Brian Holdsworth & Catholic Answers Refuted (Again) & Calls on Catholic Debate

right there. So I'll play a little bit of this one, but I think Brian has a much bigger channel. So let's hear what the arguments that we're hearing this time around from Brian Holdsworth are. And as you guys probably have noticed, you get a new round of why I'm not Orthodox videos from the pap apologists anytime there's a

significant debate, loss, scandal, or challenge to their position. If you remember some years back, when we heard Francis doing all of his skittle stuff, we had to have Matt Frad and Holdsworth and everybody kind of go out and

do the commiserating cope sessions that they do. Recently, we've had a bad few months of Roman Catholicism in terms of public debates, because we had the Trench Doherty breakdowns and crashouts on multiple debates where he screamed, yelled, cussed, threatened to fight, and all because he wanted to defend it, not just gay Catholics literally, but also to defend the idea that Muslims, Christians and Jews all worship quote unquote

the same God, to defend the Vatican two texts. Now we've had the more recent three part four five hour debate between me and Tim Gordon, which seventy five percent of the audience agreed Tim Gordon lost. Tim Gordon himself conceded a couple things at the end of the debate. But now Tim's back on YouTube and on Twitter asking Chad Gpt to prove I'm not kidding that he actually

won the debate somehow. What yeah, exactly? To me, that actually signifies their grasping of straws because they know they're not doing well. But now in their mind, this is actually proof that I lost the debate. Turns out even though Tim conceded the Philly Okoy section and after the debate privately conceded to me that I was actually correct about universal magisterium and he was misunderstanding it. No, actually that's all wrong. Turns out I lost all of the

debate and the papist won. So we're not going to do a debate review because I don't need to do a debate review. We may do one for fun with David our hand. But somehow people think that debate reviews you do them when you lose. Debate reviews are just fun to do. It's an easy way to have more content. Doesn't necessarily mean you won't lost or want to do a review of the debate, because you can always discuss

questions and topics that didn't get covered. Every debate I've ever done has multiple things that are brought up that, due to time limitations, actually don't get addressed. So it's just normal to try to address some of the things that didn't there wasn't time to get to. But uh, excuse me, my allergy is going crazy today. I want to note that people a Romecaloch's apear to not be aware that what the exercise of the keys is. They'll just say keys, keys, keys, keys, keys, and you ask,

what are the keys and what does it signify? Well, it turns out in Roman Catholic theology they've actually already answered this question. If you deal any theological manual for Roman Catholics to explain what the keys. The office of the keys is. It's to preach the Gospel, to remit and retain sins, to exercise jurisdiction, and to there's one I'm forgetting, oh, offer the sacraments. That's the exercise of the keys. That's it. There's nothing beyond that in Roman

Catha theology itself. And when we go to Matthew eighteen two chapters after the statement to Peter, Jesus says to the College of the Apostles, surely I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven. Whatever you loose on earth will be loose in heaven. And surely I say to you, if you agree two of you agree that my Father is there in agreement with you. Does this sound like autocracy? Why does he include two or more of you agree? That sounds like

communal sinodle ecclesiology. So you notice they take Matthew sixteen out of the holistic context of the rest of the things that are said to the College of the Apostles, and you understand that Matthew eighteen eighteen is the exercising of the keys, and they say, no, no, it's only Peter in Matthew sixteen. But even in their own Catholic theology, the apostles have all of the same functions of the keys the way they define the keys. So then what

is it that's supposedly unique. Well, but see Jesus gave it directly to Peter first. Yes, and that's because Peter is awarded this honor because he first confesses when the apostles are asked. Okay, so notice that I will give you the keys of the kingdom whatever you buy, whatever you lose, is said not just Peter two chapters later, to all of them, and it's Synodyl two chapters later.

So what we should gather from this is that I don't take Matthew sixteen in a vacuum, excluding all of the other passages in the texts, in the rest of the New Testament, the rest of Matthew two chapters later. But notice that's exactly what Roman Callack has to do is to take these passages in a vacuum, ignore where it's said the same thing to the rest of the college, and then you ask them, what is it exactly that's here that Peter has that the others don't have. Oh well,

actually turns out it's infallibility. Where is that? Oh well, that's your faith, never failing faith? Okay, but Peter's faith did fail three times, and that's why Jesus said feed my sheet three times. Where in any of that is indefectibility and infallibility? Where in Acts fifteen in the Jerusalem Council is any idea of infallibility and indefectibility. Now, one thing that's interesting that I've noticed from a lot of the Roman calics of late is there's a new angle

they're trying. And this is particularly I guess, successful with paup apologists, because pap apologists are appealing.

original live stream with a Barra. I had asked to borrow many many times, over many many years to do a debate, and Eric said he would not do it, even though we had linked the exchanges on Facebook for hundreds and hundreds of comments for many many years. And I'm like, well, why won't you just do a debate and he said, well, it's got to be on a Catholic channel and all this kind of stuff, and I was just like, yeah, whatever, So there was no neutral ground.

And then the reason that original debate happened, and they never tell you the full story, is they were doing a live stream saying that I would never debate I was too scared to debate a Borro, which was not the case. I simply asked that we do it on a specific topic. On this or that channel, and he didn't like the channels I suggested, and I said, I'll hop on right now and have this argument. When I got on there, I said, I want to talk about

Vatican one Vatican two contradictions. That's the strongest arguments against the papers. It shows that obvious, easy contradictions right there. I don't want to talk about that. Let's talk about the historical evidences. Because this is their stick, is to go through the quote minds, pile up a bunch of quote minds and craft a narrative out of a growing seed doctrine that turns into a tree that by the eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries she's supposed to prove something, maybe like

Vatican one. Well, I don't grant that the quote mind stacking them up proves anything, because as Eric admitted, if I recall in that debate, if you could show one dogmatic contradiction, then it would invalidate the system exactly. That's all that's ever been needed was one dogmatic contradiction. I

guess what, there's many, there's not just one. And so what happened after that point was this sort of war that erupted between what was originally a UNI eight channel that had Orthodox and Eastern Catholics on to Lofton booting Craig Trulia, and then there was a huge bunch of arguments and drama, and then it turned into Lofton just kind of went crazy and was trying to get father Deacon to frocked and was calling people's churches just just crazy stuff. He sent me a lawsuit like he was

gonna assume me for making fun of him. I'm not joking. I've got the emails still where he said he's going to sue me for making fun of him on the internet. And it just turned into a bunch of ridiculousness. And since that time, other pop apologists have emerged whose channels have grown significantly, like Matt Frad's, And although Matt has hosted UBI there, he's made it very clear because I guess because I impersonated him, I don't know what exactly it is. I made fun of his accident, I make

fun of me. I do impersonations of everyone. Oh suddenly that's too mean, and then we don't enter act with him. He's too mean, which is all just super gay. Dude is so freaking gay. I don't care by the way, about interacting with him or not. But what they didn't learn in twenty eighteen was that it doesn't work to say he's mean. That's not going to keep people Roman Catholic. And we had waves of converts since then. Tens of

thousands of people have become Orthodox since then. And now they're doing the same thing with the latest crop of pop apologists like Brian Holdsworth or like Joel what's his face or whoever. Now I'm not saying that specifically named me these people. I'm saying the tendency is to still say we're not going to interact with him because he's mean. And look how aggressive he was in the Tim Gordon debate. Now, in the Tim Gordon debate, people again Roman Catholics apparently

don't know this. In cross examination, you can interrupt your opponent. We agreed to that. Tim and I both with Elijah before the debate, so their excuse of me interrupting is completely preposterous. Furthermore, Tim interrupted me just as much or more than I interrupted him during the cross examinations, and that was because he was getting really nervous and everybody could see that, and he floundered multiple times in every

section of the debate. So why was I being aggressive Because I debate in an aggressive way and aggressive style always have that's just the style of the debate that I do. To cope that I'm mean is just preposterous, especially when they follow people online as their leaders who are ten times more mean than me and do all kinds of nasty activities in the background, and people like Loughton who did just absolutely nasty stuff in the background

trying to keep give people fired from their jobs. I mean, they're nasty and they play like they're friendly upfront, but it's all afront, right, So that's why you can't. You gotta be you got to have a little bit of a thick skin to do this kind of stuff, and you can't listen to a lot of their whining and bitching too much. Now, the biggest elephant in the room is the actual arguments that have been made. Yes, I

was doing blood Sports when it started. First debate we did was Adam Kokesh and that's still that was about ten years ago. The next debate that I did was Worski blood Sports against JF and you can still watch that debate on my livestream channel. So yeah, I mean, and it's not just because of blood sports. I come out of a philosophical background in Underground and grad school where we did debate. That was part of doing debate.

