Speaker 1: Bible doesn't prove that Jesus established the papacy in the
sense of what Vatican I mandates Roman Catholics and the
world to believe the papacy is and to believe that
that's what was established early in the first century. In
other words, Satis Cognitium specifically says that the Vatican One
idea of the papacy is not new, but was what
was set up at the beginning. And I don't think
he demonstrated that because he can't. It's similar to the
exact same discussion that I had with his brother. If
you don't remember, we did do a debate with his brother,
Dave Gordon, and the progress of that debate was very similar.
I always forget the name of this What is the
name of that debate? I can never find it because
it's on it's on a weird channel. I'll never find it.
I know you guys have linked it many times because
it's they titled it something weird and it never comes
up in the search. But anyway, it's the you'll notice
very a very similar parallels between the two debates. Mm hmm, yeah,
I mean, I I like tim a lot. I haven't
had any interaction with Dave Gordon since this time, and
there was a Baptist pastor. It was a it was
a three way debate, and I don't know, can you
guys remember what it's called. It's the one where Bryson
shows up. Yeah, Bryson Gray pops up and he's like,
what about the passage to talk about Filer law? Gotta
believe it. Anyway, it was exact same debate pretty much.
I do think Tim is a better apologist, but as
we saw, it was really just kind of a reliance
on standard quote minds without context. So I don't really
see any I think a lot of Roman Catholics were shook,
and not just because of this, but it's been a
bad couple of months for the Roman Catholics because not
only was this debate about three big issues pretty much
a loss across the board seventy five I won Roman
Catholics coping, but also we had this whole the whole
fiasco of Muslims, Christians and Jews worshiped the same God,
and that one was a big l for the Roman Catholics.
Uh yeah, somebody put the title of that. Let me
see what it is. Yeah, we're not going to do
a debate recap in review right now, because I'm going
to save that for doing it with Lewis and Kai.
I just saw somebody put the title of the debate
in there. Now I can't find it there. It is
Orthodox Catholic theology doctor Easily. I can never remember that
Boomer's name. He was like the most smug dude ever though.
That was That was funny. Yeah, if you watch this debate,
you'll notice Roman Catholics pretty much run a script. Okay
to see it doesn't come up because they titled something
different on YouTube Here we go IDG Presents. That's why,
because it's on Mike's channel and he gave it some
title that nobody can ever find, probably on purpose because
the Catholics didn't do very well. So if you go
to watch this todate with Tim's brother Dave Gordon, it's
kind of a repeat scenario. Anyway, it's not looking good
for Roman Catholics. They're beat down, but you know, they
really have a lot of they have a lot of challenges,
They have a lot of things they got to try
to make sense of. So really the heavy lifting is
on their side to make this stuff. Yeah, Marilyn made
a good point. That debate ended up converting Gina to
become orthodox. Yeah, Mike is still sassy and fussy. He
talks a lot of shit and he won't come debate,
so it ended up blocking him and he's still mad.
But it's like, dude, you just talk shit. You don't
do anything about it, Like, what's the point of interacting.
But today we're gonna start with some other stuff. One
of the things that came up. I'm aware that Nick
has mentioned the debate. I saw the clips. Yeah, you
guys that I anytime somebody mentions me, fifty people send
me the clips. I'm aware. You know, when when people
keep mentioning me and saying stuff, I assume they're looking
for debate, I assume they're looking for something kind of interaction.
And then you talk about it. Oh look at him
Angle Whiting. Okay, yeah, whatever, you know, you can't win,
So no matter how you go about it, It's just
that's why I don't even associate with most of that
is here and beyond beyond this. Really, I don't think
there's any need for continued rummy Calviy debates. It's about it,
like there's nothing else. I mean, Tim, Tim pretty much
solidified all the major critiques that we've had. They don't
know our position, they're ignorant of it, they're not going
to understand it, they don't care to read it. They're
going to do quote minds, and they're going to say
crazy things like the Spirit's pirrates himself, God's glory is
a creature, there is no evidence for a geopolitical power
of the papacy in the first millennium. There we go.
That's pretty much a concession to all the critiques that
we make, and it's pretty much all the stuff that's
again admitted in the Alexandria Chi eighty documents, that kind
of stuff. So what's the point of continuing the same
Roman Catholic debate. I thought Cleave to Antiquity had a
really good comment. Again, we're not covering the debate today,
we'll do that in the next few days with Urhan.
Cleve to Antiquity had a pretty good comment that a
lot of Roman Catholics just assume between the two positions
that Protestant Catholic Catholics have a better argument against Protestants,
and they become low information converts and then they kind
of get in this rut where they just kind of
spin the wheels when any significant challenges are brought or
Orthodox and it just ends up being quote Minds Maquis Smiths,
the papacy Jesus established. It's like, I don't care what
contradictions or problems happened within the last two thousand years.
Jesus established the papacy. So they have a solar scripture
mindset about defending the papacy from the text of scripture,
which is odd because they should understand that it's the
tradition of the Church that interprets the text, as they
always tell the Protestants. But when it comes to debating
with the Orthodox, we're going to try to go solar scripture,
prove the papacy from the text of scripture. But the
text of scripture don't teach the Vatican one view of
the papacy. And that's what he needed to demonstrate because
that's what you're bound to. You're not bound to the
idea of a papacy that you then, as a Roman Catholic,
interject into it whatever ideas and positions you think it is.
You're bound to the dogmatic definitions of the Roman Church
itself about itself and about its understanding of the text.
That's what he needed to demonstrate, not the isogesis of
reading today's or Vatican One's interpretation back two thousand years
into those text. That's what was I think the biggest fail.
He would have done a lot better too. Again, it's
the last thing I'm gonna say, and we're gonna say, well,
we're gonna move on. We're gonna do this real review
later this week. I don't want to spoil too much
of the comments afterwards. There's a million clips going up,
which is great. I've I've sent Tim links articles, books
four or five years. So the first time I talked
to Tim and we discussed doing this debate was five
years ago. And it's very similar to other Roman Catholics
who have disagreed with me on this topic. If after
multi and I understand Tim has a large family, he's
very busy five years. If after five years they're not
gonna read our material, there's not there's no point in
doing the debate because it's just doing it for, you know,
promoting Catholicism, promoting the channel. I don't fault him for
wanting to promote his position and promote his channel. I'm
just saying like it would be a much better debate
if you had actually read the source material Number one
from the Cappadocians, number two from our secondary theologians or
academics that are neither Roman, Catholic or Orthodox, or Sashensky
who went from Catholic to Orthodox. But well, he's busy,
he's got his own Okay, but I understand you're busy.
But if you're going to agree to a debate and
you want to understand the deposition, and I've sent you
the links in the books for five years, you should
have done it. So yeah, and yes, I saw my
material is gay. Do you want to come on a debate,
Zach Sylvas, Zach, let me know if you like to
hop onto debate today, because I can create a space
a debate if you want to do that. Because all
the Rumman Calvig's by the way, in response to this debate,
because it was such a resounding loss, and Tim said
so many just preposterous theological, heretical statements. Okay, let me
make a space for Zach to come debate all they've
had since this and I've read through hundreds of rumancale
comments since the debate. I've not seen one Roman Catholic
actually address any single theological argument or point. All they've
said is how much a piece of a shit I
am and how much they hate me, which tells me
that that's actually a sign that you guys are really
weak in your position. So this again, that's a good sign.
It's a good sign because that's the natural phases of
mourning and coping after a death. So after the death
of the romancaled position. Yeah, if he doesn't come on,
you just just boot him, because we don't waste time
for this kind of stu of open debate any topic
versus Jay Dyer within reason, by the way, any topic
within reason, because then everybody's all these goowers are gonna
hop on here and start trying to like tiny mustache
man was a hero. All right, I'm creating the link
right now for the live space, and I'll go ahead
and start that. You can hop in. Let me give
myself the link over here on X excellent there, And
I says, what about breakfast at Pimphones? And she said,
I think I remember something. All right, here you go, dude.
We love the smack talkers in the chat, but we
have a rule over here. If you talk smack in
the chat. You got to come to debate. So there's
the link right there. We don't care if you have
the excuse, Oh, I don't have Twitter. I've never used it.
There's a link right there. What do you mean, where's
the link? It's literally right there, and he's like, where's
the link. We are going to talk about the topics
of geopolitics, of the papacy, espionage. I want to refresh
on that because I did my closing statement in the
debate about that topic in part because I had actually
forgotten that there's multiple sort of globalist internationalist arguments and
statements in the documents of Vatican Two. We get so
focused on Vatican Two's you know, statements on the Jews
and the Muslims and all the kind of humanist syncretous stuff,
and I forgot about all the statements in Gaudiumit's as
the Church in the Modern World, the missionary Activity of
the Church document, all of which have these pretty wild
like New World Order, John the twenty third patchaman Terra's uh,
you know statements. So let me start the room here,
see if this guy will come. So what we're gonna
do today is go through some of the highlights of
some of the key texts that relate to the geopolitics
of the papacy. And then we will I wasn't really
planning on doing an open forum today, but I don't
mind doing it right now. What do you mean now
he's lying. The link doesn't do anything. The link takes
you to Twitter. What are you talking about? The link
doesn't do anything, even though there's all already like people
popping into the room. Are you the Zachary Sylvius?
Speaker 2: There?
Speaker 1: There we go? All right, I'm all right, I'm inviting
you to speak. Zach, come back in the room. Try again,
come out and come back in. Are you Zach still? Yeah?
I saw you pop up, so come back in the room.
It might have booted you because I just hit un mute.
There we go. No, wait, that's not it. Try again
to come back in. Sometimes it boots people right when
the thing is starting up. We will look at I
don't care if he's trolling, like, well, he's not trolling
because he actually hopped up in here. So I saw
him in here. And we always give people who disagree
the ability to come to debate, Otherwise they just get
booted because they're just wasting everybody's time. Where are you at?
Speaker 3: Dude?
Speaker 1: I saw you, I gave you the invite to speak,
and then you disappeared. So I don't know if it
booted you or if you ran, but I created the
room for you. We'll be talking about forgotten elements of
Anglo American establishment. They relate to the papacy in Roman
Catholicism in terms of the nWo Where are you at, dude?
So this is like, this is what we deal with
with the Roman Catholics. They're so cowardly and terrified that
all they had left is just And by the way,
did you notice how nasty the chat was yesterday? Tim
was like, yeah, Jay brought all of his bots when
literally the chat people will screen shot at it was
all like the most disgusting gay stuff from Roman Catholics.
It was just nasty. But what do we expect? I mean,
Roman Catholics basically just a bunch of gay guys anyway,
So that's another reason to avoid that sphere, is so
that I can kind of keep the Skittles people away
from me. Doesn't mean I'm not gonna be friends with Tim,
because it's confirmed Tim as hetero, he has children, but
the rest of that crew, It's like, what's the point, Like,
you guys are openly in a church that blesses gay unions,
So now you ran away, what do you expect? So
I'm gonna leave this here because I want people who
disagree to call in you only. I'm only going to
people who disagree. I will not take any Catechuman questions period.
Not doing that today. I want to have a chill
chat stream session. We're gonna have fun, and if he
pops back up in the chat, just I'm gonna I'm
already gonna go ahead and boot that guy because he's
full of shit. So there's coward number one talking smack
and then runs away boo boo boo boo boo boo
boo boo. Again. I've literally not seen a single Catholic
argument about any of the content of the debate. All
they talk about is me personally, which is literally like
the weakest crap ever. Dude, that's so weak? Uh? Did
somebody already delete him? Because now I don't see him.
I can't find his profile. How do these people know?
How do I join? What what do I do? Like
nobody's ever used Twitter spaces, We've been doing this for
like eight years. Here all right, we got rid of him.
Oh wait, he misses me right here, right before I
boot it. Unless see what he says. Can I call you? You can't.
I don't know. You can't call me? What he's talking about?
Go to the Twitter space, you idiot doesn't it's not unavailable?
What are you talking about? Can you call me? That's
O gay? Like, I'm gonna give you my phone number.
Maybe he means call me on Twitter. Let's see if
he's on on here. I mean I saw you in here,
So I don't know how you're saying that it's unavailable
when you were literally in the room in the space.
I don't know why you wouldn't be tell me your hand.
All right now he's already blocked. It's just waste of time.
These people are so pathetic. I really want him to
come on though, because every time we get these people
like this, like they're they're absolute the absolute worst and
the end of being really good funny content. I think
I can here, I'll unblock you, and then I think,
if I can find your profile, I will add you,
and then I think I can call you at nine
seven six dire What was his name, Zachary's Silvius. I
think I see him here. If that's you, I just
followed you Zachary's Sylvis. Yeah, he's talking about Martin Luther,
so that's got to be him. If you want to
follow me back, Zachary, then I think we can do
a call via Twitter. I think that'll work, Zachary. I
followed you followed me back, and then we can do
it a one on one call. Anyway. Uh, guys, I'm
not taking anybody's calls unless you disagree. So, and we're
not doing Q and A and Catechyuman stuff, so don't
even call me about that. I'm just literally gonna drop you.
So don't set yourself up for a situation where you
get your feelings hurt and then you hate me and
you're mad at me for the next five years. Because
I didn't want to talk about your question when I
specifically said I'm not taking Categyuman FAQs. I'm only talking
to people today who disagree with anything. I don't care
what otherwise, don't call in, Okay, zach says he followed me.
Let's say if we can do a call. Okay, here
we go. This might shut down the space though I
think it will. I might restart the space. If somebody
wants to come to day let me, I'm gonna call him,
and then it's gonna shut the space down. It says
I can call you when you send me a direct message.
So I DMed you and then I'll be able to
call you. In order to call this account, you must
send a direct message. This is a passive aggressive spiration.
