
The pope alone can use the imperial signa insignia. All
princes in the world must kiss the Pope's feet. This
is the only name in the world. He alone may
depose all emperors. He alone may confirm all bishops. The
Roman Sea has never aired and will never air unto
the end of time. The Roman Church is founded by
God alone. The Roman Church alone can call itself universal.
It can alone depose the renstate bishops. Now already we've
seen that from Dictatus popping the eleventh century. That's a
contradiction with the way the councils acted and operated in
the first several centuries. So the Roman bishop becomes a
geopolitical world power, particularly in the eleventh century, comes to
its nader you could say, a few centuries later, and
it is still intimately tied up with geopolitics, because the
CIA had a huge alliance with the Vatican during the
Cold War, and at Vatican two on record and many
many Catholic right.
Speaker 1: What explained Vatican two.
Speaker 3: So this is the council in the nineteen sixties that
was called by John the twenty third, originally to update
to make the Roman See and the Roman Church more
amenable to the world. Ajornamento was his terminology, to open
the doors and let the world into the Church.
Speaker 1: You would you agree with that assessmentor no?
Speaker 5: No, So Vatican two was I mean, it's true that
it was all. It's true that it was called by
John the twenty third. But what happened at the end
of Vatican One in the eighteen seventies is the frank
Opression War interrupted it. Vatican one is famous. If we
look at both of the last two councils of the
Roman Catholic Church, Vatican one of two, they're both vastly misunderstood.
The reason Vatican one is vastly misunderstood is because the
Franco Prussian War interrupted it. Literally in between the two
goals of Vatican one laying out the power of the Pope,
clarifying the power of the pope as it had always
been for two thousand years, eighteen hundred years, and laying
out the power of the bishops because it is a
collegial relationship that the Pope has to them, even though
he is the prince of the apostles. It got interrupted
and separated by the Franco Prussian War, so Vatican two,
so it ended up looking by the way like just
the pope's powers were laid out. The powers of the
bishops were never at umbrated because of the sudden conclusion
of that. It was never actually concluded until John the
twenty third concluded it almost one hundred years later, eighty
five years later, right before he said, okay, we need
to have a Vatican two. Yet to what the power
of the bishops are was Vatican one? Vatican one laid
out definitively what the power.
Speaker 1: Of it was like a meeting.
Speaker 4: Was all of these ecumenical count council, which means that
it was a full council of the Church called dinamper
not in amor no, no, it was.
Speaker 5: The first seven were called by emperors, some more were
called by Emper's Council of Florence. Was but an ecumenical
just means that Ecumenical Council just.
Speaker 4: Means that it's all the world, all the bishops of
the world.
Speaker 5: Vatican one concludes, suddenly getting just to what the power
of the pope is, which made it gave it a
lopsided look our ecclesiology. Afterwards, Vatican Two needed to be
held to get to what the power of the bishops
were once we started getting more liberal popes like John
the twenty third and Paul the sixth, who are the
two popes alive during Vatican Two in the nineteen sixties,
they changed the agenda. Actually it was Carl Ronner and
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, who a lot of people think was
a right winger in the church.
Speaker 4: He was not. He and Ronner together changed the agenda
from finishing what Vatican one was supposed to do lay
out the power of the bishops, to what he called
a jornamento updating the Church doing doing essentially liberal things. Now,
the documents themselves are are not are not bad. The
documents themselves are insinuitive. Yeah, I read some of the documentary. Yeah,
once I get done.
Speaker 5: Yeah, the documents themselves are insinuitive of a more liberal position,
and they were intentionally written in such a way that
they would be that they could be weaponized.
Speaker 4: Later.
Speaker 5: Lots of the Council fathers that were Rhnoites admitted this,
things like, you know, what's our relationship to be with
the Muslims? Jay Jay made reference to this earlier, what's
our relationship to be with the Hindus?
Speaker 4: And it sounded more liberal.
Speaker 5: Really, what they were doing was quoting things from Pope
Pious the tenth, a very based older pope. They're quoting
even from medieval popes who acknowledged things like, technically speaking,
the Muslims are monotheists. Technically they're one of the Western religions.
Technically they they worship the one True God, but they
worship the one True God in the false way.
Speaker 4: Trads, you know, rad Trad's orthodox.
Speaker 5: Everyone gets worked up about this, but it turns out
that this is a very very old medieval term that
the Church has.
Speaker 3: The same for Hinduism, because the Vatican too says the
same as they they believe. They believe not about Hindus, Hindus,
not moss Hindus.
Speaker 4: Okay, read what it says about Hinduss.
Speaker 3: In Hinduism, people explore the divine mystery and explore and
express it.
Speaker 6: How do you explore the true mystery of God?
Speaker 3: You can explore what you're looking for, explore Christianity.
Speaker 4: It's absolutely don't explore.
Speaker 6: Christianity and Hinduism.
Speaker 3: They seek release from the trials of present life through
ascetic practices and meditation and recourse to God in confidence.
Speaker 5: I agree, all that's bad, but you miss so it's
bad my uncle Remus. Wait wait, my uncle Remus believes
dogs like your uncle can fly.
Speaker 3: No, this is your dogmatic statements that are supposed to
provide clarity. Right, they need to be interpreted by you
because are ambiguous.
Speaker 4: No, No, are they clear or ambiguous? Perfectly clear? They're Hindu?
Speaker 6: Will you just said it was bad? It was bad? Wait?
Was it clear or bad?
Speaker 4: You finished?
Speaker 6: Jail?
Speaker 4: I'll go after you're done.
Speaker 6: They have recourse to God.
Speaker 3: God will do the same thing. So just again that
we have said of colection irrelevant. What that's a direct object,
that's a genetic facis object genetic fallacy to say that
because it is you just said, I don't know, so
appealed authority, appealed authority and genetic fallacy. Other fallacy. They
believe you're King of fallacy record say they believe you're lying?
You added that explode? Where does it say they do that?
Speaker 4: Read?
Speaker 3: It says that they seek release, and they have recourse
to God in confidence and the seek they have recourse, No,
and have recourse. They seek and have recourse?
Speaker 4: Okay?
Speaker 3: And what he say and recourse and recourse?
Speaker 1: What does that mean?
Speaker 6: Recourse they have? They seek in.
Speaker 4: They cantafidence and love in God. I'll speak once he's done.
So what in the Amatican two documents.
Speaker 3: That I was very hones By the way, it's a
genetic fallacy.
Speaker 1: Can I see the book?
Speaker 6: Yeah?
Speaker 4: Yeah, read the sentence here, let me read it again
for you. In the relations is going to keep it.
Speaker 3: In the religion of Hinduism, people explore the divine mystery,
explore thank you.
Speaker 6: I just said that.
Speaker 3: It doesn't mean they found to repeat each word after
I say each.
Speaker 4: What have you said? Ascertained? If they said ascertained, we'd
have a hard time.