I mean part of philosophy. Excuse me. We were doing public debaters, public debates with professors in my sophomore year of Underground. So that's just what I'm used to. That's the milieu that I come out of. I mean, to me, that's how guys are act, right. I mean, Tim and I went out after when I went out with his family, I took him out to eat afterwards. I bought him dinner because I'm a nice dude like that. So now when it comes to the issues, I will fiercely debate.

But on a personal level, Tim and I get along great. We were talking about going and playing basketball. We spent like three hours at the restaurant just chatting it up. I still think he's completely wrong. He's making huge mistakes on his Twitter. I mean, it looks silly to me, but I still like Tim on a personal level. He's a good dude. Now let's get to the issues. Because the only reason I bring that up is, like, do you understand Tim's not acting like a massive Skittles bag

like most of you people are. How come Tim can handle all this. He's not upset, crying and whining about how many I am because he's a normal, high testosterone dude. That's how dudes are. Dudes can handle this. A lot of you guys are whoosies.

Which position's true. You can do all this drama all day long, but do you understand that even if you did a bunch of drama, and you kept a bunch of people in your camp based on drama, do you understand that that's actually a negative, a net negative for you in the long run, because the people that you're keeping are low information converts, low tier people that are gonna convert the first time they encounter some significant challenge

to the position. So you would be better off actually addressing the arguments than acting like the way to solve these disputes is to talk about how bad somebody is, how mean they are, the fat jokes they make about Abora. I'm sorry, it's too easy to make fat jokes about Abara. And they're funny too. Everybody thinks. Everybody knows they're funny. They everybody admits they're funny. It's not my fault that Abora ended up being a gigantic vagina about all this,

and Tim hasn't been a giant vagina. Tim has been super cool about it, even though we totally disagree. Notice the difference of the attitude and the actions of Tim versus giant vaginas like Abora totally night and day. Now, let's get to the issues, because that's really what matters, and all of this other stuff is just smoking mirror deflection. Let's listen. Know what Brian Holdsworth argues, I don't think I'm gonna hear anything. It's very very high quality. Joshua

Finch can't remember. J B Pilti a five month members what's up? Troy orthodox ten dollars. What do you think about Mark Dice? You know, I haven't kept up with Mark Dice in a while. It seemed like he kind of transitioned into just kind of doing a lot of the daily news politics commentary stuff, which I think is super boring. His content is similar with you in terms of geopolitics. I didn't know you even covered geopolitics. I know you covered, like you know, kind of media stuff,

but I don't think he really does interviews. But I would definitely have a conversation with him if you wanted to, if you want to reach out or tell him. Now, let's have a conversation with Troy. Thedox became a member of five month membership Gorilla Biscuits membership. What's up? Christopher Scott? Five dollars, Thank you so much, Derek. Five dollars. Since Andrew doesn't do invasions when normal people are awake, I will give you this gift. Thank you, Derek. Hushtones five dollars.

Here we go, Baptism, PSA, diet, calendar, jurisdiction. J will you be my spiritual father? JJJJJJJ Yeah, he does. What to expect on open Calls Day. Now again the topics are pretty broad today. I don't care what you want to talk about. I'm specifically right now addressing these Roman Catholic cope responds videos because it sort of stirs up the questions, and I think they actually think that they'll

just placate people with these kind of easy answers. In fact, there's a new Roman Catholic response that I'm seeing going around. They kind of try out these new arguments every few months. The latest argument cope is, oh, God wouldn't expect us to learn all this theology, and He's made it easy, and thus the papacy. Now, isn't that interesting. That's exact argument that Daniel Hoikikachu made to me when we were

debating the last time we had her debate. God would not make it difficult, and so therefore the position that's the most simple must be true. And since Islam has the most simple shahada, God is one all as one, et cetera, boom, it's true. Now, no Roman Catholic would agree with that. No, no, no, no, you say that's

a it's actually a fallacy. By the way, So notice that we're not even concerned with what are fallacious lines of reasoning every Roman Catholic that eventually spends years doing apologetics has actually spent countless hours responding to, for example, Protestant objections. Now, wait a minute, I thought it was easy. Why are we having to actually go into all of

these specific textual objections of Matthew sixteen? And what does the you know, the actual letter of Pope Agatho mean, does it actually teach the Vatican One model of the papacy? And you know what about Leo? You know, Peter spoke through Leo a chalcidon And then you actually have to explain the context when you're actually a debating's money knows the history of the church, like you understand that as time goes by, the Jesus made it easy. Argument doesn't work.

And let's say orthodox as Alex Warren pointed out in his video, let's say orthodoxy false. How do I know between Roman Catholicism, Protestantism and Oriental Orthodoxy which one's true? Without getting into the intellectual heavy issues. Is there some sort of self evidence? It's just gonna well, just the pope, he's there, Look, there's a pope. It just makes it

it's self eviden it's true. In other words, it's a silly argument for an apologist to make that the position is true, which is the one that's the easiest and the simplest. Why can't buy that line of argument? Why kind of Protestant just say this, man, my Bible, that's simple. This is just ridiculous. I mean, this is the level of argumentation that we're at with this stuff. It's just like, this is so silly. Hey, Jamie, could you make me a coffee? Thank you? Hush tones five dollars. This one

is strictly for Saint Basil the Great. The Acubian brothers must the Cuban Yeah, Kubian brothers, that's right, apple sy ten dollars. If Jesus gave Peter the keys, how could Peter give keys to the other apostles. Well, that's the thing is I've pointed out in the text he doesn't do that. If we had the papal model at work, Jesus would give Peter the keys, breathe on Peter, Pentecosts, the Holy Spirit would come on Peter, and then Peter would transmit that to the rest of the college. Is

that what happened, No, that would happened. In fact, it's the opposite right, Jesus says it to Peter, and he says it to the rest of them two chapters later, and the Holy Spirit Jesus breathes on all of them and says, whoever sends you, they're remitted. Whoever sends you retten they retained. He sends aly Spirit on all of them. It doesn't go to Peter and then to everyone else. So exactly if Peter gave Peter the if Jesus got Peter the keys, then he would have to give it

to all them. Yeah, did he go to Walmart and make copies for each of them? That's actually pretty funny. Eight in eighty two pounds, I got married to my funk o pop whoe aaaaaa killer one hundred foreign currencies. When are you going to show us your labuobu collection? Well, Sam Hid just put out a La Boobuo video, so you can check that out because I donated all of my lab boo boos to Sam in age two dollars. Did Gina become Orthodox? And does Mike hate her? Now?

