All right, So I'm glad actually that all of these Roman Catholics are in a tizzy over the obvious massive failure of Tim Fordan in the debate. First of all, all three of us were loud and interrupted, and these hippocrites ack like I was the only one that was loud and interrupted, which is just a ridiculous double standard. Everybody did it, including Temple. It was an informal debate. Obviously, people lie and act like I've never done formal debates,
that there aren't civil formal debates. There are dozens of them. But we also do the uncivil informal blood sports style as well. And so what amazes me is just the consistent just gas lighting and lying that Roman Catholics do no matter what. They're actually incapable of reading comprehension, of just basic honesty about any of the topics that come up.
And just like a bunch of feminists or women on the internet, the only thing that they care about is the optics, how it makes them feel and who hurts their feelies or whatever. It's nothing to do with the content. None of these people will actually stick to the content. And then anytime you invite them to come discuss, they whine and complain as if you're mean, which, by the way, is a self like gay as hell to complain. But beyond that, it's not true that you don't get a
chance or an opportunity to come make your case. You only get interrupted when you don't make arguments, and when you shift into various fallacies or various straw men. That's it. It's pretty easy. We have atheists, Muslims, Protestants, Catholics they call in all the time. I've done so for years. If you could just simply coherently make an argument, it's very easy to make your case here, and I welcome it.
I offer it all the time. And what's funny is, out of ten reven cathoy shit talkers, none of them will actually come debate their arguments. All they want to do is debate your debating, debate your meanness, your style, or what you did bad. Now you'll notice too, that any moral qualm they have about me, when they pile on, they let loose ten times more venom than I letless in any of these conversations. But it's okay for them
to do it, but not for me. So it's all just insane levels of democracy, idiocy, childishness, stupidity, and that it just never ends. So let's get to the actual issues. Kevin. Kevin, when you commented, you commented to me about what Vatican two says about Hindus, and I replied to that, and then you said all this other stuff about Muslims, which I never even replied to. I didn't even listen or look at any of your comments about Islam. So why did you then lie as if I deflected and I
was misleading people. That's why I blocked you, is because it's a total dishonesty. I made one reply to one of your comments, gotta I'm me and Kevin.
Yeah, I didn't lie. I'm not really sure what you're talking about. I said, Vaticant two does not say Hindus worship the same God or.
The one Truth.
And I did I reply to that. You did reply to that, okay, And so that was it, right?
Yeah?
That was one post and then I reposted or whatever you yeah, quote what Twitter calls it. I quoted a second post. This one was not about hindu it was about Muslims. And then I made an argument from Romans one. You commented about Hindu use again, so that was a totally different context.
But I was obviously still replying to the original comment because I'm talking about Hinduism.
Pretty it wasn't pretty obvious. It was not obvious from you at all.
If I'm talking about if I'm talking about Hinduism, is it not obvious that I'm still talking about that post?
It's not. I mean the post the second post was about.
I mean, if I'm going to respond to somebody, I'm not gonna respond to them about something.
Does Vatican does Vatican who actually say that? Say what? Your first comment was that Vatican.
Two doesn't say that, right, it does not say what.
It does not say what my original comment said about throwing Hindus into the mix. That's right. They do not.
They do not worship the same God.
And yet what term does Vatican two use in no sat It says they. You do read it.
I'm carrying my my daughter me read it.
You can't. You don't know what it says.
I don't want to butcher it says.
It says they. Finally they in Hinduism they value the moral life and worship God. Excuse me, let excuse me, that's the uh, let me go back up. That's the Muslim comment, it says, let me pull it up. I got a different spot. That was the wrong comment. Okay, here it is. I'll read the whole section, so you know with the context. I thinks it says thus in Hinduism, so we're talking about in the religion, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an exhaustible abundance of
myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom for the anguish of our human condition, either through asthetic practices or profound meditation, or a flight to God with love and trust.
Is that the same thing it says about Muslims that they worship the One True God?
Does it? What's what? What? When it's uh? What does this say about God? What? What does it?
Does it use the proper it does? Does that mean it's the one True God? What?
What?
Which one is? It?
