Speaker 1: Le Christmas Time and cookie sweatitors and Karen Kutz and
Ugly Betties Christmas Time.
Speaker 2: What's up? Man?
Speaker 3: Hey? Hey, hey, am I am? I coming in clear?
Speaker 4: Yes, sir, Yeah, I wasn't originally gonna do this, but
a friend of mine recommended you to me.
Speaker 3: Uh he's an Orthodox himself.
Speaker 4: I myself am well, I just I guess I want
to just point out that I do believe in Christ.
Speaker 3: You know, I'm not an atheist. I'm not trying to
troll you.
Speaker 4: Sound kind of you sound kind of tired from all
the atheism in the general moronic nature of them all.
Speaker 2: But uh, I mean I'm pretty good. I'm running on
about seventy percent gasoline right now. I'm pretty good.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, I know the feeling.
Speaker 4: Brother, I I guess what I'm trying I want to
say is and forgive me if I go on a
few tangents. Uh stop me at any time if.
Speaker 3: You, if you wish. But uh uh I was raised.
Speaker 5: Uh.
Speaker 4: I guess you could say Protestant, but you know, I.
Speaker 6: Never really knew what that was back then.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 4: I just went to church, I you know, prayed to God,
read the Bible, all that, all that stuff. You know, uh,
pretty pretty innocent stuff. My mother was raised Catholic, but
she uh abandoned that. Uh, she sort of became Protestant.
But after a lot of church hopping, because admittedly none
of the churches in our area were very uh well,
they never seemed genuine, so we just just straight up
to stop going to church altogether and just, uh, I
guess you could say we became sola scriptura.
Speaker 3: I guess that's what it's called.
Speaker 4: But I didn't know what that was until my friend
pointed it out. And uh, He's told me a lot
about Orthodoxy, and I admit it is interesting, it's fascinating.
It's certainly more better than Catholicism. But okay, I guess
some of my disagreements that I have with it, I
guess I will admit I don't know much about.
Speaker 2: What's the question.
Speaker 3: Regarding saints?
Speaker 4: Is one thing, prayer to the saints, I guess, because
that's a thing that Orthos do, right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, if you read Revelation five through nine, you'll notice
that John is on earth participating in the heavenly liturgy,
and there's specific statements, particularly Revelation I think it's eight,
where you have the saints in heaven, the angels in
heaven offering the prayers of the Church of the Saints.
The saints that are martyred in heaven underneath the altar
are praying for the Church on earth. So the doctrine
of the community of Saints, which we see clearly in
Hebrews eleven in Revelation five through nine, is the basis
for why we would ask saints to pray for us.
Is technically what's going on. We're not praying to them
as gods.
Speaker 6: Okay, all right, that's uh, Revelation.
Speaker 2: Five, five through nine. So those chapters are where John
specifically sees a heavenly liturgical worship service going on.
Speaker 4: Okay, yeah, because I didn't get that at first. I
assumed it was that it seemed like prayer to dead men,
and it's you know, it sounded like niicromancy.
Speaker 2: And you know, I understand. I mean, I was a
protest and I used to have that that mindset as well,
so I get it. But I think if you look
at what's going on in Revelation five through nine, and
if you consider the fact that you know, in the
Orthodox view, we think that the heavenly liturgy is the
earthly liturgy that they're the same liturgy. That's the thought process,
the basis behind why why would we do that? Conspiracy theorist?
What's up man? Christmas?
Speaker 1: Dime mus Alli here, cookie sweaters and nasty beer?
Speaker 2: What's up? I'm mute? Conspiracy? Therest simply Harvey wonderful Christmas.
The thing about Christmas is the worst is all these
horrible Christmas songs that you hear everywhere in the stores,
like freaking Paul McCartney Christmas wings. Christmas songs are the worst,
and all the freaking department stores love those wings Paul
McCartney Christmas songs that are just awful. I'm mute, man,
Do you want to talk or not? He left has
Sony Armstrong. What's the worst of the department store Christmas songs? Today?
Is test my patience. Today is one of those days
where I just want to quit and go be an assassin.
I want to go to some assassin school and just
learn to, you know, be a trained killer. I don't
know that's a joke, by the way, but that's how
I feel. Jonathan, what's up man? See might know where
assassin school is. What's the tuition for you to get
an Assassin school. What's up?
Speaker 7: Man?
Speaker 8: Hey, I come from kind of a evangelical background.
Speaker 2: I come from the water mm hmm.
Speaker 8: And so all around me all my friend's family constant
like signs and miracles that they kind of view as
stamps of approval that they're.
Speaker 6: Walking the right faith.
Speaker 8: Lately kind of just seeing like what's going on.
Speaker 3: In Syria and stuff.
Speaker 8: It's like I'll have friends talking about how God healed
their iPhone after they prayed over it.
Speaker 2: Like, okay, wait, heal their yield their eyes phone?
Speaker 8: Yeah, like their iPhone wasn't charging. Just trust in God
and it starts working.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 3: They seem really sincere about it.
Speaker 8: But at the same time, it's like I see all
these ancient Christian communities getting wiped out, and it's like, okay,
so why is God doing all these wonders for us
and like the most pampered.
Speaker 2: For Yeah, there's a bunch of evangelical idiots here. There's
not signs and wonders with iPhones miraculous are being healed.
Speaker 8: Yeah, is there a way to like even to even
reason with that? Like, how do you how do you
even break someone out of it?
Speaker 2: I don't even know, man, that's a great question. I don't.
I mean, if somebody thinks that the iPhone got healed
and it's a miracle, find new friends. That's all I
can think of, Anthony, what's up, man? I know it's tough,
but give them time. I don't know, try to be
nice to them. Although Paul did have the miraculous gift
of healing phost is there a patron saying of iPhone?
Anthony got to mute, man, what's up?
Speaker 3: Ja? Can you hear me? So? Sorry?
Speaker 6: Excellent?
Speaker 9: I was curious, what do you think of the cosmic
temple view of Genesis. I'm not sure if I heard
you say anything about that recently. What are your thoughts?
What cosmic temple view of Genesis? You familiar with that?
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm familiar with like James Jordan's research, that
Genesis speaks of the creation of the universe, like the
Biblical temple. Is that what we're talking about?
Speaker 9: Yeah, the creation of the universe. Yeah, Yeah, that's what
I was talking about.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean that's in Three New Eyes, is a
great book by James Jordan that covers that. I think
that's a good perspective.
Speaker 3: Okay, I'll check that out next A good question.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Three New Eyes is a classic, even though Jordan
wrote that when he was Protestant, when I guess he
technically still is Anglican or whatever whatever he's made up.
But R JB. What's up?
Speaker 3: Man?
Speaker 2: It's still a good book. It's essentially kind of patristic.
Hermeneuticts a lot of typology going on. The universe is
structured in a three tiered you know structure.
Speaker 5: Go ahead, Hey, j how are you doing good?
Speaker 3: Uh?
Speaker 5: You know, this is not the first time that we've spoken.
If you remember a alternate current radio.
Speaker 3: We we spoke there a long time ago.
Speaker 2: Remind me. I'm sorry, I don't remember what Who are
you or do you don't want to know you?
Speaker 3: Do you remember the name Hesher? We Yeah?
Speaker 2: I know Hasher?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 3: Okay, yeah he was. I was one of the people
in the Knicks on his website.
Speaker 2: You don't want to say which guy you were?
Speaker 3: I mean, Oh Ryan, Ryan? G Yes, sir? Oh what's up?
Pretty good? How are you doing?
Speaker 2: What's what's on your mine?
Speaker 3: So? Yeah, I apologize. I could have just jumped into it.
Speaker 10: Just just wanted you to know I'm not some strangers
you as well, So funny enough, when we last spoke. Uh,
you probably didn't even know my stance on any of this,
but I was probably closest to what you could call
it deist at that time. I grew up in Catholicism,
but fell away spent about twelve years away from the church.
Speaker 3: I've since come back.
Speaker 5: I at this point, I am convinced of the truth
of the Catholic faith. So I just thought I would
call in and try to I mean, I know this
is about debate, and I don't mind having a bit
of a debate, but my goal here is more having
mutual understanding and hopefully gleanings that hopefully we could glean
something from each other.
Speaker 3: But you know, I'm just saying that's my goal.
Speaker 5: Where I would start it at is do we agree
on the four marks of the Church as stated in
the Nicene Creed.
Speaker 2: Absolutely well, I think we would agree at least basically
one Holy Catholic I wastall. But what I would actually
argue that's an argument against the Roman Catholic position, because
there's nothing in the Creed or in you know, sort
of the Batristic era theological summaries, whether it's John Damascus
is on the Orthodox Faith or whether it's a catechetical
lectures of Saint Cirril Jerusalem, like, none of those texts
really make Rome the focal point of the One Holy
Catholic Apostolic Church. And in fact, the council which is
constant the number one and three eighty one when they
composed that additional section to the Creed, you know, the
section about the church. That section is composed by a
council had out of communion with Rome, presided over by
Saint Melidio's who died out of communion with Rome. And
so if Constantinople one accurately lists the phrase one Holy
Calic Apostolic Church and they were not in commune with
Rome when they wrote that, they did not mean the papacy.
And so I would argue that that's actually in favor
of my position.
Speaker 5: Okay, when you say Rome, you're not I mean, just
to clarify, you're not speaking geographically.
Speaker 2: I'm speaking of the See of Rome, right, So I
mean the See of Rome is geographic, sure.
Speaker 5: Well, I mean it. I guess you could say the
Charter is the world.