Did you hear that, Zach? You have to d M
me before I can call you, and then then we
can do a call. Well, I turned the room off.
There's no room now because in order to call him,
I have to shut down the room. Okay, here we go. Hey,
j Yeah, why is my argumentation and my stuff gay?
Speaker 3: I was just being inflammatory with that. I don't think
it's actually homosexual. I think that, uh my, my. I
think my view on.
Speaker 2: The the Peter.
Speaker 4: Getting the keys and uh, you know, by loosing and
also the gates of Hell not prevailing to me, Uh yeah,
all the other apostles got binding and loosing, but they
didn't get the keys.
Speaker 1: And you know what the office of the keys is.
Speaker 4: Well, I know from a little bit from the Old Testament.
Speaker 1: In Catholic theology, and in Orthodox theology, what is it?
Speaker 3: It's the authority given to Peter. Uh to the key
of the kingdom.
Speaker 1: So the office of the keys is the authority of
the keys given to Peter. It's the keys.
Speaker 4: Uh, well, I I get the the keys.
Speaker 1: What is it symbol What does it symbolize? In Roman
Catholic theology? How do you guys speak of the office
of the keys?
Speaker 4: I don't always speak about the office of.
Speaker 2: The pope and the keys.
Speaker 1: What is the what is the exercise of the keys?
It's jurisdiction, preaching of the Gospel, the administration of sacraments,
and the forgiving of Since that's the office of the
keys in your theology and an orthodoxology to by the way, Yeah,
OK So if that's what it is, then what is
it that Peter has that's unique that the other ones
don't have? If that's what it has defied us?
Speaker 4: So the see of Peter, the patrin see the gates
of Hell won't prevail against that one.
Speaker 2: Oh wait that one?
Speaker 1: Hold on? How many patrins seeds are there?
Speaker 3: There's one, are you? Yeah? There's one? Guy, Peter?
Speaker 1: Well wait a minute, how many How many seeds did
Peter set up.
Speaker 4: Well, his office, so the office of the keys. As
you're saying, the patrin.
Speaker 1: But now you've now you've equivocated. Now you've moved the goalpost.
Because how many seeds did he say? How many?
Speaker 3: See? I don't know.
Speaker 1: You don't know what that means. You don't know what
that means.
Speaker 3: Okay, explain it to me, because to me, it seems.
Speaker 1: Like, have you read Saint Gregory the Great?
Speaker 3: I've read the Bible, and I know.
Speaker 1: You've read the Bible, So you don't know. You're laughing?
What is it? You're not familiar with your own people
teaching about the three patrin sees.
Speaker 3: I do know that the gates of Hell have prevailed.
Speaker 1: So you're not actually answering your question. I'm not asking
about that. I'm asking about Epistol Epistol forty of Pope
Saint Gregory the Great? What is that about?
Speaker 4: Well, I'm saying, from an utilitarian standpoint, you guys get
conquered by the Muslims.
Speaker 1: Every time I said so, he calls my information gay
and he comes with the very argument that Augustine refused
in the City of God, which is that the true
Church is proven by political, political, and military Prowess, Pupe
St Gregory, Pope, Saint Gregory. You don't even know your
own positions, man, you don't know your own church's position, Gregory.
He's laughing. So look at Gregory, they're great. Look at
this letter, okay, letter forty. He says there are three
patrin sees that all share that here, Peter, Rome, Antioch,
and Alexandria. So you're totally wrong about there being one patrincy.
Speaker 5: Yeah, okay, well well utilitarian, uh well okay, So you
don't know anything Orthodox, so you know that's an that's
a truth quake.
Speaker 1: Conquered by communists? You know, do you know how many
do you know how many times the Roman Catholic Church
has lost to Muslims? Did you know that? It was
Uni eight?
Speaker 3: It was conquered by conquered.
Speaker 1: And then when Constantinople fell? Was it? When did it?
What religion did it have? What religion did it have
when it fell? What religion? What religion was Constantinople when
it fell?
Speaker 3: You guys have failed.
Speaker 1: What religion was Constantinople when it fell?
Speaker 3: I think?
Speaker 1: So it's numbers. It's your arguments that are gay, because
they're not even good arguments they're stupid arguments. According to you,
what religion was Constantinople when it fell, it was.
Speaker 4: It had been conquered by the Latins, I believe at
one point.
Speaker 1: So you just refuted yourself, you idiot. Then Rome is
false because it fell to That was the dumbest shit ever.
This is the level of Roman Catholics. This is what
they had. It is always the lowest tier nonsense, and
they don't care about what the arguments are. Every single
time I told you it would be pure trash. When
he called in, you lost to the Muslims. You lost
to the Muslims according to what you just said, because
you said you fell, Constantinople fell, and then you admitted
it was uniate, you idiot. Oh, I just know the Bible.
The Bible doesn't teach Vatican one well utilitarianism. Oh does
the Bible teach utilitarianism? A seventeenth century Anglo empiricist ethic,
how many seas are pettering? Three seas all the way
up as late as Pope Saint Gregory the Great. So
what he needs to demonstrate is why there's something special
about the See of Peter in Rome, given that there's
three sees. Well in the earliest days of the Church.
The reason that Rome was special is because it's doubly Apostolic.
Oh but wait a minute, Vatican one says that you
can't say that Rome is special because it's doubly apostolic.
Paul has nothing to do with it. According to Vatican One,
Insati's called metum so notice that he had nothing. And
these people are so arrogant and so ridiculous and stupid.
They don't even realize that the argument that military victories
prove or disprove the religion is the very thing that
Augustin's City of God has written against. That's how stupid
they are. Now he and I will never interact again.
He's not coming back here. It was too dumb, and
that's why he just goes off, changing the subject into
shit that's not even real utilitarian ethics, like as if
they don't know how to argue, They don't know what
an argument is. They think it's arguing, and they think
it's trying to get owns about losing and winning battles.
It's like, these are some of the most idiotic people
like you. It's like talking to kids. I don't know
how to describe it. It's like a weird cult almost.
If he comments again, just block him. It's a way,
it's a way. You're not talking to a rational person.
And then they always go immediately into personal attacks. You
know you're salty because you lost, You idiot. Rome fell
to Masonry. The pope was taken captive by the Italian revolutionaries.
So I guess Roman Catholicism is false when Pius was
under house arrest in the Vatican, when the Masons had
him under a house arrest. But that's so stupid. This
argumentation is anytime you have a military or political loss,
the religion's false. That's how stupid this is. I didn't
I didn't rage quit. What you said was so stupid
that you didn't even realize you refuted yourself. You admitted
that Constantinople was Catholic when it fell, and you were
trying to argue that falling to Muslims means that your
church loses and is disproven. You're too stupid to be here,
don't You're not welcome here? Like go be gay and Rome, dude,
that's where you're welcome. Anybody else want to call in.
I don't think we're gonna ge any more, though, he
did finally call in, so I'll give him credit for
at least calling. But see, that's what's so wild, is
like they don't want to stay on one topic. He
goes to Constantinople after I'm asking him about gregor their
grade statement about three patrin ces. So once they sense
that one argument is weakening or getting or losing, they
move on to some other topic that's not even relevant.
And they don't even have an explanation for they think
the keys is like this magical thing when it just
means jurisdiction and it's all the same attributes and powers
in Matthew eighteen that are given to the other apostles.
Peter is rewarded because he says it first, and then
everyone else gets the same thing two chapters later, and
then they can't never tell you. Okay, what is specifically
that Peter gets that the others don't? The keys? Keys
is jurisdiction, preaching of the gospel, remitting of sins, celebrating
the Eucharist. That's the operation of the keys. That's something
they will have. So what's the unique thing, Oh, infallibility?
Where in the chapter is that say anything about that?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 1: Well, it's assumed it's tradition exactly. I'm going to start
another room and do not call me if you're asking
catechumen questions, and I'm going to start it right now.
Debate jadi are on any topic. Uh, and then smash
me because everybody likes to make sex jokes about that.
Speaker 3: Link.
Speaker 1: And then we'll move on. Stop, let me give it,
hold on, let me give you the hand.
Speaker 2: That happen.
Speaker 1: All right, moving on round two, we'll try again. Not
all Roman Catholics, Okay, find me the high tier ones
that can actually have a coherent conversation, that have even
read one book on the topic. I mean, why are
you even trying to debate? Like, if you're brand new
to this stuff is obviously that guy's brand new to
this doesn't know anything. Gorilla biscuits, what's up? Became a member?
Brendan Brent said, are five dollars. Pastor Janoski has a
million plus followers. He runs a charismatic cult. His videos
are crazy, frightening and funny. You should reply to them,
Pastor John Anoski, that does sound funny. Let's see if
you can find it. By the way, here is the
letter of Gregory the Great, where he mentions three Petrine Ceas,
And of course they don't even know that even in
the Book of Acts, Peter founds the Sea of Antioch,
so appslot succession and Antioch comes from Peter. But they
automatically arbitrary say, oh, but they don't have ability there. Well, oh,
why is that? Because the tradition is that it's in Rome.
Oh so interesting. There's nothing in the text that actually
says that infallibility is conferred to Rome. Only because they
argue from Peter. But then they say that not everybody
who succeeds Peter has infallibility. They don't even know that
Peter is the founder of the Sea of Antioch. They
don't they don't know that. This is like like level
two and they're at level one. John Anowski, let's see
if we can find Pastor John. This does sound fun
and a seke is he a black dude? Uh? About
to go? Wow?
Speaker 6: Pastor John Anosike, he has six hundred thousand followers.
Speaker 1: So you know, it's sad. I think more and more
like we're just dealing with so many just dumb, gullible people.
It's kind of sad, Like, why, for example, do all
the boomers give money to Kenneth Copeland and these TV preachers.
It's like, did you not live long enough to have
some discernment in life that you can't spot a con man?
I mean, pretty obviously right, he's a con man. But
I don't know what if I hope that when I lived,
if Lord willing I live to be eighty, I have
some discernment about conman. What's up Drago, Draco Malfoy, what's up?
Speaker 3: Dog?
Speaker 1: We had one disagreeing call. I'm not taking any Catechumen questions.
Only if you disagree, that's it, Draco Malfoy. Of course,
they can never connect when there's somebody who wants to disagree,
try to come out, come back in buddy, p two
hundred ars, which is always like twenty cents. Congratulations on
the win. It was a decisive victory over Gordon. People
will always police the tone, but this is when others
are bad faith, evasive and constant with straw Man's Well,
have you noticed the parallels between Room Catholicism and a cult.
It is a cult. That's why there's the reaction that
we see to where I'm not interested in the information.
I don't want to deal with it. I'm going to
bypass all that you're a bad person. Thus it's a lazy,
easy way for me to feel good about myself and
not have to worry about anything that you said. It's
the classic right person. Fine, I'm the worst person. How
is any of that gonna solve the arguments and the
challenges to the position. Oh, it's not la la la
la la la la la la la. That's what Cleve's
antiquity said. He's absolutely right. When you bring the challenges
and the problems to the low information converts low information,
it's very effeminate. Exactly. Well, a lot of these people
are gay, so yeah, of course it's effeminate. The tactics
seem to be forgiven when you're a you have a
quote calm demeanor. Yeah, so you can lie and to
be evasive and that's okay. But if you're aggressive, even
if you're right, you're bad. Yeah, exactly. If you want
to ask me a question and you disagree, you can
call in. I'm not taking your catechumen questions for the
one hundred times I'm not, I will not answer any
category in questions. If you call in and ask me,
I'll literally just drop you. And then you're gonna be
mad to me, even though I specifically said twenty times
I'm not answering your catechumen questions. What's up? Yes, people
are gullible, that's the problem here. What's up? I'm your.
Speaker 3: Hollo Jay calling from Italy? Ever been good?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Call him what Italy?
Speaker 7: From me?
Speaker 8: Italy well as some of as somewhat of a strange
case here. You know, I'm a I'm an ex Muslim.
I'm probably the only ex Muslim who goes to a
Moscow patriarchy church here north of the Appennine, south of
the Alps. And basically, in your debate, with all the
lack of knowledge I have had in whatever apologetics and
polemics the Catholics do, I found it really similar to
an Islamic cult.
Speaker 1: Yes, which is the reactions are very similar to the
Muslims too, though.
Speaker 8: Very much present in our history. In Iran, it's called
the Hashashians. Well, basically the assassins are also based on them.
And when you said to actually read what happened in
the Vatican one I read. I read the manifesto of
the leader of Hashasians. His name is Hassan Sabah yep,
and this guy converges on whatever whatever these revolutionaries and
Masonic thinkers were spewing out on eighty percent of the points.
It's like, I don't know how it happens, but it
has happened, and it's mind boggling for me.
Speaker 1: Like it's crazy for me. Well, it's part of falling
human nature to operate this way. That's how they act.
So Zachary wants to try again. No, here we go,
but thank you for calling. Yet, I mean, it's it is,
it's cult like behavior. Yeah. Do you want to talk
about Pope saying Gregory the Great?
Speaker 9: Uh?
Speaker 4: I was looking into the patrin seas because I'll be honest,
I haven't heard of those.
Speaker 1: Why are you trying to debate something that's a basic
of church history if you don't know about.
Speaker 4: It, Well, because we're not taught that because we're not Orthodox,
we're Catholic, and so.
Speaker 1: You think that it's a truth that's only in the
Orthodox Church. And that's why time you.
Speaker 3: Guys focus on like the Okay, we don't even think.
Speaker 1: About the we're not moving on to Philly oquay one
one moment at a time, one point at a time. Okay,
you said the patrin see you were talking about Peter
and the gospel and the text. And you thought that
there's only one patrin sea Rome, I showed you that
there's three, And all the way up into Gregory the
Great and Letter forty, he still talks about three patrin seas.