Speaker 3: So he doesn't want me to read the whole quote
because he knows the the difference.
Speaker 4: In Hindu God, it is very real.
Speaker 3: They have recourse to God in confidence and love.
Speaker 5: They start the sentence over, they seek Jay thinks that
the sentence said that the Hindu's ascertained, heaven ascertained.
Speaker 3: It says that through exploring it. But you said it
was a bad statement earlier.
Speaker 5: No, no, no, I said, no, no, it's not that's
from read the document. I'm saying that it's very easy
to misinterpret if I say, mine, my dear old uncle remus.
Speaker 3: Why why do we need you to interpret the document?
You're saying, why do we need you to interpret the
doctas you to interpret the doc the logic professor keeps
making fallacies.
Speaker 4: Let me read what I thought.
Speaker 6: Why do you need to interpret them?
Speaker 4: Let me read it.
Speaker 2: There's a paragraph before that one I want to read.
I want to I just want to read the full paragraph.
Or actually this is part of the full paragraph. It says,
throughout history to the present day, there is found among
different peoples a certain awareness of a hidden power which
lies behind the course of nature and the events of
human life. At times, there is present even a recognition
of a supreme being, or still more of a father.
This awareness and recognition results in a way of life
that is imbued with a deep religious sense. The religions
which are found in more advanced civilizations endeavor by way
of well defined concepts and exact language to answer these questions.
Speaker 1: Thus, in Hinduism, people.
Speaker 2: Explore the divine mystery and express it both in the
limitless riches of myth and the accurately defined insights of philosophy.
They seek release from the trials of the present life
by ascetical practices, profound meditation, and recourse to God in
confidence and love. Buddhism, in its various forms, testing costs
to God to the essential inadequacy of this changing world.
It proposes a way of life by which people can,
with confidence and trust, attain a state of perfect liberation
and reach supreme elimination, either through their own efforts or
with divine help. So to other religions which are found
throughout the world, attempt in different ways to overcome the
restlessness of people's hearts by outlining a program of life
covering doctrine, moral precepts, and sacred rights.
Speaker 6: Yeah, this is our perfect liberation in hindu and.
Speaker 1: Real quick, I do want to read this little bit.
I didn't want to read the one paragphy. There's a
little bit more that I think is interesting.
Speaker 6: You already said it's bad.
Speaker 1: It goes on.
Speaker 3: Again another fallacy at hominem fallacies.
Speaker 1: It actually says here we have im mute, but immediately.
Speaker 3: Follow because he's calling out, I'm calling out the logic professor.
Speaker 2: I just want to point out that by and okay, sorry, sorry,
but immediately following this parer, what says the Catholic Church
rejects nothing of what is true and wholly.
Speaker 1: In these religions.
Speaker 2: It is a high regard for the manner of life
and conduct conduct, the precepts and doctrines, which, although differing
in many ways from its own teaching, nevertheless often reflect
array of that truth which enlightens all men and women.
Yet it proclaims it is in duty bound to proclaim
without fail Christ, who is the way the truth in
life in Him, in whom God reconciled all things to himself.
People find the fullness of their religious life.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 3: That shows contradiction. No, that doesn't help you.
Speaker 1: I actually agree with with the Catholic view.
Speaker 2: It's basically saying the way I interpret that, it's saying
Hindus and Buddhists are looking through a keyhole and seeing
these fragments that they're not quite understanding properly and if
they were to adhere to Jesus Christ and find the way.
Speaker 3: The problem, the even liberals at the Council, problem is
that only written by John fourteen, Jesus says that He's
the only way right, the truth in the life. But
I understand that the problem is that you cannot. It
says in the religions of Hinduism and Buddhism, men find
love in God and they find they seek lo the
know it says they find it. They believe they fine
phrase says seek it. Then it says they find it.
Speaker 6: Just like I said.
Speaker 3: Read it again, just like it says Muslims adore the
one God. Well, well, Muslims are different because the religion, No,
they're not.
Speaker 6: Do they believe religion? You believe?
Speaker 3: Do they believe in one God or multiple? They believe
in monos the Bible teach. Does the Bible teach the
Trinity or Monotheism the Trinity? But so the Muslims don't
believe in the God of the Bible.
Speaker 6: You know that?
Speaker 4: Do you know what the sense reference dichotomy?
Speaker 3: That?
Speaker 1: Okay, I have a question.
Speaker 5: So if you understand what sense referenced dichotomy, okay, we
can be referring to the thing.
Speaker 4: Does Jesus describe it as yellow?
Speaker 5: And we're still reserting to say that the Pharisees misunderstanding
this reference.
Speaker 3: Does Jesus think that the Pharisees accurately worship the Father?
Speaker 4: No, of course not.
Speaker 5: Then then that undoes your argument, un does your Muslim
lane Because you said you understand the sense reference dichotomy.
Explain how by sense ans risk affirmative and by reference
it would be a negative answer. We can be referring
to the same thing. If you think Cleveland doesn't and
I think.
Speaker 3: They disprove your sense reference argument, and we're not that
you want to just prove your sense the question, I
can disprove it by Muslims sense reference. Do Mormons believe
in Jesus? No, but Mormons don't believe. Do they use
the term Jesus?
Speaker 4: No, yes, they're not use the terms absolutely, Mormons use
the term Wait, wait, wait, norm.
Speaker 5: Mormons believe Jesus is I'm the one guy that hasn't
been interrupting. So Mormons believes that there is a historical Jesus.
He believes that he that that Mormons Jesus is not
the son of gods.
Speaker 6: I know what they believe religion.
Speaker 3: So just like Muslims, if they say I believe in
the One God, it's the quantifier shift fallacy.
Speaker 5: No, that's just the quantity that's true. But that's what
the document is. The quantifier shift fallacy. Then that undoes
what what does that mean?
Speaker 1: What does that mean?
Speaker 3: So it's like if I say I have one mother,
you have one mother. We all have one mother, therefore
we come from the same mother. It's a quantifying shift fallacy.
So one God, what we all believe in, one God,
Therefore it's the same God. Vatican two is using the
quantifier shift fallacy.
Speaker 4: Read the line.
Speaker 5: Read the line that you think is false definitively, because
there are no definitive statements you've read that are false.
Speaker 4: Notice that seeking, searching, exploring need. It was just retarded.
Speaker 6: Just retard.
Speaker 3: The quarts shift fallacy is retarded, I think.
Speaker 4: Okay, guys, guys, no claim that there's something false you
just read. It is retarded.
Speaker 1: Okay, let me, let me.
Speaker 3: Let's written by liberals. I gave you that it's written
by liberals. But it's supposed to clarify. So the paper
does the job of clarifying. But it's written by liberals,
and we need him to interpret it for you don't
need me to interpret anything. I'm defending against an attack
that you're making. That's that's common miscar.
Speaker 6: One true God, living and subsisting in himself.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yea fallas with two bargaining dogs.
Speaker 5: Every time Muslims claimed how about this, Muslims claim to
believe in one.