Speaker 2: Though the Charter I don't know what you meant.
Speaker 3: The scope of influence of the Roman Well, influences.
Speaker 2: Influence is one thing. But like, if you read the
Chiad Document of Rome from a few years ago, it
admits that the Bishop of Rome did not have jurisdiction
over the churches of East in the first millennium.
Speaker 3: Okay, no, I actually that makes sense to me. I
mean in terms of.
Speaker 5: The as far as I understand it, there were multiple seas.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but Vatican one claims that from the earliest days
of the Church, the Roman Sea had universal jurisdiction over
the entire Christian imperium, the Christian body. And I'm saying that,
I'm saying that the Chiad document that Rome has up
on the Vatican website admits that this is not true,
that the Roman when was that published twenty sixteen?
Speaker 5: Okay, Well, I'd probably have issues with that.
Speaker 3: But.
Speaker 2: So do you know better than Francis I.
Speaker 5: I mean, I can't. I can't say in what in
what particulars.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean Benedict the sixteenth, Okay, Benedict the sixteenth,
in his book Introduction to Christianity, says basically the same
thing that in the first millennium the Roman seed did
not exercise universal jurisdiction over the East.
Speaker 3: Okay, well, so is Vatican.
Speaker 2: One right or are they right?
Speaker 3: I mean, I.
Speaker 5: Think I'd be really interested to go over the exact
lines where you're saying that those two are in contradiction.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, Vatican one says very clearly it's not
even contested that the Bishop of Rome has universal jurisdiction
and headship unilaterally over all the church without any need
for a synod or any other bishop to approve what
he says and does. That's the whole basis for ex cathedral.
I mean, that's Vatican One.
Speaker 5: Well, as I'm understanding that this all emanates.
Speaker 3: From the primacy of Peter the patrion office.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean what you mean by the first among
equals or something like that, then Orthodox person could agree
to that to the word quote premascy, because because in
the councils, Rome is listed first. Rome usually signed the
council first, but the Bishop of Rome didn't call any
ecumenical councils. There were popes who were excommunicated by ecumenical councils,
there were popes who submitted to ecumenical councils, like Virgilius.
So I'm just pointing out that Vatican one is an
innovation over the senidality collegiality practice of the Church in
the first millennium.
Speaker 3: Okay, but I mean, I guess I could.
Speaker 5: I'm not going to say that you're wrong there, but
I without having it directly in front of me, I'm
not sure exactly where you're saying those tes.
Speaker 2: That's fine. So so if you go to Papalincyclicals dot net,
you can type in Vatican one and you'll get the
full documentation of all of that. If you print it out,
it's about fifteen pages. That's all of Vatican One. And
then I would say, if you look at the G
eighty document Chi e t I from twenty sixteen, that
document is about the admissions of the Roman Sea to
the Eastern churches. So that's why that's very relevant to
this discussion. And the paragraph nineteen is the last of
THECH eighty document, and that's where it says that the
Bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the
churches of the East. So that's an admission that the
East and the Orthodox have been complaining about for so long,
for a thousand years, And I'm arguing that this admission
contradicts the claims of Vatican One, so you can, I
mean you can feel free to go fact check me,
please do no.
Speaker 5: I think that there's I think we may have a
common understanding here in terms of the concept of suy
Urus self governing, that there there was a self governing
or I shouldn't say, what was that. In some sense
there's a self governing aspect of Eastern Catholic.
Speaker 2: Church now, but that's not about This is not about
whether there were autocephalist churches, which Ephesus Council of Ephesis
grants autocephally to the Church of Cyprus. So there are
autocephalist churches, which everyone admits, but that's a different issue
from whether or not that it Caan One dogmatically teaches
that the pope has unilateral universal jurisdiction. I mean, it's
not even in question. It's what Vatican everybody knows. Vatican
One teaches that. That knows what Vatican One says.
Speaker 5: So yeah, so I I grasp what you've said, and
I'll definitely do more research on on what you've referenced there.
What I wanted to more nail down in terms of
what I was saying is the foremarks of the church
stated in the Nicing Creed.
Speaker 3: So for me, when I reverted, I had.
Speaker 5: A fork in the road, which was Catholicism or Orthodoxy,
And where where I had it was concerning the Nicene Creed,
that I fell on the side of Catholicism.
Speaker 2: But did you hear that I said about constantin Noble One,
that when they wrote One Holy Catholic Apostolic, they were
out of communion with Rome. Were you aware of that?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 2: But so if you look up the schism, the Malaysian
Schism and the Schism of constantinople One, Rome did not
accept constant constantinople One until centuries later. So retroactive says, Okay,
we do accept the addition to the Creed and constantin
Noble One's teachings, but that's centuries later. So when they
wrote that, and the Cappadocians were the you know, primary
theologians at constantin Noble One, they clearly did not have
the Vatican One mindset in mind when they wrote One
Holy Catholic Obstallic.
Speaker 7: Okay, But so yeah, what I'm more getting at it
so that I mean that that may be all just
fine and true, and I I'm not necessarily trying to dispute.
Speaker 5: That At the moment, what I'm trying to get at
is one Holy Catholic and Apostolic.
Speaker 2: So so, and that's fine, we can move on. But
you're saying that the mindset of the people that wrote
it doesn't really matter. It's what Rome says it means?
Is that is that where we're going.
Speaker 3: Not so much.
Speaker 5: I'm just trying to nail down what my reasoning is
oka why you might I think my reasoning is false.
Speaker 2: So I mean, so you're going to say what that like,
the Catholicity involves numbers. Rome has a lot of numbers,
and Orthodox don't. Is that where you're going?
Speaker 3: Well sort of, I mean you're you're not far off.
Speaker 2: So what was Catholicity true in the fourth century when
most of the church was Aryan or semiarian? Where were
the numbers?
Speaker 3: Was Catholicity true?
Speaker 2: If it's numbers, it was?
Speaker 3: It was, Well, what do you mean by numbers?
Speaker 2: Well, if the argument is going to be that the
Roman Catholic Church is the one Holy Catholic Capsolic Church
because it's the one that has the numbers, then that's
false because they didn't have nobody. Whether you're Orthodox or Catholic.
In the fourth century, the majority of the Church was
Aryan or semiarian, and at one point there was only
a handful of bishops that were Orthodox, st Athanasius being
one of them. So it cannot be a numbers game. Catholicity,
in the Orthodox view, means fullness of truth, not primarily
essentially numbers.
Speaker 5: That's so, that's not Yeah, I don't understand it in
terms of numbers.
Speaker 3: How I understand, Like, if you wouldn't mind, I'll just
break it down.
Speaker 5: Catholic means universal, means applying.
Speaker 2: To the whole fullness agreed, we agree.
Speaker 3: So, and then holy would be uh from God.
Speaker 2: Well and produces saints.
Speaker 3: And yes, so, but but essentially sanctified. It would be
another way to put that.
Speaker 5: Apostolic would be emanating from the apostles, which which we
agree with that ultimately saying a mission from Christ given
by Christ.
Speaker 2: Well, it means Apostolic succession, right, But.
Speaker 5: I'm saying the the apostles are the apostles because they
were given a mission by Christ.
Speaker 2: Well, that's part of episode succession, is that the apostles
are the successors to Christ.
Speaker 5: Right, and and then one meaning unified, and so my
issue comes in when well, I'd say I have two issues,
but the latter is maybe more easily resolvable. So I
think one and Catholic are an issue. And but but
Catholic maybe not. Like I said, maybe that's easily resolvable.
Speaker 2: But I think that, Uh, let me give you an
example of where I would say that the Romaic Coley
Church is not one. The Roumancallolic Church allows all of
the Eastern Catholics to recite a different and creed than
the Western Church. How can the true church have two
different creeds? And in the first thousand years the church
didn't have two different creeds, they had one creed.
Speaker 3: Oh, I think that's a big issue. But but to say.
Speaker 2: That, well, then so then what does one mean? Just
the pope. It doesn't mean actual faith. They're not one
in faith.
Speaker 3: It's just one of the faith one baptism.
Speaker 2: Okay, but how is it one faith if the church
has two creeds?
Speaker 3: I mean, that's an issue.
Speaker 5: But but I think that when you say the Roman
Catholic Church says, that's where I'm not connecting with what
you're saying.
Speaker 3: It's not I'm not trying to say that. What where
you got that is wrong. But it seems that.
Speaker 2: What what did I whether I say that? What what
did I say? Rome says that you're unclear about? And
I'll sort of cite you whatever documents you want.
Speaker 3: Wait, I'm sorry, I could you're.
Speaker 2: You're saying to me Jay when you say Rome says,
I don't know if that's accurate or where you got that,
And I'm asking you, which thing are you unclear about?
I'll give you the source. Oh sure, I mean, I've
got We've got Denzinger right here.
Speaker 5: Well, it's just I noticed that you and many people
say the Roman Catholic Church believes or says X, and
I think that often you can have a source from
those who claim to be of the Roman Catholic hierarchy.
Speaker 2: Like the Vatican. I mean, I'm going to Denzinger. Do
you know what Denzinger is?
Speaker 3: Well? Are you talking?
Speaker 5: I think that papal infallible statements are of at the peak.
Speaker 2: Of what I mean. I'm not do you know what
Denzinger is? Are you familiar with Denzinger?
Speaker 3: I'm familiar with the name, but I could probably.
Speaker 2: See this is the collection of dogmas that Rome has affirmed.