So Gina and Mike who had that podcast a while back that had me on, and they're the ones that hosted the debate between me and doctor Easley the Baptist and Dave Gordon. Tim Gordon's brother, Gina did become Orthodox, Mike went tradcat Roman Catholic. I've keep trying to get Mike to call in and have a debate because he got salty with me over blocking him. But I blocked him because he just kept just saying bad arguments that when it come to debate. So I don't think he

hates Gina. I've not heard anything like that, but I do know that they don't do a podcast together. Justin two dollars? Should cornbread be made with corn meal? Bro, I'm trying to stay in Katosi's dog. I don't know nothing about no corn meal. That's that's where all the plebes do. That's a pleb diet. Jack the guitar got twenty dollars? What about the keys? Jay? What about the keys? It's weird that, you know, if you go back to the Nick debates eight years ago, what did he fall

back on the keys? The keys? The keys? Fast forward to the Tim Gordon debate? What do he fall back on? The keys? The keys? The keys? There's actually one of the medieval Orthodox saints actually makes fun of this too, says, anytime you argue with the Roman Catholic, they jingle the keys. So Orthodox has been making this joke for literally like

a thousand years. Franke Smelkoite two dollars. The most learning thing about the Shameless Popery video, this is the Joel Heshmeyer video, is that he says Catholic and Orthodox both revere acumenical councils. However, Rome is in communion with the stories and monophic sites. Now, yeah, exactly, and uh, what was voice of reason?

infallibility only protects his teaching on faith and morals. It doesn't cover his personal sins or errors, which would be impeccability. So that's what they're gonna say. But that's why it's important to specifically find the doctrinal and dogmatic contradictions. Liked the example that we saw with unum sanctam and the papal temporal supremacy doctrine. That's why it was so important to find a dogmatic contradiction and hammer that home. And you saw he had no answer. Where was this in

the first thousand years? Wouldn't there it evolved? Oh okay, it evolved to it, and then it evolved away from it after Vatican two. So does that mean that cathy theology could also evolve away from the papacy? That's so stupid me and you g two dollars. Jay is not mean. He's just an RN a registered nurse or retarded now retard nation. I don't know what URN stands for, Mark medic five dollars. Do you think that the keys just keep talking about guys are the ones that start the popemobile?

Maybe it's always a reference to the popemobile. That's what the keys are about. Or is it the keys to the papal dungeon where the human sacrifice happens. I don't know, sir, Jeff cost us five dollars. My pants are sized thirty thirty two. That's funny. That's a reference to our joke a couple of weeks ago. Coolbera cout of two dollars. What about the keys to your heart? Jamie holds those? Oh,

it's sure as heck. Ain't no skills, pope. Or let's see what Brian What Brian Gon'll serve up to us right here.

a fellow Christian come to a fuller communion with God and receive all the graces that.

and maybe this will help clear things up. I said that I think people in the Roman Catholic sphere, when they see our argumentation and our line of reasoning, they kind of copy paste onto our system their autocratic top down model. So they see things in the Orthodox Church that they think don't make any sense because it's not the papal model. For example, how come the pentarchy doesn't just tell everybody what's infallibly true? How Bartholomew doesn't just

solve the issues. The major issue that is at the root of ninety percent of Romanical Orthodox debates that's missed is that Orthodox ecclesiology is fundamentally decentralized. This is what they have a really hard time understanding. So they just assume that Jesus established a autocratic hierarchy, a top down system, and anything that doesn't have the top down system is in some way flawed or doomed or something like that. However, we actually think that this is a feature of this

system and not a bug. In fact, the church was always decentralized. It was always sonodal as a fanthropic organism. It's not a juridical CEO style corporation. They think of it like a giant corporation with a super powerful CEO, and the cardinals are something like a corporate board or something, but the CEO has the final say. That is not what we think Christ set up. We think he set up a synodal model and it was always decentralized. Now

when they hear this, this is their mind smelt. They can't fathom that Jesus would dare to set up a decentralized church. Now, I didn't say democracy, I said decentralized. But for the Orthodox Church, especially if you read a book like Church Papacy Schism by doctor Phil Cherard, he points out that there's nothing lacking in the local church. Every local church has the fullness of Catholicity because the bishop has the fullness of the faith and the sacraments

at the local level. Thus there's nothing lacking in local churches that Rome has a double dose of. Okay, there's no double anointing like Elijah to Elisha that exists in Rome that the rest of the bishops don't have or lack. But especially if you read Church Papacy Schism, you'll notice he gets into the chapter where in the Late Middle Ages the Latin Church develop what they call a juridical

body distinct from the mystical body. This is a principal Nestorian heresy applied to ecclesiology that you could actually trace as the papacy comes to geopolitical world power, and doctor Scharard' is one of the best on that his chapter is excellent. It's never been really, I don't think significantly addressed. Roman Calocs are ignorant of it. They don't even know

or understand what we're talking about. They simply assume that there was always this juridical institutional papacy like a corporation, and then when you go to the places in church history where it didn't exist, suddenly it was a thing in potentia being developed. Even though Satis Cognitum says there's not a development, it was always understood to be the case that this is the Vatican One definition and extent in jurisdiction and indefectibility of the papacy was always there.

But magically it becomes a developing thing when there's a problem. Now, why are they retreating to look? God doesn't expect us to become phdsds precisely because they don't have answers to these very challenging problems. And this is an interesting new approach because it's almost a concession. It's kind of like a last ditch effort of exasperation before you're ready to

give up, because you're throwing your hands up. Intellectually you're saying, look, I don't know, okay, it can't be this hard, okay. So it's a sign of frustration. It's not actually an argument to say, look, you got all these problems in church history. I don't care. I don't care. Guess what, hand waving the problems of the contradition of the church history is not gonna make them go away. They're going to keep eating at your head and at your conscience,

in your mind like a mind virus. And I know because they did it to me when I was a Roman Catholic trad cat and I heard these challenges. Don't you think I went through all of the same stages of grief? Of course I've done all this, all this stuff, Tim was saying, I've heard it. I said it back when I was in my twenties. But none of those things are going to answer and solve and give you the peace that you're actually looking for. You're never going

to have peace in the Roman Catholic world. It's a religion of dead works that doesn't have the Holy Spirit peace that you're actually after. You're always going to be restless, You're always going to be wondering because the whole thing is structured like some kind of weird corporate blockchain transactional system. Anyway, it's crazy, and I mean, you still believe the doctrine of the Treasury of the merits of the Saints, which

is absolutely insane. I mean that one alone should really refute all the Roman Catholicism, and I think they actually downplay it because it's such a ridiculous dogma. It's still in the books, it's still a dogma. But do we hear Roman Catholics defending this very much? I mean, last one I remember defending this was Scott hand like maybe fifteen years ago.

Comb Donald Alta will give a hot pizza. We've got donuts too, Hill. If you'll say the sons probab, I'll give you a pizza, maybe a little bossyleicle, trustycleo, row home, just good it up to Jesus and I'll give it hot Hilza. This says not that you're talking six months to three years catechumen it to become Orthodox, even if you were Roman Catholic. So I don't think he understands that. No, no,

you don't get any ease. Now. You could probably find some Orthodox church that will immediately receive you somewhere if you like shop around or something, but typically speaking, that's not our ethos.