Speaker 6: It doesn't say it says they adore. It doesn't say
they claim.
Speaker 5: Muslims the words now they adore the sense reference dichotomy.
Speaker 2: Right, okay, wait, wait, wait, hold on, I want to
read this.
Speaker 1: This is important.
Speaker 2: It's as the Church also has a high regard for
the Muslims. They worship God, who is one living and
I'm not I said, I'm not done, the creator of
having an earth, who was also spoken to humanity. They
endeavor to submit themselves without reserve, to the hidden decrees
of God, just as Abraham submitted himself to God's plans
and whose faith Muslims eagerly linked to their own, although
not acknowledging him as God. They venerate Jesus, a prophet,
his virgin mother. They also honor and even at times
devoutly invoke. Further, they await the day of judgment and
the reward of the reward of God following the resurrection
of the dead. For this reason, they highly esteem and
upright life and worship God, especially by way of prayer.
Speaker 1: Alms, deeds, and fasting. It.
Speaker 2: It does seem like they're saying, as far as I
can tell, Muslims are worshiping the same God.
Speaker 3: Yes, well, yes, this is This is a community college
primer on intro to religions and.
Speaker 6: How you couldn't get quantified ship.
Speaker 5: It's in your Islam is literally one of the three
monotheisms in Western religion.
Speaker 4: Is it trying? No, It's not the God of the Bible.
Speaker 5: According to you, I said, the Bible God is the Trinity. No, yes,
you did. Well, of course you don't think. I think
the Bible God is the Trinity.
Speaker 3: Then the Muslims don't worship the same God because of
the quantifier shift fallacy.
Speaker 4: The Muslims don't worship the same God. Doesn't say the
same God as US books says.
Speaker 3: They do, thank you, thank you.
Speaker 4: They don't worship the same.
Speaker 6: God, Muslim, Are you serious?
Speaker 4: What's going on? Heresion?
Speaker 3: They worship God who is living and subsisting in the
same marciful Almighty Creator.
Speaker 4: No, you said the same God as USU US. It
doesn't say us.
Speaker 6: Also, it doesn't say us. Are you serious, dude?
Speaker 4: Muslims worship how many? How many gods do Muslims worship?
Say jay dire? How many gods do Muslims worship?
Speaker 6: Worship?
Speaker 4: How many do they worship?
Speaker 3: By the way, one or two or three? I don't
believe in generic monotheism. That's a that's a word that.
Speaker 1: It's the distinction.
Speaker 4: I also don't agree.
Speaker 3: I believe it's the quantifiership fallacy.
Speaker 4: One thing you tell me you don't believe that they
believe they worship one.
Speaker 5: God doesn't matter because the statement is that you said
you understood the sense right the god worship. They do
worship one true God, tim But what you're equippling over
failing is whether or not you're melting the verb and
the direct object there are in agreement. You don't need
a grammar lesson literally, you do need a grammar less
logic professor.
Speaker 6: You couldn't do the quantifiership fellaws.
Speaker 4: This guy doesn't know that Islam claims to worship one.
It doesn't say they just claim it. It says they do it.
Says they worship God, not they the Church, the Roman
Catholic Church, which has always acknowledged this is the Romance,
but since the tenth since two different medieval popes that
Muslims want to worship some in some sense the same God,
different reference. Grammatically, grammatically, this is very straightforward. They worship God,
not a God. They worship God and even the One
True God. The Church, they worship God, who is one,
living and subsistence.
Speaker 5: I'm not.
Speaker 4: Orthodox. I'm just saying what the Church is always taught.
That is the That is them saying, couldn't worship our God?
Speaker 6: Have you address the argument? Then argument would.
Speaker 4: Said on Islam, Tim you would be right to God arguments.
Speaker 5: What I can read you from the personal piet Advice
the Ten Catechism that he says the One True God.
Speaker 1: Doesn't represent okay, guys, guys.
Speaker 4: And it doesn't represent okay. Where it doesn't represent.
Speaker 1: Okay, guys, guys. The conversation is not advancing, and one
questions years it's I think it's actually been pretty pretty
pretty good.
Speaker 2: Actually, what what I interpret from that is that they
were trying to say there is one true God, and
even in that regard, they're saying other religions are seeing
it improperly and doing it wrong, like looking like the
argument is you look through a key hole.
Speaker 1: I think that's what it's saying.
Speaker 2: It's saying that Muslims are looking through a hole and
they're seeing something tiny and they're not doing it right.
Speaker 1: Hindus are looking through a different hole.
Speaker 2: So I I think the argument of the of the
of Vetiicanto is there is only one true God.
Speaker 1: Everyone else is looking at it wrong.
Speaker 4: Written by Jesuits liberal, So now their church created the
Jesuits bad again, that was on that So from the
orthodox person, yes, the Jesuits are from the flesh. From
the complained about them and said they're too liberal. Yes,
that's that's a well known Catholic. Catholics can Catholics can
be too liberal and it's prodience Episcopal the Yeah, they
have an ecclesiology. Stay we also have.
Speaker 1: I got a question.
Speaker 4: Trendsliberal. It doesn't mean that they're Protestants. Well, you also
expelled them because they were liberals.
Speaker 2: It's the one thing that an agree on is that
the Episcopal Church is the inferior church.
Speaker 4: The Episcopal Church sucks.
Speaker 1: Do you all agree?
Speaker 6: Yeah? Yeah, for sure.
Speaker 3: Sure, so I want to I want to highlight too
that I think Tim will have to admit this that
post Vatican Two, we can see the actions of the Papa,
see how they interpret this document, because they in many
cases literally will go pray in mosque towards Mecca. The
sixteenth did it. Also, John Paul the second did it. Uh,
excuse me? A saint and Francis both did this where
they went to the moss. They reverently prayed towards Mecca.
That's an outward expression of the interior disposition in Roman
Catholic moral theology of their faith.
Speaker 4: The way that they're not dogmatic.
Speaker 6: That's Vatican is not dogmatic.
Speaker 5: No, No, Vatican two is dogmatic. The Pope's going in
and praise stupid expresses. It expresses their faith.
Speaker 4: That's of Constantinople.
Speaker 3: I think I think he's heretic. I don't have a
problem saying his heretic. Okay, but you can't say that.
You can't say the pope's a heretic.
Speaker 5: Uh, Francis Francis was a material heretic. We don't know
yet if he's a formal.
Speaker 3: No one judges the first sea, do you.
Speaker 4: No one has judged the first Sea. Yet who cares
you're judging it now?
Speaker 3: Cardinals in seven fifty says that lady does not have
the right to judge the bishops and the sea.
Speaker 4: Not judging him.
Speaker 6: That means you just said.
Speaker 4: A material heretics a formal judging.
Speaker 6: I know what it means.
Speaker 3: Of course you don't have authority, but it also means
that you don't have It says that you have to
submit with docility to the to the rulings of the
ordinary teaching.
