Speaker 1: Matt Frad and Trent Horne. Are we not supposed to
be Orthodox?
Speaker 2: Why our East Orthodox? Yeah? And there are people. Rodrere
is an example of this. So Rodrere is a conservative commenter,
and he left the church over the scandal, which I
think is a poor thing to do because, frankly, you
look at studies. I read one study that said this
is as bad, if not worse, in Protestant churches, and
it's probably even worse in public schools. So I'm sure
when you see these scandals in Jewish Orthodox temples of
sexual abuse, I'm sure there are skeletons hiding in the
Eastern Orthodox closet, right, you know.
Speaker 1: However, so first argument is that Rodrere as an example
of that you shouldn't become Orthodox because of the scandals.
So I'm going to agree and disagree with Trent on this.
Why would I agree here? Well, to simply say, oh,
I'm going to become Orthodox because there are moral and
ethical scandals is not a good reason. And Trent is
correct to say that, guess what, there's moral scandals and
moral problems, ethical problems in all the churches. So this
is actually a good point. And if that was somebody's
sole reason, that's a bad reason. Also, by the way,
you know, Ubi made this point I think a while
back that if your reason for becoming Orthodox was because
you want to be a based trad that's not a
good reason became Orthodox. Now, I think that these kinds
of questions are good things that maybe get us questioning
and looking at Orthodoxy, but those are not good enough reasons.
So I actually agree with Trent there. However, one last
point I would say is that this scale and scope
of this problem in Rome is far greater, I think
than in these other domains. Maybe Trent has a point
when it comes to public education that might could be
argued that there's equal scale and scope, But I don't
think that the scale and scope of this problem in
Orthodoxy comes anywhere close to the scale and scope with
this problem in Rome. So that's where I'm going to disagree.
Speaker 2: Decked out it is, and like old light candles and stuff. Yeah,
you'll find this stuff everywhere. It's not going to go away.
But Dreer tried to defend it by saying, well, I
looked at the evidence for papal infallibility in the papacy,
and it's not all there. It's inflated, and I just
disagree with that. I think the biggest difference, of course
between being Eastern Orthodox and you and I belong to
Eastern churches. The Byzantine Church is Eastern. And after the skip.
Speaker 1: By the way again it should be pointed out. Remember
their position is that the Roman Catholic Church is the
true church, it has the goods, and that applies to
anything in communion with Rome, according to them. So why
is it that the whole crop of the Roman Catholic
YouTube world of apologists all attend Eastern right churches. How
come they don't just go to the novisorta. Why do
these people all flock to what is the imitation of
what we have when their whole position is that we've
got the goods and their position necessitates that we've got
the goods means also the novsorto, and yet they don't
go to the novsorto. Isn't that telling? Isn't that interesting?
Speaker 2: Some of ten fifty four, which it wasn't a moment
the churches were growing apart for centuries, but after that,
because there were people even in the year twelve hundred
who thought that they were still a part of the
Catholic Church. But who were in the East, Like, what happened?
Speaker 3: Didn't nobody tell me?
Speaker 2: Right? Yeah, well, they didn't have bad news to log
onto on the internet every day. So, but then after
the schism there were a large segment of churches in
the East who came back to union. The Orthodox came
back to union with the pope. And for me, the
papacy is a gift that God has given the church.
That makes sense one of the important things in being Catholic.
Speaker 1: If the papacy makes sense, then why is the papacy
such an issue of contention right now in the Roman
Catholic world, and especially since the time of Attican two.
I mean again, you'll find that they always just appeal
to this sort of the simple pragmatic argument. Look, it
just makes sense. Look, it's just gonna help with unity. Look,
it's going to solve the problems. And does it actually
do that, No, it doesn't. Remember, ninety percent of their
apologetic of these guys is you need this office because
it's going to solve all the problems that you have.
Yet when we do the problem analysis, we don't find
that it actually provides the thing that it's supposed to do.
It doesn't provide unity, it doesn't provide clarity. In fact,
if you remember when we did the for the two
four hour streams, the eight hours of response to Trent,
remember that right got a lot of views on that.
We saw that Trent himself was struggling consistently with how
to make sense of And here's your various ways to
interpret Francis on the death penalty. Why do we have
to give varying interpretations of something that's supposed to be
a clarifying statement on basic morals? Why do we even
have to have the pope clarifying the basic morals which
are now ambiguous, which related to quote, natural justice in
the traditional Roman cality view. But remember what's he doing here?
Just falling back on these kinds of pragmatic low tier.
Oh it'll just make it easy, Oh it'll make it simple,
it'll solve the problems. Again, the last seventy years of
Roman Catholicism illustrate nothing but the opposite of that chaos, collapse,
lack of clarity, greater and greater confusion, greater and greater
moral revulsion, especially when it came to Rome itself on
quote clarifying moral issues. So the irony is that the
selling points that these guys always fall back on are
the very things that they're also always having to deal with.
That it's not practical, it's not clarifying anything, it's not
making anything better, it's not producing unity. And this is
ninety five percent of they're apologetic, is what papal lawyering.
Speaker 2: Because you might say, I could have all that with
East Orthodoxy, but here's the problem with that. If the
Church is the Kingdom of God, you know, Jesus says
that the Kingdom of God is now among us, the
Kingdom of Heaven, that this is the Kingdom of God
on earth. And shouldn't this kingdom be organized similar to
the kingdom God also ran, which is the Kingdom of Israel.