Because the opportunity is always available. So to answer that, let me contrast a few areas where the claims of orthodoxy.

what happens? And I've been through this for twenty years almost now, at least fifteen, maybe seventeen years, looking at this issue, getting into these debates, debating Roman Catholics on this point, being a Roman Catholic. Formerly, what's always going on here is there's two stories, two narratives explaining the first thousand years. The Roman Catholic narrative alternates between assuming that the Vatican One model of the papacy was always there and clear, and then it vacillates over to it

was in potential and developing when there's problems. So it vacillates between these two narrative contradictory explanations to make that thing work. And a lot of times what they do is they pick a strong statement of the papacy, say in the eight hundreds, that we would agree is a strong statement that has evolved to that point. Okay, but they think that because it's within the first thousand years and the pope makes a strong statement late in the game,

that must be a definitive proof for their system. The other thing that they do is they assume that the wording, the language, the flowery language that's used oftentimes for many bishops somehow is like kind of loosely akin to what Vatican One eventually says. Both of these are non sequitors, and both of them can be explained by two different rival paradigms. I'm not saying their position is true anymore than I'm saying my position is true, because it has

a narrative explanation. Right, So this is I mean, this is exactly what we'd expect people who are evidentialists in their apologetic to try to do. Stack up a bunch of quote lines and doesn't that kind of tilt the scales over to papacy. That's how they approach all these questions. Now, I've consistently argued against this evidential is apologetic this entire time, because this is another part of the problem. You don't actually solve this question, just like in philosophy it's called

underdetermination of data thesis. You don't actually solve this question when you've got data that can be explained significantly and in a good way by two rival paradigms. And this is what they don't understand because they don't understand paradigm thinking. Everything for them is like one layer and piling up evidences. I'm looking at it from two rival paradigms and systems and which ones are coherent and not tim That doesn't make me a coherence theorist as if I'm some sort

of secular epistemology person. I'm just talking about coherence, not coherence theory, just like if I talked about empiricism or empirical data, that doesn't make me an empiricist of the school of empiricists. So I've got to make some of these distinctions because these people get very confused over basic

ideas and word concept fallacies. So when Brian pulls out various quotes or pastors or whatever, the assumption is that you can read iogetically into that the second millennium of Roman Catholic developments and as Orthodox we have been calling this out and critiquing that forever does it. Do they hear this? No, it just goes right over their head.

They don't ever hear what our responses are. And I would say too that if you want the specifics, Alex did a really good video Alex Soren here responding to Joel Heshmeier on the specifics. So Joel mentions a bunch of what he thinks are papal proofs, and actually all three of his three were actually not papal proofs at all. They actually proved the opposite, particularly with Saint Cyprian being someone who went against Rome. So obviously his quotes about Peter,

which Roman Catholx's assum is about all of Christendom. No Cyprian says all bishops are Peter, and Cyprian had no problem going again, it'st Pope Saint Stephen. Now we believe that that Pope Stephen was ultimately correct and Cyprian was wrong in the conflict. But what it shows, just like with Saint Aeronais, is that their statements about Rome do not come with an unqualified autocratic authority. Because both aaron Ais and Cyprian opposed Rome very significantly, and as did

Saint Augustine. They always leave out the fact that Augustine, in that letter where he talks about Rome, goes on to say, perhaps the bishops of Rome also could make significant errors, and thus we could leave it up to a universal council clear as day, Augustine is saying that ecumenical councils or synods are above one Bishop of Rome.

And in both cases of Cyprian and Augustine, they were resenting the fact that African bishops were having the Roman bishop speak to and step over their jurisdictions because nobody believed that Peter, because he was the mouthpiece, somehow suddenly had universal jurisdiction. That's why the chi eighty document admits that they didn't have or that there was no universal

jurisdiction of Rome in the first millennium. What is paragraph nineteen of the chiady document from Rome say appeals to the Bishop of Rome from the east expressed the community of the church, Bob, the Bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East. That's the Vatican.

what Vatican On actually said. I didn't know the nitty gritty details of the specific controversies. But there's no other way around it. You have to get into the details of these things. Otherwise we're no different than I mean, what does a Roman Calvic say to an Aran when an Aran says, well, Jesus says the Father's greater? Well, no, wait a minute, do I need the context or could I just appeal to simplicity because an Aran could say like the like the Muslims do. Look, the Trinity is complex.

Why not just say it's simple, It's a Unitarian deity. This is literally what Arians and Muslims say. Now does any Roman Calvic appeal to quote simplicity and pragmatism for that?

relied heavily on this flowery, strong language. And then when you point out the same language being used of other bishops and the Emperor, well, suddenly that those don't count. Now that one doesn't count. It only counts when it's about Peter, you say.

Where does that come from? What's tradition? Notice this ridiculous circle.

they lose that authority. So even Maximus's quote is qualified by Maximus to even say that I would be amongst the small band of true Catholics rather than being against the largest number of those who affirm heresies. In other words, for Maximus, truth is not determined by number or externality. It's determined by what's true. The true Church I'm saying

the true Church is not a number. And the other reason that he's writing that way is because he's opposing the patriarchal constant who was a heretic read the disputation Paris, And because he's appealing to Rome because he wants Rome's approval for his teaching. And everybody did this. But wait a minute. Does appealing to the Bishop of Rome as a final court of appeals actually occur? Oh? It doesn't. Uh, oh,

wait a minute, Shady Document nineteen. Over the centuries, many appeals are made to the Bishop of Rome from the East in disciplinary matters, such as the deposition of a bishop. An attempt was made at the Council of Sartica in three forty three to establish the rules for this procedure. Sartaka was received at the Council of Trollo, which Romanchelics reject. By the way, the Canon of Sartica determined that a bishop had been condemned could appeal to the Bishop of Rome.

Now all the Romancanthic apologists use this, and they stopped there. Why do they stop there? Because the rest of what is argued and discussed in this disproves their position. So they're lying, they're dishonest, or they just see quote minds and they don't know the context. Because, as it goes on to say the latter, the Bishop of Rome, if he deemed it appropriate, could order a retrial. It's not a de facto divine fiat decision. They always want to

That's exactly what Vatican one says. That's how they paint this picture. It's the opposite. And when he orders a retrial, is it where is it? Is it in Rome? No, it's conducted by the bishops in his providence that bishop. Guess what. Appeals regarding these things were also made to Constantinople and the other seas, Because if you were in a snodal church and you want to support like Saint Maximus did, obviously you're going to appeal to the number

one see Rome. If you can get Rome support, that's a big deal when Rome was Orthodox. That's why Maximus writes that way and why he appeals to Rome. But you also want the other sees Alexandria, Antioch, et cetera could get them, And similar types of appeals were made to other patriarchates. So this shows anodal pentarchical model, not top down de facto, just let Rome has spoken cases closed.

Do you notice how out of one side of their mouth they'll say Roma spoken cases closed, because it's an autocratic, final arbiter decision. And then it turns out it turns out it's not that at all. In their documents, you're saying, this is not an Orthodox Church document, this is a Roman Catholic document, paragraph nineteen, the Chady Document. In fact, when the Chady Document came out a few years ago, there were Roman Catholic apologists writing articles in Catholic World

Report saying, what do we do with this? This means Vatican One is wrong and we're dealing with giant hordes of normy pop apolog just who've not read any of this stuff. That's why this is so frustrating. They're like ten years behind in the reading. And I don't mean to be Tim Gordon, but it means to Tim Gordon because I liked him on a personal level. But Tim didn't read any of the material that I sent him. What he did was he relied on whatever Catholic apologetic

websites or persons he talked to. I get it. He's busy, he's got a large family and that's great. However, if you're going to step into the debate world, and this is almost five years of Tim and I being buddies, we first started talking smack on Twitter, setting up and arguing for this debate. It eventually happens five years later. I gave Tim a pretty significant reading list five years ago.

He didn't read any of it. And I can tell, and everybody in the audience can tell, especially if you read Saint Photios, that Tim had no idea what he was talking about when he saw about Potius the Philio quick. Tim didn't have any conception of what the Cappa Docian model of the Trinity was, none whatsoever. And I'm not

being mean, that's just the facts. So how are we supposed to convey this information and explain this when we've got people that won't do any of the primary reading or the secondary reading, don't have any idea what the actual literature says on these topics, and they're appealing to very low information voters and duping people on the basis of this sort of low tier stuff that Brian Holdsworth's doing here where he just says, well, look Peter's listed

as first, He's called first. This this this quote, my quote, my quote. Mind. Okay, but you understand that none of these quotes prove Vatican one's claims, and your own Vatican has admitted that. So you're fighting an uphill battle.

what Nicia's canon say. What does Canon Ford Nicia say a bishop should be appointed by the bishop of the province. Did do you see anything about the pope appointing all the bishops in the world there, Canon Ford and I yah Canon two Constantinople three eighty one that defined the trinity. Which again he was wrong when he said that constantin Noble one was not out of comuny. Yes it was.