Speaker 4: Of course that's not it.
Speaker 3: You don't get to action, then you don't get in
conformity with the liberal view, with the liberal misinterpretation.
Speaker 4: You can't just talk over it.
Speaker 5: Did the council judgement the intentional liberal misinterpretation of those
passages you read which I'm interpret Wait wait, tim interpreted
correctly so he can by popes and and I'll admiss.
Speaker 2: I'll just say this, Uh, that which I read is
more convincing to me.
Speaker 1: Of the Catholics.
Speaker 4: Well, I would agree, if not for the fact that
it says Muslims worship the same God. It doesn't say
same God. Yes, the word saying literally the one God.
It does rammatically making up who's the creator?
Speaker 6: To wait, who's the creator?
Speaker 4: Does it say same? The creator says they worship God.
People out there this passage is the creator.
Speaker 2: The microphone if no one else, if people keep talking, Uh,
I think it's correct.
Speaker 1: Okay, but I think I think Muslims do worship God.
Speaker 4: They don't.
Speaker 6: They don't, but our God.
Speaker 2: So he already admitted and so that says capital G God.
That's why this is convincing to me. And you guys
aren't being convincing.
Speaker 4: Again God, if it said a God, I agree with you,
but it's because I I think believe there's a God
besides God.
Speaker 1: I think there is.
Speaker 5: That's the sense reference dichotomy right there. So you believe
there's another god besides God. So the popes pray in
You just said you believe they worship You're what I
said God?
Speaker 4: I said. If if it said they worship a god,
as is important, they believe they're worshiping a God who
is similar.
Speaker 5: No, no, no, not, they believe they really do. Remember that's them.
Wait wait, wait is an argument?
Speaker 1: Now?
Speaker 4: Your text?
Speaker 6: It's your text?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 5: You literally, I know it's I know it's my text.
You literally what would make all the difference is if
they said that the Muslims worship a God rather than
a God. You're making reference to the sense reference ecotomy
by saying a no.
Speaker 6: That's why you can answer.
Speaker 4: You're not understanding what I said, or you're not understanding
I'm not deliberately misrepresenting anything I'm saying, and you don't
understand what I said.
Speaker 5: This sense reference dichotomy literally covers whether God or.
Speaker 4: Sense referenced dichotomy. This is grammar.
Speaker 1: Do you know what it is? Yes?
Speaker 3: Okay, guys, this is grammar. It's a grammatical tandation. Tim
understands it's the same God.
Speaker 2: He okay, he is not not say it does worship
God appital g God.
Speaker 5: I'm going to quote my friend Jay Dyer who says
that this passage says same God, not one God.
Speaker 4: Who's the creator?
Speaker 3: Tim, same God would be Tim, who's the creator.
Speaker 4: The same God would be inxical.
Speaker 3: So why are you being dishonesed? You're being dishonest?
Speaker 4: Tim, literally, come on, man, come the thea he can't answer,
I understand, understand the philosophy and.
Speaker 3: Melting down and coping because he can't answer create at all.
Speaker 4: You made heretic twenty minutes ago, and I agree with Muslims.
Speaker 5: Worship the same God as us would be buying. Indexical
means that it says if he used the word same.
Speaker 6: It would you want the attributes.
Speaker 4: It would be heresy.
Speaker 5: And that's why I said it wasn't natural theology. But
it says that they worship one God, then it would
be correct. It says they do worship one God.
Speaker 3: They worship God who is one, living and subsisting in himself, merciful,
arm Almarighty and the Creator.
Speaker 4: Sure I'm breaking the Muslim view. I don't know. Again,
you know what if he said just a God, they'd
beading the Muslim viea.
Speaker 3: But they say lumin Gentium sixteen says they adore the
one God. That's a term of worship, the one God.
They adore the one God, and said this in his
personal catechism.
Speaker 4: And too medieval.
Speaker 5: You could take issue with the Roman Catholic position. As
an Orthodox, that's what you should do, but you can't
say Church has change them. The document that's contradicting is
the argument.
Speaker 6: We don't care about.
Speaker 5: The document doesn't contradict Catholicism. It might contradict Jay Dyer
or no the.
Speaker 6: Document itself contradicts what you said earlier.
Speaker 4: Does Catholicism hold that Islam is the same as Christianity?
Do you know what a precept is? What a logical
axiom is.
Speaker 5: Logical axioms are pre scriptural, so literally the sense referenced
dichotomy or the concept of proportional cause.
Speaker 4: These are things which are which.
Speaker 3: Pre so sophiety to explain something you don't understand. No,
you didn't know that. You didn't understand this. Five fallacies
in a row. You said the same. That would be
they text, because that's what the argument of the text is.
They adore the one God in Lumit genty of sixteen.
Speaker 4: In order argument to be cool, they have to not
be a proper Now.
Speaker 1: We're gonna have to We're gonna have to want everybody
know they don't.
Speaker 2: I believe that is a is a PI that testing
it is he muting everybody. I don't, okay, I don't
know what y'all are arguing at this point.
Speaker 1: I just I just hear noise is here yelling.
Speaker 2: Well the moment, the moment anyone talks someone else, everyone
else's talking. And then when I was asking a question,
you guys started having a different debate at the same
that's fair.
Speaker 4: That's a fair point. Can I say what I perceive
the argument to me is somebody who's kind of outside
of it.
Speaker 1: Let's just let them let him say it.
Speaker 4: And then what I'm hearing from Jay is that that
passage reads that Muslims, by what the passage says, not literally,
Muslims worship the same God that we do. Because it
says they worship God capital G proper noun. And then
that is followed up with a description of the Christian God.
You are saying that this is correct because they do
believe they worship the same God as us. Therefore it's
not incorrect. I would argue if it said they worship
a God, you would be correct. Drammatically, it says they
worship does God exist outside of it? Doesn't matter. They
are worshiping something you're not talking about. I'm talking about reference.
Speaker 3: There's another quote that answer, So yeah, read that next quote.
Speaker 1: Please don't interrupt, Luminingentians. I have a thought on this.
Speaker 3: So there's another statement beyond Nosratate three, which is lumin
Gentium sixteen. It says the plan of salvation includes those
that acknowledge the Creator. First among whom are the Muslims.
They profess the faith of Abraham, and together with us
Catholics they adore.
Speaker 6: The One True God that refute.
Speaker 4: You anyway.
Speaker 3: With us topics, together with us for future entire argument,
the last twenty Together with US Catholics.
Speaker 2: Okay, afterwards, Okay, together with us who are they referring.
Speaker 4: To muslim and Catholics? Okays and Christians Catholics.
Speaker 3: So the Catholic with us, this is this together with.
Speaker 6: US Catholics. What are you talking about?
Speaker 1: Okay, So I'm I'm gonna tell you.