When we look at Israel, God was the king. You
had the King of Israel. Obviously God is sovereign overall
that you had the king like David. But then you
also had the prime minister or the phazier. So in
the second twenty second chapter of the Book of Isa,
it talks about the wicked Shebnah who would be replaced
by the righteous alia Kim as the prime minister. He
is under the king, but his authority over the kingdom
is massive. What he opens, none shall shut. What he
shuts none shall open. I shall give him the keys
to the kingdom. I believe Isaiah twenty two twenty two
actually even uses the phrase the house of in the
chapter twenty two uses the phrase the house.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's amazing to see the texts that are, you know,
the most obvious, you know, Messianic prophecies about the person
of Christ and which could be applied in an extended
way to various apostles in the in the Apostolic College.
But the idea that we actually need to revert to
an office that was characteristic of the Old Testament is
pretty hilarious, right, I mean this is like, did you
not understand that this is an office now fulfilled? Why
would we go back and revert to? And if you
guys remember, Ubi did a whole debate on this, right,
he debated Suan Sona precisely on this issue. I think
that Suon completely totally lost because what did Suon have
to go to to back up this goofy exegesus Talmudic tradition.
He literally relied on a look like a gigantic portion
of his argument in that debate was the Jewish Talmudic tradition.
Saw you know, various stewards in this role when the
prophecy is a prophecy of Christ and the role of
Christ right and have the romancalolicies just not understood that,
like Jesus fulfills these roles. And the reason that we
don't need a visible earthly visier in the sense of
the papacy is because of the Holy Spirit. Did you
hear about this. There's a thing called Pentecost, and at Pentecost,
when this is poured out on the whole Apostolic college,
Jesus that that spirit would lead and guide you all
into truth. Did he say, I will breathe on Peter,
and then Peter will breathe on you. Did he say
the tongues of fire will fall on Peter and then
Peter will hand them onto you. That's the Roman Catholic
model after the Middle Ages. Do you understand this literally?
That's their view. You don't get the Holy Spirit apart
from the pope, and the pope like saying that it's
okay for you to be a bishop and to have jurisdiction.
So essentially, and again, a lot of people are pointed
this out, like the phillyoqua ends up kind of being
like the Holy Spirit comes through the pope. Basically the
whole religion is the Pope. And that's why it's a
deformation and an innovation. And you need to look no
further than the delusion, the chaos, the pre last in
the outright, just wild heresies throughout the Roman communion that
actually don't characterize the majority of the Orthodox community. Are
there a lot of sinners in the Orthodox community?
Speaker 3: Absolutely?
Speaker 1: Are there a lot of people who believe wrong things? Yes,
do we have a lot of problems.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Do we have the problems that they have, Not necessarily
we have some of them, But we don't have the
mass delusion and chaos and weirdness and lack of fundamentals
in terms of doctrine. I mean, in other words, it's
fundamental to believe in the monarchia of the Father, to
believe in the essen sentergy, distinction, to believe in uncreated
grace and theosis. Is that fundamental in their church? Absolutely not.
You have to flee to the fringes of the Uniates
to find the traces of the stuff that is normally
live in our churches. So the very existence of these
people in the Uniate circles and on the fringe of
Rome proves us. It's staring them in the face by
the fact that they go to the Uniate churches.
Speaker 2: Of David, which is something actually rare to find in
the Old Testament, excepting certain prophecies. It's very important to
talk about here. So, of course, if you recognize.
Speaker 1: At and again this is all just watch Ubi's debate
with Suan. The whole debate is over this silly argument
and the mid Rash exegesus of the texts right that
ignore the whole purpose of this being about Christ. This
is kind of goofy. Remember when I had the debate
with Nick, and Nick said, what that I am? I
am he who holds the keys of death and Hades
right in the Apocalypse. How did they interpret? How do you?
He said, that's Peter is Jesus talking clear as day.
It's not Peter, so Roman Catholic exogesus, or in this
case we say, isa, Jesus will take things that are
Messianic prophecies, predictions of Christ and his role and just
say it's about Peter and his earthly It's so the
religion is literally about Peter, not in the sense of
actually Peter, Saint Peter, but this mythical idea of the
papacy the whole religion is that what do all these
people constantly debate the papacy. The papacy, that's all they
talk about. This is probably why they're so bad at apologetics,
because the whole religion is the papacy. Well, Jelle, what
do you and I always said we debate. These guys
are always like unfollowing Peter, and by Peter they mean
the papacy, right, because we believe to see Peter's on
every bishop and bring up for the audience. Uh, your
argument from indefectibility. It's a great one. Yeah. So essentially
what we've gotten to in modern day Roman Catholic apologists
that are in this sphere is the idea that rather
than I'm gonna, you know, to move away from the
question of infallibility. Not that you can't debate infallibility. I
think it's funny and you can go down that route,
but they'll just always have this out where they'll just say, well,
but he's only infallible in X y Z cases, and
I will tell you when that is right. So every
individual Catholic will have their own list of when he's
being fallible, when he's not being infallible, and so the
better way to construct this argument is to talk about indefectibility.
And this is better because we know Vatican one is
teaching very clearly that the Roman Sea will never defect
from the faith until the end of the world. It
will contain valid successors until the return of Christ, Vatican
One says, So that means that wor one second, I
just wanted to I just gallo something. You know how
there's the no true Scotsman policy, right do you think
there's the no absolutely Yeah, yeah, it's it's again, it's
it's another. It's a great way to apply that fallacy
to the way they reason about the problems for the papacy.
It becomes a situation where just let's like this, the
pope is indefectible, the Sea of Rome is indefectible until
he defects, which is to say nothing. So basically a
meaningless statement which allows every individual Roman Catholic to simply
say that I will accept and reject the papacy insofar
as it applies to my own version of papalism. And
that's why every single Roman Catholic will have a different
list of what the infallible teachings actually are. And again,
this whole system should at least give us the list.
Speaker 3: What did that?
Speaker 1: Roman Catholics always come over to us and say.
Speaker 3: Where's your list to dogmas?
Speaker 1: Where's where's your list of dogmas? Oh, they don't have it?