So the question is where and how do you prove
that infallibility is for the see in Rome and not
the other two.
Speaker 4: So Jesus gave Peter the keys, not his seat, not
his seat, not the places he visited or he set up.
Speaker 3: The keys are tied to Peter, and he died in Rome.
Speaker 1: Do you not understand that the successors in Antioch and
Alexandria are from Peter?
Speaker 3: I mean he didn't die yet.
Speaker 1: Oh wait a minute, So he has to die before
their successors. Yeah, he has to die before their success
are you Are you listening to the argument? Stop talking,
or I'm booting you. He has to die before there's
a successor. So how did he set up a church
in Antioch if he's already dead?
Speaker 3: He didn't dead. He died in Rome and his successor.
Speaker 1: So so there are there successors in Antioch from Peter?
Are there?
Speaker 3: I mean? Not his final success Oh.
Speaker 1: It's a quote, final successor how do you know that
it's the How do you know that it's the quote
final successor? When all three arts aesss. Where do you
get this argument from?
Speaker 3: Well, it's from tradition, because where where?
Speaker 1: What tradition? What tradition?
Speaker 3: The tradition of the papacy.
Speaker 1: Oh, so the papacy proves the papacy by arguing for
the tradition of the papacy, Because yeah, is that a circle?
Is that a circle?
Speaker 3: No, I'm just pointing out king guys.
Speaker 1: You're just pointing it out. Now, it's a king dying.
What does it have to do with this in the
first century? Is Peter a king? Is he a king?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 3: I mean he got the keys to the kingdom.
Speaker 1: So this the keys proved the it's a is this
a circular argument or not? Wait a minute, but your
argument was that, no, it's not.
Speaker 3: The keys are tied to Peter.
Speaker 1: Antio is the Bishop of Antiocha's successor to Peter.
Speaker 3: His final successor.
Speaker 1: Now you've added a qualification that has quote his final successor.
And now I want you to prove.
Speaker 3: That the keys are tied to Peter. The keys are
tied to Peter.
Speaker 1: So the successors and anti stop lying because the successors
in Antioch are from Peter. You already admitted it. I mean,
why are you lying to Why are you lying?
Speaker 3: Bishops can make a new pope.
Speaker 1: What does that have to do? Now you're deflecting. Now
you're deflecting. How do you know? Listen, stop arguing what
you're stop your bullshit. And you said that it has
to be his final successor in Rome, the last one.
How do you prove that.
Speaker 3: Early succession Peter?
Speaker 1: How do you prove that that's the final successor is
the only one that gets infallibility? I mean, there's no proof.
It's your stupid position. That's why you said the pa
You said the papacy proves it.
Speaker 4: I'm not even talking about infallibility.
Speaker 1: That's what the argument's about.
Speaker 4: The church was promised the Holy Spirit to guide him
through it.
Speaker 1: Do you not understand that Antioch there's a bishop in Antioch.
It's in the Book of Acts. Peter sets up the
church in Antioch, and they have succession from Antioch. Even
the Romancolicy church admits this. Yeah, so why does it
not have infallibility? If it's a patrine the time that
didn't make anything, What does that have to do with this.
Speaker 3: Because he needs a successor.
Speaker 1: That's how it works, dude, do you not understand that
anti listen, Antioch has this succession from Peter if.
Speaker 3: It's not his final success Where.
Speaker 1: Now you've changed the argument to say his quote final successor.
Now prove that the only person has infallibility is the
quote final successor. Prove that you can't. That's why you're silent,
because you're a liar and you don't know what you're
talking about. Good God, dude, these people are so just
do you see when we actually got into it, they're
totally dishonest. They change what they're arguing to prove the
position he just made up at hoc Oh, it's the
final successor. Even though Antioch and Alexandria as bishoprics have
petrine succession. His own Roman Catholic church knows that and
admits that. So then now they have to show that
there's something special about Rome. How do you prove that
because the papacy says so that's a circle, you idiot?
Speaker 2: Hello, yep, I was.
Speaker 10: Just watching that debate from last night and then on
I think Tim Gordon's closing statement, he was talking about
the three Saints that were Basically, I can't remember the
last two, but I was.
Speaker 3: I remember the first one was Theodore or the Studite.
Speaker 10: I was reading his letters, and I'm trying to understand
it more how that's.
Speaker 3: Affirming the papacy, because.
Speaker 10: The reading the words and everything in that letter was sounded.
Speaker 2: Like he was affirming the papacy. But I was just
trying to understand all.
Speaker 1: This is equivocating affirming the papacy. That's not what's in debate.
The Orthodox Church doesn't disagree there's a bishop of Rome
and that he was the first in the cannons and
the synods and all that. That doesn't prove the claims
the Vatican won don't you understand? You have to prove
what Vatican one says about the papacy. That's the burden
of proof. That's the Roman Church's claims. It's not a
question of did the Church agree and admit that there
were patrion successors in Rome. You're gonna find all consequence
about that because it's never been in dispute. But you're
equivocating by saying Jesus established the papacy. What is the
papacy in Roman Catholic theologies defined by Vatican one. How
come none of you go and read Vatican one. Go
read Vatican one. That's what you're arguing for. Not did
Jesus set up a Patrian succession in Rome? Nobody disputes that. Yep, yep,
you hear me, Yep.
Speaker 11: I just want to say congrats on the debate. I
was not expecting him to just come out and fully
say that the Theophanes were created.
Speaker 1: That was like I knew he was because he doesn't
understand the argument. He never read it into stuff I
said him for five years, So.
Speaker 11: Maybe I just expected more out of him from that,
But I certainly got to that part of the debate.
Just watching the chip out and chat from all the rcs,
that was sort of mind bloggling.
Speaker 1: No, I've been saying for years they're that retarded. Well,
I mean, that's exactly what I mean.
Speaker 11: What more do you expect from the people, whenever they're
confronted with something like this, will stick their fingers in
there is and just say la la la la la,
divorcing and contraception whatever.
Speaker 1: Exactly? Do you have anything you disagree with, anything you
want to comment on other than that?
Speaker 3: No, I just wanted to come on and say that.
Speaker 1: So appreciate it. Yeah, it's all right, I mean, there's
there there are no more Roman Catholics like that was.
I mean, I'm not even saying he's like the greatest
of the Roman Cathlic Apologists, because I'm sure Tim would
say that you can go read Abara and he's better
on papacy whatever. I mean. Again, like Tim conceded, especially
the philly oakuay. At the end of the debate, he says,
all right, I was wrong about phlly oakuay. You got
me there. And then privately after the debate he said
to me, you were right about universe order and register.
Speaker 2: So yep, hello, Jay, can you hear me?
Speaker 3: All right?
Speaker 12: Am I allowed to steal man a position and pretend
to be Roman Catholic for a bit?
Speaker 1: Okay?
Speaker 3: All right?
Speaker 12: So Pope Vigilius was coerced by a council on the
subject of the three Chapters. And the reasoning for this is, uh,
looking back to the tone of I believe it's well,
let's just start from the beginning with Pope Leo the first.
So when somebody because I had an interaction with the
Roman Catholic apologist, which I probably shouldn't have, this catechumen,
but he said that Pope Vigilius.
Speaker 3: Was actually coerced.
Speaker 1: Now wait a minute, so that then they would be
admitting Cicero papism.
Speaker 3: I'm an idiot. What does that mean?
Speaker 1: Okay, I'm not trying to be rude, but so if
you believe that the emperor runs the church or is
the head of the church, it's usually termed They often
criticize us of the Emperor's ahead of your church, hence
Cicero papism. This Caesar is the pope, right The Roman
emperor is supposedly running the church, controlling the church, and
he's the Eastern Church's pope. If the Vigilia situation is
a proof of Virgilius actually just submitting to Justinian to
the Emperor, then they're admitting that their own pope at
that time was Cesero papist submitted to that the emperor
was the real pope. So they would have to concede
that at one point the papacy was not true Cesero
papism was true. But that would also not just defeat
the papacy as a system. You only need one contradiction
to just disprove this system. And I don't think they
understand that.
Speaker 3: Like.
Speaker 1: That's another thing that seems to pop up is that
they don't understand that you have a system that claims
perpetual success of never failing faith. For Rome, that's what
Vatican one says. Thus, if Rome ever failed in the faith,
then Vatican one is not true. It's a contradiction. Even
Aborro said, if you could show a dogmatic contradiction in
the papacy, I would be forced to concede the papacy.
He said that in our debate long time ago. So
that's why all I do is bring these obvious examples,
and it doesn't matter which way they go with, you know,
the unum sanctum and the temporal supremacy argument. By the way,
I noticed when the Romancalities are replying to the unhum
sanctum argument, they don't even understand what in argument they think.
I'm saying that, where is the proof of the papacy
in the first thousand years? Do you people not? Do
you have IQ's below eighty? I said, where is the
temporal supremacy argument of the papacy in the first thousand years?
Speaker 3: Not?
Speaker 1: Are their papal quotes? I know you have a million
quote minds by the way, which are all a lot of content.
That's not the argument. Temporal supremacy what stated and on
him sanctum. You have to believe in the temporal supremacy
also to be saved. Can you follow this argument? Yep?
Speaker 3: What up?
Speaker 1: What's on your mind?
Speaker 3: I have a quick joke, bro.
Speaker 13: Did you notice that, like towards the end of the debate,
Tim started looking like slim Shitty.
Speaker 3: From eight Mile.
Speaker 1: Maybe he was trying to he went full like Fred
durst hat with NBA. I don't know what, and I.
Speaker 3: Was the only one who noticed it.
Speaker 1: I think the reason he put on the hoodie and
stuff is because it was freezing cold in there, like
Elijah keeps it like insanely cold, like Alex Jones.
Speaker 13: But one other thing too, you know, for just just
so people have some.
Speaker 3: Some some game out there.
Speaker 1: Never trust some.
Speaker 13: With the soul patch the size of Pluto.
Speaker 1: But look, I mean on a personal level, Tim has
always been cool. We get along great. We went out
to dinner the next day. I took his family out
to barbecue and we ended up getting caught in a
rush of people, so we had to sit there and
talk for about an hour, and then our we had
there's a storm came and the order got delayed because
it was massive, like lunchtime, so we ended up having
to wait another two hours to eat. So I spent
basically all day with Tim yesterday during the day so
I hung out with him and his family.
Speaker 5: Again.
Speaker 1: We've done this before. We always go out to barbecue, uh,
and we get along fine, We have a great rapport conversation.
I just don't think that when it comes to these topics.
First of all, I don't think there's any incentive really
for him to want to understand the Orthodox positions, Like
it's too much of a massive crushing blow if you're
identity is wrapped up in Rome to really commit years
of reading Orthodox material. And that's kind of unfortunately what
it takes if you actually want to understand Orthodox position,
it's gonna take time. Like you're not gonna solve these
issues by reading a Catholic answer as quote mind and
an Orthodox quote mind. They're really complex issues. That's why
I try to take it into like the most non
complex kind of clear stuff. Like it's really hard to
demonstrate to most people that Jesus set up a spiritual
pastor who's also a world emperor. Withstanding armies. That's difficult
to demonstrate because it's crazy and they know that. And
that's why I think it's one of the strongest arguments,
because not only was it not there in the first
thousand years, and it's backed up by forgeries. Admittedly in
the second millennium, it's now no longer part of their
faith and dogma stuff. You don't have to believe that.
In more talk Vaticans who rejects this idea. So that's
really hard to make sense of. And that's why he
has to handwave it and say it's a discipline. It's
it's about faith and morals and salvation. That's not disciplinary
if it's literally a dogma necessary for salvation according to
when I'm signed to him and then for the next
nine hundred years, And why would this not be true
in the first thousand years? Drago? What's up? Drego on mute, Jimmy,
you hit me? Yep?
Speaker 14: Oh.
Speaker 3: I don't want to be a mean or anything.
Speaker 15: I want to ask you, Uh, who's your favorite favorite
civil character?
Speaker 1: And what's your opinion on the story Final Fantasy seven? Well,
that's the thing, as I was saying the other day,
I didn't realize there's a sequel, so when I'm off
of my video game fast, I'm actually looking forward to
playing Final Fantasy seven Rebirth. I didn't realize this that
they made a sequel to Final Fantasy seven, So I'm
not even sure what to say about this one. It
looks fun. I mean, it looks like a lot of
you know, kind of the same stuff and the other remake.
But we'll have to see, all right, so let's talk
about we get some more super jow Excuse me, it
looks like it's going to be fun. I mean, it
seems like nowadays like video games are hard. It's hard
to find good ones, like they're getting woke and fake
and gay. So I wanted to do a little bit
of a refresher on the papal geopolitical stuff because that
was something I said in the closing of the debate.
Let me see if I can reiterate what I said,
because I think a lot of people said they liked
the closing statement, and I didn't even really think about
it being that. I just kind of impromptu said what
into my head. So here's what I said at the closing.
Let me grab a book while you listen to this.
The claims of Vatican One. For example, we've read satist Cognitum,
which is of the thirteenth description and definition of what
is supposed to be understood in terms of people supremacy.
Sathist Cognedum says that it has always, at all times
been understood that the Roman Sea had the claims that
Vatican One has about it. So, in other words, there's
no development of doctrine. According to Satist Cognedum, it is
clearly that the Roman Sea was indefectible, infallible, and had
universal jurisdiction. Now he likes to say that, well, I
don't have to accept these statements from the Kady document
because well, it's just not infallible. Of course, there is
no epistemic criteria for the Roman Catholic or what is
actually infallible, because Tim knows that it's more than just
a few exca theater statements. You also have to believe
all the dogmatic teachings in the ordinary Universal Magisterium. And
in fact, there's a whole list of I'll give you
the guys the list of these. You can look them
up yourselves. Wouldn't have time to go through him Dinsinger
sixteen eighty three, Dinzinger sixteen ninety eight, Dinsinger seventeen ninety two,
Castie KENUBII one O four all say that position is condemned.