Speaker 2: I'm gonna say this right now, guys, to Orthodox and
Anglican Catholic. Everything you're saying is convincing me more and
more of the Catholic argument because the position that this
is taking. Imagine it like this. There's a rock concert
an arena, stadium, and Catholics are all let's let's just say,
from from the from the argument fromend of this book.
Catholics are all looking directly at the stage, and Muslims
are in the back behind it, hearing a different, basic,
garbled version of it. They're cheering for Freddie Mercury, but
they're hearing some weird version of the song exactly.
Speaker 1: When I hear that is.
Speaker 2: What it's saying is that they're that all of these
different religions are looking at they're doing things the wrong
way towards the right God, and it's and it's because
there is only one God.
Speaker 5: This is precisely the Catholic interpretation since Vatican Two. Now,
I admit, but very outset that it's written by liberals,
so it squints towards more conciliation, which is bad. But
we have to say that lumin gensium. Yeah, but after
I'm done lumine gensium and the other two sacred constitutions
as Vatican too.
Speaker 1: Okay, you're using.
Speaker 4: I'd be all four.
Speaker 5: I'd be all four by the way, muting while other
guys are talking, because that that's a really effective way
of It's.
Speaker 1: Still just yelling, though, you know what I mean.
Speaker 4: But yeah, but I could sit here and be quiet.
I'm just saying it is the Catholic.
Speaker 1: You know, Trump shouldn't have been muted either.
Speaker 5: Yeah, agreed, No, as the as the Catholic that there
has to be a distinction between monotheism and polytheism on
the basis of natural religion. Everyone knows everyone out there
who's listening to this knows, okay, there're three Abrahamic religions,
which was posited by Lumingensium.
Speaker 4: There's Judaism, Islam, Christianity.
Speaker 5: That this is you know, community college intro to religions
one oh one. There are polytheisms. There are only three
monotheisms in the history of the world. Now there's only
one correct monotheism, which is posits a triune God. They
say that they get this wrong. This is repeated throughout
the Sacred Constitutions of Vatican Two that Jews and Muslims,
even though they're monotheists, they get it wrong. They don't
worship a triun God. This has said countless times in
the documents. But that's why we don't have the index.
They believe, or they falsely think that that language is
reserved in the Vatican two documents for the polytheisms. So
all they're doing there and it's written by Jesuit liberals,
we're squinting toward, squinting toward a bad interpretation. They say correctly,
they worship the One True God. Pis the Tenth says
this in his personal catechism. He's a tad favorite. Two
other medieval popes say the exact same thing, whether Jay
Dyer or lor Lodge likes it, this is the Catholic
this is the Catholic view.
Speaker 1: Well, but he's branding enough.
Speaker 4: I'm trying to help you brand. But with regard this
is the last name.
Speaker 6: Look.
Speaker 5: With regard to the polytheists, that's why they always say
they falsely claim that they falsely believe, that they falsely
search for they seek for.
Speaker 4: Okay, So the distinction is monotheist.
Speaker 3: This is correct. And everything Tim said there we would
agree with, except that from the Orthox perspective we reject
the whole idea that there are Abrahamic monotheistic faiths. So
even though Muslims might see themselves as that, when we
look at the Old Testament revelation, we believe that it
is the Trinity explicitly revealing itself in the Old Testament.
They don't know the name per se of the word Trinity,
but it's Yahweh, his angel, messenger and his Spirit are revealed.
And in John five through nine, when Jesus debates with
the Pharisees, who were the monotheists, he consistently says, you
don't get the right God. You don't get the right picture.
Abraham worshiped me, Jesus says in on it, he says
Moses wrote about him, meaning that Abraham and Moses had
faith in Christ. This is a key point to undo
the natural theology argument that the Old Testament posited a
generic theism of just a one monotheistic God. If Abraham
believe in the Trinity, then the whole Abrahamic religion thing
falls apart. And Jesus says that to have faith in
Him makes you a child of Abraham. Galatians three pulse
is exact same thing. So when Vatican two acknowledges that
they have the faith of Abraham together with us, we
believe that as a denial of jesus teaching in John
eight that you can be a child of Abraham without faith.
Speaker 4: I guess that's the art. That's fair.
Speaker 6: That's fair.
Speaker 2: Grot real quick, just as just my response is kind
of like, let's say we discover like we can make
intercontinental ballistic missiles and very powerful ICBMs. The modern American
ICBM is one two hundred and fifty times stronger than
the bombs dropped on Hiroshima, Nagasaki. It is also possible
that there is also true that Indian Pakistan have nuclear
weapons that are substantially weaker because they have not yet
discovered the means and the capability by which to build
a powerful bomb.
Speaker 1: So I think it.
Speaker 2: Could be said that you may have discovered hidden truths
and the true path towards God and religion, and Muslims
are effectively using a one killtun bomb when you got
a megadun bomb.
Speaker 4: That's why I think the argument would be that Muslims
are openly rejecting.
Speaker 3: So the point is that, like, there are fundamentals that
are absolutely essential to have access to God or to Christianity.
So to deny, for example, the trendy or the incarnation
puts us one outside of the bounds of Christianity at all.
Speaker 1: But I agree that, like, look at it this way.
Speaker 2: There's a bouncer at a club and he says, if
you follow the rules, you can.
Speaker 1: Come into the club.
Speaker 2: And half the people follow the rules and get let in.
The other half says that guy's telling us to go
bash the windows out, and they get thrown out. They
thought that's what the guy wanted. It's the same guy,
but they're doing it wrong.
Speaker 4: Well, getting we throw we do throw people out right.
Speaker 2: My point is when when Vatican two says they worship God,
it's like the bouncer.
Speaker 1: Being like, yo, I never told those people to throw
bricks at the building. What are they doing?
Speaker 5: Well?
Speaker 3: The problem is not just worship, but Vatican two uses
the term of adoration, which in Klac theology is more
specific than just a generic idea of natural theology. Adoration
is something that's a specific term for like adoring the
Eucharist in Calaic theology. And I would also point out
that when my opening statement I mentioned the fact that
the Council of v n which is a medieval romancalact theology,
which was involved in the crusades.
Speaker 6: That attitude today.
Speaker 3: That you see here is completely different than the attitude
then in the Middle Ages, where it was the abominable
sect of Muhammet. In the council they call crusades against
the Muslims to protect the Holy Land.
Speaker 4: Sure attitudes change, dogma, no, no, how can.
Speaker 6: You be the abominable sect of Muhammad?
Speaker 3: But now, but now together with us, they adore the
once through God.
Speaker 6: That's the contradiction to.
Speaker 4: M They could be the abominable sect of Muhammad and
still worship point.
Speaker 3: Oh, they don't even though my references with us Tim.
Speaker 4: Jake, can I are these both these are both dogmatic
councils from Vatican two. Okay, then dogma contradicts.
Speaker 6: Okay, what's the argument.
Speaker 5: Dog Okay, guys, guys, guys, that's I got simply and straightforward.
Speaker 4: Least. It was also untrue when you said we don't
have ordination, but that apparently doesn't matter today.