Exactly what do they have? They have a couple criteria
of categories to rank the authority of the various teachings
and dogmas, which is then up to every individual Catholic
to apply and to try to make sense with mental gymnastics.
How the system isn't chaos and nonsense. Thus it's arbitrary
because they will say, the Roman see cannot defect from
the faith. That is the promise of the terrorism to
Peter and the Roman sea of Corneabatican one will always
exist as a constituent, fundamental element of the Roman Church.
It's the essence of the Roman Church. Okay, So now
how do we explain the last seventy years of chaos, madness, destruction,
blah blah, blah blah blah from the sea of Roman itself. Ah,
you see, let's now apply all the arbitrary criteria about
which I can say, I don't have to accept all
the bad stuff, which is to say that he's indefectible
until or unless he defects, which is to say absolutely nothing.
That's an unfalsifiable, ridiculous, nonsense position. And this is what
they're all doing. This applies to the sadas, to the
Novus Ordos, to the SSPX. It doesn't matter. This argument
right here applies to all of them and destroys this
entire goofy system because the whole thing is built on
this guy in Rome and his successors and his predecessors
and what they do and say on a weekly basis,
the soap opera drama of Rome. So when you watch
a debate between a set of a contest and a
non set of a contest, you will realize that, hey, wait,
they're both right and they're both wrong, because they're both
actually pointing out the fact that this system doesn't work.
And it doesn't work because, on the one hand, it's
an evolution of things that didn't exist in the first
thousand years, such as universal jurisdiction such as ex cathedral
pronouncements that evolves out of canonical privileges and traditions. That's it.
So again, what's the ultimate easy refutation. All of these
people are arguing that the Roman sea is indefectible. It
provides unity, clarity, authority, et cetera. It's a solution. This
is their number one apologetic, pragmatic argument. And then when
all the problems arise that are theological and dogmatic with
the papacy, oh, I don't have to follow those because
x y z. I only have to follow him when
x y z. Oh, is your criteria of when you
follow and don't follow infallible because on your system it
has to be right. This is the criteria problem applied
to Roman Catholic dogmatics. Is the criteria it self infallible?
It has to be if you're going to be consistent.
Oh no, the criteria is from my interpretation of the criteria.
You see, when I read what is extraordinary made universal, ordinary,
magistrum ordinary magisterium, right, when I suss that out in
these three generic categories, I must now apply my individual
Catholic mental interpretive schema, and is that infallible? No? No
Roman Catholic will say that's infallible. Okay, So actually what's
going on here is that you have a theoretical infallibility
that is never applicable in actual particular instances, and so
it's not really infallibility. This is not a difficult argument.
It's a very simple point. Anytime a problem is presented,
what do they do? Throw that in the non infallible bin.
Anytime that Francis or Rome says something that they agree with,
that's in the infallible bin. And it never is the
same amongst these very Catholics. Now, why do I keep
making that point? Is that because I'm saying that, oh,
in Orthodoxy everybody knows clearly the doctors, and now I'm
saying that what this system pretends to offer, it's sales pitch.
It doesn't actually deliver. So the system doesn't work, so
we needed a different system. The argument is not that
Orthodoxy has no problems, right. The argument is not Orthodoxy
has the list of dogmas. The point is that there
isn't that that doesn't exist. There's not the infallible list
of dogmas that's going to solve the problems for you.
Let's hear the rest of this.
Speaker 2: Did I give you the keys what you opened and
shall shut?
Speaker 4: Then the Isaiah Abram becomes Abrahem, the father of many nations.
Speaker 2: You know, people's names change, and the same is true
for Peter. Why bother changing It has nothing to do
with being the rock in the first place.
Speaker 1: So yeah, but name changes throughout scripture. It doesn't follow
from a name change that Vatican one is the case, right,
I mean, every Orthodox person will agree that there is
a special role of Peter, as Saint John Christsen calls him,
the core fais the mouthpiece of the apostles. But all
of these titles and all of these things in scripture
are transformed. There's a bait and switch whereby oh you
see that means Vatican one. Oh you see his names changed,
that means Vatican one, And it's a non sequitor. If
that was the case, that would have been the patristic understanding,
that would have been the modus operandi of the Church
in the first thousand years. And every one of these
people admits that's not how the church operated when they
admit that the papacy is a doc that developed, And
then they contradict themselves and turn around and say, oh,
but it was always there. Is it a seed that
developed or was it always there?
Speaker 3: It can't be.
Speaker 1: Both because that's a mutually exclusive claim.
Speaker 2: So I would see it would make sense then that
if Christ established his church.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm sorry to realize that so much of
this is bait and switch, because what do they do
in natural theology bait and switch? What do we see
at the beginning of this today's live stream quantifier shift fallacy? Oh,
we all come from one mother, right, I come from
a mother. You come from a mother. So we all
come from one mother. Therefore we all believe in the
same God. Musses believe in one God, Jews believe in
one God. Christian's believe one God. Therefore that's the quanti
of our shift fallacy. It's a fallacy. This is not
rocket science. Go look up the fact. It's an obvious fallacy.
And they don't do anything different with their papacy arguments. Look,
Peter is first, so Vatican one it's a non sequitor. Dude,
Rome is first in the cannons. Okay, that doesn't prove
Vatican one again, guys, every time these people admit. On
the one hand, what does the bar I say?
Speaker 3: The papacy was always there from the earliest days. They
he had this power, but he didn't always use it.
It was just kind of theirs, just kind of you know,
in the background, floating in the recesses of the Vatican.
But he didn't have to always use it. He just
broted up when he wanted to.
Speaker 1: Oh but wait a minute, So it was always there
in the background. He could have he could have thrown
out that boom, plopped down that papal trump card.
Speaker 3: Oh, but he didn't always use it. Well, the papacy
is a doctrine that developed, Yeah, developed.