So this is one place to start for Roman Catholic dogma,
and hence it's called the sources of Catholic dogma. I'm
not being arrogant, I'm not being mean to you. I'm
just literally saying, that's what Denzinger is. It's the sources
of Catholic dogma. And so when I say something like
Vatican one says this, you can find it at paoplencyclicals
dot net under Vatican one or in Denzinger. Because Denzinger
pretty much has all the Vatican One. It's not the
only source of Romanclic dogma because Denzinger doesn't have everything
that's taught by the papacy. It just has a collection
of papally approved things. But if you go to the
Vatican website, they cite Denzinger, so it's definitely an authoritative source.
Speaker 5: Okay, but well, where do you source the claim.
Speaker 3: That you made the which one?
Speaker 5: Which you know, I'm kind of blanking because I was
so focused on what you were just saying. But you
were suggesting hmm, well, I know, I know you mentioned
about the Eastern churches having a different creed.
Speaker 2: That's not that's not even a controversial. I mean, you
can go ask any Uniate or Greek Catholic like they
recite the Creed without the philioque. This is well known, right, yeah,
so you need a you need a papal statement whether
that's true?
Speaker 5: No, right, no, no, no, I what I'm saying, Well, no,
I guess I think I think I got lost.
Speaker 3: In the mix there there.
Speaker 5: You had made a statement that the Roman Catholic Church says,
and I'm I'm just questioning, is that an infallible teaching
or is that something that you read from the Vatican
that may or may not be.
Speaker 2: Well, Vatican one is infallible. It's a dogmatic ecumenical council.
So in the Roman Catholic system, yes, Vatican one is infallible.
And presumably, I mean maybe some Roman Catholic has some
argument they would make. I would say Denzinger also includes
everything that is quote infallible or ordinary universal magisterial teaching,
which cornabatic in one is protected by the Petrine charism.
So Denzinger also should be without.
Speaker 5: Error, Okay, And that that may be the case. I
can't speak to that. My issue comes down to when
I think about the question of Orthodox versus Catholicism, I
think that Orthodox is lacking the unity, and I guess
I am to me now.
Speaker 2: And my first question to you was, well, then why
does if the Roman Catholic Church has the unity supposedly,
is that a unity of faith and belief or just
a unity of we all believe in Francis and then
underneath Francis it's all fair game to do whatever you want,
because that's what I see and that's what I experience
in the Roman Catholic world. I see no unity between
the no Asorto hippie mass and Nosra Tat and the
SSPX Latin mass down the road. There's no unity between
those things. The only unity that exists is a common
confession of Pope Francis or the papacy. So my point
is precisely that that unity or the oneness of one
Holy Catholic Apostolic refers then too, we're all one under
the pope, but not a unity of actual theological faith confession.
Hence my argument that the Roman Catholic Church has two
different competing creeds within it.
Speaker 5: I think that you and I have different concepts of
unity going.
Speaker 2: So what is the oneness of the Roman Caalic Church?
Speaker 3: Then? Faith?
Speaker 2: One? How is it one faith when there's two different
creeds with two different faiths.
Speaker 3: Both recite the Apostles creed.
Speaker 2: No, no, no, the Nicene Creed, where the Uniates recite
the Philioque. Ascume me. They don't recite the philio oquay
and the rest of the Romancolic Church does. Do you
not know what I'm talking about? I feel like I'm sorry,
I'm not trying to be mean, but like, so, this
is a really basic So all of the Eastern Roman Catholics,
the Eastern Uni eight Catholic Church, Melchites, whatever a Russian Catholics,
Greek Catholics, they recite a different creed, literally, a different
Nicene Creed than the rest of the Latin Church. They
cite the creed that we Orthodox have, which is without
the Philioque.
Speaker 3: That's an issue.
Speaker 5: But I thought you were saying between the Nova Sorto
and the SSP, I.
Speaker 2: Made a different analogy to a lack of actual unity
between those groups. Yes, I did, but that wasn't in
a reference to the creed. I'm saying that they don't
believe the same theology. Almost all the SSPX and traditional
Catholics do not agree with the theology Vatican two. So
how is their unified faith when a giant portion of
the Church doesn't accept or rejects, or doesn't want to
believe Vatican two.
Speaker 5: I think that there's a there's a distinction to be
made between the what what is officially the faith that
is prayed at Mass, and what is the faith that
is demonstrated in say a typical novasorto.
Speaker 2: I'm talking abou Vatican two documents in the dogmas and
teaching the Vatican two. Regardless of what you believe, when
you walk into a novsorto or an SSPX Mass, do you,
as a Roman Caouolic captain, belie Vatican two.
Speaker 3: I don't know what that would even mean. Believe Vatican two.
It wasn't a dogmatic council.
Speaker 2: It is a dogmatic council. No, that's totally false. No,
it's not. It's what Paul the six said, was it
quote proclaimed no new dogmas. There's four separate statements from
the popes that say it is dogmatic. So it's a
total trad myth. It's a trad myth. That's yes, it is.
Do you want me to give you the four statements
from the Vatican that you have to believe it?
Speaker 5: Sure, but they they state that it's an that I
don't even know what I'm saying is, I.
Speaker 3: Don't know what that would mean. It's an ecumenical council,
you're what they state?
Speaker 2: Yeah, and you have to believe in acumenical council. You
think that when the Pope confirms an ecumenical council for
the entire church on faith and morals, you don't have
to believe it all. All Paul the sixth said was
that it proclaimed no new dogmas. He never said it's
not dogmatic. And in fact, Francis and every Roman Catholic act,
why are you interrupting? Every Roman Catholic after the Council,
Every Roman, every Pope has enforced Vatican two and the
New Mass on the entire church. So the idea that
you don't have to believe it is ludicrous. Every Romancallolic
church that you go to tells you and teaches you
in the catechism that you must accept the documents of
Vatican Two.
Speaker 3: What must I accept from the documents?
Speaker 2: All of the teaching, All the documents of Vatican two
are signed off by the pepacy.
Speaker 5: What specifically do I as a layers all of them?
Speaker 2: The entirety of it. You don't get to reject any
of it because it's ordinary universal teaching.
Speaker 3: What new doctrine was brought in in Vatican two.
Speaker 2: Well, Paul the six claims there was no new doctrines.
I don't believe that. I believe that Vatican two, with
no stro Tat, for example, taught that Hindus now worship
the One True God as do Muslims. Do you believe
that Muslims and Hindus worship the same God as Roman Catholics.
Speaker 5: I think that that can be scrutinized a bit further
than the way you just stated.
Speaker 2: How do they believe in the Trinity? I mean, because
that's the only one true God that exists.
Speaker 5: Right, Well, so I think this is I do have
an issue with that, And I see I've studied this problem,
and I see the.
Speaker 3: Same issue that you see.
Speaker 2: Because it's not true. That's because you have some discernment. Correct,
It's not true Muslims and Catholics and Orthodox do not
worship the same God because they use the word God.
And in fact, Vatican goes as far as to say
that Muslims and Catholics have the same faith as Abraham.
And yet Jesus says in John five that Abraham rejoiced
to see his day and saw it was glad to
see me John eight. John five through eight, Jesus constantly
argues with the Pharisees that Abraham believed in him. Well,
then Muslims are not of the Abramic faith. Sure so Well,
if that's sure, then Vatican too is false. If you
say sure, then Vatican to is false because it says
the opposite of that.
Speaker 5: I grasp what you're saying, and I've wrestled with the
same problem.
Speaker 2: Well, this is an example of why Rome is a
contradictory position.
Speaker 5: If I could, I just want to explain how I
read what is in what I can do there. It's
you know, I will say that this is what is
called weaponized ambiguity, and I think that there is a
huge problem.
Speaker 2: I know, man, I mean, I've heard all this since
two thousand and five when I was I was going
to the Latin mass in two thousand and five, and
I've heard about weaponize ambiguity. Do you think it's ambiguous
when the Pope goes into the moss and praise towards Mecca?
Is that ambiguous or is he acting? Is he acting
out this theology.
Speaker 5: Yeah there, that's uh, that's wackiness. Uh, and I'm with
you on that.
Speaker 2: But okay, well, then then then Vatican one is false
and the Roman Sea has defected.
Speaker 3: I don't think that's the case.
Speaker 2: How are you keeping the true faith if you're praying
in Moss towards Mecca.
Speaker 5: I mean I don't think you would. You certainly are
committing at least heresy, if not apostasy.
Speaker 2: Okay, so then Vatican One's not true and Rome can
error and the papacy is not indefectible.
Speaker 3: I don't think that that's necessarily true.
Speaker 2: I mean, you just literally said that you think it's heretical.
Francis and Benedict did it?
Speaker 3: Mm hmm.
Speaker 2: So are they heretics who defected or not?
Speaker 5: I can answer that, But I wanted to address the
bit about Vatican.
Speaker 2: To the you were Okay, sure, God Like.
Speaker 5: I have no problem going through methodically on this, but
I just I don't want to go all over the
place and lose where we were.
Speaker 2: Okay, let me can I read the paragraph? It says
the Church regards with esteem the Muslims. Muslims adore the
one God living and subsisting in himself merciful and all
powerful creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men.
Muslims take pains to submit wholeheartedly to his decrees, just
like Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure.
In Lincoln itself submitted to God. Though they do not
acknowledge Jesus as God, they honor him as a prophet.
And then it goes on to say they value the
moral life and the worship of God through prayer, almsgiving,
and fasting. This gives the impression that we have the
same common faith and that God accepts Islamic prayer, almsgiving,
and fasting, and none of that's true.