Speaker 3: Well, well, let's aboridation.
Speaker 1: Let's go there, let's go there.
Speaker 4: It goes back to august How many how many?
Speaker 1: How many? How many years was the how many years
was the g Hud?
Speaker 4: Augustin's goes back to Peter?
Speaker 1: Is that? How that?
Speaker 2: So the gihot goes from a No, we're we're having
a separate debate again. Oh, because I asked a question
about how many years was the gi Hud?
Speaker 6: You mean from the rise of Islam the literal.
Speaker 1: Like Gi had conquests across North Africa, the Middle.
Speaker 4: East, I argue, I mean moving westward, it was from
it was basically one hundred years, six thirty two to
seven thirty two. On the eastern side, it's not quite
as linear because there's the immediate Arab move into the north,
and then the Turks convert and they come back down south.
Speaker 1: Six seven fifty and eighteen years was when.
Speaker 4: Battle of tour Is seven thirty two. That's kind of
the reversal.
Speaker 2: And then there were additional Jihads the eleventh and thirteenth century,
two hundred years and so I'm looking at the birth
rate for Muslims, which is three point one, as well
as the hundreds of years of militaristic conquest under the
banner of Islam, And like, how many battles of the
Crusades were there? There were a lot, like nowhere near
as many as the Islamic she Hod.
Speaker 4: I don't think that's true. I think there were a
lot more battle It really depends on Howmad fought in
seventy eight battles seventy eight alone, there weren't that many
in the Crusades as compared to the full total of
Islamic she had. There were not as many battles during
the Crusades.
Speaker 2: Let's see nine battles in the Crusades over two hundred years.
Speaker 4: I would argue against that. Maybe nine major battles. Yeah,
and how really defining battles, I don't know.
Speaker 2: There were eighty to one hundred military expeditions in the
first Islam a jihad. Yeah, so in terms of birth
rate and expansion, I mean Islam's doing way better.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying I'm the missage Spirit.
Speaker 4: So I will say Islam. The ability of Islam to
move after seven thirty two was largely due to the
Turks coming in at a time that could not have
been less ideal for Christians. These two were well, thankfully,
we were the same at the sign were in conflict.
There was a schism that had happened about twenty years earlier.
Then you get the Battle of Nansukurt in ten seventy one,
and the Byzantine Empire collapses in on itself because everybody
wants to be emperor, and ironically, the Church wasn't strong
enough to enforce one single emperor in the West. The
Church wasn't strong enough to convince people, hey, we need
to go drive the Turks out, and had to use
Jerusalem as a little bit of a carrot on a stick.
So the Muslims came in at a time when Christians
were more divided than they had ever been, and we
were unable to resist the tide until ten ninety five
when we were able to assemble an army large enough
to go and infight it. But at that point the
Franks didn't want to stay over there. The Saracens became
too numerous, too powerful. It was a long period of
strife that was largely caused by Christianity's inability to come together.
Speaker 2: There was an argument a few years ago, maybe like
seven years ago, where a lot of people, including myself,
made the argument that the US would become a Muslim nation. No,
because Muslims have a substantially higher fertility rate than basically
every other group, including Christians, and that combined with mass migration,
you see the emergency of places like Dearborn, Michigan. However,
with the recent trend towards Christianity among the gen Z,
and it's not just that Conservatives and Christians had more kids,
we're actually seeing an ideological shift. And I think a
large portion of why we're seeing young gen Z be
more Christian is just because of their parents. But I
think about half we are actually seeing an ideological conversion.
One of which is there was this really interesting shift
from like two thousand, i'm sorry, twenty twenty to like
twenty three or whatever where gen Z support for same
sis marriage collapsed, like literally the same people pulled at
like twenty years old then at twenty four had an
inverse opinion on gay marriage. So that if combined with
a reversal of the fertility rate decline, which may happen,
we're as seeing a lot of people start to have
kids again, then I think the US is on track
to become a conservative Christian nation probably.
Speaker 3: In fact, one of the global elite books that I
lectured through was Jacques at the Leed's book Brievious Read
the Future in two thousand and six. He warned that
for the technocratic elite, one of the things they had
to be concerned with was the possibility of a rising
traditional Christian ethos in the West and in the US.
So they actually wargamed that out. And a few years
ago the Saudis were noted for I think putting sixty
something billion into funding mosques in the US and Islamic education,
So I.
Speaker 6: Think they were really pushing for that.
Speaker 3: But Islam has been has had a rough go on
the internet, especially the last couple of years. They're losing
bad and then a lot of younger people are turning
towards Christianity.
Speaker 2: So I have a question for you guys, just for
all Christians I believe, is it Is it one of
the core tenants to go and spread the religion.
Speaker 1: Do you guys view yourselves as as doing that?
Speaker 4: I would say yes in this current present moment right now,
I think in just general.
Speaker 2: I think, yeah, I'll talk about that general on large
platforms to large groups of people.
Speaker 6: Yeah, certainly.
Speaker 5: And evangelization sounds different than the in turn of scene
squabbling between ethics in Orthodox certainly.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think.
Speaker 5: I think, I'm sure all of us try to do
that in a different form for in platforms.
Speaker 4: I certainly do.
Speaker 3: Also, Yeah, I mean, like I said, like Islam is
having a hard time because they had a really strong
push in the twenty tens online and a lot of
people are getting into into Islam. But now a lot
of Christians are doing pretty intense hardcore apologetics. Like we
had that debate with Daniel Kikachu and e Jaws together
at Me and Sam Chamoun on Fresh and Fit. I
got millions of views and it was like ninety percent
just dominated.
Speaker 1: I mean Russell Brand. Yeah, you know, so I in
the skateboard.
Speaker 2: Community, it's degenerate garbage. Mostly these pro skateboarders have always
been scuzzy, drug abusing, Now that there's a bunch of
them that are getting baptized. Yeah, I'm not going to
single any anybody out, but I was surprised.
Speaker 3: To find didn't skating get like the corporations try to
take it over, like make it woke, and then people
are reacting to that now.
Speaker 2: Well, so with skateboarding, what happened was the industry completely
collapsed because there's no young people anymore, and the stewards
of the industry failed to cultivate a new generation of skateboarders.
So what happens then is, as of today, more than
half of all professional like all all skateboards active skateboarder,
I don't say professional, are over thirty. What happens when
the water goes down, it exposes the scum in the reef.
And so now some of the most prominent voices in
the industry are degenerate, yeah, cringey.
Speaker 1: Rage bait.
Speaker 2: And so what happens is these companies try to figure
out how to sell to whoever they can, and you
end up with advertisements or there may be an inverse
correlation here that when the company started promoting you know,
like men penny be women doing weird fetish poses, and
they are it's not a joke. Young guys say, I
don't have anything to do with this because scooting doesn't
do that. Scooting doesn't and that's growing massively in popularity.