Speaker 1: So is it always there or does it developed?
Speaker 3: Is this.
Speaker 1: Do we have contact gown contol to me to tom
gown control to me.
Speaker 3: It's a dumb.
Speaker 1: It's not a difficult argument. Roman Catholics. Do you see
that that's a contradiction. I know you're mad at me.
I know you're furious, so you hate me, I don't care.
Pause your hatred and anger for a moment and understand
and think about whether this makes any sense. Some guy says,
I still don't get your point. How could it be
the case that something is a unclear seed doctrine that develops,
but at the same time it's always there and clear
and present. Sis cognitium of the O the thirteenth says
from the early stage of the church. These are mutually
exclusive claims. Dummies, not rocket science. Mhm, it's it's not
that hard. Who can't see that? That's both of those
things can't be this true at the same time. Maybe
maybe in the Roman Cather world they can because of
the double think, right, maybe in their minds.
Speaker 3: Dictions they are true. All both suits me.
Speaker 2: Who is the pastor of that church?
Speaker 1: Who's the pastor that Notice these are all non sequiturs.
Who's the who's the head of the church. If you
don't have a pope, you don't have a head. Again,
just assuming that, because here's another fallacy for example, Uh
so Lofton does this where he says the papacy is
divinely established, and anything divinely established can't go away. Oh really,
I'm pretty sure that a lot of things have been
divinely established that went away, For example, the period of
the Judges. The judges were divinely established. Does divinely establi
bablished therefore lead to eternal perpetuity? That is a great argument,
That's an excellent argument. I'm glad you brought it up.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 1: Paul says the New Testament that all authority comes from God,
including state authority. Does that mean that every state ruler
rules in eternal perpetuity because it's divinely established? That is
a non sequitur. So just because something is just divinely established,
it does not follow that it's an eternal perpetuity. But
this is the stupid fallacy that Lofton says all the time.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they're even when human beings make organizations, there's one
guy on top, there's the Supreme is a general, a
president of prime.
Speaker 1: So again this is just a non sequitor that because
in other institutions human beings have a single visible head,
the Church must have a single visible head.
Speaker 3: These people just.
Speaker 1: Can't fathom that Christ is the head, and they think, well,
he's all on earth.
Speaker 3: Well, how's he going to rule?
Speaker 1: That's what Pentecost is about. What does Jesus say in
the Upper Room when he's talking about Pentecost, I will
not leave you alone. Don't worry. I will be with you.
I will be in your midst. Does he say through
a galactic emperor in France? No, he says through the spirit.
So these people have actually again they lost the spirit
due to the Phillyoquay heresy and it's not an accident
that at the time of Phillyoquay heresy, this is when
we begin to see creeping papalism to next levels, right,
next level, next, and it just grows in the Middle Ages
right from next level, next level, we get unum signed them, right,
we get dictatus pope in the Middle Ages, right, just
crazy level, crazy dimension, crazy pope dimension stuff. Do you
think it's accidental that that occurs after the philioaquay Er
of course not. Why Because the loss of the doctrine
of the Spirit, which leads to the subordination of the spirit,
requires a human replacement for what the Holy Spirit would
and does do they have just stuck the pope in
the place of what the Holy Spirit is supposed to do.
That's why in the Patristic period, the early Fathers, the
post Apostolic fathers, they conceive of the Church as having
its fullness, its catholicity, in the local bishop, not in Rome.
Doesn't mean that Rome didn't have a place of honor,
that wasn't a shining sea. Everybody admits that. But notice
all of these people, all they do is just take
those things. Therefore Vatican one, Therefore, Vatican one, therefore and
that's a non sequitor.
Speaker 2: Minister. It's like that episode of the Office where Jim
and Michael are co managers. It's like you're co managers
and oscars like, of course, who wouldn't make co managers?
What would Catholicism be without the popes?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 1: Interesting because actually his position has the co manager's position
because if you read when I'm sanctum, it basically makes
the pope a kind of co figure with Jesus. So
who's really running the show here? Is it Jesus or
is it actually the Pope has now been put in
place of the role of the Holy Spirit. They just
can't fathom that the Holy Spirit is the one that
actually occupies this role and guides the church. They can't
fathom that you don't know the Holy Spirit without without
the Pope exactly. See, because they don't have the idea
of direct perception of God through the News, through the energies.
All they believe in is created grace, created effects. So
clearly you're going to have a creator did adjudicator the pope.
Speaker 2: But that makes sense because that's what you have an
Eastern Orthodoxy, because all of the bishops have this kind
of equal authority the church becomes fragmented, and so what
happens is there's a lot of stasis.
Speaker 1: And so think, so would that mean that the Roman
Communion is not fragmented? I mean, has anyone checked out
the Roman Communion in the last sixty years? I mean
this is becoming more and more of a really laughable exercise.
And you know, when I look over here at the
audience of pints with Aquinas or Trent, I mean this
is really all geared towards just a very normy low
information audience. Right. These are all people who don't really
know much about these topics at all. They're new to
this stuff, and so they find this very appealing and
very kind of inviting because it sounds good and it
sounds really easy. I'm so tired of my Protestant disputes
at my local church, and it's the way out of
all this, Right. They think it's sort of people that
are on the honeymoon phase. They just start looking at
you know, Patristic quote minds right over on Catholic answers,
and so they hear this stuff and they find it
very convincing because it sounds good, but the reality is
something far different. And guess what if you've watched Matt's
channel over the last couple of years, you've noticed the
struggle that Matt himself has with all these problems, to
the point now where they're having set of a contest
on to debate, who, by the way, have a reputation
for being way more mean than me. But I'm not
allowed to go and debate. They would never have me
on there, As he says, Chido knew that they an't watch.