Speaker 5: So yeah, I mean, that's uh, there's a lot of
problems in that statement, but I think that it's important
to look at the specific wording, Like they, I don't
have it in front of me, but I could get
it in front of me.
Speaker 3: They said that they claim to have Abrahamic faith or
what is that?
Speaker 2: No, it actually says that. It says that they adore
the one God living and subsisting in himself. Doesn't say
they claim to. It says they do it.
Speaker 5: Well, So let me just explain how I read that
and it's not may or may not be what was
intended in the words, and I certainly think that the
way it's worded is highly problematic.
Speaker 2: Well, I thought that the papacy was here to give
us clarity, certitude, and to guide us and preserve it.
So now it's weaponized ambiguity.
Speaker 3: Vatican two definitely did not.
Speaker 2: Be Okay, Well, then then the papacy doesn't work, because.
Speaker 3: I don't think that has to be true. But the
way that I.
Speaker 2: Read that, so we need you. I'm not trying to
be reade, but you don't see how Protestant this is.
We actually need you, an individual Catholic, to suss through
all these stacks of papal documents to tell us the
true papal meaning of the true papal councils.
Speaker 3: No, I'm not suggesting that, well, but.
Speaker 2: You are, because you're saying that the way to read
it is blah blah blah blah blah.
Speaker 3: No, I'm saying.
Speaker 5: I'm saying that each individual has to apply critical thinking
when they analyze anything.
Speaker 2: Does Vatican one say that you judge the first see
and apply critical thinking to its teachings, or does it
say you submit with docility to whatever it teare, you're.
Speaker 3: Not supposed to violate your conscience.
Speaker 2: So it's not an issue of conscience because it also
says that you submit with docility. That's the teaching of
Vatican one is that the laity do not judge the
first see you submit with facility to its rulings and teachings.
Speaker 3: That's true.
Speaker 2: Then you're not in a position to say that this
is weaponized ambiguity.
Speaker 3: I think we're getting too scattered, and.
Speaker 2: No, it's this is precisely the issue. It's not, it's
precisely the issue.
Speaker 5: Well, it's just I want to be able to address
that one statement that Vatican too.
Speaker 3: I'm perfectly fine to move on to the other points.
Speaker 5: But uh, the way the way I grasp what is
said there in Vatican two, which admittedly it sucks, the
way it's worded, it's like, I.
Speaker 2: Mean, these are dogmatic statements, and you're saying it sucks.
So this is like saying that divine revelations sucks.
Speaker 3: They're not dogmatic states.
Speaker 2: They are dogmatic statements. I'll give you four examples of
the pope saying that you have to accept all the
documents of Vatican two.
Speaker 3: There's nothing for me to accept.
Speaker 2: There's that's just that you're lying to yourself because you
are told in other places four times that you must
accept all the Vatican.
Speaker 3: Two and that means nothing. That they can keep repeating that.
Speaker 2: But that so you don't actually follow the papacy. So
that thank you for admitting my point that you interpret
off all the papers when you want to. No, you
literally just said you don't have to accept Vatican who's
dogmatic even though the Pope tells you you have to.
Speaker 3: No, again, we're jump We're jumping to another point.
Speaker 2: I just wanted to address because you're saying that a
dogmatic teaching is sucky, and I'm telling you that you
don't get to say that in the Roman Gothic system,
and it is dogmatic, Yes it is. If I so
if I give you four places where the Pope says
you have to accept Vatican two, you're telling me that
you don't have to listen to.
Speaker 5: That except Vatican two, yes mean something in practical reality.
Speaker 2: It means you must believe. Are you Why are you
lying to yourself and lying to the audience because I
can open up the Catholic the Roman Catholic Catechism sites
from Vatican to countless times, and you're telling me that Roan.
Speaker 11: Doesn't teach that. It's absolutely authoritative and binding. It doesn't
have to be infallible. Yes, it is binding. It is
ordinary teaching. Do you know what ordinary teaching is? You
don't even know. There's two different creeds in the church.
Do you know what ordinary teaching is?
Speaker 3: What do you mean two different creeds?
Speaker 9: No?
Speaker 2: Earlier, the two different creeds between the West and the East,
the Uniates and the Latin Church. Okay, so what do
you know what ordinary teaching is? Yeah?
Speaker 3: The ordinary magisterium?
Speaker 2: Right? Do you have to accept that? According to Vatican one?
If no, there's no ifs. Do you have to accept this? Okay?
What's the criteria for ordinary?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 2: What's the criteria for it?
Speaker 3: I mean, I can't spit it out at the moment.
Speaker 2: It's any time that that the pope is teaching authoritatively
in concert with what the church is always st taught
for the entire church. You have to accept that, and
it's and it's free from error. It is also according
to Vatican one under the Petrin kerorism. Vatican Two's documents
listen Attican two's documents are affirmed by the Roman sea
for the entire Church on faith and morals. You are
told in every Catholic church in the world that you
have to accept it, so you do not have the
liberty of rejecting Vatican two. It's false.
Speaker 3: All right, here's the issue. What you just said, it
can't contradict itself.
Speaker 2: Only if romanicanthalsism is true. I'm arguing that it does contradict.
That's the whole point of why we're having this conversation.
Speaker 5: No, but what I'm saying is that if there is
a contradiction, which you're highlighting, and I'm with you on that,
then that's the problem.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And it means the Roman system is false. It
means the system is false. That's the point.
Speaker 3: I don't think.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry that you don't see that, because it's a
systemic level refutation.
Speaker 5: I get where you're coming from, but I don't think
that you've heard my case on that, and I'm just trying.
Speaker 2: To your case was just the wording is sucky, which
I've heard for twenty years.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and I'm just trying to parse out these two issues.
I am perfectly fine to have the conversation that you're
trying to have right now, But we have not addressed
that statement from or I haven't been able for it.
So the way I read that is replace them with
unbaptized individual.
Speaker 3: Can an unbaptized individual pray?
Speaker 2: None of that has anything to do with the fact
that it's trying to say they have the faith of Abraham.
That's the problem in the statement. The faith of Abraham
was faith in Christ.
Speaker 5: Is a single Muslim representative of the entirety of Islam
the religion.
Speaker 2: I don't see how that's relevant because Islam, as a
universal position rejects the Trinity and the deity of Christ.
So it doesn't matter what one Muslim thinks or believed
when the public profession of the religion is that they
are unitarian and they reject the Trinity. In fact, they
believe in putting to death people who believe in the Trinity.
Speaker 3: But this is what I'm trying to say.
Speaker 5: If an atheist is unbaptized and praise, is that somehow invalid.
Speaker 3: Can an atheist not pray?
Speaker 2: Praying? And none of that has anything to do with
the public profession of their faith. What the theology is
the public profession of the religion. This is not saying
it's not saying, can God choose to listen to an
individual when they pray. It's saying that Muslims have the
same God as us, and it's just categorically false. They don't.
Speaker 5: I totally see where you're coming from, but I think
there's a discontinuity and how you're reading it and how
I'm reading it. I'm reading it from the perspective of
they shouldn't.
Speaker 2: And all of this begs the questions, and that's the
whole time. And man, I give up, because I'm going
to give you right here. Actually, it's actually five places
that tell you that you have to believe in Vatican two.
All of these are right here underneath my I wrote.
I did a video called was Vatican Two Infallible? If
you look up this video, I list five papal documents
underneath that tell you that you have to believe Vatican Two.
So look, I appreciate you coming on, Ryan, it was
good to chat with you. I wish you well. I
just don't buy it, man, And if you want to
reject Vatican two, go for it. But it's not a
consistent Romancalthy position to reject something that five papal documents
tell you have to accept. And here they are. The
first one is right here. It's Francis talking about the
dogmatic nature of the reforms of Vatican two. It's his
audience that he gave in twenty seventeen. There's the first one.
Second one is another.
Speaker 3: Speech.
Speaker 2: This one is John the twenty third's opening speech to
the Vatican two, and he says it is an ecumenical
council that is dogmatic and must be accepted. The third
one is this one, which you have to hit translate
into wish. It's only in Italian. It is a discussion
from Paul to six I Believe in nineteen seventy six,
where the sixth says that you have to believe it.
It's dogmatic, it's just a trad myth. This is like
they're inventing ways to try to make the system work.
When all you have to do is demonstrate one dogmatic contradiction,
the whole system is false. And it's like Roman Callis
can't conceive of that being a systemic level defeater because
in their mind, you can just keep stacking up more
explanations and more quote evidences. So pious. The eleventh casti Kanoba,
paragraph one oh four This says that you're bound by
more than what is even extraordinary. You have to believe
in whatever the Roman Callloic Church, the Roman Seed teaches,
even if it's ordinary teaching and not ordinary magisterium, even
just the ordinary teaching is supposed to be submitted to
with docility. And the last one is see Deligious of
Pius to twelfth. Obedience is necessary even if you think
the pope is wrong. Do you see this all you
football Roman Catholics See De Legas Pius the tense canonization
by Pius the twelfth. Even if you think the pope
is wrong, you still must submit with docility. That is
what Roman Catholic Vatican want obedience had in mind. So
there's the five things that prove you don't get to
pick and choose and throw out Vatican two. And you
notice he did two things there in that discussion. At
first he says, no, I don't have to accept Vatican two. No,
actually you do. Here's five examples of where you have to. Oh, well,
it's the wording. Which one is it? Do you not
have to accept it or is it just shitty wording?
And by the way, the Roman Sea is supposed to
be there to make it clear and not put us
in this Protestant position of we don't know what it means.