Does that mean it's the one True?
How many gods? How many gods do you believe in? How many do you capitalize?
Well, the Hindus believe in many gods.
How many do you capitalize?
I mean I only talk about one usually, but.
How many do you capitalize?
You're falsely inferring that because do you capitalize?
I think you're falsely in capital you're.
So, how many gods are there that you capitalize? Anybody? The ones that you believe in? Right? Right?
But I think you're falsely assuming they're That means is that they're worship the One True God.
Why is it capitalized? You liar?
I'm not lying, Jay, Why is it capitalized?
I don't know. You don't know exactly, I don't know. Well, yeah, you don't know.
Well, I mean I can make a property, I can make a proper guest without jump into conclusions that that they worship the same God as you know Muslims, or as Christians or as.
So you think Muslims, you think Muslims and Christians do worship the same God?
Of course that's what the document says, Jay.
Yeah, exactly, thank you. So it's not what Tim Gordon said.
Right, I'm not aware of anything. I don't follow Tim Gordon. I have no idea what.
Okay, right, Muslims and Christians worship the same God when Muslims don't acknowledge the Trinity?
But why are you changing topics? Let's stick to the Hindu So.
You don't want to go there were brought up Muslims. We're gonna go. We're gonna go.
We haven't finished hind.
You brought them up because you just said you don't know why it's capital g. Now we're going to go to your other argument because you don't know. So tell me how do Muslims worship the once your God when they don't believe in Christ or the Trinity?
Talking about Hindu?
All right, so this is why this is what you guys do. You just said, you just said about the Hindu you don't know. You said, I don't know, you, bro? Did you say I don't know?
Yeah, I can't. I can't read into the end why they capitalize the words in God?
And you don't know. So we're gonna move on. And you lost that point, We're gonna move on.
I haven't lost any point.
You still have.
I don't know you still your argument? Argument is you're done, dude. This is why you're a liar. You're a liar. Get out of here. That's why these people are discussing liars. It's Brosey and you noticed he would not go to the Muslim argument. It's exactly how this is gonna I told you. So this is what these people do. They make a big stink. They don't even actually have any capability of dealing with the argument. It's all that I'm bad.
And then when we get to the argument, they lose and they flounder and they don't know and they don't want to talk about it because they're dishonest. That's my point. Go ahead, h browser, it was going on, Jae, Can you hear me? Yep?
All right, cool, Yeah, it's gonna be quick, man. I just wanted to say, you know, just with this, this small bit of engagement I've been doing with these guys for the past I don't know, like a couple of months. I genuinely I don't understand how you're still doing this ship man.
It's that.
Do you remember earlier that that guy under one of your posts that I called out for that for that too, Kokoy? Absolutely yes, yeah, so so he did. He took a while to reply. Once I saw that he did reply, he completely ignored what it was that I was saying in the reply, So I just let it go. There
was there was no point in your reply. And then he went to then he went to my page and then he uh he he left the reply under under the picture that I shared of yours, saying that you would smoke you were smoking Aiden and Tim in the debate, and I was just from a couple of days ago when he said something and he completely ignored what I said regarding the different ecclesiologies again, and he asked me, he said, uh, he he brought up something that, you know,
like something that Carill has said in the past. He brought up Bartholomew again and uh fuck, who's the last patriarch of what of John? John of Antioch? He he brought it, He brought up three and he's he's asking me, Okay, so are they accumulated? Like how do you how do you completely ignore what I said under the post reply to that, completely ignored again under something that under something from days ago, and then leave another damn reply Like these people are so fucking dishonest. Man.