You know, he's too mean, right, But we all know
that the real reason that they wouldn't allow that is
because they can't handle this level of discussion and debate,
which is why none of them will touch Ubi. Ubi's
better than me on papacy stuff, and none of these
people would. This is I mean again, guys. This is
stuff that I was hearing from Roman Catholics in two
thousand and three, okay, when I first started getting interested
in Roman Catholicism in two thousand and three. Is all
the stuff Trent is repeating. This is meant for and
spoken to very low teer, normy audiences, and all of
these people are quickly learning that this pragmatic stuff doesn't
do much when you get into Rome and you're hearing
all this stuff about what's on paper, and then you
join in. Father Bruce is doing a hip hop mouse.
Let's do a hip hop mouth. I'm gonna wrap you guys.
That's the reality on the ground. That's the novasorto, which
is what eighty ninety percent of their church, not the
fringe Uni eate elements, which by the way, those are bad.
Speaker 2: Two can't possibly change or grow in the sense of
authentic growth. So, to give you an example, since the schism,
the Orthodox have not had an ecumenical council. They can't
call one.
Speaker 1: They can't pull Yeah, but that's actually not true, right,
So since the schism, there have been multiple synods that
are universally received in the Orthodox Church, such as the
Palot White Synods, which our response to Lions and then
also by extension to Florence. So, first of all, that's
not true that we haven't had authoritative synods. Secondly, it's
not actually the normative thing in the church to be
governed by ecumenical councils. Ecumenical councils existed with the Christianization
of the oucumenae, And if Trent's thesis here is correct,
then we would have seen Rome calling ecumenical councils in
the first three hundred years, right, So Trent's arguing that
that really the structure that church should be centered around
Rome calling the shots, calling the councils, saying yes, saying no.
Did any of that exist for three hundred years? Oh so,
on his own argument, his own church lacked the fundamental
things of the church for the first three hundred years.
So he just owned himself by this dumb argument that'sab
we do it.
Speaker 3: No one.
Speaker 2: I have talked to Orthodox friends. They'll say, well, that's
because the Pope would never agree to be a part
of something like that. I said, okay, well why not.
Speaker 1: I don't know what what Orthodox friends he's talking about,
because that's like, you have to have a really dumb
Orthodox person to make that argument that we can't have
an ecumenical council without Francis being involved. Francis is not
part of the church, and neither are these people. And
we have to say this not to be mean to
these people, but that that's our view, that's the honest
Orthodox view. We don't do these people any favors by
pretending that we're all part of the same church. It's
not true.
Speaker 2: And Orthodox Council of just the Orthodox bishops, well one
guy can always just kind of they can't, and so
you're not able to address you don't have that unity
that a person who is given a special authority from
Christ to be, you know, the first among bishops, and
the Orthodox say the pope has that title, but it
doesn't really mean much.
Speaker 1: Well that's interesting because if this is the case, then
why does Ratzinger and by extension, the post Vatican to Vatican,
why do they admit that the Orthodox Church has preserved
its faith and it's doctrines, it's unity for the last
thousand years. So that's an admission that we preserve this
without the papacy for a thousand years. So the papacy
actually isn't necessary.
Speaker 3: So your own.
Speaker 1: Popes admit that we don't need the pope. I mean,
this is in Ratzinger's books. You might disagree with that,
but my point is that, well, how come your authorities recognize.
Speaker 3: That, let's not an infallible statement.
Speaker 1: I don't have to axhipt that, okay, so what right?
Speaker 3: This is?
Speaker 1: All they do is spur out and go to this
arbitrary of when it's infallible when it's not infallible, which
again they're going to have to have an infallible criteria
when they say what isn't isn't infallible or else. That
whole system falls apart into the contradiction. But as we've seen,
they're not very good at logic and epistemology.
Speaker 2: But when you go back to the New Testament, it
seems clear to me and even to many non Catholic commenters,
that Peter was given special authority in.
Speaker 1: The early So here we go again. The only things
that matter to them are Matthew sixteen, right, So it's
like they don't care about the Bible at all until
they want to do isid Jesus with Isaiah twenty two
in Matthew sixteen. They don't care about anything else. Do
they go to Acts fifteen where Peter is not the
voice of God and the final authority where it's James. No,
they don't do that, or they do this stupid thing
where they try to argue that it's a different Peter
in Galatians one or a fact. I mean, just silly
mental gymnastics. The whole system is nothing. But I'll use
the Bible for when it backs up the paper seat.
The rest of the time. I don't care what the
Bible says, and they don't, especially the trads. I mean
they even say that they're happy that they don't read
the Bible, many of the trads that they're said on
on Twitter all the time, right Reading the Bible is
a Protestant thing. They think the sell delusional and idiotic
these people are, but I mean, these are just terrible arguments.
This is this is car salesmanship. It's not argumentation. It's
let me sell you something, and uh, you'll deal with
the problems of what it really is down the road.
It's a car. It's a car salesman. It's an online entrepreneur.
Bro right, it's get involved in my crypto yield farming scam.
There might be some problems down the road, but you're
gonna make big books in the in the meantime. Right now,
it's like a religious Ponzi scheme. And can't you guys
see that it's there. It's a salesmanship thing, like it's
a it's a it's a it's an ad. It's a
sales pitch.
Speaker 2: Church. J. N. D. Kelly was an Anglican scholar, says
that Peter was undoubtedly the leader of the Early Church.