It's ambiguous, it's shitty wording. So everybody should go watch
this podcast from twenty twenty where we walk through all
of these different documents. Yeah, all right, vain, what's up?
It's it's not uh, I'm not trying to be rude,
but it's not catechist's time. So if you guys have
a question about that stuff, it's not it's not what
we're doing right now.
Speaker 3: You know, what's up? Change?
Speaker 5: Somebody told me this uh theory they had about like ascaton.
Speaker 12: Theology, that they think that just because a scripture says
that God wills all.
Speaker 6: To be saved, that means that everyone will.
Speaker 3: End up, uh, you know, with salvation, and that how.
Speaker 12: This happens is that hell is temporary. In the fires
of Hell are there, and.
Speaker 2: There's no place in the New Testament where Jesus says
anything about it being temporary. In fact, he always speaks
it of us everlasting. So I mean the fact that
God permits something doesn't equate to him willing it. So
God permits death, God permits bad things to happen, doesn't
mean that he wills it happened. So the fact that
he desires all men to be saved does not mean
that he will cause almen to be saved.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I guess I didn't know how to explain it
the way he were it.
Speaker 2: But yeah, thank human, Yeah, no good questions. Appreciate it. Yeah.
I think universalism is kind of a It's obviously not
anywhere in the scriptures, so it's really a stretch when
people try to argue that B three A K three
MKG hope all as well. What are your arguments against Anglicans.
I mean, we had an Anglican come on a livestream
about a month ago and we had a whole, I
don't know, hour long debate about branch theory. So I
would say, look up my argument with the Anglican branch
theory guy. I think that branch theory makes absolutely no
sense in terms of what the Church of the first
thousand years when they said one Holy Catholic Apstolic, nobody
thought about that as branch theory. Santo five dollars. Would
you speak on statements of you, Pope Eugene the Fourth,
who said that if you shed your blood for Christ,
even if you're schismatic, you are not saved. I mean, yeah, exactly.
That's like Cantade Domino, I think, is a really clear
statement that there's no such thing in the Roman Catholic
mindset traditionally speaking of there being martyrs outside of communion
with Rome. That's why when I'm saying to them about
a century earlier, says not just that you have to
be in commune with Rome to be saved, you also
have to believe in the pope as the quizas Haderak,
the world emperor to be saved. So pretty clearly the
medieval papal mindset did not have the Vatican to atate
Muslims and atheists can be saved in Islam mindset. I
think it's absolutely an obvious contradiction between what Tade Domino
says and I mean, but look, you don't get anywhere
pointing this out to the Roman Catholics. I mean, the
pillars of Orthodoxy were heretics and schismatics for centuries. Now
they're quote saints and they they don't care. Yeah, so
what the pope can do whatever he wants. So, I mean,
you're talking to people who literally believe that. It's like
quantum papacy, that the pope can like retroactively make people
who were heretics for centuries suddenly saints. I mean, these
people are this crazy?
Speaker 13: Manuel Hello, m hm oh, yeah, so I was.
Speaker 14: This is my second time here.
Speaker 6: I would like to ask about icons.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 14: See, I was debating a Muslim, right, I just having
a discussion with a Muslim, and he brings up, like
this the objection that in the Old Testament, I think
it says that you cannot like bow down to images
and stuff like that, right, So I was asking.
Speaker 2: No, it says to not bow down to idols, because
the Jews bowed down to images, to the Arc, to
the Temple, to other human beings all the time. So
go read my article on icons. It's right, I did
have it up here. But read my article Biblical Defensive
icons and you'll see that. Also Joshua five, it says
that they all Joshua five thirty seven somewhere in there,
So they all prostrated before the Arc of the Covenant.
So I guess they're all idolaters. No, it's saying that
you can't bow down to images. It's not saying you
can't show bodily reverence. To holy things. All right. So
this guy is saying he wants to come on if
if I if he are you there? If he go ahead?
Joshua seven six, Joshua torres close and fell on the
earth on his face before the ark of the Lord
until evening he and all of the elders of Israel.
Excuse me, it's a Joshua seven six, not Joshua five,
Joshua seven if he. I'm sorry that you have crazy Internet.
I mean, I don't. I don't know why it's not connecting.
So pop back out and pop back in. I'll go
to you next. Who was raising their hand? It's for
today's for people who disagree. So it's not catechumen day,
not being mean to the catechumens. Reality. What's up, Mohan?
Did you disagree? I'll go to you next. Go ahead,
I'll go to Ifi and the Mohan reality.
Speaker 3: What something?
Speaker 2: All right? We'll go to Ivye Mohan.
Speaker 3: Hello, yep.
Speaker 15: So I had a question regarding the church and its importance.
My father and my mother have been Protestants for like
forty years, and.
Speaker 6: I can see that there's.
Speaker 15: An issue in Protestantism where they leave out the church
and it becomes irrelevant basically, So I wanted to know, like,
since my parents disagree about the church and its importance, Like,
what's the best argument for why the church needs.
Speaker 2: To be Like well, I mean, I mean Jesus says
in the New Testament that the church is his body,
it's his kingdom. Paul says, not to forsake the assembling together.
I mean, all those are direct injunctions against people who
would forsake the church.
Speaker 15: But what if But what if they're just like two together?
Speaker 6: Isn't that the church basically.
Speaker 2: Well, no, I mean two together is he says, his
presence is amongst them. That doesn't mean that there's not
a liturgical worship service, because you're leaving all the rest
of the New Testament where he says that you also
have to feed and you know, feed on his flesh,
drink his blood, participate in the sacrament. So you don't
take that one passage in isolation from all the other
things that we're told to do.
Speaker 15: Okay, So what if you live in a country where
like the churches are controlled by the state and they're
very like infiltrated by progressive ideology and there isn't any
like churches basically that you.
Speaker 2: Can go to well, I mean, I mean I would
say you only can go to Orthodox churches to begin with.
So I'm not sure what you mean by infiltrated in
what since you mean it? Do you mean like like
what kind of a country you're talking about?
Speaker 6: IM?
Speaker 3: So like, oh, yeah, it's it's it's pretty bad.
Speaker 14: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I think in those situations, like, you do the best
you can. So it's not like like if you aren't
able to get to a church, I don't think God.
God's not going to hold that against you. And it's
not your fault, it's not your you know, yeah, you know,
for example, in Tristan's case, he's eight hours from a
Serbian Orthodox priest and he had to make he did
a long distance kind of kisis and then you know,
he waited until, you know, six months to where he
was able to take a trip eight hours to get baptized. So,
you know, I would say that might be the situation
that people in other countries have to do, and you know,
you just you have to do your best, and in
some cases people actually can do better, you know. In
other words, like being alone and trying to be Orthodox
is not literally is not the worst situation in the world,
because if you are at a really horrible Orthodox church,
you would actually be better off being alone. I'm not
advocating that. I'm just saying that sometimes God providentially can
put us in those situations and they're actually a blessing
in disguise. Not that I'm saying you shouldn't go to church.
I'm just saying that, you know, yeah, I don't. I
don't know what it's like in Denmark. I know it's
pretty bad. I'm sure it's totally cocked and all that,
but yeah it is. Yeah, I mean, just do the
best you can and then, you know, try when you
can go somewhere, visit orthodox church, try to try to
make contact with, you know, a solid priest that's like out,
you know, that's the nearest one to you, and then
set up a time when you can be catechized by
him and received. It is what people usually, what people
usually do. It's what Tristan did, Graham, what's up. Tristan
had to travel by donkey. He had to write a
donkey twenty hours across to Ecuador to get to some
someplace in New Mexico.
Speaker 6: Go ahead, Hey, so that's just a question.
Speaker 16: So what are the main reasons why you don't believe
in the theory of evolution?
Speaker 2: My reasons are usually typically philosophical. I have read some
of the scientific critiques and questions about it. I would say,
just off the top of my head, it would be
something like, it's not directly observable, there's no evidence, is
not coherent to me, or the arguments have not been
convincing for why I should believe in a transmutation of species.
I think that philosophically the concept makes no sense. So
that's my approach to it.
Speaker 16: Okay, And another question, what is what is your opinion
on I know there's there's a debate in Christianity about
like how old the Earth is, and they're like young
Earth people. You take a younger view and is there
like a is there like.
Speaker 6: A reason for that?
Speaker 2: Yeah? I think that divine revelation backs up a youngervie.
I was looking for the best critique I've ever read
of evolutionary theory is actually in a in an odd place,
and it's about a sixty page critique and it's in
this book called sort of Nosis. I'm not recommending everything
in this book because this book has a lot of
kind of it's a lot of perennialist stuff, so there's
like Sufi texts and arguments and papers in here. But
there is a really excellent chapter in this book, sort
of Nosis by Titus Brookhart, and it's about a fifty
to sixty page chapter critique of the philosophy evolution. That's
one of the best things I've ever read on on y.
So I would say my arguments would come from this.
And there's another book that Wolfgang Smith wrote that I
read many years ago, Cosmos and Transcendence. I think that's
a pretty good critique of the kind of the metaphysics
and the philosophy of our one series. So that's where
I would be coming from. Axel, what's up? Axel? Ron?
Excuse me? I'm sorry if he's internet wouldn't connect. I
was trying to bring him in here. I tried twice,
so I don't know. Got a mute axe Axel Axel Lottle?
Speaker 3: Was that man?
Speaker 6: It's accel On? Yeah, Hey a man, how are you first?
Speaker 2: Good? I was just making a joke.
Speaker 6: Okay, there's no problem with that. I do have a
pot amount of question for you.