He didn't know basic church history. Tim didn't even know his own positions when we got into universal order magistarian So canon too, bishops are not to go beyond their diocese. Where do you see universal romanistiction there? In fact, the argument here is that it leads to confusion amongst the laity if they go beyond. Now you know what the Roman catholic answerest all these Now, remember this is a This is a canon written while this council has had

out of commune with Rome. So you can't argue Roman Catholics that well, they just assumed Romans supremacy even though this canon has written not mentioning it. That's what they say about Canon six of Nicia. Right, So Cannon six and Nicia. If you remember, Gabara said they didn't need to mention the universal supremacy because everybody knew that. He had argument from silence is just assumed that it's there.

But now, wait a minute, would you say the same thing about the same wording in Constantinople three eighty one. They didn't need to mention it because they all knew it was there. Oh, they all knew it was there. But wait a minute, this is the council out of community with Rome. They right, they wrote these canons while they were not in commune with Rome. So that doesn't

work here. Oh so guess what turns out? The Empire, for the most part, didn't believe that the Bishop Rome had jurisdiction throughout.

They don't really. All they care about is giving verbal credence to them and whatever the pope says, that's it now. Romancallly was on the talking to smack that today, saying, who could you could call a council? Do you understand that the emperors called the councils, not the popes. So what are you even talking about. Let's go to Ephesus. Ephesis grants autocephaly to the Church of Cyprus. What do you remember me mentioning that in the debate, Tim didn't

even know what that was. He had no idea what I was talking about, and he was so not aware of this that he didn't even understand that it refutes his position. Why are you thumbing down? You're making a big stink, unmute. What's your problem? I'm mute, Ortho, I'm mute. This is not orthodox person, that's the persons the romancalag making a profile. Ortho, unmute, you're thumbing down? What's your problem?

that refute the Vatican one view. This is one of the strongest arguments if you want the easy pragmatic approach. Okay, what's the easiest way to show that the Vatican one position is not true, that the papacies falls this right here, All of these canons and every one of the ecumenical councils doesn't fit with the autocratic, pivotal papal model. It's

it's a nodal model. And when you notice that none of these mention the universal jurisdiction of Rome, do you know what the Roman Catholics say, Well, we don't care what the canons say, it's just what the Pope says. And we all know that they all believed in our position, So it's literally that I'm not kidding. That's the other Their argument is an argument from silence that yeah, there might be all these canons that contradict peoples supremacy, but

who cares what canon? Say? Well, I wait a minute, I thought you cared by the ecumenical councils because the canons are the ecclesiastical law of the councils, so you don't actually care about the ecmical councils. All they care about is what the Pope of Rome approves in the ecmitical councils, which means that they're schismatics because they don't listen to the totality of the might of the church.

They follow one dude, and you'll notice over and over and over in these canons they just talk about the limited jurisdiction of bishops not transgressing their local jurisdictions. There's

nothing about universal jurisdiction of Rome in the canons. That's why they ignore this argument because it's so strong against their position, and then when you ask them about it, they just say, yeah, that's because they all everybody already knew that romeh had universe jurisdiction, even though their papacy admits that dead this is so insane.

this massive data. To keep using your paradigm model against ours is what doesn't work, and it's very I don't know why it's so so hard to convey this to people. People just don't have the ability, I don't think to think in this sort of paradigm level way.

proves or leads you to the conclusion of papacy. You see, that's the fallacy here. That's what I was trying to argue a minute ago when I said ninety percent of these debates about ecclesiology ends up being a missed understanding that they can't grasp that our church is decentralized and they think that that's somehow necessarily a defeater. Maybe Jesus just didn't set up an autocracy. Did you think about that?

Maybe Jesus institute to day synodal decentralized church, But they have any they can't even think about that, Like that's just so far out of their paradigm. Every time these topics and these terms come up, they interpret it in their way. Does that make sense? This is why paradigm level thinking is so important, and it's very so difficult to convey to these tomas and to these.

your model of authority. So this is just another basically question begging exercise. It's just assuming that we need authority, we need hierarchy. The papacy offers authority in hierarchy. Therefore the papacy is true. But how do we know that it's your model or that your idea of what authority is is self evidently true. That's what this is. That's all this is.

papism and chaos democracy anarchy. That's a false either or. But that's what they have to do to make these positions work. Is just kind of appeal to what they think authority has to be, ignoring the actual Patristic teaching on the church. Do you see that that's huge. Well, maybe he's not ignoring the Patricia teaching. Okay, if he's not, then why doesn't he talk about the canons of the

Commenical Councils. I will bet you dollars to donuts whatever that even means that he doesn't know what the canons of the councils actually say. They never do, they don't care, but one thousand dollars Brian Holdsworth has not read the Canons of the Commenical Councils. Now you can't come to me after this. And then he watches his video and goes and reads them and they get your thousand dollars.

I'm saying that I bet you, at this point you cannot prove to me from this point back in history that he knows anything about the canons the Ecumenical Councils, any of the councils, because there's no way you could really argue this unless you're just being deceptive without being aware that, like you know, there's tons of canons that don't work with Vatican one right.

the Romanchelics think. Jesus said, the Vatican Bank run by the Rothchilds, which is true, which is the fact. But we're supposed to be tradcats and anti jew even the Rothchilds are running Vatican Bank. Oh but they don't tell you that. No, it's like, the corporate model is not the church. You understand, the Church is a unique institution.

So every time a Romancallic deviates into trying to make these analogies to human institutions, they're missing the point of a theanthropic institution whose head is Christ governing through the Holy Spirit. The big glaring mistake in all of this is to not believe in the work of the Holy Spirit. It's as if the Holy Spirit can't speak through a synod, even though he does in Acts fifteen. Ever, since Acts fifteen, the Holy Spirit can only speak through one guy. He's

that weak. Only Rome apparently is the choice voice box of the Holy Spirit, whereas in the Book of Acts he falls on all the College of the Apostles. Why is it that only Peter is the voice of the Holy Spirit. Isn't it interesting that as the philioquay heresy rises to prominence in the eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth century, at the exact same time the papal heresy arises that only the mouth of Peter, in the mouth the Holy

Spirit in the mouth of Jesus are in Rome. It's like there's a connection between the phillioquay and the papacy. Of course there is. In fact, Philip Grard has a whole chapter on the infallible connection between the papacy and the Phillyoquay and why this is such a massive delusion and a massive heresy. The two go together because ultimately it's the pope that ends up sending the Holy Spirit

to the Church. Jesus is no longer the economia. Right, the incarnate Christ who breathes on the apostles and sends the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, that's economia, that's not Philly Okuay. And once the papacy rises to its geopolitical power, it's only natural that the papacy would then say, I alone give the Holy Spirit to the bishops. I alone the declare all the bishops in the world, even though I just showed you Nicia says that all it takes to have a bishop is the bishops of the local province

appointing him. How do you not understand that this is a massive deviation in ecclesiology. Well, he's the pope. He could do what he wants. The pope can do what he want. Oh, can he change natural law to say that the death penalty is now against the Gospel? Well, apparently he can. To these people, this is how insane this cult. This is a cult, dude. Look, it's a cult. That's a lot. That's that's what we have to Nobody can reason rationally about this within this system because it's

a freaking cult. That's it. Well, you can't know the truth. The pope, he has to solve all the problems in the church. Oh okay, then how did anyone know the Christian faith in the year three hundred? Without access to Rome and without any ecumenical councils, they had to write a letter to the Bishop of Room. Remember when I asked a Borrow When this came up with a bar Well, the pope couldn't solve every controversy because if he did,

the better cand to be full of papers. He wouldn't be able to walk around the better because all the papers were I'm not joking that was well wait a minute, idiot, you're the one that argues that the whole point of the papacy is to solve the disputes. Then why do we need ecumenical councils? What a waste of time. In the ancient world, we have hundreds of bishops traveling hundreds of miles of risking death and disease to get to some imperial city. All they had to do is write

a letter to Rome. Case closed? Why are we having councils at all? If ro spoken? Cases closed? And you know what it Borrow says about this will dude the for Domini centuries the church he head the Poe, buddy, did he use it? Oh, thank you for failing the church. Thank you for making this a thousand times more difficult than it has to be. You could have just solved all these you just do an extra showe to Poe with duddy hood. I'm not kidding. This is the people.