That's crazy, man, It's crazy. So the thing with the Orthodox patriarchs, the page is just a bishop with canonical privileges. It's not some it's not a little pope like they think that patriarchs are like many popes, and if they have a patriarch saying something wrong or ritical, then it's a gotcha. They're every patriarch. From the Orthodox perspective, every patriarch it has had has had heterodox patriarchs at some point. They've all fallen into heresy, including Rome, including the ep
in any of them. So for us, it's not a defeater if there's a heretic patriarch who falls away, or if there's one even that says something heretical. Now, another point that should be made is that our ecclesiology candon law is different. So the methods about how the Orthodox Church goes about dealing with heresy at that level, it's not the same as the methods that Roman Catholics have
and how they view the relationship of Candilaw to the Church. So, for example, if a patriarch commits error or heresy, schism, whatever, and he continues in that, there's phases too can procedure in the Orthodox view, So eventually, after removal from communion there's a sonodal excommunication, the rest of the Orthodox laity are not bound morally and to be expected to remove themselves from communing with that person until there is a
sonodal pronouncement like that. That's Orthodox ecclesiology. So when these Roman Catholics are replying to us that Carol said something heterodox, Carol said something wrong. I can easily say absolutely he did, and it's just as wrong as Francis. But I don't have the same ecclesiology as you, and so I am not bound to become a set of a contest as an Orthodox person like you would be bound as a Roman Catholic to become set of a contest if the
pope becomes a heretic er says something heretical. So all they keep doing is just reading Papism into Orthodoxy and acting like it's a gotcha when it's a different system.
Yeah, and but see the day obviously, you know, I've heard a damn billions on the Twitter spaces where you will explain that that verbat into somebody and say if they come back on or maybe even later in the debate, if it's brought up again, they'll just say that you're you're using a double standard and it's a so like based on what happened earlier. It's like they just don't understand what it means to have different ecclesiology under under that post. I'm not the first one I said it.
I say that one more time.
Jay thieve of it.
Hold on, Jay, say that one more time. My connection went out.
No, it's my connection. I said. They just can't literally can't conceive of it because they don't think in terms of different systems. Yeah, exactly.
So I'm not the first one that said anything about ecclesiology under that post, but he ignored it.
When I said that.
Every I went I went back maybe about like an hour after his reply, just to check and see how dishonesty was being every other every other person. And there's a guy Henry I don't I don't know if you follow him, but I mean, you know, a lot of a lot of other ortho guys following them whatever, he's the first one that said something about it. He did not want to engage with him. And I guess I see, I see now why, I see why now I don't I don't see how you're still doing this, ship man. Yeah, yeah,
I don't get it. These like this level of dishonesty I've just seen just today, just today under you know, like under like with Vain. I see Vain is in here, you know, him replying him replying to some of these motherfuckers under your post, man, is it's madness. I just don't understand how you can how they can't understand it. It's like it's basically just an internal critique and they
just don't know how to do that. They just they just see it as any any critique, you're giving them a double standard.
Instantly, they just they just a man.
Like, yeah, well you have problems. You have problems too, at doak P. Notice how like only one of all of them even came.
Okay, Jay, I just wanted to so obviously, I know this whole discussion is with Catholics Muslims, and they called they worship right I always. I know you've previously said that Catholics and Orthodox on what should have seen God either. So would that be a contradiction within the Catholic system to say we should have same God as he?
Would it be a contradiction within the Catholic system for a Catholic to say that he worships the same God as the Orthodox? Yeah? Oh uh, Well, I just think the Catholic system is just basically entirely operates on word concept fallacies that anything that calls it's deity God is therefore the same reference as the Catholic God. So when a Hindu says that he believes in Atman or Brahman or whatever, Oh that's God. Or when if a scientologist says he believes in a first mind, oh that's God.
That's the same thing we believe in. So it's so flexible and elastic that literally anything can be equated to quote one God or the first cause or I mean, yeah, yeah, Catholics going to say that he has the same God as an Orthodox person, the same God as a Muslim, the same God as as capital g of the Hindus in Vatican two.
Yeah, I guess what I'm wondering is like Catholic was the say, you know, Orthodox and Catholics wiship would that be? You know, like always when you say Catholics and Muslims wishes God. That sounds like massively cregious in one year listening to that, but I mean would.