Speaker 1: Again, nobody disputes this was disputed as that leader of
the Early Church Coryphaeus having your name changed, that that
equates the Vatican One. Again, it's a bait and switch,
and he knows. I don't even think he's probably read
Vatican one, right, because in the in the debates, and
when I listened to him, and when we when we
did the deconstruction of his whole theme, it wasn't evident
to me that he actually has read what the texta
Vatican One actually says. Printed out it's fifteen pages. Go
to that peoplencyclicals dot net print out the whole fifteen
pages of the Vatican One, and also print out Satist
Cognidium because it's just as important, because it's a papal
explanation of Vatican one's ideas by Leo the thirteenth. I
know he's not the popa Vatican One, but I'm saying
that Satist Coggnidium lays out the theology of the papacy
about itself. Okay, I don't think he knows what Vatican
one actually says. I don't think Trent has read Denzinger
from cover to cover, and when you do read dnsing
or from cover to cover, will these people will not
debate you. That's why they won't debate me.
Speaker 2: And this is mentioned more than anyone else put together.
Speaker 1: Again, none of this proves Vatican One. So this is
all spacious argumentation. It's all fallacious argumentation. But remember these
people are not very swift when it comes to epistemology
and argumentation. They constantly make these non sequitor It doesn't
follow from that the Vatican one is the case, right,
So they're trying to seed to you. And I know
this because this is how I was duped into all
these these papal views. Right. My thought process was, here's
all the quote minds about Peter and Rome, so this
has got to be this has got to be true.
It's got to be where it's at. But I didn't realize,
Oh wait a minute, what if it's more nuanced than that.
What if the Orthodox reading is another alternative reading of
all this stuff? Because maybe it doesn't follow that because
of this statements about Peter that Vatican one is the case,
because Vatican one is many many centuries after this stuff, right,
So he's trying to get you to think, well, because
there's these statements about Peter, we've got the goods, and
doesn't it obviously follow that all the other stuff is true?
But no, it doesn't. And remember he's a foundationalist. This
is all an evidentialist base anyway, So how am I
supposed to know from these piece mal pieces of data
that he's throwing out there that Vatican one centuries later
is the case that doesn't follow, that doesn't follow on
his system.
Speaker 2: He speaks for the group in Matthew chapter ten when
the apostles are listed. This is kind of funny, Pete, Well,
you look at the apostolic lists and almost all of them.
Speaker 1: Okay, this is all just the I mean, none of
this proves Vatican one, and he's not being honest with
the audience or he just doesn't know what Vatican one says,
because he's acting as if like this leads to the
Roman Calli view. I'm gonna skip ahead because this is
all just you know, just typical, uh, you know, Peter, Peter, Peter,
therefore Vatican one. And does he ever list or talk
about the things that don't comport with the Vatican one
reading of this stuff? For example, Paul rebuking Peter and
telling him that he's completely wrong about the gospel. How
does that come with this Bologney line that Trent is
spilling here. How does Acts fifteen not putting Peter as
the final mouthpiece of God comport with what he's saying.
How does the fact that Jesus says to the entire
college of the Apostles in Matthew eighteen, the very same
thing he says in Matthew sixteen comport with this. They
never talk about that. All they care about is Matthew
sixteen and propping up this big, dumb system. That's all
they care. They don't even care about the objections. They
blow past every objection. They don't even treat the objections.
Speaker 2: He didn't want to, He didn't want to offend the
Jews with him, and Paul's like, come on, man, you
say one thing and then you're not going to dine
with the Gentiles, just setting a bad example. He was
not he was not beducing, he was not walking upright
in the faith. Well, like you go to an orthopedic
surgeon means get your back straight. So Paul is saying,
you're not walking with straight back. You're not walking up
right like this. But here's what's interesting. He was like,
that shows he's not infallible. No, it just shows Peter
as he's wont to do gaffs. The pope can make mistakes.
Speaker 1: Oh okay, so wait a minute. So Peter's failure to
preach the Gospel and to concede to the Judaizing heresy,
which Paul calls a heresy, Trent has reformatted and spun
this as it's a gaff. Dude, he the popes make mistakes.
But Trent, what does Vatican wan? Which is what you're
trying to ultimately sell. You're not talking about Vatican One.
You're doing a Mormon type of thing where you introduce
people to the easy, pragmatic stuff and then later on
down the road, five percent of the Roman Catholics actually
go and read what Vatican one actually says, which is
what you're actually selling to people. Okay, like the whole
you know, scientology, what's the what's the real the things
that cling to you, that's the real doctrine scientologists, Right,
the real Mormon doctrine is the space cult. Well they
don't tell you that when they come to the door. Okay,
and he's not telling you that. No, actually you're having
to buy into Vatican one, which actually says that Rome
can't defect. The occupant of the sea then can't defect.
But what is going on in Galatians Paul calls a
defection from the gospel, which Trent spun as it's just
a gaff.
Speaker 5: Did he just it's a little in he tripped over,
you know, if he fell over, he didn't really mean
to do. It's it's a lie, dude, you're spinning. Have
you actually read what Galatians says about this mistake? The
whole context of.
Speaker 1: Paul talking about Peter's mistake, He calls a departure from
the gospel. That would mean Rome departed from the gospel,
which would mean that it can one is wrong, stop lying, geem.
Speaker 2: And we be talking about that one for a while.
But it doesn't take away from his authority. In fact,
what's interesting here the fact that Paul it.
Speaker 1: Does take away from his authority because if he departs
from the gospel, Paul says, he's accursed. So do you
think that the head of your church can be accursed
outside of the church, but also the authoritative head? Notice
what he did the bait and switch. The whole system
is just the worship of authority.
Speaker 3: That's it.
Speaker 1: Roman Catholicism is worship of authority, bear authority. Hence, you
can confect the Eucharist as a Roman Catholic priest. If
the day you get ord ed you become a Satanist,
literally for the rest of your life, you can still
confect the eu Christ validly, efficaciously. You're a sinner, You're
going to hell, but you can still confect the This
is so stupid. This whole system is so ridiculous and
so dumb that it literally takes at this point, I
think crazy people to still believe this.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 1: I don't think Trent is crazy, but I think Trent
has bills to pay, so there is not much incentive
for Trent to It's going to be a rough road
for him to admit that this is all a bunch
of gibberish and he's wrong. But what do you really
care about what's true? Or getting a paycheck or having
how many subscribers does he have? Two word two hundred
and seventy k.