They think. This is the fat guy they think is like, is the greatest apologist? Is this guy who says this kind of stuff? No. One five two dollars. Debate the Mormons. If the Mormons call in, I will debate them. Please call in Mormons. Chandler White. A long time ago, I gave you four and a half inward passes because I have four one fourth black children. My wife is half black. However, I found out that a fifth child is on the way, so you can have one more one fourth inward pass

Thank you. I mean, the dude, those are racked up. I mean I basically could just be like super racist for a year and nobody can do anything because I've got like it's in the twenties now of passes. Austin Alverarez five dollars. I went to Saint Mary's Orthodox Church in Minneapolis, and it turns out a girl from this parish was hit in the tra n Z event. On the twenty seventh, everybody prayed for Sophia at Saint Mary's

Orthodox Church. Yes, please do That's terrible. I mean again, I go watch my stream yesterday on what I think is going on. Schmuck, schmuck. Two dollars. Do you know anything about the Bahai faith? I mean it's a syncretous, relativistic cult. I haven't. I don't have done. I haven't done a specific video on it, but I mean any sort of basic presup would refute be high stuff. G twenty six five dollars. Jay was actually teaching Tim Gordon in the Catholic position the whole time that debate was

going on. I was very embarrassing for the papers. Yeah, and he tried to play like he knew what he was saying, that he was right. But then again he conceded to me, not just the Philly oquay. He conceded the Philly oquy part publicly at the end of the debate, and then he privately afterwards when we were talking, said Yo, you were right about universe magistrate. Well, thank you, silent juice five dollars Jay, What happened to that Chris guy from Hookbusters is John, the same guy that calls in.

I'm not going to speak to who the John of the Chriss are. But Chris did pass away, so pray for Chris. He was a great guy. We hung out with Chris in person. We missed Chris quite a bit, but he did pass away. KL five dollars. I rewatched the Tim Poole debate with Tim Gordon. You actually cited lumin Gentium where it says together we adore the one God. Tim Gordon quietly said, with us monotheus. I missed that

the first time exactly exactly. So he tried to say together with us just generic monotheus, but it actually says together with us Catholics. So he's trying. Tim is like a lawyer who will immediately try to paint the narrative in some opposite way. Buddy p two hundred dollars. When is a debate review? I'm not sure because I'm trying to organize with David Rhon and Rhan is in Turkey and he's, you know, he's got his own life going. He's got exciting things happening in his life right now.

So props are our buddy, our old school orthobro David Erhanu. But I think we'll probably trying to make that happen soon. Swinter is two dollars? Would you debate James White? So James White offered to only debate me. I'm tired of telling the story because they it's just so dishonest. They act like I ran from James White. James White didn't offer to debate me on what I've been asking him to debate for years. He changed the topic and said he'll debate icons in the Seventh Council if I live

within RB driving distance. I mean, what the hell is that? First of all, I'm not telling he doesn't need to know where I live. I don't trust that dude at all. Secondly, it wasn't a debate on what I want to debate. And third it wasn't actually offered to debate. It was only if it was in driving distance requires me to tell him where I live, and I'm not. This is just all super gay. He can easily hop on it on the internet and do a debate, which he's not gonna do. R M two forty nine. Why do we

call God the Father? Well, he's revealed as our father. So beyond that, I mean Lexus crash out one dollar. A good proof that Catholicism is faking gay is all the Calolic priests actually act like weird skittle salesmen and customer service people. Orthodox scourgy actually act like normal people, like nineteen eighty TV commercials, authentic exactly. That's funny. It's a good way to put it. John, I'm sorry, Let's

go to you, because I saw you were waiting. I want to go ahead and go to you, and then we'll go to our Protestant friend here who's been saying he wants to chat John. What's up, John? Are you able to talk? If not, I'll go to Seoul? Hey, Jay, Yeah, and then we'll go to Salt. I mean to John, what's up?

a within a glob. So they have this idea that the Trinity is this essentialist monad or God is an essentialist monad, and then within this mona there are these relational distinctions. But the best critique of this is when Loski. Have you read Loski's a I can't remember if it's mistical theology or the the vision of light book.

And I don't think they understand hypostatic properties. You're calling impersonal properties, but that's why they would go to There's no there's literally no reason why you would do relations of opposition unless you had a struggle with trying to

distinguish the person's. Even Augustine, when you read on the Trinity, he struggles with how to distinguish them, and he does, in one point admit that, yeah, it does seem like the father is the principal cause, but because he's given cause to the son explicitly, he then has to figure out a way. Well, I can't distinguish the persons strictly with cause because that's something that father and son have, So I need another way to actually distinguish these persons.

And he talks about relative opposition. I'm going from here. I think he does, but more specifically, Aquitas builds on it and flushes it out even further. But the problem with relative opposition is that number one, God is equally triad as much as he is Monad. He's not. There's no die ad at all to have relative opposition requires a diead. This is a critique that's made in God His Should Dialectic, Volume one. I didn't make this up.

It's his critique. But beyond that, and it also gets into Patristic ways of number theory and how they count it counted by division. That's why you don't have in the In the Creed it says one and undivided, because the Patristic means of counting was particularly for the trinity in terms of his nature. He's undivided. But the persons are divided. Right, how do I get father and son? While I divide the father, the father is not the son. It doesn't mean that you're actually you're not. It doesn't

mean you're literally dividing them. It just means counting by division. So persons are counted by division. The essence, I assume mean by identity. The essence is counted by division. That's why the Creed says one and undivided. Are you familiar with this? Yeah, okay, so it's I'm not trying to go off topic. I'm saying there's a reason why I'm saying this. And Ambiguo one Maximus talks about the Patristic

way of counting, and he talks about monad diead try it. Okay, that's how you count patristically when you're doing like when you're when you're picking out the persons, you have to put this was this was the Jake debate when we had to do the LPT. Anyway, those are all separate topics that I mentioned in passing in the debate. But the main issue is that the whole reason why there's a problem is because they think that person and nature

are identical in the trinity. They're only notionally distinct. Aquinas says that explicitly, Augusta.

people have cause. Okay, so how do we distinguish them relative opposition, relationship opposition? The father is not the son, the spirit, The son is not the spirit, not the father, et cetera. It's stupid because that is a quality that all three share, all three share, not being the other two. It's really stupid.

not the bench, Jay is not the shelf. Yeah, those are all true, but they don't tell you who Jay is. They don't tell you. They're just negative qualities that don't identify the subject. That's why the Cappadocians say it's the Father that is the principal source and origin of the Godhead, not the essence the Father. And that's why the Creed picks out monarchical trinitarianism, says, I believe in one God, the Father above all right, and that's why his hypothetic

property can't be shared with the son. So the whole error starts from confusing nature in person, thinking that there're only no distinct, not really distinct, and granting the hypoesetic property the Father to the son because they don't start their trinitarianism. They're they're confused, and they come up with all these wild and crazy ideas to make this about that. You understand that in some places Aquinas actually says, I'm pretty sure I can pull out Sumi countries and teeners.