Speaker 17: But first of all, I want to talk about about
the mark lam in twenty four.
Speaker 3: The way it says, what Mark markulem in twenty four.
Speaker 6: It's in the Bible.
Speaker 2: You're just talking really fast, man, slow down.
Speaker 6: Okay, I'm so sorry. Uh Okay.
Speaker 17: It says, therefore, I tell you whatever you ask for
in prayer, plus that you're receiving it and then and
it will be yours.
Speaker 6: Okay. So okay, let's just imagine you're praying. Okay, you're
praying to God and.
Speaker 17: You ask God uh to make you super comfortable person.
Speaker 6: Okay, what then to make you a comfortable person? To
make you super.
Speaker 2: Comfortable comfortable person? What does that? What does that mean?
Speaker 6: Everybody? Everybody needs to be everybody needs to.
Speaker 17: Feed comfortable person because of because of the thinking process
all the time.
Speaker 2: So like, God, give me a giant swede couch and
give me a bunch of puffy coats, like Kanye like comfortable.
What are you're talking about?
Speaker 6: It's about the feeling.
Speaker 17: It's about the feeling process that the process of being
calm and comfortable.
Speaker 2: Okay, okay, God, make me comfortable. Go ahead, make me cozy, baby.
What's up?
Speaker 6: You don't you don't believe God is gonna provide you with.
Speaker 2: I just think that the phraseology is funny.
Speaker 6: Man, go ahead, okay, okay, okay.
Speaker 17: So according to the first that the first that God
is to provide you with that one. Another question is
if you if you asked, if you ask him for
there has to be some thoughts and the thoughts must
be a tit sue to the feelings.
Speaker 6: But if you ask, if you.
Speaker 17: Ask him, how he's going to create that if you haven't,
even if you haven't even created a thought, and by
creating a poults you have to communicate with.
Speaker 2: No idea what you're talking about. Man, I'm sorry, I'm lost, dude.
I just I'm out out to lunch on this, have
no idea what you're talking about. God made me comfortable.
It needs to be that Boomer prayer, like the footprints
prayer on the wall, Like God give me no of
the AA prayer. God give me the serenity to accept
the things I can't change. God give me the comfort
to have a mushy couch that I can stretch out
upon and the feather boa that I can dance for
my only fans on with my fluffy feather boa. That's
comfortable and sexy. What's up?
Speaker 6: Man, Hey, Jay, what's up?
Speaker 2: Trying to get comfortable?
Speaker 3: Man?
Speaker 2: Can I ask you a question about God? Give me
a bean bag?
Speaker 3: God?
Speaker 2: Give me a mess, a mess being back actually a mess.
Being back does not sound comfortable. Give me a burl.
Give me a burl that being back? Give me a question? Now,
what's up?
Speaker 6: Okay?
Speaker 18: So, like if you go to Genesis twenty seven twenty eight,
when Isaac is giving Jacob the blessing, you know, like
he says, may God give you the doo of heaven.
Speaker 6: And stuff like I you kind of see a parallel with.
Speaker 18: That and Luke twenty two thirty two when like Jesus
praised upon Peter that his faith may not fail, And
like I was just wondering, is this completely completely idiotic
or is there like an actual I.
Speaker 2: Mean, did his face faith? Did his faith fail when
he gets rebuked by Paul not too long after that? Yeah,
like I guess, yeah, I would, I would. I mean
Roman Cavolks love to do this kind of retroactive typology
where I'm not faulting you, I mean understand what you're
where you're going with this, where they like go back
into the Old Testament anything that that's like a typology
of the bishopric or the patriarchs or the high priest.
Suddenly that's all transferred to the pope, and I just think, oh,
that's kind of ridiculous. The promise is a it is
applicable to the bishopric, but there's no argumentation where that
suddenly makes, you know, Rome like some kind of super bishop. Yeah, man,
what's up? I want to get I'm asking God to
make me comfortable. So I think I need one of
these puffy yay coats, any one of these Balentiaga puffy
coats or else I'm not gonna be comfortable. And if
I don't get it for Christmas, I'm gonna be a atheist.
If God does not answer my demands for comfort and style,
well then I'm suddenly going to be atheist. What's up?
Speaker 3: Man? Uh? Hi? So I have a question, ma'am?
Speaker 2: Excuse me?
Speaker 3: Is it?
Speaker 6: Sorry?
Speaker 2: No, I'm saying I said, what's up? Man, and you're
a mam, and so I'm saying, excuse me, ma'am.
Speaker 6: I'm sorry. I don't know. Anyways, I have a question.
Speaker 19: So Phil Helper just came out and said that there
is a study coming out saying that physicists are changing
their mind on the Big Bang theory.
Speaker 6: If it is the.
Speaker 19: Origin of the universe, what does this mean for Christianity?
Is it a net positive as it could disprove the
ever expanding universe, or does it disprove the something from nothing,
which would be a negative for Christianity.
Speaker 2: I don't know who Phil Helper is. I'm not deal
with it. I mean, I don't pay any attention to
normy science, and like my religious convictions have nothing to
do with what any science paper says.
Speaker 19: Okay, so you don't think that if say, the Big
Bang theory were to be disproven, if that would, like
you don't know if it would be a positive or
a negative thing for christian I mean, I.
Speaker 2: Think the Big Bang itself is dumb and stupid and
doesn't make any sense philosophically. So if it was quote disproven,
that would just be people realizing that their existing atheist
metaphysics and system is stupid. So yeah, it would be
a positive.
Speaker 19: Okay, So you just think the Big Bang itself is
just silly.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's like atheist to magic magic theory for atheism. Yeah, okay, yeah,
interesting questions. I didn't know about any of that, but
I mean, the thing with like normy science papers is
like literally every day there's a paper that says the
opposite of what the papers said the day before, so
I'll never forget. Like when I was scrolling on Facebook
one time, literally within like the aim feed next to
each other was a you know ifing love science black
holes proven with absolute certitude, and right underneath it was
another article from like the same website, Science finally debunks.
Speaker 7: The existance of black holes.
Speaker 2: It's like, oh, it's actually all sci fi, Like all
these people are doing sci fi all right, Josh, I'm
kind of wearing down now. Icono Matt, twenty dollars, can
you prove with twenty dollars? Here's the twenty dollars, can
you prove that you're not a plant from the Funko
Pop Corporation to sell Funko pops? I cannot prove that. However,
when I do my live events, well, at least the
first year we did seven live events or so, every
live event ended with a Funko Pop getting smashed. So
you tell me if that's funk Go apologetics or if
that's destroying, if that's iconoclasm against funk Go pops. You
tell me Banian do done eight one dollars based on
your research? Is there any evidence that the US government
is reverse engineering alien tech?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 2: I would side on the side of that being a
bunch of tarted psy ops. Guy has ten dollars, Greting,
thank you. What is the single book that you would
recommend on the errors of reformed theology and Protestism? I
guess everybody likes Rock and Sand by Father Josiah a
single best book. I mean, I guess that would be
the single best book.
Speaker 3: I mean.
Speaker 2: Clark Carlton. His set is also good. Doctor Clark Carlton
has a good set. H Brosey ten dollars. What's up?
I am Hazony Armstrong. My phone keeps freezing. It dropped
me add me back. Okay, I don't see you on here, dude.
You must have left or did we already go to you?
I don't see it, man. Thank you for the super
chat though. Charles Charles in charge of our lives and
our dreams. I don't even know if that's how it goes.
I never watched Charles in George. Go ahead, Charles, I'm mute,
You're in charge. I'm ute, Charles, You're in charge. Charles
is in charge. I'm mute, Charles in charge?
Speaker 3: Can you hear me now? Yes, sir, I never watched
that show either.
Speaker 2: What's on your mind? Well, you could still be in charge.
Speaker 20: I was gonna ask you about open theism, and now
there's a rising army of guys online who are attacking
Calvinism through that, and I just wondered, what is that
similar to an ancient heresy that the ecumenical councils have
already repudiated, or what's your orthodox response to that God
changes open theism?
Speaker 2: No, I don't think there's any evidence in the ancient
Church or the Bible or theology to support the idea
that God changes, because we actually confess in the liturgy
that he became man yet underwent no change. So Christ
did not substantially or essentially undergo any change. He changed
in the sense that he entered into a new motive
being and that he became man, but he did not
cease to be God. And in fact, Philippians too, in
the Kenosis passage, specifically states that he just simply willed
to not exercise all of his powers when he became man.
He didn't cease to have those powers or cease to
be divine or cease to be omnission or anything like that.
But he didn't do everything he could do when he
became man, and he didn't even do everything he could
do when he created the world, because he could have
created multiple worlds, he could have created a totally different world.
And so there is potentia in God in the Orthodox position,
because God has free will, and that's something I think
very different from the other positions out there, like the
Roman Catholic position that literally reduce God to pure actuality
with absolutely no potentiality. So no, I don't think there's
any basis in scripture vine revelation to believe that God
has to update his knowledge or that he undergoes change,
or that he doesn't have omniscients. Typically those debates are
intended on reconciling you know, free will and divine sovereignty
with human you know choice, or some way to try
to mitigate hell or the afterlife or whatever. And I
think those they're all failed projects because Vine revelation is
what's preserved in the Orthodox Church, so there can't be
there's not going to be some new revelation or some
new theology that emerges. So by default we would reject
anything that isn't Orthodox, and I mean all the Orthodox
Church rathers teach that God's omniscient. But we do believe
that God created a world where there are second causes.
John Damascus talks about this, and on the Orthodox Faith
there's ald section where he says there are secondary causes.