If you say you only follow the ex cathedral magisterial statements,
that is a condemned proposition. And it's funny because you
actually heard him seem to be arguing that tonight now
in regard to just let let them let him conclude,
please please, right, please four hours, because because universal ordinary
magisterial teaching would be much broader and would bind him
and everyone else to a whole bunch other of other things.
And that's precisely what the point of attican one was
to say. Now, all I needed was one dogmatic contradiction,
which I think we saw with the geopolitical power claims
that were necessary for South for nine hundred years. He said, Oh,
it's just a discipline. That's his way to get around
this doctrinal contradiction. But again, I will go back to
the famous instance that Ubi brought up to Ibarro, which
Abarro didn't have an answer to, and which I will
reassert again from the papacy. In the Orthodox Pope Virgilius
submitted to the Ecumenical Council because he was threatened with
excommunication and removal from the Diptychs, and that's where he landed.
That's where he ended up. That's why Virgilius is such
a strong argument against the claim that Jesus instituted this
universal supremacy that was from all times, at all times, everywhere,
infallible and defectible from the earliest days. That's what he
has to prove. That's why he was deflecting into these
passages that don't actually prove that. They prove merely that
there's those passages which can be read in an Orthodox
sense or in a Roman Catholic sense. He has a
system that he has to defend on that. I'm not
arguing that the passages, by the way, are relative or relativistic,
like we don't know what the passages mean. You can
read them in it either way. That's not what I'm saying.
What I mean by that is both the Orthodox and
the caloch paradigms accept those verses, but they give them
different interpretations. So the question isn't some sort of like
self evident meaning in the text, right, which is weird
because they're treating these texts like Protestants do, like, well,
it's just self evident that that's what the text means, right,
Matthew sixteen clearly means Vatican One. That's all the isogesis
and stuff that that they're assuming. We don't have that view.
The majority of the Church fathers, by the way, according
to Edward Denny in his book Papalism, didn't interpret those
texts about Peter and his Keys. In fact, it's not
until the fourth century that Matthew sixteen is for the
first time used of the papacy itself of the Roman Sea,
So it takes many centuries before that idea is even used,
which is very late for their line of argumentation. In fact,
if that's what the passages meant, it would been there
from the first, second, third, fourth century. It wouldn't have
been Popdamasis that was one of the first to make
the argument that Matthew sixteen is about the office of Peter.
And I'm not granting that even calling it about the
office of Peter in Matthew sixteen that that necessarily eve
improves the Vatican One text, because all those things can
still be read in an Orthodox way and are completely
compatible with Orthodox theology. That's what I'm trying to say,
is like they're just assuming that the passages prove the
totality of the papal claims when none of that is
present in the text of Matthew sixteen or Luke or John.
That's called is of Jesus. He tried to say that
it's all coherence theory, or so I don't hold to
secular coherence theory. So he doesn't know what he's talking about.
The position only requires one contradiction for the whole thing
to fall apart. And you can read the most recent
Richard Price text on the case of Thegilius and when
Richard Price was on Reason in Theology and they interviewed
him a few years ago and he said that the
pope did not have universal jurisdiction in the first millennium. Now,
let me play you that clip because it's one of
my favorites. Because they tried to downplay They may have
even deleted it. I don't know, but I'm going to
play you the clip where Richard Price is on with
Lofton and Ibarra and he admits this. Now, Price is
the one that has done the translations of the ecumenical
councils recently. That's why that book matters. And here once
again is the one of our favorite quotes to clips
to play over here where this gaggle of overweight idiots
is interviewing this gay man.
Speaker 16: Why did the bishops and caalcid On feel they needed
to judge theodor it if Leo had already reinstated.
Speaker 9: Him, Well, they didn't. They didn't recognize Roman jurisdiction in
the Eastern provinces, so it is reinstating for that was
not decisive. The decision has to be made in the East.
The odor exposition of the council is an interesting one.
Didn't they They didn't. They didn't recognize Roman jurisdiction in
the Eastern provinces.
Speaker 1: So that's father was surprise. The scholar that's translated the
acts of the Council's Roman Catholic scholar. They ask him, Hey,
there's some of these Orthodox challenges that don't make sense
with the Vatican Idea one, idea of the pay see
the first millennium. What does he say, Oh, that's because
there was no Vatican one universal jurisdiction in the first
millennium and the East didn't accept that. Oops. Oops, now
you notice that all of this stuff, they're so dishonest,
they ignore, suppress, try to delete and handwave all this stuff.
It's insane. Just like the Chiady document says the pope
did not have universal jurisdiction in the first millennium. That
means Vatican one is false, and that's why Virgilius disproves
the papacy. And there's many more. Honorius, what two minutes,
We're done? Okay, there's many more. There's also the case
of Honorius. Honorius is not just condemned because he supposedly
fibbed or failed to condemnse It's actually because he wrote
a letter to a bishop. So notice the status of
the text. It wasn't ex cathedral, it wasn't magisterium. Is
a letter to a bishop where he affirmed monothelitism, and
he was successively condemned by in the East three councils,
including the Sabbath Ecumenical Council. So Honorious becomes a heretic explicitly.
Most Roman Catholics, except for a few, will admit this
now today. But that means that the pope isn't the
indefectible and yet badikan One claims that the See of
Peter is indefectible. It is never failing in its truth
and in its faith. And yet tonight we've seen, in
just a handful of examples, and I can give many,
many more, that it is in fact failing. And that's
why we don't put our hope in a geopolitical world
ruler which now calls for open borders and all of that.
Who used to say you had to believe in his
Quisatsak Lisa on Algie powers to be saved, Now you
don't have to believe. It's just a discipline handwave it. No, no, no,
The Papacy people didn't get my joke. Quisa is from Dune.
It's the universe is super being. Paula Trede's right, he's
believed to be the Lisa on al Gayib that was
the joke. Is a geopolitical tool. And if you go
to my channel and watch all of my old videos,
you can find the lectures where I've walked through David
Wimhoff's excellent book showing that the CIA also bought into
and helped to buy out the Papacy through Operation Gladio.
There's multiple texts from multiple Roman Catholics. What are we
looking at with the papacy. Is it really a center
of unity or is it a tool of inclusive capitalism,
socialism or economic forum. All the stuff that you see
got to continue promoting with the internationalism, a new world order,
et cetera, explicitly in the church in the modern war.
We're going to look at some of these texts. That's
what the papacy actually is. The papacy is not your friend.
It is a spiritual cancer, and it does not produce
the thing that it claims to produce, unity, holiness and truth. Yeah,
the papacy promotes open borders, blesses gay unions, blesses them
as couples, as the text said, not marriages. Gay union
couples are blessed now in the Roman Gallic Church. If
you come up to the freeze of then you can
be blessed. That's what the text says. The text actually
contradicts it themselves. So when Roman Catholics are presented with this,
who doesn't say, though, who says that they can't be married?
It says they can be blessed. It is now an
open possibility in the Roman Caelloic Church. That's what the
text says, And it also tries to walk it back,
so that's just a contradiction. What's up, man, I'm mute, actual,
I'm mute.
Speaker 3: Okay, Hello, what's up? Yeah? I wanted to ask you
a question. I probably should have just looked forward, but
I figured out.
Speaker 2: Asked, do you have any I'm inquiring by it?
Speaker 16: Do you have any debates with any.
Speaker 15: Coptics or any Assyrians or anything like that, or do
you just debate Catholics mainly?
Speaker 1: We have a series that we're working through. Uh, we've
done three installments of it refuting we're into Orthodoxy, and
David Urhan's already had all those debates five six years ago.
So look up me and David Urhan. Pastor. What's up, pastor?
Speaker 3: I'm mute, Hey, what's up? How are you doing? Man? Good?
Speaker 17: So I have a question because I'm sure you've seen it,
you know, throughout this entire app right, a lot of
Orthodox Christians, I was Orthodox for a long time or
trying to syncretize Orthodoxy with you know, racialism and national socialism.
So I wanted to understand what your position on that
is Orthodox Christians being racist, being white supremacist, and being
national socialists.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'll bet you are. I'll bet you were Orthodox. Sure,
I've never met an Orthodox person that's national socialist. That's ridiculous.
You're gonna have a really hard time convincing Russian people
who went to war against uh tiny mustache man to
be national socialists. That was like a that looked like
a FED profile. That was total bullshit. Anyway, So let's
move on. Then you can still call in if you disagree.
I get spot a FED right away. Doesn't work provocateur
age problem. Let's talk about this document that we don't
usually talk about out and when we get into Vatican two,
and this one is overlooked, and it is the Gaudium
at Spece document the Church and the Modern World. And
we're going to look at paragraph twelve because this one
is overlooked because everybody focuses on and it's not wrong
because it's kind of the easiest thing to go to,
to go to like the jew to go to the
doctrinal issues, the liturgical issues, the worship issues, right like
praying together with Muslims and all this Muslims can be
saved as Muslims, all the nonsense that we find a
Vatican two. But there's this other document called Gaudium at Spez,
which has to do with the Church in the modern
world in terms of geopolitics, believe it or not, and
it's as wild, but it's in more of a it's
not in a dogmatic context, even though it's full of
total socialist nonsense. The dignity of the human person. Noticed
that Catholic humanism. This is something that John Paul the
Second and a lot of his books tried to promote.
I've read a lot of John Paul the second stuff,
a lot of his homilies and a lot of his
encyclicals were very notorious for this idea that man is
the center of everything. It's very bizarre. But actually, when
we think about Vatican two, it's gonna make a lot
of sense. So this is a really weird statement here.
According to unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers, all things
on earth should be related to man as their center
in their crown. What First of all, why are we
we're not doing we don't do our theology in our
geopolitics on popular opinion, like this is some kind of weird, Like, oh,
because everybody agrees on those Number one, they don't agree
on that, And why do we care in the in
the Church, in Christianity, what the unbelievers are saying we
should do. I mean, that's preposterous. But I mean even
more preposterous is the idea that in Christianity christ and
especially Orthodox Christianity, man is the center, in the crown
of all reality. I mean, that's just insane, weird humanism.
That is just completely false. In fact, there is a
papal document called Quas Primus that was actually written to
counteract the idea that society should be organized around the
doctrine of man as its center and crown. So it's
actually been specifically condemned. It's kind of a man worship,
and it's a secular idea of social theory. It's not
just pluralism. It's like rabid secularism, and it's patently false.
Christians and un Christians agree that man is the center
and crown of all activities on earth. It sounds like Antichrist.
It's insane. Now don't worry, though, because it's gonna get
just as it's gonna get even crazier as we move
through this bizarre document. Let's see's there's a weird statement
on conscience. Here's a weird there's a lot of social justice,
like socialism in this document, which is why it's really
bizarre and dangerous, and it actually if you don't know
John the twenty third, who was, you know, believed to
be sort of a Rosicrucian Masonic pope. He's the one
that's called the you know, the guy that calls Vatican two.
There was concern at that time by the CIA that
he might be He's called the pink O Pope, and
so the CIA tried to establish a lot of discussions
and alliances with him, but then they were a lot
more successful with Paul six. So Paul the six was
far more closely aligned with the CIA. John the twenty
third actually wanted to open up the Roman Catholic world
in church to the Soviet Union, and he spoke about
this very openly. Hints why he was called the pink Pope.
But he wrote a famous and cyclic well Patchum in
Terrorists which had to do with opening the church up
to the geopolitics of secularism and the United Nations, and
it actually calls for the creation of international institutions to
redistribute wealth, et cetera. So it's a very heavily socialist document.
And what's fascinating is that Vatican two further aligns itself
in the Gaudium at Spest document, which everybody overlooks and
disagrees or ignores, or they're not even aware of it,
they never read it is actually extremely socialist United Nations
globalist document. Here's another weird. I guess you could call
this anti colonial sort of indigenous propaganda. Listen to this one.
This is wild. It says our era needs the wisdom
of bygone ages if the discoveries made by Manner to
be further humanized, for the future of the world stands
in peril unless wiser men are forthcoming. It should be
pointed out that poor nations are rich in wisdom and
can offer the advantages to the others. When a black
nation is speaking, you sit in silence, you learn from them.
I just thought this one's funny because it's just that
kind of like, you know, anti colonial woke speak all
the way back in the nineteen sixties and the Vatican
two documents. It's just a funny one that use so
all these trads and all these people who want to
act like they're based right and then like their own
documents are literally just wood bullshit. The next weird statement.
Let's see what the next weird one is. I think
it's this one human community. Chapter two. Now, this one
is a theological mistake. I don't know if you're familiar
with this one, but this one's very subtle. But I
want you guys to look for the theological error on.
I'm not going to say what it's on, and I
want you to see if you can figure it out.
Paragraph twenty four. I'm going to read it, and then
I want to look at the chat to see who
can figure out the mistake here. God, who has fatherly
concerned for everyone, has willed all men should constitute one
family and treat one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Well,
first of all, that's actually not true, because the Church
is the restored new humanity. This is actually taking what's
true about the Church and applying it to civilization as
a whole. The brotherhood of man, which you could say, yeah,
in a sense, all men and Adam are brothers, but
that it doesn't follow from that that God wants there
to be an international, one nation brotherhood of men. That's
a masonic goal. It says all men are created the
image of God. That's all good, etc. They're all called
to the same goal God himself. That's correct. Now listen
to this. For this reason, love of God and of
neighbor is the first commandment and greatest commandment. Did you
hear that? For this reason, love for God and neighbor
is the first and greatest commandment. Anyone noticed the theological error?