He actually says the procession of the Holy Spirit is from the essence. He goes even further, it's abu troque. I believe, well, how.

the will of God, which is eron. Do you know they teach that.

all these ways to make the Trinity rational, cogent. He tries to find trinities in nature, little trinities everywhere, to try to make the doctrine sensible. He pulls heavily explicitly from Plotinus. Right, So he goes to the Eneods, and I can't remember it his book four or five, but like some of the sections of on the Trinity are literally just copied and pasted sections. So Plotinus out of

the Ideods, which is wild too, by the way. So it's a it's a work that's designed to make the best case for the Trinity and the most rational case. And one of the things he does is he tries to come up with models of the human analogy or the mind, or distinctions within the mind to make the Trinity work too. So when a quitas and later people pull from this. They're pulling largely from on the Trinity when they try to make the case that there's all

of these different ways to make the Trinity work. Orthodox Christianity only goes with the cappa dootion costs something ople one model. That's why you see Photius really just repeating them. We don't do all these like creative analogies type moves. And that's that's the only way you could even get this idea of like, I mean, the Trinity, the son is not a notion in the father's mind.

God's actions go beyond their intended bounds? Something of that nature, And then when you clearly they can't, right then they're just going to tell you that the reading reason begetting terminates where it does and doesn't can because one of our charges against them, right is like, why doesn't the son or the spirit also beget or spiral.

is in the Cappadocians. Okay, the Cappo Doceans teach not the august aniantomistic model. They teach relations of origin. And it's exactly what Photius repeats in the Mystagogy. If you read the Cappa Doceans in depth as I have, and if you then read the Mystagogy, you realize that he's really just repeating the Cappadocians. So the Orthodox Church is consistently teaching what the constant and noble one, the Second

Ecumenical Council teaches officially about Trinitarian theology. It's the Romans that has departed with all this weird philosophical scholastic speculations that are not in the Cavedoceans, not anywhere in the Eastern Fathers. But they'll quote mine for a similar term, right where like if gregor Nissa says that they are the persons are related to one another, yeah, they I don't didn't disagree with relations. Really, it's not distinguishing persons

through relations of opposition. It's relations of origin to their unique singular cause the person of the father. Every capped Doocian says that the everything the father has, the son has accept causality. That's their dictum. That alone tells you they don't teach pillioqui. This is not that hard. I know it sounds confusing if you don't know this stuff, you're new to all this stuff. But it's like what they say is clear, all this speculations about philosophical relations

of opposition. It's the Roman Catholics that are deluded in confusing people with their garbage theology.

the triad, is simple. It's simpler than the tomistic gibberish. So there we go. It's true, Cory, what's up? And I don't know you've been waiting to come chat. What's on your mind?

you asked, well, what is it? So I came on here just to bring those things up and see if you helped me out a little bit, because I'd love to be convinced quick back.

that's the case that happens in the ascension. So you're saying the Eastern Orthodox.

Like you can say, you know, Christ made atonement, even if you're only speaking about one aspect of it, we wouldn't conclude that because one aspect of it is just one aspect of it, you can't make the general term about that one aspect. Does that make sense?

in tradition. Like it's sort of like a lot of either ores and they're usually false constructed either ors that you know are based around misunderstandings of language or work cause of policies.

that would be my first inclination. It's like, it's not the case that everything that happens in the Gospels or even the Book of Acts is necessarily perpetually, eternally the case for the history of the Church. That's why Jesus didn't establish a specific ritual for the apostles. He let the apostles craft a liturgical tradition for the apostolic seeds that they set up. So there's probably some something that happened within church history like that caused the church to

do this that I'm not aware of. Yeah, and you you'd ask the liturgical historian that I don't know.

instruction of a liturgy. And you know, I keep making this argument that that's on purpose because Jesus wants us to trust the Apostolic tradition, and that's precisely why he didn't put a divine liturgy within the Bible, Like you know, in divine providence, Jesus could have ordered it to where you know, Paul has an extra epistle that is the worship service, and then everybody would have had easy answers to you know, to their worship service procedure questions, right,

but there isn't one why. Well, there's some necessary reliance on tradition, and that's just one example. It's not the only example. I mean, the cannon itself is another one of those examples. But if there's not a liturgical pattern of worship, explicitly a worship service in the Bible, the only other thing we could go to is traditions.

I know a lot of groups like Messiana, Jews or people like a lot of people want to try to do that, or you know, restorationist reformist movements, but I don't think anybody actually does it because there's so many things in the written text itself that we don't know, and there's aspects that were occurring at the time of the Upper Room and then into the Book of Acts that were in that transition period which are literally kind

of impossible. In the Book of Acts, are still going to the temple to pray, right, Yeah, and like, we can't do that, there's no temple, so should we build

temples because the Book of Acts has the time. That's like the logic of like evangel I'm not saying you have this few, but like Evangelical pre millennials have this logic of like, well, we got to do everything that is happening in the Book of Acts, and there's a temple, and Paul and the believers are still praying in the temple, so the jew we should support the Jews to have

a third temple. I mean, that's ridiculous reasoning because you're not understanding that the closing of that whole redemptive historical period is the destruction of the Temple seventy eight is a big part of this, right, So when the Temple's removed, there's no more need for Jewish temple. The Orthodox Church is the Jewish Temple, the true spiritual Jewish Temple, right, yes.

Never mind, that was a different, different topic. But so that's one response on that.

But you might have a canon that deals with what to do in a certain region, and over time wars happen in that province or that region doesn't exist anymore, So how do we keep a canon that doesn't that applies to a talent that doesn't exist anymore. So, in other words, it's a little more nuanced than that, depending upon what the canon is dealing with. I would say, in the case of specifically clerics and civil duties, the canon is actually based on a theological dogmatic principle that no,

they can't. That could never change. You could never have a situation where it's appropriate and right for clerics to be civil authorities and rulers. Now that has sometimes been violated, and even in the East that's.

as like the church. The churches who coordinates the king or the emperor. So they are the one that because that's a higher authority, they invest or coordinate the king. That authority comes from the higher But that doesn't mean that the bishops then become world rulers, right right.

we're not. We believe in the spirit of the law. We're not Pharisees and Talmudus that are worshippers of the letter of the law. The purpose of canon law is for man's good. What does Jesus say about the Sabbath? Right? The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. The purpose of the laws is man's good. We don't worship law for the sake of law, right, And we also don't dismiss Church law because were anarchists or revolutionaries.

So thousands of years of church law is going to have to have some degree of flexibility, especially when there are canons that don't make any sense anymore. Like clerics can't ride a horse. Why well, because in the Middle Ages that was a sign of nobility and rulership and authority of the state, reinforcing the principle of the law that clerics are not members of the state, they're not

civil rulers. It's that simple. It's not like super complex. Now, there have been situations, yes, in the East and in the West, where at times bishops take on temporal power, and that's not ideal, it's not supposed to happen. But it's not the same as the Bishop of Rome. Let's say, let's take a Serbian bishop in the year twelve hundred who ends up, for whatever reason, going to war against Muslims. Okay,

is that right? No? But did it happen? Okay? But did he bind everybody to salvation for not accepting his kingly power? I doubt it?

talks about is a moral contradiction in their system. For them, I would say saying that the death penalty is against the Gospel is a contradiction. Another one that's forgotten about that. I used to use a lot, which I don't use a whole lot anymore because it takes a little bit of knowledge of Tomism. But I would argue that, for example, Thomas think that mortal sins are mortal sins and they're unchanging because they're based on what they call quote eternal law.