But I think that typically the debate between the Calvinists
and open theist is framed as if either God is
the direct decree cause of everything, or he's not and
therefore no omniscient, and Orthodoxy would avoid both of those positions.
Speaker 20: Right, Yeah, I haven't really heard them address the incarnation,
but all the scriptures talking about God be pented and
so on.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, I would agree with the argument that
that's anthropomorphic language and so God is condescending to It's
the similar if you read doctor Bradshaw's paper that he
writes it's in the Newer Energies book. I forget the
name of the paper. I think it's the one on
essence energy, what kind of distinction. It's the first chapter
in that book. He talks about the reciprocal relationship through prayer. So,
for example, if God answers man's prayer, does that mean
God changes because didn't God already know what you were
going to pray? Well, the answer to this objection is that, yeah,
God knew. But God also, because he loves man, condescends
and wills to interact and respond to men. And this
is the point that's missed, is that because God has
the ability to act freely, because he has free will,
he can choose to reciprocate the relationship with man. So,
for example, in the Book of Amos, God says, had
you not prayed, I would have destroyed Israel. Right, But
he says, you prayed, so I'm gonna withhold my judgment.
That means then that God willed to have that reciprocal relationship.
You say, so, he didn't have to do that. He
didn't have to become incarnate. But he does these things
because he truly is a loving God and truly does
love mankind. Bub God, give me the comfort to accept
the Kanye coat that I do not have. Give me
the peace of mind to become a suede being bag
that I am not from nineteen ninety eight. Give me
the what's up, bub Hi Jay? How you doing good?
Speaker 6: Okay?
Speaker 20: So Eler.
Speaker 21: Today I was debating a Baptist pastor.
Speaker 3: And I will say one second. My first of all
was assuming he was part of forma theology.
Speaker 2: He wasn't.
Speaker 6: But at one point I.
Speaker 21: Asked him if me and him had a disagreement on
the interpretation of a verse, I asked him, how could
you possibly really know who is riot? And he said faith,
And at least to me, that kind of that answer
made me kind of it kind of felt lacking.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean again, I don't think that the difference
between it's it's there's two different things going on here.
One is is there a way to adjudicate or have
authority to say which position's right? That's normative authority? Did
Jesus give the church any body of people to bind
consciousness to an interpretation? And there's a separate question, which
is individual existential certitude? How do I get certainty? So
on one level, he's kind of right that we're all
kind of going to rely on the Holy Spirit leading
and guiding us directly to no truth. So there's not
really a problem with that because everybody's in that boat.
I mean, if you are a papist, you're going to
have to trust that the Holy Spirit's leading you to
interpret the papal documents. If you're Orthodox, you're gonna have
to trust that the Holy Spirit's leading you to accurately
understand Orthodox theology and the councils and the church fathers
and all this whatever. If you're Protestant, you've got to
trust the Holy Spirit's leading you in interpreting the scriptures.
So two different things are going on, and I would
just say that it's one level that's true, But like
you know, I would reframe the question to say, well,
don't you think Jesus might have set up some body
of people to govern the church and to make decisions
about what the interpretations are. I mean, he says, you know,
and Acts two and then John sixteen that he would
provide the church with the spirit to lead it and
guide it. So did that leave in the early church?
I mean, like what happened?
Speaker 6: Yeah, and then let's see what elles.
Speaker 21: So I also asked him about one save always saved,
and he said he doesn't really agree with that.
Speaker 6: He says he believes I either.
Speaker 21: Saved or that you were not saved, And at least
to me, I didn't quite know how to respond to that.
Speaker 3: So what would you really have to say about that?
Speaker 2: I mean, there's just so many passages in the New Testament,
like Hebrew six or you know, the Parable of the Sower,
where you have explicit statements of new life springing up
in the case of the sewer, or in Hebrew six,
where you have you were, you know, washed in the
in the in region. You know, the baptism, you were,
you partake of, you ate of the heavenly gift, and
so forth, which clearly means that they were partaking of
grace in some sense. You have, Paul, you know, warning
the Romans, the Church at Rome, that they can be
grafted out and rejected. And if there's no real warning,
then all these warnings really just make no sense. So Matt,
p we've got a couple more than We're going to
call it a night, Comfy funk go pop one dollar day.
I understand the Orthodox if you have being the one
true Church, the Protestants and Catholics are they can they
also be saved. Well, we're not told what other people's
eternal destinies are. So if God has God has means
by which he can unite people to the mystical body
of Christ. But I mean, he doesn't tell us how
that happens. He doesn't say, like, yeah, the thief on
the cross was a unique odd case, but I wouldn't
rely on unique odd cases, you know what I mean? Like,
there's one arc that is the Church. You've seen that
icon of the of the church as an arc. I mean,
that's the arc. So you know what chance do you
stand floating outside the ark? Right? And can God, in
a way known to him, unite somebody to the arc
as possible? So and I'm not told the destiny of
Protestants and Roman Catholics and all that. We're not even
told the destiny of the people in the church, So
how am I? I can't senter and judge people on
an individual basis. But we are told that the public
confessions that Protestants and Catholics have is false. So in
that sense we can say that you have a false faith,
you must come into the church to be saved. So
if they choose not to, Paul says, what have I
to do with judging those that are without well emmanual
ten dollars? Would it help to get Roman Catholics to
point to an infallible dogma, then get them to compare
their arbitrary standards to determine when it happens and when
it doesn't have it. Yes, absolutely, I have done that
many times. For example, what does X have to do?
What does the infallible document X have that bat A
two doesn't have If Vatican two is quote not infallible. Yeah,
I think it is. Uh that always shifts over into
the epistemology domain, which I'm happy to do. I'd love
to do that. But I mean, I'm not trying to
be rude, but like when we start going to apistemology,
the Romachalics are out, they don't know, they're out to lunch.
So but maybe it is time to just go straight
up to like look by the way again. If Romacantholicism
is the case, why doesn't the papacy just give us
an ex cathedral list of the ex cathedral doctrines. That
would make it so much clearer, It make everything so easy.
Why don't they just do that? I mean, it's not Denzinger.
Denzinger is not an ex cathedral book. That's just a
book by some priest who collected together dogmatic statements which
Rome cites. The Vatican cites Denzinger, but Denzinger is not
He's just some priests, he's not infallible. But for that
system to work, if it was consistent, they would give
us and fallible list of the infallible dogmas, and everything
would supposedly be clearer, wouldn't it. I mean, you still
have people debating, but it would least be a little
bit clearer. Why don't they just do that instead? What
you get is, here's three general criteria of levels of
dogma and good luck with that.
Speaker 3: Good luck? Go ahead, Jay, can you hear me?
Speaker 2: Yep?
Speaker 6: Okay, Jay, this is Matt.
Speaker 22: And first of all, I wanted to tell you I
find you fascinating because of your journey into Orthodoxy from Calvini.
Speaker 2: Yes, I remember you've called in before. I remember how
you doing?
Speaker 22: Okay, Well, anyway, I wanted to do the fellow, the
Roman Catholic that you were just talking to. And this
is something that hasn't changed. I've been debating them for
fifty years, but they're all the same in that regard.
It's just meant justify the Pope's position and Catholicism.
Speaker 2: You cut out it's what in their claims.
Speaker 3: It's mental manipulation. It was like back and forth.
Speaker 22: Now if they can't see when you have a pope
France is saying that Hindu has worshiped the same God
in Jews and Muslims. That that's outright apostle to see
it in your face, I don't know what to say
at that point. Now, this has been going on for
some years with ecuminism and that sort of thing.
Speaker 3: Having said that.
Speaker 22: They're never at peace because and I talked to you
about and I want to mention this a bit further
asceticism and academia, but if you go into a full
blown academia, you end up come unto me.
Speaker 3: My yoak is easy and.
Speaker 22: My burden is light.
Speaker 3: Their burden is not light, and their yolk is not easy.
Speaker 22: Right now, the Orthodox Church is the Church of Christ
with the body of Christ. So they're in a place
that's not the body of Christ, and it's right in
their face, and for some reason it's very difficult for
them to get out of it. The only thing I
could say is it's a pernicious heresy is saying A says,
and they're blinded by that pernicious heresy.
Speaker 3: Having said that, Jame, I have a question.
Speaker 22: For you, because it bothered me for some years, and
you've been through the Ringers. So you're going to understand
what I'm talking about coming from academia.
Speaker 3: What a new term.
Speaker 22: Something that we frequently hear these days is an Orthodox person.
Speaker 3: Even preachs and bishops, they'll.
Speaker 22: Refer to heretics, Mormons, Jehovah witnessed, Catholics, Protestants. They'll say, well,
because they're learning it, they're er addition, they'll say the
Roman Catholic theologian. I've even heard the Mormon theologian. This
is so far from the ethos of the church fathers
who came out explicitly and call them heretics, saying aaronais
didn't say against all the Gnostic groups. By the way,
I've come to the conclusion they were Roman Catholicism is
narcissism with all of their secrets, and it's just another
passion of intrigue can just like go constantly in some direction.
Speaker 3: So my question too, is this.
Speaker 22: That came into the Orthodox Church, the idea that these
heretical groups are. You know, somebody speaks and they're considered
to be a theologian. My question too, is do you
find it to be problematic?
Speaker 2: I see your point. I mean, I think it's just
more of a colloquial usage. I mean, I know that
in our sense, we would say a theologian is, you know,
one who praise and one who has Orthodox faith and
all that. So I think we're really just kind of
interacting with and talking to people in the world and
outside the church that have this terminology. So even though
it's not strictly correct, I don't think everybody's using it
in an inappropriate way intentionally.
