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