Speaker 3: There?
Speaker 1: Give the proof? What line in the book? We're literally
reading the text on the screen, you idiot? Where's the
proof on the freaking screen? Who notices the theological error
in this statement of God? Imitzpez anybody? I'm looking in
the chat and I'm waiting. I think the chats a
little bit behind. So when uh shake Shamun, I think
you got it. Let's see what We're gonna keep going
to see if anybody else gets it? Does nobody know
what the first and greatest commandment is? Come on, guys, Orthodox,
leo God it look at that. See Orthodox people love
and know their Bible exactly. The first commandment is to
love the Lord your God. The second commandment relates to
man right and your neighbor is So no, love for
God and neighbor is not the first and greatest commandment.
So I'm not. Let's see now, it is true that
like Catholics kind of number the Ten Commandments a little
bit different. But let's look at the ten commandments. The
first commandment, as we all know, I think, right, you
shall have no other gods. So this slip up cleverly
inserts the love of man into the first commandment of
the love of God. A very odd, bizarre, basic mistake,
but it actually makes sense in a document that is
trying to replace the premiacy of God with a Catholic humanism,
which is ultimately just humanism. Hence, the document pushes the
brotherhood of man. The document pushes the idea that man
is the center and crown of all of society, which
is just absolutely bizarre. But it gets even worse as
we move on. These are just some of the weird ones.
Let's look at paragraph forty two, which I did mention
in the debate, but I'm going to show you specifically
one of the most egregious contradictions in Catholic dogma right here,
What does the church offer to society? This is paragraph
forty two in the document. The union of the human
family is only found in Christ, the family of God's
sons Okay, that's true. That sounds good. Christ gave to
his church, gave his church no proper mission in the political, economic,
or social order. Interesting, no political social mission. Is that
the classic teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Now wait
a minute, let's come over here to Unum sanctum about
nine hundred years earlier, and we're going to read this
famous paragraph that I'm always referring to. For according to
the Blessed Dionysius, it is a law of divinity that
the lowest things are reached the highest things by intermediaries. Therefore,
according to this the universe all things are not led
back equally immediately, but the lowest by their intermediary. The
acceptance of the power itself by government. All right, So
he's talking about spiritual and political power. It belongs to
the spiritual power to establish the terrestrial earthly power. The
papacy is superior to and establishes that's importal Thus it
is accomplished. Thus has accomplished the prophecy of Jeremiah. In
other words, they're taking Jeremiah's prophecy about Jesus and now
applying it to the papacy. The papacy is the king
of kings, Lord of lords, I have placed you over
nations and over kings. So notice what they do. Something
that is a prophecy that Jeremiah makes about Jesus. It's
actually about the papacy being king of kings. You can't
make this up. Therefore, if the terrestrial power, and this
is in the midst of controversies with kings, if the
king errors, it's the pope that is the superior. Now
in the word of our church, yes, we definitely agree
that the church is superior, but it doesn't follow from
that that the papacy is therefore a world ruler. And
that's the purpose of this document, right. It goes on
to say, because whatever you on earth will be bound
in heaven. Notice how Matthew sixteen is now being used
not just for a spiritual power and authority in the
Roman sense of the sea and the papacy spiritually, it's
now being applied to world power and kingdoms and armies.
I'm not joking. The papacy gets a standing army a
couple centuries after this. We thus we declare, proclaim to
find absolutely necessary for salvation every human creature be subject
to the Roman pontiff. Both spiritually and temporally. That's the
purpose of this document. Go read it. It's called when
I'm sunk them. Now. Roman Catholics are not very smart,
and every time I bring this up, they can't hear,
apparently or understand what I'm arguing. They always think that
I'm arguing that there's no authority of the pope. I
specifically said the temporal supremacy of the Roman bishop. So
I know it's hard for you guys to follow arguments,
but listen to what I'm saying. I'm not even caring
about the Matthew sixteen spiritual power at the moment. Let's
set that aside. Whatever you think about it. I'm making
a specific argument separate from that about that. You must
also accept that the pope is a world emperor to
be saved. That is what this document is arguing, and
that continues all the way up into the time of
Pious the ninth the Vatican One in the Syllabus of Errors,
where it is condemned at that time as well. That
you that you can't reject. If you reject this document,
it's condemned, or this doctrine of temporal supremacy. It is
a condemned idea is everybody following me. This shouldn't be
that controversial. If you want me to get the syllabus
of errors out, I can. I can tell you which
one it is. I've cided it in the debate here.
I'll get it because I know people in this signagement
is too stupid. Yeah, TI about the Roman count godiness.
So let's go back to the syllabus of errors. The rumm.
Guys don't even know what these documents are. They never
read them. Syllabus of Errors seventy six. This is pi
Us the ninth in eighteen sixty four, So we're basically
nine hundred years ahead of the original Dictatus pope statement.
And then we're I don't know, six hundred five hundred
years later after when I'm signed to them in the
thirteen hundreds. And we're gonna look at that paragraphs seventy six.
This position is condemned. It has been wisely decided by
law in some Catholic churches that person's coming to reside.
Excuse me that seventy eight seventy six. The abolition of
the temporal power of the Roman see the Apostolic sea
would contribute to liberty and prosperity of the Church. We
should get rid of the temporal power the pope as
a world ruler and geopolitical emperor. It's condemned. Are you
idiots following me? Can you follow this basic argument? Okay?
When I'm Sanctum thirteen eighty two or thirteen oh two,
excuse me, you gotta believe in it to be saved.
Temporal power, not just spiritual power, temporal power all the
way up to Syllabus of errors. If you don't believe
in the temporal power, even in the eighteen hundreds, you're condemned.
It's a condemned proposition right there by the Vatican. But
wait a minute. When I read Gaudium at Spez the
Church of the modern World, it says Christ never gave
to the Church any political, economic, or social mission or order.
Is that clear enough? Roman Catholics? Do you see that?
Is that clear enough? Do you want me to go
through it one more time for you? And it's just
so hard for people, literally mad. I make this argument
all the time. I was reading comments underneath these these
videos and these clips, and every time it never fails
on Instagram YouTube. Roman Catholics think that I'm arguing that
there's no power of the papacy spiritually. They don't understand
the difference between the spiritual and the temporal. This is
the two powers theory of the Middle Ages. Okay, when
I'm sicked them is very clear that Rome says, yes,
you can talk about two powers, but the Pope has
both and is superior in both, and you must believe
that to be saved. Clear as day. Contradiction, Vatican two says,
Jesus never gave his church any political, economic, or social mission.
I can't think of something more clear than that. And
if you can't see that, enjoy being romancalvit. Have fun
with that. Now moving on, because gody Mesves is a
treasure trove of weird humanism, bizarre statements. We'll look at
another one of these in paragraph fifty three, and you're
going to notice this trend of humanism that we already saw.
By the way this going through, this also shows you
the sense and attitude that Vatican to had about secular
culture and de christianizing the Christian states. That's what this
further demonstrates, which further proves a complete change in dogma
on Catholic social teaching. Here's another one, of these bizarre
humanist statements man comes to a truefull humanity only through culture. Well, actually,
that doesn't make any sense, because you have human nature
and you're a human person from the womb. You're not
a potential person. That's a bizarre language because usually people
that believe that you're not a person until you're a
certain age, which is what people who are who are
pro a Bobo argue. That's a pro a Bobo line
of argmentation. If you're not familiar, that is, through the
civilization cultivation of the goods and values of nature, it
is only true and full humanity, which is by means
of culture. Okay, and then now we're going to compare
this to what said in paragraph fifty five, because this
is about this supposed culture. From day to day, in
every group, in every nation, there is an increase in
the number of men and women who are conscious that
they are themselves authors and otisans of the culture of
their community. Throughout the whole world, there is a mounting
increase in the sense of autonomy as well as responsibility.
This is of paramount importance for the spiritual moral maturity
of the human race. It becomes more clear if we
consider that the unification of the world and the duty
imposed upon us will be a better built world upon
truth and justice. So you are only made fully human
through human culture, and this only occurs when we unify
the world. Interesting, now, what is this all about? Well,
in paragraph fifty five, thus we are witnessing the birth
of a new humanism exactly nWo talk. In other words,
remember the French Revolution, all the philosoph verbiage. This is
French Revolution, Masonic philosoph verbiage. If you've read those texts,
and I have studied them in grad school, did you
not hear me multiple times say it's a new kind
of humanism? What does the text say? Right there? A
new humanism is born, one in which man is defined
first of all by responsibility to God. No, no, no, no no.
Remember what we saw about the rewarding of the first
and greatest commandment? What was the rewarding responsibility first of
all to other men? You're only fully human, You're only
fully of man. Your number one responsibility is to the
society of man. That is straight up socialism and Marxism, right,
that's Marxism socialism. One on one, you achieve your full
maturation as a person and as an individual in the collective,
because you're responsible to the collective. The number one responsibility
that you have in this new humanism isn't to God
with the rewarding of the first Commandment. It is to
what to all other men, to humanity. Wow, man, the
autonomous author of his own culture. Wow. Now you think, okay,
that's pretty bad. Well, guess what. It gets even worse
because with all of those French revolutionary socialist arguments laid down. Again,
this is not new and Vatican two. It's actually in
Pacumin Teras John the twenty third and cyclical on these things.
What's the goal of all this? Did Jesus? Now keep
this in mind, Jesus didn't send a church with any political, social,
or economic mission at all. That's what the text said. None.
But now watch this contradiction as we shift to the
social United Nations goal that is the real goal of
Catholicism in the post fatic Into era. Watch this. This
is going to blow your mind because it gets even
worse paragraph eighty two. Remember the church has no social,
economic political goals. But now we have the goal of
the outlawing of all war. Yes, you heard me right.
The text that I have which is not It doesn't
have all of the headings, the actual headings in the
text that I have, I'll show it to you. It
actually says it is time to outlaw all warfare. What
in the meantime, efforts have been already been made and
are still underway to eliminate the danger of war. On
the contrary, support should be given to the goodwill of
every man to do away with war. So I thought
we had no duty in the Catholicture to political, social,
and economic realms. Jesus didn't establish that. Wait a minute,
but now the Vatican, as a geopolitical global institution, is
ready to put aside all nationalistic differences. Oh wait a minute,
what notice that you? Are you noticing how socialist and
Marxist's document actually is. Look at the last section of
eighty two. Watch this. There needs to be new education,
particularly with the young, so that they don't fall into
old problems. What are these old problems? Let's not let
a false hope deceive this unless enmities and hatred are
put away. Honest agreement is concerning world peace? Did Jesus
say he came to bring world peace? I did not
come to bring peace, but a sword. The New Vatican
to Jesus, though, is a geopolitical symbol of socialist world
peace and internationalist institutions. And it's explicitly going to say
that here in a second. Okay, but I want you
to see the actual Marxist verbia is right here. The
Church of Christ does not cease to hope firmly right
that this death, that this piece can happen. Wait a minute,
I'm looking for the there's a pastor where it talks
about getting rid of nationalism. Let me find that. In
the meantime, let's see. The copy that I have is
the Austin Flannery version of it. So it's worded a
little bit different in the paragraphs or space different. So
it takes me a minute to find some of the
texts from one to the other. So if you see,
this is my version right here in Vatican two Austin
Flannery translation, and let's see paragraph eighty two in the meantime, Okay, okay,
this is interesting because it looks like right here, the
way that the Vatican Text is translated says men should
take heed not to trust and trust themselves only to
the efforts of some, while not caring about their own attitudes.
Government officials, who must, at one and the same time
guarantee the good of their own people and promote the
universal good, are generally dependent on public opinion and feeling.
It does them no good to work for peace as
long as feelings of hostility, contempting to us, and racial
hatred continue to divide men into camps. Consequently, there is
above all a pressing need for renewed education. So brainwash
young people not to be, not to care about themselves
or people, their heritage and looking, there's a specific section
where it talks about nationalism, but that's in the let's see, Oh,
this is it right here? Yeah, in order to here's
where I'm getting to. This is it section two setting
up an international community. Look at that international socialist goals
international socialism. Literally, you can read any of the Fabian
socialist sects, any of the Marxist texts about their internationalist
goals and agendas and how they speak, and it's exactly
identical to this. In order to build up peace and
above all the causes of discord amongst men, especially in justice,
which Foemen wars, they must be rooted out. Now, remember
we were just told that the Church doesn't have any
political and social mission that Jesus gave it. But apparently
the Vatican and the CIA and the Fabian socialists are
giving in a mission. Not a few of these causes
come from excessive economic equalities. Why are there wars because
rich nations have more money than the poor nations. It's
exactly what socialists always say. Other cause of discord relates
to contempt, envy, distrust, pride, egotism, etc. Thus what's the solution,
Jesus and Christianity. No, No, the solution is organizing together
in international bodies to create international organizations for global peace
and the ending of war. That's what we just read earlier.
That's the un all the stuff that Francis and all
of his buddies promoted, that's UNUSCO. That's the World Economic Forum.
Remember Klaus's mentor is the same mentor as Francis, Paulo
Freira the socialist, and then Archbishop Kamara, those are the mentors.
Francis's mentor, Klaus's mentor, Camara the liberation theologian socialist. What
is this liberation theology socialism? So did you even know
that your own Vatican documents all you Roman Catholics, and
you tried, cats that your documents actually teach the new
world order. You in socialist agenda clear as day. And
guess what, there's more. We're not even done. Why has
this problem persisted? Turns out it's partly the fault of Christianity.