Eternal law is a reflection of the divine nature. So for example, of Astoral Macaltholic, is it a mortal sin to have polygamy? Yes? Okay, then how did David and how did Saul? How did God gives David Saul's wives. So God gave a giant mortal sin to David. Oh well, that's a different time. Oh but wait a minute. You said that mortal sins are mortal sins because they're based on eternal law, which is based on the divine which

is unchanging. So how can something be not a mortal sin throughout the Old Testament and now it's a mortal sin. So there's this lack of flexibility again because they don't have the scesce entergystinction, and because they identify the moral law as equivalent to the eternal law, which is the divine essence basically or based on it. So to me, that's another way you could argue that. But that takes a little too much thought process for these people, so you might not want to. You might want to use

the easier examples with these people. Cody twenty dollars for all these load tier arguments. Couldn't you play the mind game? I couldn't play, Oh I felt, okay, I'm sorry, I misread that. Cody says I fell for these low tier arguments. I could not play this mind game anymore, and so I was received into the Orthodox Church last week. Thank you for your work. Hey Gret, glad to hear that, Cody. I appreciate that. I think a lot of us have been in the same situation too, where we thought the

initial you know, arguments for we're really strong. We got into it, we spent time in it. We saw serious problems, and I agree with Brian Holdsworth that it's not just any old problem. It's got to be systemic level, contradictory problems. I agree with them on that point. Okay, I miss somebody's super chat about Philly Oquay where to go? Oh taint nothing twenty dollars. Aspiration does not mean cause. Then the Roman Catholic model doesn't tell us anything about the

origin of the Holy Spirit. Yeah, great, exactly, Like every time, I think they don't understand what spiration is because they think that this is the person of the spirit. They think the persons are their relations and so, oh, well, the spirit just is spiration. Person is relation, right, that's a quittas But spiration is what produces the spirit, it's

not the subject himself. And that's what's confusing is that they don't even understand the basics of distinguishing nature in person, the trinity they don't even think of the person's as three subjects or agents. Like that's how insane this is and why it's so difficult to talk to them is like they're not using the Cappadocian causal framework and they don't understand when we use this terminology versus them, it's all getting all jumbled up because it's different. It's different models.

Gum chewy two dollars. If the keys still rattle after two thousand years, then they must work exactly. That's the level of argument that we're using here. I'm really kind of pissed off about this Internet because you know, I I don't really understand why this is an issue. It shouldn't be an issue with the internet here, but there's actually like literally like the speed of the Internet is like dropping right now, which is pissing me off because

it's not supposed to. Jose, Hey Dreck, can you hear me?

of the Antichrist would be. And so I don't know before I finish the rest of the book, do you have anything you can pick off the top of your head from Church Fathers that you've read it about, or I don't know things that you might know about the characteristics of the Antichrist.

So uh yeah, just check those things out. Demon Hunter. What's that man? By the way, guys, if you want to the Church Papsy Schism book, we did a whole podcast on that. I forgot it's right here, the Scharard book. So if you're interested in church papsy Schism, highly recommend it. It's not very long, it's only about one hundred page book, but we have a podcast on it there. I'm not gonna have time to do the whole Joel Heschmeyer video, but it's okay because Alex Soren's whole video is pretty

much refutes all the arguments in it. We will probably finish the Brian Holsworth video. What's up, man, demon? What's up?

So that's what I was arguing because Stefan seemed to just equate universals with matter, and anybody who equates universal with matter has a lot of philosophical problems. So that's what I was worrying. Here is Alex Soren's video responding to Joel Heshmeier and then I'm going to finish with the response to Brian Holdsworth. Let's see extra what's up.

For the moral law contradictions aspect, it seems like contracepting is part of their Dalla script. Yeah, except that if you watch the Ubi Petris on Divorce Andary Marriage documentary ended the interview with Ubi Petris and doctor David Bradshaw on that it's actually really good and enlightening too. It's too much to go into with like their natural law theory position when it comes to because the real reason that they're against contraception and all this stuff is the

tomistic arguments about the tlose of body parts. And I kid you not, this is actually what leads them. I'm not joking when I say this. Nobody believes me to look it up. This is what leads them to say that I n ceest is not as bad as m A S tu r b A t I O N So you jerking is worse than sleeping with your mom or your sister in Roman cality moral theology, I'm not kidding. That's their position, and these are the moral high ground people. And you wonder why there are a bunch of PDF

creeps fuel my fire. Five dollars. Stream is actually smooth today, I'm enjoining it. I don't know how the stream is smooth with the way that the internet is acting weird as hell. I don't know what's going on, but I'm glad it's working smooth. It's not coming up well for me though, Yashi five dollars. I grew up Protestant. The more I study, I see more points towards Orthodoxy. I'm still learning, but I plan to go The liturgy or

content has been helpful. Thank you, Yosh. Appreciate that I make sure did miss super chests over here on stream labs. Luigi got shrooms. Ten dollars. Will the argument against solid scriptura apply to Orthodox bishops who are arguing over scripture. It's a genuine question. I'm trying to find out the truth. Sorry, the stupid question. It's not a stupid question. Let me see if I can figure it out. Would the argument against solo scriptura apply to two bishops arguing over scripture?

The argument against well, the argument against solar scriptura is basically manifold. It's that you need tradition to know authorship to know the canon. And would that would a tradition apply to two bishops arguing over I guess you mean yeah, I think yes. Like if you're saying, like, if two Orthodox bishops disagreed over the interpretation of a text, would tradition kind of supersede. Yes, I think that's what you're saying, and I'll be inclined to say yes if that's if

I understanding the question correctly. Voll truro five dollars. I requested to speak. I'm sorry if I missed you. You want to come back. If I missed you, try again, Harry.

Studied more of that literature and philosophy in grad school, but I continued to have an interest in theology and church history and church fathers and so it's just kind of stuff I've been into for I don't know, the last twenty plus years, twenty five years, since about the

year two thousand. But like the pathway into Orthodoxy was kind of a long route through leaving Protestantism for Catholicism into the year two thousand, I think two thousand and one, somewhere in maybe two thousand and three, I think, so as Catholic for eight nine, ten years somewhere in there. I went to Latin Mass for many years tradcat SSPX attendee, and then I had a hard time making that work, and that led me into looking at Orthodoxy back in

two thousand and seven. I didn't convert, though, because I had a lot of hang ups, a lot of hesitations, so ended up converting Orthodoxy ultimately in twenty seventeen. But I studied it for many, many years. So orthodox route was kind of a long winding route through different ideas and positions, and I basically studied it for ten years before I converted.

It's probably the best study Bible out there. And then you know, just check out good Orthodox content creators, Christian logos. What's up. Father Deacon Nis is great, he's got good philosophy stuff. What's up man?

to this world without justifying them appropriately. And then the anthropomorphic fallacy kind of critiques the opposite end, where it's like reading in too much into the divine from from the anthropology of creation, and in those in those, you know, those in combination seem to kind of necessitate a a nature and hypothesis distinction and an essence energy distinction.

all know from the principle of causality that every effect bears a similarity to its cause. That's begging the question right exactly.

So I was wondering, you know, in the future, maybe I could see a lot of value in incorporating those two fallacies in tandem, because you know, if we want to be logically coherent, which obviously a Tomist or Roman Catholic, this is going to be their their number one priority is remaining logically consistent, because you know they're scholastic. Well, then you would have to argue for a non fallacious

move when you're describing God. Right, there's no way, there's no way to avoid avoid both those logical fallacies without necessitating an asincerity distinction and a nature hypostasis distinction.

with the incarnation eventually. Like I think he was sort of struggling with the tomistic metaphysical God, but also the Christianity Jesus God in car and eight. It's like those are two different systems. They're incommntional right.

we kind of got into that too. Obviously, I don't want to take up a ton of your time, but I just mainly wanted to bring up the reification anthromorphic thing. See if you wanted if you saw that as valuable moving forward in any debates or anything you.

But I noticed when I got in there and we sort of were chatting at the beginning, I just felt like the best way to refute him, for the sake of the audience as well, is to go to scripture and to go to Vine revelation and focus on Theophanes because number one, I knew that was the weakest part for him. Number Two, epistemology discussions will get bogged down, the audience will get lost, uh. And I just think that people are going to easily resonate with Theophanies or God in space,