Speaker 3: Say what made is? Say what made is?
Speaker 1: I'll get a special indulgence if I hit three hundred
years and subscribe it Galatians.
Speaker 2: What he's trying to show people is not he is
not beholden to human authority. Over and over again he says,
I didn't get the Gospel as some mere human tradition.
I got it from God. I got the Gospel. Now
I confirmed it. I went to Peter. In Galatians one
nineteen it says that Paul went to Peter and Jerusalem
to do a his store ray si which we get
what word from history? That's right, history side and Greek
is a fact finding mission. He went to confirm it.
But he's not beholden to human authorities as the ultimate
source of his revelation, so they don't bully him around.
Paul will stand for the truth. And he'll even stand
up to Peter.
Speaker 1: Oh really sound like Vatican one, Trent.
Speaker 2: Now why he may? Why does he make note of Peter?
Because Peter has the most authority, right, I will even
oppose Peter.
Speaker 1: So mouthpiece authority. None of that equates to Vatican one. Again,
all non sequitors. The whole thing is bait and switch,
just telling you that because there is this place, because
Rome has this pre eminence, that the Roman, therefore Roman
Catholic doctions are all true, it doesn't follow. In other words,
there's an Orthodox read and maybe the Orthodox reading is wrong, right,
But my point is that there's an Orthodox reading of
all of this stuff, and it's ignored because the idea
is just that, look at all these quote minds, look
at my reading of Galatians and all this stuff, and
therefore Vatican one. That's essentially what he's saying, even though
he's not saying that or making any reference to Vatican One,
but he knows that Vatican one is the council about
the papacy.
Speaker 2: When he's wrong, because he's not right about everything, even
though he is. He has the most authority here in
the children.
Speaker 1: Oh what's Paul actually saying. Peter's wrong about though, right,
So notice he keeps he brushes past this devastating text
to the papacy, to Vatican One, he brushes past all that. Well,
he's not always right. I don't know the gospel. This
is about the gospel. The whole context is Peter saying
that if you went at the sum me, Paul saying that,
if you went with Peter's error, you're a cursed that's
a defection from the faith. Vatican One says Rome can't defect.
So his own proof text from this passage disprove Vatican
One because it's about defecting from the Gospel. Have you regulations? Won?
He says, if you depart from the Gospel that I preached,
you're a cursed And his example was Peter. Now Peter
repented because Paul rebuked him. So the whole point of
this text of Paul is that even Peter can be
rebuked if he errs. This is all spun to be
the opposite in their exegesis to be that Paul went
to Peter to see if he was correct, and Paul
found out, Oh oops, Peter made a gaff. He just
kind of messed up. Is that what he says? No,
he says that he departed from the Gospel. That equates
to defecting from the faith. That is the very thing
that Vatican one says Rome can never do. Peter is Rome.
Their exegesis proves he departed.
Speaker 3: From the faith in Galatians.
Speaker 1: It's like, did they even read the text or did
he just read quote minds from other Roman Catholic apologists
or did he actually even read Galatians? Is he just
repeating Dahlgreen and Hesse's book.
Speaker 2: Church, And for me, historically, when you look at the
writings of Ignatius of Antioch, the Letter of Clement, the
writings of Saint Aeron, as going forward, even among Eastern
fathers like Maximus the Confessor, I see a very clear
historical trajectory that the apostolic orders are to continue, this
to be apostolic succession, but that one of the apostles
had authority, special authority.
Speaker 1: So they all have authority. Matthew eighteen has the exact
same promises to the College of Apostles that Peter has.
In the Roman Catholic system. What are the things that
bishops have? They have the office of the Keys, the
preaching of the Gospel, the administration of sacraments, jurisdiction. Okay,
this is what a bishop has in the Roman Catholic
system that's only had in commune with Rome. Right, So
what is it exactly that Peter has that the others
don't have? In the Gospels? Nothing, There's nothing, because the
very things that they list as the office the exercise
of the Keys, is the very thing that's given to
and said to all of them. So the only thing
that Peter is given here is Premissy and being first
among equals, that is the orthodox reading of all of this.
First among equals. No problem with that, but also no
problem in rebuking the first among equals in Galatians one
when he departs from the Gospel, which he can clearly
do because Peter did that, which disproves Vatican one right there.
Because Vatican one says Rome can never depart from the faith. Period,
then they introduce.
Speaker 6: Oh, but he can depart as an individual, but not
as the official.
Speaker 3: Teacher that you know.
Speaker 1: Actually that's not the case because Vatican One does not
make the distinction between the individual occupant of the sea
and the official papacy speaking from the voice of God,
mouth of Peter. Blah blah blah. Yeah, I know there's
ex cathedral, Okay, but that is infallibility. I'm talking about
indeffectibility where we are told that the Roman Sea and
its occupant, Okay, the Roman Sea is not a Nestorian
ideal papal thing. It's a thing that has living successors
in it. According to Vatican One, until the end of
the world, those living successors cannot defect from the faith. So,
citing Robert Bellerman and all this stuff prior to Vatican
One doesn't matter anymore. You can't go reverse retrogate grade
and bring up all things in the Roman Catholic system
that are already settled Vatican One. Settle these issues in
Vatican One as clear as day. The Roman Sea cannot defect.
So you can cite Lasilette, you can cite all this
nonsense which is prior to Vatican One, which doesn't apply anymore.
According to Vatican one, elected successors of the See of
Rome cannot depart from the faith because the terrorism is
given to the living successors in that seat. They might
be individual sinners, but they can't depart from the faith.