You can't make this up already. There exists international organizations
helping the human race. Oh, thank you, thank you you
in they are laying the foundations for an international community,
a new world order, and Christians are helping to create
this by working with non Christians. The present solidarity of
mankind calls for a revival of international cooperation in economics,
international monopoly, capital, socialism, that's what this is. Now that
all people have become autonomous, this unification is becoming difficult.
The development of a nation depends on fin financial aid. Interesting,
but remember Jesus didn't give the Church a political, social,
and economic mission. This entire document is about the political,
social and economic mission of the United Nations supporting Vattican.
Do you not see how stupid this is and how
crazy this is. I'm trying to find the part where
it says change of heart. It's supposed to be paragraph
eighty two at some point that Christianity needs a change
of heart. If I can find that here it is Indeed,
we all need a change of heart in regarding regarding
the world and the better unification, in unison of the
human race. So Christianity got it wrong for all these years.
It needs a change of heart. What do you have
obligations to? Turns out your obligations are to the international community.
Again everything this document has been saying over and whatever.
If you have the increasingly close ties and mutual dependence
today between all the inhabitants of peoples of the earth,
the apt pursuit of effication's attainment of the universal common
good requires the community of nations organize itself into a
manner suited to the present responsibilities, especially towards many parts
of the world suffering from lack. If you're a wealthy nation,
you are not helping and supporting humanity. You owe all
of your money to the poor nations because of why
Jesus and socialism. I mean, if you don't see a
problem with this, If you, I mean, I thought you
guys were against the New World Order. This is the
new World order right here, Okay, it is the United
Nations Document. The Vatican has many, many times over said
that like the United Nations. In fact, the Benedict the
fifteenth was a supporter of the League of Nations. So
it's not like this is some new post Vatican two things.
Pope Benedict the fifteenth, if you have the Oxford History
of the Popes, read his entry. It talks about him
being a huge supporter of the League of Nations, which
was a Fabian socialist agenda. On record, as we've covered,
this is also a Fabian socialist agenity. If you can't
recognize it, I don't know what to tell you. Last
paragraph of eighty four is really wild. Watch this. Already
existing international and regional organizations are certainly well deserving of
the human race. In other words, the UN, what do
you think he's talking about? The UN? The Fabian socialst organizations,
that's the only ones that exist. That's what they're talking about.
Speaker 2: UNESCO.
Speaker 1: These are the first efforts at laying the foundation of
the international community of all men working together to solve
the problems of the human race, to progress everywhere, and to
get rid of war. Again, did Jesus say he came
to bring world peace or a sword? In all these
activities the Robin Catholic Church takes joy in the spirit
of brotherhood. Again Masonic gibberish speak to relieve human misery.
I'm pretty sure Jesus said it is not the mission
of the church to secure the temporal gains in the
temporal health of world peace and of the nations. He
said he came to bring a sword and to preach
the gospel of repentance. This is the gospel of Fabian
socialism and fixing the world. And if you've never read
the Grand Inquisitor chapter, which I had a whole college
class on the Granted Quizor chapter, this proves Dostoevsky was
a Prophets said the papacy will ditch Jesus and will
offer a world socialism answer to solving man's temporal problems.
Here it is right here, Dostoevsky vindicated right there. Now,
we hear a lot about conscioception amongst Roman Catholics, and
they love to beat the drum as if they had
this moral high ground. I thought this is an interesting
statement that doesn't really make sense with their moral high
ground because the last paragraph of eighty seven, in keeping
with man's inalienable rights to marry and to generate children.
A decision concerning the number of children they will have
depends on the right and the judgments of the parents.
Speaker 2: Oops.
Speaker 1: You Roman Catholics are amazing hypocrites. Your moral high ground
isn't even in your own documents. Your own documents admit, well,
it's a contradiction. I wouldn't say that, I would even
disagree with this. The decision of the number of children
is a right of the parents. Does that fit with
all your moral high ground about contraception? Hmm, all right,
now there's more. But those are the high points of God.
I emit space, which is a document nobody recovers. So
hopefully you see very clear that like the Vatican is
teaching socialism, internationalism, globalization, none of this has anything to
do with what they taught even decades earlier, with the
Syllabus of Errors, saying that the Church cannot be separated
from the state, even the world, the geopolitical power of
the Roman. See, you can't get rid of that. It's
condemned if you try to night and day opposite. And
if you can't see that, And by the way, I
don't know if you know there's like tons of condemnations
of socialism in this Tan books sixteen papal documents. Do
you have any times they condemn socialism? Rite of rite,
a private judgment, freedom of conscience, freedom of worship? Like
every one of these papal documents is condemning, literally word
for word, all the stuff that you just saw in
Vatican Two's Gaudia metspez. If that's not clear enough, I
don't know what else could be made clear to you, guys.
I mean, at that point, it's it's bad faith, right,
It's like there's nothing that's going to convince you because
you've joined a cult where literally the Pope can determine
reality and truth at any moment. Brian, what's up? Do
you want to say something? I'm mute, Brian, I'm mute.
Do you see the section? I mean, are you even
able to read a section errors regarding the civil power
of the Roman Pontiff? I mean it literally has giant
bold text for you, guys. What's up? Brian?
Speaker 5: Talk?
Speaker 3: I don't really see that, mister Dyer. What's going on here?
Speaker 1: You don't see what.
Speaker 3: The documentaries you're referring to.
Speaker 1: You don't see the document I'm referred to? What are
you talking about. It's on the screen.
Speaker 3: I see the space there, but I don't see anything
else in the comments.
Speaker 1: I'm on YouTube, dude, what are you talking about?
Speaker 3: Oh? My bad, I'm on X Sorry.
Speaker 1: Okay, So what do you disagree with it? You don't see.
Speaker 3: Disagree if anything, Sir, Just I'm just listening more than speaking.
Speaker 16: Sorry about die press the button by mistake.
Speaker 1: Yeah, obviously I'm not talking about I'm talking about YouTube. Young.
What's up?
Speaker 3: Yo? Uh?
Speaker 16: Yeah?
Speaker 3: That that debate was pretty good. Something I think is
an angle.
Speaker 18: I think could have been explored there that I thought
was super cool is at the start of the act
is purest thing?
Speaker 3: Tim started explaining his answer. He started saying.
Speaker 18: God entered into creation, and then he cuts himself off
right away and he reached or he reformulates a sentence.
Speaker 3: It's like when you.
Speaker 18: Know chat GPT is like giving you an.
Speaker 3: Answer and it realizes mid response. It's like against t us.
I think like the.
Speaker 18: Fact that it's just there, like incarnations just totally incompatible is.
Speaker 3: Such a like such a killer.
Speaker 18: I think like that's if you want to like reach
the you know, like the regular normy kind of people,
especially like the Norman Catholics, that's the.
Speaker 3: Way to go.
Speaker 1: Yeah, That's what I was trying to illustrate in the
first round was that Actus purists God being reduced to
pure act makes the incarnation impossible, and particularly Philippians too
in the Canosus passage, it's a very famous passage. Everybody
who knows anything about Christianity the Bible should know about
the Canosis text. The Sun willingly limited himself to enter
into time and space. End of debate, right there, Johnny,
what's up Johnny?
Speaker 3: On you?
Speaker 2: Hi?
Speaker 19: Jay, Hey, Hi, look like I've been following you for
the past I'm from Spain. I've been following you from
for the past five five years. And you know, in
Spain we have a saying that we are more papers
than the pope.
Speaker 1: I mean we had the basic Yeah, well you have
what I can't slow down say that again, you have more?
Speaker 3: What that we are more?
Speaker 19: There's a saying in Spain that we are more papers
than the pope.
Speaker 16: Oh, meaning that.
Speaker 19: Like when you know, we had the biggest geopilitica, geopolitical
and empire around the papacy, which was brought down by
you know, by the Anglo sphere, and so one thing
that I've noticed over the years, is just telling you
a little bit about the sociological background here in Spain.
I mean, let's say ninety five percent of people, and
I have like family members, friends around, they can't even
hold basic argumentation. They can't even basically they're not even
interest for the most part, you send them basic stuff.
It's just the same thing you were mentioning with team right.
So I think one of the things that emergency, one
of the questions that we have to ask ourselves as
Orthodox is I mean, is there a different debates have
a space, but is there a point to keep going
on that direction because maybe there's other spaces. For example,
right now in Spain, there's a lot of build up
around the issue of prophecy, right as World War the
is approaching and listening to Dimitry Conrad, and you know,
there's basically Roman Catholic apologies. People that you know are
talking about new prophecies about China's gonna bomb Rushia with
nuclear weapons, and I believe that, Well, I have a
bunch of points here, you know, and I found more
useful often to you know, point out, for example, that
prophecies or bringing people to liergy talking is through aesthetics
or even for example, looking at the parallels between the
history of Spain and the history of the papacy. How
for example, during francosh time you had this two technocrats.
Speaker 16: We hopose day was very very important.
Speaker 19: It's very important to show everything you've been talking about
within the past hour, right how basically through Spain, you know,
the bodykind is transformed. This is kind of like globalistic
political yes too under the CIA and so yeah, that
was been another point maybe this kind of stuff.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think you're right, like it might be more
effective to talk about other stuff and have other approaches. Absolutely,
because I mean it's almost like that this has been beaten.
It's a dead beating the dead horse, you know, on
whatever it's been. It's just been done so many times.
And I'll give you guys the link. There's god in Metspas.
You can check all the quotes and the sources right there. Also,
remember you can follow me on X right here. I'll
give you guys X link. You can call in through
the ex link in the show description. Gainersilla twenty dollars.
Congratulations on that win. No, I already read excuse me,
young finesse or two dollars, Jay, how is my favorite
orthodox cholo doing? Don gu bron I barely made it today.
I'm super tire man. Austin alba is four dollars YouTube
and I are actively sending money money and you can
passively receive it. Well, if you actively give me money,
I am passively giving money. You see how that works?
According to Tim's logic about spiration, the Holy Spirit is
the cause and aspirator by receiving his existence inspiration and
then and then passively spirating and causing who are what himself?
You see? So when you give me money, I actively
also donate, and I am a person of great charity
because all that money passive is caused and donated to
myself from me. See how that works? Glitchy rhythm two dollars.
Don't worry, guys, I'm here now. Rolph Stakes became a
seventeen month member. Wow or remember four seventeen months? Maybe
I misread that Rum mcaltholkers saying neither of any of
these represents the church their personalities. Do you have thoughts
on that? Why wouldn't Tim or myself be representatives? So
I don't even know what that means. I mean, somebody
can say that, but like you need to show that
what I said about Catholicism or orthodox he was false.
So that's really a meaningless statement unless they show how
that's the case. Made by Jimbob twenty dollars a day.
What's up, Jim Bob. Shout out to our good bff Jimbob.
Everybody be sure and follow made by Jimbob on his channel.
He's killing it. He's doing a lot of funny streams,
a lot of lengthy streams. He's doing a lot of debates.
He's doing great work made by Jimbob. He says, nice job.
A lot of the technical stuff is over my head.
But glory of God as a creature was pretty much
the end of the debate. Yeah, I think everybody resonates
with understanding that that makes absolutely no sense, even if
you don't know orthox theology, like to say God has
created attributes. I think most Roman Catholics realized, way that
doesn't make any sense. Celeboy worth five dollars. I wish
you would have asked him, what is the point then?
When he says that you don't really have to follow
what the pope teaches if it's wrong. By the time
of the third section, Both he and I were exhausted,
So there's probably a lot of things. I just didn't
even catch JR. What's up? That was actually supposed to
be a two hour debate, believe it or not, So
that two hour debate ended up becoming almost like a
five hour thing. So that's but I knew when we
got there, like and we I don't think we're gonna
be able to cover three topics in two hours?
Speaker 3: What's up?
Speaker 1: JR? JR?
Speaker 3: Are you ing? Yeah? So speaking to the guy who
was asking early.
Speaker 20: Just like with conspiracy theories twenty years ago, sometimes it
takes a long time.
Speaker 16: Like you and I both, I mean, we've known.
Speaker 3: Each other for quite a while.
Speaker 20: So ten fifteen years ago, twenty years ago, nobody was
even receptive to the idea that the Federal Reserve was private,
even within this realm of religious discussions. Right, maybe something
sounds hopeless at the moment to be able to get
through to people, but maybe in a couple of years
you might see a big breakthrough with a lot of people.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that's a good way to look at it.
Like I've seen the Overton windows shift tremendously. Just take
for example, criticizing the Big Z and things in the
middle in the Middle East, I had a blog in
two thousand and seven and eight. I wrote a lot
of articles criticizing Big Z, and I had nobody aiding,
helping or supporting me. No one. I got threats. I
got people told me that they knew where I worked,
they were gonna call and get me fired. They were
believing or not, they weren't. They were actually evangelicals that
did that. And nobody was talking about that back then
except for like a few random, sparse websites. Nowadays, everybody
on Twitter, all they want to talk about is Zionism, Judaism,
et cetera. Okay, so like that, the Elberton window has
definitely shifted, and I think John's absolutely right that it's
very likely that we'll it will continue to shift towards
a lot of things being questioned, hopefully moving in the
right direction.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 3: One, speaking of the Big Z.
Speaker 20: If anybody wants a good book about Pope, John Paul
is second and the Big Z. It's actually a mainline book.
It's called The Hidden Pope, The Untold Story of a
Lifetime Friendship.
Speaker 1: Yes, I have that book.
Speaker 20: Yes, Changing the relationship between Catholics and Jews by Darcy O'Brien.
And once again, just like many of the other modernist
appeal books, they think it's they think it's this book
that's going to be like a good thing back at
the time edit's written, where it's like, oh, there's this
great relationship between Jews and Catholics, and now in the
modern day that might not be such a good thing.