All the skills are now in terms of action sports
are going in that direction in BMX, and this is
what happens when you know what I think it is
to relate this to the conversation, abject degeneracy freaks the
average person out, no matter what, no matter who they are,
where they're from. It is a shock to the system.
So skateboarding started promoting there's like there's one individual whos
a morbidly obese man who's trans and does fetish like
weird sexualized fetish poses. But it's like it's like a
big fat guy, and a lot of a lot of
young men are.
Speaker 1: Like I I don't want to have anything to do with that.
Speaker 2: I think now we're seeing a lot of young men
shift towards Christianity.
Speaker 1: That's in the polls.
Speaker 2: That may be a good explanation as to why skateboarding
is struggling to market itself to your generation, because all
the big magazines are basically being like, you know, here's
a trends in the queer stuff.
Speaker 5: And it's not internal to one culture or another subculture.
This is what's at large in the general popular culture
is a great reawakening essentially secular humanism.
Speaker 4: I'm not the first one to say it.
Speaker 5: It's reasonably obvious of ten years into it. Secularly humanism
has consumed itself and people are looking for what's perennial
and what's true. And it turns out that a lot
of young kids are are finding Jesus based and so
when they're returning to Christianity, they're looking for what they
take to be a based version of it, which is
why they're leaving Protestantism in droves and going to.
Speaker 4: Greater struct Sure, more and more structure is all I'm saying.
Speaker 5: So they're going to Orthodox or twenty twenty four was
Roman Catholicism's I think greatest year of re embrace of
the church? Pod how many people leave in the Catholicism
for every person who joins it, You tell me, I
believe it's something I'm not going to tell you.
Speaker 4: There's something like six to eight. Yeah, Well, one.
Speaker 5: Last year was the best year in the New evangelization,
which is what what Jumpaul the second set out to
do using media using the self Malaysia.
Speaker 2: Well, I googled it and it I'm sorry, I checked
GPT did it and it says that Protestants are converting
to Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.
Speaker 1: We are.
Speaker 4: It should be clear that you dispute a lot. So
I did not dispute that. I think you did.
Speaker 2: I did not see one hundred and fifty five per
parish in from twenty two to twenty three, I said, leaving,
that's that's not a good metric.
Speaker 1: There's no real good metric.
Speaker 2: They say seventy eight percent surge and Orthodox conversions, but
again we don't know how the actual hard numbers. Orthodoxy
is seeing one hundred and fifty five converts converts per church,
of which sixty five are from Protestant backgrounds.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think Protestantism has a major issue right now
with first of all, with how divided we are. I
don't think that's a good thing. I think that the
Episcopal Church, many of the Presbyterian churches have totally lost
their way. Oh yeah, and that I mean, that's why
Thenking Catholic Church exists. I think Protestants need to really
look in the mirror and ask ourselves what the hell
we're doing.
Speaker 1: Let me let me say this.
Speaker 2: When I, when I was looking up different denominations, chet
Gptier volunteered unto.
Speaker 1: Me that the Episcopal Church was was shrinking.
Speaker 4: It's bad.
Speaker 2: Like when I when I said, like, list lists of
the churches by a fertility rate, it was like, you know,
as a possable is shrinking.
Speaker 3: All the wolde churches are basically adopting sterility, so they
sterilize themselves with their policies, and then they don't have
future generations and they die out.
Speaker 4: Yeah, the conservative the Conservative Protestant churches aren't as good
at marketing. We are not nearly as good at telling
people we exist. The Roman Catholic and the Orthodox churches
are both very visible. I think that's why you see
so many Protestants converting right now. I think if more
Protestants were aware of churches like the Anglican Catholics, there
would be higher numbers of people converting to the Conservative
Protestant churches as well. But we suffer from that problem
of being at schism with ourselves. In so many cases, there.
Speaker 2: Are a lot of churches that fly the Pride flags,
even Catholic churches.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they're popping up. They tend to be in liberal areas.
Speaker 2: And I view that largely as the church is looking
at the political views of the community around them, and
they're probably saying to themselves, in one year, this church
will be a coffee shop unless we get more parishioners.
Speaker 1: What do we have to do? Market whatever they want
to get?
Speaker 3: Woe churches die, It doesn't work.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it doesn't. But you know I'll say this too.
Speaker 4: He die and the faith dies with them.
Speaker 1: And many people have.
Speaker 2: Said get what, go broke, But I do believe while
that's largely true, there's an inverse of go broke, get woke,
in that a lot of companies try to adopt. They
try to adopt wokeness is a marketing tactic to try
and get but they don't Understan hippies don't have money.
Speaker 5: Now it's well, it's a boomer marketing appeal that that
was really I'll speak to the Catholic position. It was
really popular during an a round Vatican two, and they
thought that kids wanted the monkeys music and and long
hair and masks and tambourines and.
Speaker 4: Ship and they simply didn't.
Speaker 5: What they wanted was what's perennial and true and that
that's that's really what's Let.
Speaker 1: Me let me say this. There's this uh oft quoted study.
Speaker 2: You have to look it up where they they told people,
come in, it's a it's a study. You're gonna you're
gonna ask answer some questions, and then afterwards you get
a free T shirt. People came in the first group
answer the questions and as they were leaving they were
given a free T shirt. They were then on the
way out asked how do they feel about their experience.
The next group came in answer the questions, were then
given a choice between one of three T shirts blue, green,
or red.
Speaker 1: They then made a choice. They were then on the
way out asked how they felt.
Speaker 2: The people who were given the choice felt worse soft,
They felt regret they picked the wrong color. The people
who aren't given a choice went wow, free T shirt,
but when they had to choose between the colors, it
actually made them feel worse. And this is often cited
as a in many insins not all choice actually stresses
people out and makes them feel anxiety.
Speaker 1: They don't like it.
Speaker 2: And so a lot of people, not everybody, but a
lot of people really just want to be told what
to do. And I've said this before, because there's this
mentality United States that being a follower is a bad thing.
You want to be a leader, and I reject that.
There's a requirement before both leaders and followers. And they
try to insult you in modern media if you are
just a follower of someone, because you have to be
the leader. And I say, when the king is standing
before all of his men in the fields, ready to
die for the world that they believe in and the
things they love, those followers of the king are no
less dignified simply because they're not the king. In fact,
without them, there is no king. So being a follower
isn't a bad thing. And they you know, I think
modern society tries to tell you.
Speaker 1: Not to not to do that. Absolutely be rogue.
Speaker 2: No, it's perfectly fine. If you want to say, listen,
I spend my days taking care of my family. You
take care of the politics I believe in. You do
the right thing. Don't screw me over. There's nothing wrong
with it.
Speaker 3: Modernity is enlightenment, right, a Enlightenment effect. So the Enlightenment
was all about individual atimistic liberties which premised were premised
on the idea that there's no authority, there's no hierarchy.
Hence why they were opposed to church and state monarchy.
Monarchy in church yea.
Speaker 1: And I will say this too.