Speaker 22: But I see your point, okay, because so because I
see it as part of ecuminism, be nice. So you
have to approach them in a nice way. And I
can just tell you monks have known and bishops even
that are ascetics.
Speaker 3: They're not into that nice thing. They're more or.
Speaker 6: Less straightened out. Yeah, that's for your sake.
Speaker 22: So I think it's detrimental in that regard.
Speaker 3: Can you explain to me, because you were a.
Speaker 22: Trade cat, how how the apostlesia Muslims are the same
blah blah blah, How can't they see that?
Speaker 3: Jake?
Speaker 2: Well, for me as a trad cat, that's exactly the
thing that led me to more and more kind of
sparse fringe traditionalism was that in two thousand and three
when I became Catholic, I kind of thought and assumed
that the Romancolic Church would be kind of like what
I read in the Church Fathers. And then when you
go to the actual Romancolic churches and it's really divorced
from that, and it's like, you know, just guitar masses
and skittle stuff and hip hop mass and just weird
stuff going on. You see, it's divorced, and then you think, well,
now what am I going to do? And so for
most people, they just hear about, oh, well, you know,
maybe you want maybe you should check out the traditional
Latin Mass. That's where the real Catholic stuff is preserved,
and so you go to that. And the thing with
most traditional Catholics and Catholics in general is that they
don't read the documents. They don't read Vatican two, they
don't read Vatican One. I've talked to Roman Catholics all
the time. I've been talking to him since since the nineties,
and I would say that probably ninety eight percent of
Roman Catholics have never read Vatican One. I don't mean
a summary of it, I mean the actual fifteen pages
printed out a Vatican One. So you know, they don't
really know what their dogmas and doctrines say. So I
think what happens is they just kind of latch onto
whatever they hear from other people, pop apologists, the internet, YouTube,
They latch onto what they think might be the best explanation.
Me being a book nerd, I was not satisfied with that,
So I was always reading the next book, this book,
that book. Still got all these all my trad Catholic
books up there on that shelf, and I just found
that after so many years of trying to make it work,
it just kind of I just kind of gave up
and collapsed on trying to make Vatican one, Vatican two
and all that, and trad cat stuff makes sense because clearly,
I mean, I think eventually it just dawns on trad cats.
The ones that leave, they really they really realize, like
why am I defending this guy in this institution that
hates me? And I think once you realize that Francis,
you know, if you're a traditional Catholic and you want
to uphold you know, morals and all this kind of stuff,
Francis doesn't care about you. Francis is shutting down your
beloved Latin Mass like he hates you. And eventually you
come to just decide I'm not going to support and
try to convince people of this geopolitical tool in another
country that hates me.
Speaker 22: Okay, because I noticed something else that God forgive me.
But I was listening to some trad cat and he
was talking about Francis.
Speaker 3: I guess maybe.
Speaker 22: It was somebody prayer Benedict, but that you you.
Speaker 3: Can no longer.
Speaker 22: You can't kneel when you're receiving the eucharis, and you
can't receive it in your hand, you have to take
it into the mouth. And how they are it out currently?
When they do that, they're like children, you know, we're
so childish.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I forgot Francis saying. I remember him saying something
about that, that it's childlife.
Speaker 22: So this guy goes on to pontificate about this, and
I'm like, how can you say that when you don't
even commune little children, which is like written, you know,
right in front of you, suffer the little children to
come on to me for such.
Speaker 3: As the kingdom of head.
Speaker 22: So he yeah, So he inverts the whole thing into
his own personal where where does it come from?
Speaker 3: It? So it was like some kind of personal virtue exaltation.
I guess.
Speaker 2: Yeah, great point. Matt totally agree. I think I'm just
Pato communion itself, if you really think about it, is
almost enough to refute Romanatholicism, because the Latin Church communed
infants for all those centuries. And it's not accidental that
the departure of Pato communion happens precisely when the phillyoqua
comes in and the temporal claims of the Roman bishop
begin to exaggerate. So I think there's definitely a connection
between those things. All right, Sam Hide messaged me. I
gotta call Sam Hi. We're talking about whether or not
I will go work with him on a TV show,
So I gotta let you guys go. It's been a
great time tonight. I want to remind you to head
on over to Chalk dot com. HQ dot com. That
is the show sponsor. They are our sponsor. They're the
best in supplementation. If you head on over to chalk
dot com right now and use a prom QoE J
forty four Life, that's jy four four Life, you will
get forty four percent off all of these great products,
particularly the Male Performance Stack, which is about working out,
so don't have a crazy, dirty mind. This is about
going to the gym, getting fit, upping your game, uping
your toxic masculinity by getting these products like the Action
two point zero, the Chalk dot Com Assume Me at
chalk dot com, the Talk Got a Lee, the Chad Mode.
Great products over there. It's not just produced though. If
you are part of the ten percent of my female audience,
the Female Vitality Stack is also available to you over there.
The j A y forty four l I f E
promo code is a recurring subscription code, but you can
cancel at any time if you don't like it. If
you want to just test it out, I would say
use the promo code JAY forty, that's J forty to
get forty percent off all those great products over at
chalk dot com, c hoq dot com. I also still
have my philosophy course available in the chat through Richard Grove.
If you want to get access to my philosophy course,
use the autonomy Agora marketplace link. Ryan G. I hope
you're not mad. I had a good I had a
good time talking with you. It's just I had I
wanted to move on, so I'm sorry if he's mad,
But we're just gonna have we had to move.
Speaker 3: On to.
Speaker 2: Before it got more and more sour. I don't wanted
to go more sour. So I kind of Matt three dollars,
are you going to go on Rouse Lawn show? Rouselan said,
if I'm in California, I can go on his show,
So it's not like flying me out or whatever, which
is fine. I'm not expecting him to, but uh, you know,
I told him something like, hey, we come out to
La you know, twice a year for events and whatever,
and he said, well, you're welcome to come on and
we can have a discussion. So yeah, I mean I'm
the next time we end up out in the La
San Diego area. Yeah, I mean, unless he's changed his
mind he doesn't want me on there, I don't know,
but he said the invite is there. He has not
yet taken back that invite. So but there's no like
set date, and I don't know when I'll be back
in California. If if the Sam Hyde thing works out,
things will change. I mean I will be doing that
full time. I mean, I'll still be doing live streams.
I'll still you know, talk to you guys and do
what I do Uh, it'll just probably be less live streams.
I won't be live streaming every night. That would be
like a full time job doing the a daily type
of show with Sam Hid, the right wing daily show,
so that that will be most of my daytime. But
that sounds like a lot of fun. I mean, I'm
really really want you know, we're weighing it. You know,
we'd have to move you know up there, you know,
which is not a problem. It's it's doable. It's just
you know, it's a it's a big kind of life decision,
so we got to figure out what we want to
do here. I'm a calling him here in a minute
to talk about the specifics. So you guys pray for
me on that. It's a big, big life decision. So
you know, it could be it could be blow up
and be you know, a big thing, and I'd love
to be there kind of on the ground floor of that.
What do you guys think? I mean, it would not
be conspiracy related. It's going to be news, politics related,
funny stuff. So it would be different, you see what
I'm you see what I'm getting at, Like, my life
would be different, not in a bad way, it would
just be a different pathway, so to speak. So you know,
we want to we want to make sure we discuss
all the p's in the queues and make sure it's
the right fit for for him and for what I
do and so forth. So uh, anyway, I've got to
call him back and see what's going on and what
we want to do. Otherwise, everybody, have a good night.
Appreciate you guys, and I think that's it. Every Oh,
check out the the alien UFO deception thing that I
did for the Friday show. So that was all up
in the air. So I'm still for the time being
fourth hour at Lord Voldemort. So we didn't know if
that was going going away. We had almost one hundred
and sixty three thousand views on this, so go check
this out right here. Red alert UFO alien deception lay
rolling out. This is in relation to all the drones,
which are obviously drones. Literally a drone crashes, it's clearly
a drone, and people.
Speaker 3: Are like aliens, dude, it's aliens.
Speaker 2: Well, I give my forty five minute, fifty minute breakdown
of the absurdity of the alien nonsense surrounding this issue
right here. Shout out to Damien Slash always coming up
with these funny videos. Anyway, Oh and forgot. If you're
in the Florida area January nineteenth, we'll be at this
movie convention here Tampa Bay Screams. This is kind of
like the conventions that Jamie Kennedy goes to, like these
scream conventions. This one, though, is I will be speaking
that evening at a dinner event. So if you want
to get tickets to Dark Secrets of Horror Films, I
will be speaking and we'll be doing a dinner. The
first thirty tickets get a free Esotery Hollywood copy. So
get your tickets right here on my Twitter. If you
want the link, it's right underneath here. You come over
here to this square checkout link right here, and you
get tickets January nineteenth. Now, the convention is different from
the evening lecture with me, so I think you can
go to the convention. I'm not sure if there's tickets
for the convention. But he gets a good crowd, he said,
he gets about four or five hundred people. It's not
it's a different crowd from what we're used to my audience,
so it's going to be a unique experience with the
B movie horror crowd. So there's some interesting B movie
famous people coming to this event. Some of most of people,
I don't know who they are, but we'll be there.
I'll have a booth, we'll be selling esolter Hollywood and
so forth, and I will be giving a kind of
an esoteric Hollywood type lecture that night. Get your tickets
right here. January nineteenth, Tampa Bay Screams in Tampa Bay, Florida.
So there's those tickets