Speaker 1: Yes, here's the book right here. I've not read the
entire book. I've read some chapters out of it because
it was very relevant to me when I was a
tradcat so I was. I made use of this book
to actually try to disprove John Paul the Second being
a saint and being anything that is worth listening to.
And of course it is still relevant because you go
back and you check out John Paul the Second's lifetime
friendship with Jersey Klueger, who was a famous Jew, and
John Paul's mission to try to make the Catholic Church
essentially judaized. He was very open about that. This is
why he, for the as far as i'm where, was
the first pope to ever go in synagogues and pray
in synagogue worship services, which is pretty wild like that
had never I've never heard of this happening. Maybe there's
some instance that I'm not aware of, but we've referred
to it many times of John Paul the Second going
and praying in the same that's actually violation by the
way of the cannons, right, the canons of the first
thousand years forbid anyone from doing this. So all you
trad cats, all you people that Larry Paul daylong talking
about Big Z and people in the Middle East, get
out of my Get out of my ear. I'm not
even listening to any of you because you're all total
hypocrites because you won't talk about this. It's your own
church and leaders that are the masters of this, you hipocrites. KD,
what's up? KD? What's up?
Speaker 3: Hey, J how's it going? I can't hear hey, So
just a quick thought of on debate.
Speaker 7: I don't know if you happened to see, but so
the morning after Scholastic answers at a stream, uh basically
sort of a few in this debate, he had someone
on with them, tall Astro. I'm not really familiar with Astro,
but they were talking.
Speaker 1: About that these are people who, uh, this is a
guy who's in a rand who hasn't as far as
I knew, claimed he was Roman Catholic. Apologies, but he
never even been baptized. So okay, I've already interacted with him.
What's the point?
Speaker 3: So that that puts some context. So they were talking about.
Speaker 7: Created grace and thoughts glory basically being a manifestation.
Speaker 1: So manifestation of what what does that mean of God?
Speaker 3: I guess this was their point.
Speaker 1: Okay, is God's manifestation created or uncreated?
Speaker 3: Oh? It gets better.
Speaker 7: So someone in the chat said, uh, yeah, White just
taught created grace.
Speaker 3: And by the way, so did Palomas.
Speaker 7: So that if if Gregory Palomas taught created grace, that
was a surprise to me.
Speaker 1: No, that's the stupidest thing ever heard. Nobody, everybody knows
that's not true.
Speaker 3: That's right. So I dropped a quote.
Speaker 7: I dropped a quote in the chat from from the
Third Triads where paulamas Clevely says, look, if you're justified
by grace, and if you're justified by a preacher, what
are you Basically what are you talking about?
Speaker 1: So anybody who is anybody who's done like surface level
reading would know that's.
Speaker 7: Not true, right, So he asked Astro to respond to this,
and he says, well, yeah, but it can't be Grace
can't be uncreated because it's given in measure. Would you
say that you have the same grace as Mary? So like,
that's just a level.
Speaker 1: That's actually an argument that Barleam makes and if Palamas
addresses that and says God's grace is given without measure,
but also with measure, and that's a antonomy that there
is no explanation for because you can't give parts of God.
But in another sense, we don't get the fullness of
God because we are always moving up into God. And
that's because God transcends these dialectics. So this is actually
a Cappadocian argument that's made. And Maximus covers us in
the ambiguity about how to refute originism and the idea
of eternal stasis. There's not eternal stasis because we have
a body resurrection, so we are always moving up into God.
But a lot of the Eastern or a lot of
the Greek Hellenic philosophical thinkers thought, how could you have
perfect eschatology without perfect stasis. Well, the assumption is that
you must have perfect stasis but we are beyond the
dialectic of stasis and change, and thus we are in
immovable we are The way the Cappadocians phrase it is
we are in eternally moving stasis. So there's a transition,
there's a transcending of the dialectics. And that's what they
don't understand because they're dialecticians and they're idiots. Andrea, what's up.
Speaker 21: Hello, man? For some reason, I can't hear you. Now
you know, I'm speaker.
Speaker 1: I'm here. People are calling this is all these Romanic
I don't drink. This guy's calling me an alcoholic. I
never drink. I haven't drink in almost eight years. So
this is like, all you Roman calices have is this
kind of stuff, personal attacks, and it just shows the
weakness of your position. That makes sense. I'd love for
you to come debate and explain to me how any
of the arguments are wrong, because all you guys have
is this week vagina stuff like that, and everybody knows
I don't drink. So what's up man?
Speaker 21: Hey man, I've been a huge follower of years. For
a while, I'm not sure if I'm well equipped to
debate you. I don't know if this would be a debate,
but I do have like a good topic.
Speaker 3: Maybe you're interested in.
Speaker 21: What well in terms of a divination like uh, I
guess my.
Speaker 2: My position or my uh.
Speaker 21: What I'd like to ask you is like, are you
completely against it? I know that's kind of like there
is that uh you know that quote against divination and
sorcery or whatever. But I do see you know, there's
many accounts in the Bible where divination was actually approved
by God. In the Bible in terms of dreams, casting lots,
even Jesus.
Speaker 1: Divination is trying to gain secret knowledge from angels or demons.
It's not the same thing as God giving a person
a dream or vision. That's not what divination is. Confused,
what's up?
Speaker 3: Ja?
Speaker 22: Pardon my ignorance, but I'm trying to understand a Catholic
perspective on uh defining and lucy? So what makes different
the binding and losing of cannons versus if a conflict
would make the argument that binding and loosing of the.
Speaker 3: Infallibility or that you have to believe.
Speaker 22: In the pope for salvation, couldn't that be a case
of binding and loosing?
Speaker 3: Because it later on it was.
Speaker 1: I guess No, they're not supposed to believe that the
dogmas of the church change because the pope has binding
and loosing. That's not what I've never heard of Roman
calloic argue about. Doesn't mean that the pope can't say
that like I bind everybody to the Trinity in the
fourth century, but nowadays I loose everybody from the Trinity.
You have to believe it. That's no, that's ridiculous, I mean,
But ironically, that's actually where the papacy position has evolved
to because they now think that what used to be
natural law or natural justice in terms of the death
penalty Francis has now gotten rid of that because it's
against the Gospel. So they actually do believe that the
pope can change natural law. But that's what we get
with the paper. See and try to bring that up.
They handwave it. They don't care. What's up meant, Ryan?
I mean, who can read Leviticus nine and believe that
this is created God's glory appeared to all the people.
What's up?
Speaker 9: Hey, Jee?
Speaker 3: I've heard you.
Speaker 23: I've heard many people ask you if there's salvation outside
of the Orthodox Church, and many times you sided the
thief on the cross as an example of God using
an extra number of means.
Speaker 3: To do that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they're not outside the church, They're in the church.
Speaker 23: So when I've heard you use that example, I just wonder,
isn't isn't the thief on the cross an example of
the harrowing of hell more than it is? Because that's
old covenants still, right, So that's really not a good thing.
Speaker 1: No, it's not. He says you will be in paradise
with me, so it's not the old Covenant.
Speaker 3: Uh, Okay.
Speaker 23: My understanding of it was that he would have went
to Hades Jesus.
Speaker 1: Does Jesus say that or does he say that you
will be with me in paradise?
Speaker 23: He did say that, and he said the same day,
and it could have been the same day because Jesus
went to Hades and proclaimed the Gospel and released the
righteous captives.
Speaker 1: So okay, does anybody does is Abraham baptized?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 1: Does he go to heaven?
Speaker 3: Yes? I guess through righteousness? Right?
Speaker 1: Okay, So there you go. That's what I've been arguing
the whole time. What's up?
Speaker 16: Hello?
Speaker 2: Yep, Yeah, I had a quick question.
Speaker 1: I'm not taking Q and A questions unless you disagree.
I said that about twenty times. So what's what's your point?
Speaker 3: Oh?
Speaker 24: Nothing, I'll just make some real quick So if the
Roman Catholics, if they claim that they have the correct
view on the Eucharist, which is transubstantiation, how are we
any different if we if like our patriarch, I think
those Citius declares that I know that the term is nuanced,
but could you like explain, like.
Speaker 1: How different on what like like.
Speaker 24: The matters of like confuse merits and like i'd say.
Speaker 1: We don't believe in I have no idea what you're
talking about. What does infused merits have to do with
the Eucharist. What are you talking about?
Speaker 24: Because because well, in our in our confession it used
that term, and I'm wondering what the nuance is.
Speaker 1: What would be.
Speaker 24: The difference confession I'm sorry, decrease seventeen of the confession
desidious in the sin on sixteen seventy two.
Speaker 2: Decree what decrease seventeen?
Speaker 1: So you think I'm trying to figure out what your
argument is the Eucharist, tell me what it is.
Speaker 24: Yeah, Basically, like if a Roman Catholic says, like, well,
you guys have the same views of euchrists as us.
Speaker 16: And we have the word transubstantiation.
Speaker 1: Not a question of the word, it's a it's a
question of how how the Divinity is present, and it's
already been stated at the Council of Ephesus in Saint
Cyril that it's the energies that are present that deify
and change the flesh, So deified flesh is only possible
through the divine energies. This is about this decree, and
this statement is not treating of or dealing with the
more specific questions of how he's present, right, So it's
not going to answer that question. So the language that's used,
because as Latin language is this is also a translation
into into the into Western language, using Latin terminology, has
nothing to do with It's not even addressing the sense
in which the divinity is present, which has already been
covered multiple times over. If you listen to me, you'd listen,
you would know that I talked about the two letters
of Cyril to six census. It's not the divine essence,
it's the divine energies that are present. That's the only
way to be deified. Because nobody believes that we partaken
the divine essence. So where is this where is this
treating of the divine energies?
Speaker 24: Yeah, I think the problem is is that I think
someone pulled up a quote of the patriarch Decidius.
Speaker 3: I think he says like he is grateful for.
Speaker 24: The Latins to defend the doctrine trans transubstantiation. So my
question is, like if he viewed it that they had
like like kind of like the same view, like what
would be like the NW once.
Speaker 1: Because I'm I'm not sure that he does because in
the Norman Russell textas says that he translated and enforced
all the Palamite synod decrees. So I'm not sure that
I believe that. But even if he did, I mean,
he could be mistaken thinking that the Roman Catholics have
the same doctrine. But do you understand that it's not
talking about the essence energy distinction, which Saint Cyril says
is the only way to understand the presence of Christ
and the Eucharist.
Speaker 2: Okay, yeah, all right, thank you for explaining that.
Speaker 1: Thanks to you, And I'm not trying to be rude.
I just I didn't understand at first what he was
going to merits, but I understand what he's getting at Rocknification.
What's up. I'm not taking any FAQ questions, by the way,
I'm like reveal, who disagree? Nick? Five dollars? Great debate,
Jay on a letter note, we buy the dips, slow boys. Yeah,
a bitcoin dipped again. People could find a spot to
buy in if they wanted to. Here, it might be good.
I don't know if if we'll go lower, but like
in the long run, any dip is good Rocknification.
Speaker 3: I'm you, hey, sorry about that.
Speaker 14: Yeah, I was wondering if you could maybe expand a
little bit on the clarification you gave a little I
go about how the way that God communicates information is
not divination specifically, I'm wondering about and I'm not sure
about the pronunciation, but there's something in the Old Testament
called urim and thummim.
Speaker 1: I think, are you Mormon.
Speaker 3: Because I always know sure, I'm Orthodox. I just don't
know about this.
Speaker 1: If God ordains it to be done that way, that's
not divination. Divination is trying to seek spiritual knowledge or
information from angels and demons or even God in ways
that God has not laid down, such as augury or
sorcery or whatever. If God says, you can utilize to
the Israelites that room in the Thummim, then it's not divination.
It's fine. I don't I'm not sure why. People. I'm
not trying to be rude. I just don't really understand why.
That's it's pretty clear to me. Night was up? Night
you want I'm mute?
Speaker 3: Hello, uh huh up? How are you?
Speaker 21: Yeah, I'm from Canby.
Speaker 16: You know I'm not being Yeah, you know it seems like.
Speaker 1: You know, okay, having hard I'm understanding. But what's your question?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 25: You know I'm interested, you know, in authodoxy, but you
know a country in which I live, you know, like guys,
the Orthodox is not you know that more pa.
Speaker 1: Hell well, I understand that that's difficult. You do the
best you can. But I'm not taking questions. I'm trying
today we're doing questions of people who disagree. So I'm
not trying to be rude to you, but I special
I said specifically many times over, maybe you just got
here like for people who disagree. Otherwise we're not I'm
not doing the FAQ stuff. What's up? I caught him out?
What's up? Jaydire is Rosicrucian grifter or scumb. What the
hell are you talking about? Rosicrucian I don't believe anything
remotely close to Rosicrucianism. I don't believe in reincarnation. I
don't believe in alchemy like that's literal, just total gibberish.
You want to call in and prove, demonstrate how I'm
a rescrucion, please do so. I caught him out. Are
you gonna talk or not? What's up? Man? Uh, this
doesn't make any sense. Rosicrucian scum? What the fuck are
you talking about? Inquire longer two dollars. I went to
my first divine liturgy. Unfortunately it was an Acumenist priest. Oh,
sorry to hear that.
Speaker 2: Hey can you hear me now?
Speaker 5: Yep?
Speaker 26: Hey, sorry man, it just glitched out on me. First
of all, I wanted to say, awesome debate landslide, But
similar to a few guys before, I was wondering if
you could help me understand the.
Speaker 3: RC perspective on something.
Speaker 26: So Tim was using the passage in John where Jesus
says all that the Father has he is given to
me to prove the blyoqui And maybe I'm just too
dumb to understand this, but then he then says that
the son doesn't have generation, only the father has generation,
and that spiration and generation is different.