Speaker 2: One of the debates we have to have in the
political arena around religion is that there's this romanticized, fake
liberal view that the Founding Fathers believed in this hyperliberal
society where anyone could say whatever they wanted.
Speaker 1: They had blasphemy laws back then. Even when the Founding
father says the right to speech shall not be infringed.
Speaker 2: Of course, no one in this room thinks you can
go out there and say, you know, and take the
Lord's name in.
Speaker 1: That would be a crime.
Speaker 2: They meant you could go and have political conversations in
a pub.
Speaker 1: And so when you look at.
Speaker 2: The context around the Constitution seventeen eighty nine and all that,
they weren't literally saying anyone can march the street to
the tombs of thousands of people in block roads. They
were saying, if you have a meeting in your city
peacefully to have conversations. The government can't shut you down
because the crown wanted to shut them down. But these
people think the Founding Fathers were a bunch of like
liberal atheis no.
Speaker 1: Blaspheming.
Speaker 6: Eight of the.
Speaker 4: Thirteen states had establishments of Christian religions, and the First
Amendment to the US Constitution was written assuming that all
thirteen would. And what the establishment clause means literally was
that Congress and Congress alone shall not make a law
respecting a disestablishment of religion. Congress wasn't allowed to.
Speaker 5: Disestablish the state legislature established sex of Christianity. That's literally
what it means ins And it was a Masonic US
Supreme Court in nineteen forty seven in the case called
Everson versus Board of Bed that literally reversed the meaning
and incorporated the First Amendment.
Speaker 3: Today you know of which like Enlightenment, free Masonic values.
How do you reconcile Freemasonry with Christianity?
Speaker 4: What about freemasonry is in conflict with Christianity?
Speaker 3: How about Albert Pike's teachings?
Speaker 4: Albert Pike is not recognized as influential by most Masons.
His teachings are non essential Freemason.
Speaker 3: Yeah, worls and dogmas.
Speaker 4: I'll admit I've had my questions because I have run
into things.
Speaker 6: Dogmas not used in the Scottish right.
Speaker 4: No, it is used in the southern jurisdiction of the
Scottish Right in the Southern.
Speaker 3: So so he has a giant statue in DC, but
he's not influential.
Speaker 4: He was influential for a number of other reasons. Secularly,
what about Mamneroal He was a accomplished ethnographer.
Speaker 6: Okay, what about Manley P. Hall? It's he also doesn't count.
Speaker 4: Manley P. Hall admitted that he wrote everything that you
have a problem with before he became a freemason.
Speaker 6: What masons do count?
Speaker 4: Well, it depends a lot of talking about with freemasonry.
I mean the philo free masonry is the first three degrees,
that's it, or.
Speaker 3: The philosophy what is not true? There's there's thirty, second,
thirty third degree.
Speaker 4: There are in the Scottish Right, which is a pellet
to freemasonry. It's like getting in there at badge.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but I don't care about what your terms are
for these different sexs when these aren't they have a
naturalistic bent and ethos.
Speaker 6: For example, Pike says.
Speaker 4: That Pike is irrelevant to me.
Speaker 6: He's not.
Speaker 4: He's do you have but not to the history freemaks. No,
Pike is irrelevant to everything outside of Freemason. Is irrelevant
to the history of Freemasonry, general Freemason. Here, who's the
one who knows what he's talking about?
Speaker 6: It's not an appeal to authority.
Speaker 4: No, it's not.
Speaker 3: Yes, it is, I'm trying to You're not yourself. Albert
Pike is a source. Add No, Albert Pike is a
source for the Southern the Southern jurisdiction.
Speaker 6: You're telling me that. How about your Themazini? Does he is?
Speaker 4: He p two?
Speaker 3: No, he's in the Grand Orient Lodge.
Speaker 4: Grand Orient, not regular.
Speaker 6: So what counts?
Speaker 4: Uh? The three degrees of the Craft lodges mainly split
between England and the United States. So the York right
is that what the York Right, like the Scottish right,
is a pellet and is not held in union with
all free Masonic ideals.
Speaker 3: So and the British Empire did what What was the
function of Freemason in the British Empire?
Speaker 4: In your view, it was a social club?
Speaker 6: Is it a sorry, a speculative Mason?
Speaker 4: All Masons are speculative Masons.
Speaker 6: No, they're not.
Speaker 3: The original Masons were they were, They were stone workers,
They weren't speculative free Mason.
Speaker 4: And yes, it did originate from operative Masons in the
late thirteen hundreds as a Catholic organization which very explicitly
held that you must love the Church with God and
the Church without.
Speaker 6: You're not speculative freemasonry.
Speaker 4: All right, it was. It was the origin of speculative
free poem, Catholicist poem.
Speaker 6: Catholic churches condemned you for centuries.
Speaker 5: Seven times, seven different times.
Speaker 4: Why why tell me why I know? Why do you
do you know? Why?
Speaker 5: You know?
Speaker 3: Because you know why the pope inside eight? Shut up,
I've read the paper. You've been interrupting me while asking
because your answers are stupid, Okay.
Speaker 4: Not stupid. You don't know what you're talking about this song?
And no, do you know why secret?
Speaker 6: Because you're acting as.
Speaker 4: A seventeen thirty eight inhumanium in humanim mo janus. Yeah,
in that one, what was the reason he gets?
Speaker 2: Sure to watch Tim kastier Raltz and I at eight pm.
Guys were over time, okay, and if we have more
time I'd say, let's let's get into Macon.
Speaker 4: I'm happy to come back and do masonry.
Speaker 1: Let's do another one on the freemake.
Speaker 4: Even just from the historical perspective, I think I think
he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Speaker 3: Well, okay, I think, but you're lying because Albert Pike
is very influential.
Speaker 4: Albert Pike is not influential outside of the Southern jurisdiction
at the Scottish Masonry All right, do you do you want
to shout anything up before we go.
Speaker 6: Yes.
Speaker 3: You can find me at my website Jason Alsos dot com.
You can find me on YouTube. You can find me
usually the fourth Hower of Alex Jones every Friday.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 3: You can find me writing Sam Hid Show, and find
me on Twitter.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Uh, my name is Aden Mattis. I'm the host of
the lore Lodge History Unhinged and the Weird Bible podcast.
I do want to quickly say that the Anglican Church
does not necessarily agree with me about freemasonry before I
get in trouble for that.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 4: But yeah, that's that's where I'm leaving this. You can
find me here on YouTube.
Speaker 5: Timothy Gordon on Twitter. I'm at timothee Ology t I
M O T H E E O L O G Y,
and I'm on YouTube as well, Timothy Gordon doing a
show called Rules for Introgrades.
Speaker 4: Thanks for having us on. This was fun at each other.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah, the most heated debate we've had.
Speaker 2: Who thought We're gonna be back tonight at eight pm
for timcast I r L. Don't miss it, Bring your
friend friends, tell your grandma. Thanks franking out. We'll see
all then