They can't become apostates and heretics. So it's irrelevant what
Robert Bellman speculated on and thought about centuries before Vatican One.
It doesn't matter anymore.
Speaker 2: Tho, it's not as a tyrant, not as someone who
can boss everyone else around, as like a dictator, but
as someone to provide leadership to the oit.
Speaker 1: He's not somebody who can boss everybody around as a dictator.
Or what about the medieval popes who would excommunicate anybody
who wouldn't be conscripted to fight in their wars. What
about the Avignon popes to erect the giant palaces in France,
the Sea of Peter in France, which they believe they
believe the See of Peter was translated to France.
Speaker 2: Others to provide a cohesive whole. And there's an element
of this in the Gospel of Luke. If you remember,
the apostles are debating amongst each other, and they say,
go to Jesus and say who's the greatest. And now
some Protestants will say, well, Jesus should have said Peter
he's the pope, or the apostles should have known Peter
is the pope. Who's the greatest among us? But notice
what Jesus does not say. He doesn't say there is
no greatest your equals. He says, the greatest among you
shall be a servant to the others.
Speaker 1: Okay, yeah, argument from silence, which is not a good argument.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: Well, he doesn't say that there's not a greatest. Oh, okay,
so I guess we can still throw papacy in there,
right He says the least among you is the greatest.
Does the history of the papacy is it characterized by
history of humility and being the least or is it
characterized by a worldly institution that has sought worldly geopolitical
power at every possible instance and in every conceivable way,
with a gigantic banking empire and endless intrigue and espionage
and machinations over the centuries. Does that really does that
sound like the least among you? Is that? So that's
what Jesus was talking about, right, Borgia Popes, right incest orgies.
Is that what Jesus is talking about, is that the
least among us?
Speaker 6: Now again he's gonna say, well, you're falling into the
idea that sinners that you lose an office from Sin. No, no,
I'm not talking about losing an office from Sin. I'm
talking about the total opposite of what you just characterize,
supposedly the office of Peter az Pope's saying that I
am above every emperor in the world. I depose all
the emperors in the world. I will conscript entire armies
to fight in battles for me. And if you don't,
who in their right mind.
Speaker 1: Thinks that that's what Jesus had in mind? Now in
their view, they have to say that that's what they think. Jesus, Yeah,
that's what Jesus had in mind. That's why these tribes
are so crazy. Right, So in other words, Jesus was
actually saying that whoever builds the prettiest whorehouse next to
the Vatican, that's the greatest among you, right, whoever employs
the least of the horrors throughout Italy is the greatest
among you.
Speaker 2: And then immediately after that, which we lose because I
want to say, it's Luke twenty two to Luke twenty three.
But that section in Luke it's not a chapter break,
it's a heading break because it's in the same chapter,
but we usually add a heading in there to show
it's a different, you know, different thing that's being talked about.
It goes to where Jesus says to Simon Simon Simon
Satan has wants to sift you like wheat you all
is the plural in the Greek. He wants to sift
all of you, y'all, but I have prayed for you
singular for your faith. And then he tells him to
go and strengthen his brethren. So that so what's interesting
here is that section takes place immediately after the greatest
Who is the greatest among us?
Speaker 1: I was hoping I could find the Borgia section where
he's sneaking over to the whorehouse. I think it's this
is this the least among you? I think this is it?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 1: If you not watch the Borges, by the way, I
highly recommend it, because, I mean, let's get into the
reality of the medieval papacy. Okay. My argument is not
that the Orthodox have no, you know, corrupt bishops. That's
not my argument. This is not what I'm looking for.
I think that is the mistress that he has. There's
this funny scene where Jeremy Irons is like sneaking through
the tunnels over to the whorehouse. That's what I was
trying to find, but I can't find it anyway. Is
that what characterizes the humility of this office? Now he's
gonna say, you just.
Speaker 7: Keep appealing to the moral feelings, and there were Orthodox
bishops who were moral feelers, But you just made the
argument that the office will be first because of its
recognizable humility.
Speaker 1: And who can honestly with a straight face say this
about the history of the papacy, especially the Borgia era.
I mean, really, is it really characterized by the humility
that would make them first among equals or first among
non equals.
Speaker 2: Well, the greatest shall be a servant. And in fact,
since the early Church, one of the titles of the
papacy is the servant of the servants of God agreed.
And so i'd recommend for especially if I have anyst
orthodox listeners or others who might struggle with the papacy,
I would recommend Pope. Saint John Ball the second wrote
encyclical on this called ut unum sint it's u t
U n U m s I n t stuh that
talks about how the papacy can provide unity in the church,
but without uh stamping out legitimate diversity and liturgy and
other things like that. And that's the thing that's a
painful lesson we had to learn in church history. Yeah,
I mean you have people saying like you can't.
Speaker 1: What about castwriting the young boys to be the pope's
official singers? Is that is that?
Speaker 2: Like?
Speaker 1: Is that a humble, humble act? Well, I guess it's
it's humility to get rid of balls and testically is right,
So I guess that is a great action of humility.
So I look up the watch the Borges. If you've
never seen this, it's it's loosely kind of based on
you know, reality, So if you've not watched the Borgias,
it's really good. It gets into a lot of the intrigues,
and it really dispels a lot of this propaganda about
the Vatican as this you know, institution of benevolence and humility.
I mean, this is the reality what was going on
for centuries. So but I can't find the scene where
he's sneaking across in the tunnels to his to his
to his hose over there.
Speaker 2: You know, you's leven bread or you can't do this
in your liturgy. No, God has allowed a diversity of
ways to be able to worship Him that each communicate
different truths, all while being united around very core truths
that have been revealed.
Speaker 1: To us anyway, So that really that was really weak.
I mean that was just kind of a normy kind
of thing for the average viewer.