Speaker 1: Right, that's called a todtradiction, So exactly okay, but yeah,
good question brought Brody Bushnell ten dollars. The first of
the paper is here, very evident. I applaud you even
being able to debate any of this with a straight face.
Thank you people who feel my pain. David James Flood
five pounds. I bought two World Wars and Tiny Mustache
Man that's put out by Trying Day. Is a great book,
unbelievablemounts of research. It will become a classic. Yeah, I'm
looking forward to that. I think Chris is going to
send me a copy of that. And he said that
he's finished the index for Ester Clay with three and
I think he said his goal is to put to
send it to the printer next week. So thank you Chris. Awesome.
Do you hear that? So a lot of people were
waiting on their esotere Colly with reorder. It's going to
the printer next week. According to Chris, he hopes to
be able to get to the printer next week. I
think it's looking good. He did send me the most
recent copy. It has the entire index in it. Joseph
Seambra five dollars.
Speaker 3: Jay.
Speaker 1: The most humorous part of the debate is at three
hours twenty three minutes in when you asked him to
give the book back. Yeah, because it was just not
going I mean, it was making me mad because I
felt like he was bogging the debate down in the
topic of universal ordinary Magisterian not being infallible when it
obviously is. And he admitted to me privately after the
debate that he was wrong about that. I wish he
had said that on air, but whatever, it's not even
an issue. But he we didn't even get into the argument.
I tried to squeeze it in at the ending because
it was like, well, if this is nine hundred years
of people teaching about geopolitical power, it's universal ordinary teaching.
Doesn't matter whether it's okay, it's not ex cathedral, it's
still universal teaching. No, but it not it it goes away.
You can hand away one shot, big fat win. You
totally cooked, absolutely floundered. He panicked like a squirrel when
you went into dogmatic contradictions of the Vatican one and two.
That's because I think Tim has a soft spot for
traditional Catholic argumentation and he leans that way, and I
think he knows deep down that you're not going to
make Vatican two work. We didn't even get to go
into the Vatican two statements about the well the post
Vatican two is a ten to get rid of the
how do we put it? The Good Friday prayers about
people in the Middle East being perfidious and accursed and
all that. If I recall when he debated one of
the Roman Catholic guys that he disagrees with, he was
defending the idea that this was a change. Tim says
that Pope Francis contradicts and his statement in Amore's Latitia
on divorce people receiving communion is a contradiction. So I
mentioned that, but that was never addressed.
Speaker 3: JB.
Speaker 1: Five dollars. Everybody immediately starts cooking of their catechumen questions. Yeah.
I specifically told you guys, I'm not answering your catechumen
questions today, and I said, if you do ask them,
I'm just going to boot you. I'm gonna move on,
But then you're gonna get mad at me. So only
The only reason I cave on that is because I
know the way the internet works, and but her people,
you know, some question, then they'll turn into angry harassers
for the next five years because of something stupid like that.
Even though I said, I'm not answering a Catechuyman questions
today and I'm just gonna do more forceful on it
and just let people get but hurt and mad. I
will not answer your Catechuyman question today. Don't even bother
asking me. I'm just gonna literally just move on. And
if you're a butt hurt, that's your fault. JB member
of six months. Liberals say morals are determined by consensus
Roman Catholics. Catholicism has the most people, therefore it's true.
This is atheist level logic. Yeah, you can tell that
to the guy they called in at the beginning, John Kimble.
Five dollars France, Spain, Portugal are literally becoming Muslim woll.
The Muslims are also praying in Catholic churches, reading the
Quran in the Catholic churches. I don't know if you
know that. There's plenty of clips of this, especially in
Germany places like that. Austria. But why is that a
problem Because all the Roman Calvicks, remember the last month,
they had a devastating defeat a couple of nights ago,
Remember the devastating defeats a month ago that they all
worshiped the same god as the Muslims, and they brought
on gay professors to defend us. I mean, have fun,
Roman Catholics. It's time to move on. I mean, I
don't know how else to. Like, we're at the point
where you get these people with these gay crashouts. Okay,
it's over, Like they're done. I'm not talking about Tim,
I'm talking about the other guy. Roll stakes twenty dollars?
Did Romancantholicism fall to atheism in the French Revolution and
then it fell to Protestantism and Reformation? Thus, how do
they think that constant Nople isn't own? Yeah, if that's
the proof, then Rome is refuted by Protestantism, atheism, the
French Revolution, and Constantinople falling when it's Uni eate. I mean,
this is how stupid these people are, Gabriel, But that
disproves orthodoxy. Rome falls when it's Uni eate, and thus
disproves Orthodoxy. That's what Gabriel, Gabriel, what's up?
Speaker 8: Hold on?
Speaker 1: Sorry, what do you what do you disagree with.
Speaker 16: That I'm trying to like save Christianity?
Speaker 1: What do you disagree with taking disagreements?
Speaker 16: Okay, Okay, I disagree with the predilection of scripture. What
of prioritizing scripture over.
Speaker 3: The observation of God's creation?
Speaker 1: Okay? Who who does that?
Speaker 3: Sorry?
Speaker 16: I can going to hear you anyway?
Speaker 1: Who is doing that? Who were you saying is prioritizing
Bible over creation? Who are you calling out? Who does that?
Speaker 27: Orthodox followers that that I've discussed with, Like I've had
theological discussions with.
Speaker 16: I'm curious.
Speaker 1: Okay, state what their position is and why it's wrong.
Give the argument please.
Speaker 15: Like I've encountered this recurrent argument that this world is
the kingdom of Satan.
Speaker 1: The world itself isn't the world system that is an
opposition to God is the kingdom of Satan. But the
world itself is created good, It's not of Satan. That's
that's Manicheanism or dualism. We don't believe that.
Speaker 15: Yeah, that's that's That's what I've responded.
Speaker 1: Okay, Well, then we don't disagree. So I'm not sure
what the debate is. But moving on, Christopher Scott five dollars.
I went to my first of vine leturgy. It was
a great experience. I want to say thank you, thank you.
Journey a Bud twenty dollars. What would you say to
a cessation as says that the perfect has come in
one crienty is thirteen. But even after Paul wrote Corinthians,
there's still miracles. So how does that? I don't understand
how that. So are we supposed to believe that after
Paul wrote to the Corinthians there have never been miracles
in the church. I mean, aren't there miracles in the
Book of Acts? I don't understand. Well, I mean, ultimately
the perfect is the Escuton, So I don't understand how
this is an argument against miracles. Onyx Rock five dollars more,
the more horrible Rumman Catholic arguments Jay here is the
quicker he results to his final form of being Gordon Ramsey.
It is very difficult to have these really low tier ones,
like when we had Zachary just saying just just dumb stuff,
which which we've responded to like it's just it's it's
disrespectful to come on the stream and repeat really dumbload
twer arguments as if that hasn't been responded to a
thousand times. Even if you disagree, like to come on
here and just say that it's kind of disrespectful. Jordan
Daro two dollars. Rum is right because we have Romayne
let us. I might as well argue that. You know,
Stevie five dollars. I know it's still early, but you've
been on quite the heater lately. Heater. What do you
think about the chance of winning this year's top christ
following man. That's a righteous Gemstones joke. That's pretty funny. Yeah,
I think you gotta be gay to get that. So
I don't want that light in the dart? What's up
pondering metaphysics? Five dollars. I had to leave that debate midway.
Did you respond to claims that the Orthodox view of
Council's is epistemically circular? It was a Jay win. No,
there wasn't really any time to respond to every every assertion.
Mark Medlick ten dollars. Jay, you forgot that Pope Katy
Perry and Cardinal so it said that they like Jesus
a little bit. Savatican one and two are misinterpreted. The
Nova Sorto is done and the traditional Latin mass is
coming back. You need to submit to Rome even though
they're shutting down the traditional Latin messes yet, Eric Z
five dollars. All the rock Fin podcasts are down? Uh oh,
I'm sure if if they're down, it's probably temporary. I
don't think it's done. I don't. I don't know why
it's it's down at the moment, but I'm sure it'll
eventually come back. Are they gone for good? Not that
I've heard. If rock Fin is done or if they
go down or something like that, I would definitely let
you guys know, but I haven't heard that as of yet. Noah,
what's up? Sometimes websites go down for you know, maintenance
or whatever.
Speaker 28: Noah, Hi, Hey, how would you respond to the idea
that orthodox Christian values are empathetical to American values?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, Jesus takes precedence over American values, so
it'd be an odd line of argument. What are the
American values that we're supposed to submit to or that
that are better than.
Speaker 3: I'm not saying that they're better or not.
Speaker 29: I guess what I'm getting at is the idea that
American values that are established through the Founding Fathers in
their writing, Well.
Speaker 1: That would just be enlightenment idolatry.
Speaker 29: Right, So, how I guess, how do you, as an
American and an Orthodox Christian.
Speaker 2: Do both without.
Speaker 1: I mean, how did a Christian in the third century
support Rome without supporting pagan Roman values?
Speaker 16: You?
Speaker 2: Well, they created alternate.
Speaker 1: Systems, I mean the church. Is that alternate system?
Speaker 16: Correct?
Speaker 1: Anyway? Good question. I'm not taking basically. I appreciate that,
but I'm not doing kind of basic q and A.
We're doing people who disagree, So do not call me in.
Do not call unless you disagree. We do open q
and as all the time. I'm only taking people to disagree.
So Andrew, please don't ask me FA you question, just
please tell me where you disagree. Otherwise, moving on, Andrew
was up, I'm you.
Speaker 3: Hey, nice debate. There One thing I.
Speaker 30: Noticed that Tim did like a lot of Roman Catholic
state there was they brought up the the Monophysites in
regards to saying, oh, that's a different orthodoxy.
Speaker 3: Why did they keep doing that?
Speaker 1: Will they think that this is an argument against us?
As if because someone schisms from us, that disproves us,
or that we can't determine whose Orthodox because the term
Orthodox is used. Well, by that line of argumentation, if
the Orthodox Catholic Church uses the term Catholic versus the
Roman Catholic Church, then we couldn't determine what the churches
because it's using the term Catholic. I mean, this is
like really low to argumentation. I also think they don't
realize that if you're going to argue that schisms disprove
the church being the true church, then if the Roman
Catholic Church was the church of the first thousand years,
then the Orthodox schism disproves it. I mean, it's it's
kind of amazing that they don't see why that's such
a stupid argument. I mean, the Protestants split from the
Roman Catholics, Therefore the Roman Caloity Church is fake, it's
false because there's these schisms. Like again, are you not
catching how this is a dumb argument. If we can't
determine between the Orthodox and the Oriental Church because both
call themselves Orthodox, then by that same line of argument,
we can't determine between the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox
because they both call themselves Catholic. I mean, this is
so stupid, like wow, Rigavitch five dollars. I'm sad and confused.
Nick's behavior was odd. I was enjoying him. He takes
wipes at you in Orthodoxy, but it is very prideful.
It's scornful. It's wrong. If I remember your work, you
were usually respectful. I think so. Yeah, k c A,
California ten times, ten dollars. I'm a long time listener.
Please don't read this, okay, we he talks about some
kind of crypto young finess are two dollars. Jay, you're
my favorite cholo. Thank you. I'm making sure I didn't
miss anything on the stream. Loves here, buddy p. We
have an objective twenty donations. Somebody help us get to
those stickers. Yeah, there is a goal of super chats.
If you guys want to help fulfill that goal, Nick,
ten dollars. Have you noticed that the Roman Catholics are
saying scripture is really all you need to prove the papacy.
But when Jay used the scriptures to prove that Muslims
Christians don't worship the same God, they melted down and
said that it was Protestant soul scripture exactly that's a
really good one. There. That's a great super chet. That's
probably the super chat of the night right there, that
was a good catch. Jay Raymond five dollars. Why is
the Muslim in Italy because of open borders? Let's see
gen Z five dollars. The Serbian Orthodox church I went
to had a fare and I helped out. It was
a lot of fun. The Serbs are great people. I
will enjoy, I think, becoming part of the Orthodox community. Yeah,
the Serbs are awesome. Rachel Wilson ten dollars. You and
Andrew like or had the same favorite video games? Oh,
that's cool. I think I remember Andrew saying he liked
to play role playing games. And then I remember the
first time that we all went out to eat we
were talking about in Nashville. We were talking about gaming
and games, but I don't remember which ones he said
he liked. But yeah, I'm looking forward to playing Final
Fantasy seven Part two, and that's because I'm really pissed
off from Final seven Final Fantasy seven Remake Part one,
because I got screwed over by going to the Boss
too soon, and I if I wanted to, i'd have
to basically go back halfway and I don't want to.
I'm not doing like thirty hours of Final Fantasy over again.
So it pissed me off. And there was no way,
there was no save between between that to like not
be out the final Boss, and it just sucks. So
but I wasn't enjoying I was. I remember I got
super sick in twenty twenty three and I basically just
sat there playing Final Fantasy seven remake for like I
don't know, three days, and then I like accidentally got
to the boss and I'm like, oh no, and then
I'm screwed. So and the same thing happened in Final
Fantasy fifteen, which pisses me off. So I guess I
could then start this one when I'm done with this
year's I do always save. I'm actually pretty autistic about saving.
So but the reason was the reason I wasn't autistic
about saving was because I didn't I didn't realize I
was that close to the final Boss. So and the
same thing happened on Final Fantasy. I get the numbers
mixed up, whichever one is the one that Florence and
the Machine did the song for, and then I'm at
the and it's like I'm so weak that as soon
as I step into the fight with the boss, he
kills me. So it's like, there's literally no way you
could beat the boss at the level that I'm at,
And I'm like, why would they even let you get
to the boss if you're this weak? And it doesn't
make any sense? Is it fourteen? Let's see what fourteen is.