So the reason they say that is natural theology. They think that there is a generic theism that is the theism of all the world religions in some loose sense, but a little more so the monotheistic ones they're a little bit closer. And then supposedly Trinity is like the one that's the closest of the close. So it's like a graded scale of what of worshiping God, and that doesn't exist. Like a heretic is in the same boat as a pagan. Now, a heretic is not identical to
a pagan. They have different theological views, and certainly a heretic is closer to an Orthodox Christian than a pagan, but they're still in the same boat of being outside
the faith. This is what they say can't seem to grasp and that's why their whole ecclesiology, their whole system, is built on being twenty percent right, being fifty percent right, being thirty percent, seventy percent Catholic, which is ludicrous even in their own system, because you've got two dogmatic statements in Roman Catholic theology that one heresy or schism or action of apostasy literally automatically puts you outside the mystical body.
In other words, if I'm a Roman Catholic and I decide I do not believe in the Immaculate Conception in Catholic theology, I'm no longer Catholic. It's a packaged deal. You can't have nine out of ten dogmas and still be Catholic. This is something that they don't understand their own system says this.
Yeah, I've overready understood the whole like you know, you know, Orthodox have the same similar like sacraments or whatever as the Catholic. Therefore, you know, we can receive their echerysm just like well, they haven't got the same faith then, so why can we What can you take you know, communion?
Yeah, that's a fair critique. I mean, if they are outside communion with the Roman, see why is it still quote valid? And again the all goes back to the ex operatta ex operaparado, a sacromatology of Augustine, which the Orthodox do not entire in its entirety except Foggy Mountain. I want to go to Ruman Catholics to have any arguments or points or if I want to try to give some explanation. You can even have sixty seconds and I'll be quiet if you can actually make sense of Attican too.
Hey J, can you hear me?
Yep?
Hey J, thanks for having me on. Just this is my first time on. I just wanted to say, I think this all just sounds like relativism. To be honest, it just sounds like.
Of course it is. That's what I'm saying, Like, it's it's it works to the to their cause for numbers to act like every you know, generic usage of the word God is referring to the same thing, and so we're all talking about God. It must be the same God.
It's just religious syncretism, just in a different way. Yeah, So I think they're just lost, you know, like maybe that's.
Why they don't that's what that's why. How how could Erica Bara imagine spending all these years in Roman Catholicism and papal lawyering and you don't even know that Muslims and Christians and Jews don't worship the same deity. So it's gotten him absolutely nothing. This is why Roman Catholicism is a problem, because it leads you into spiritual delusion, contradiction, chaos, and idolatry. That's one and all of the madness of
these people demonstrates that point against it. It's a system that will drive you insane and drive you away from Christ. It's a religion of dead works because it's all nonsense. At the end of the day, it's all trying to make this stupid papal thing work and the only thing that matters in the religion is the papercy at the end of the day. Felix, what's up, hija?
Can you hear me?
Yeah, it's actually my first time.
Also, I just wanted to add some thoughts that you like said earlier. And the guy earlier said that the thing about this like one monotoism that's like seventy percent correct, like fifty percent correct sort of person correct, it's actually a Muslim idea.
It's like Muslim idea absolutely.
It's because believe Mostlims believe in natural theology, just like running.
Yeah, and like the way that second two adapted to some kind of Jewish doctrines and they actually use some kind of rabbis to write second two. Maybe they use some kind of Muslim scholars to adapt this thing also, And I just want I just wanted to add one more thing that Muslims, like modern Muslims or do this in some kind of Southeast Asian countries, for example, in Indonesia, is actually made some kind of syncretic redision between like Islam and Buddhism and the Hinduism where they made all
the hindu Jitis into one God. And it's like, well, technically only one God and all the other like Vish New Brass mind other like Ditis, are just like his.
Advotars, so they are also correct exactly.
It's like this is a this is a version of perennialism. And this is why Roman Catholics like Neoplatonism, because Neoplatonism knows the exact same things with God as manifestations of the principle of the One the monad. It's the exact same move that they all make. And by the way, this is the whole reason why they do patro mama. All of the people fussing about patcha Mama, what's in consisted with patcha Mama and the reasoning of Vatican too. If God can be manifested in Hinduism, why can't he
be manifested as Pacha Mama. Why not just say Pacha Mama is Mary. Yeah, it might have been a pagan sacrificed human sacrifice goddess. Just say that it's Mary. Though. This is how stupid this is and excellent comments Felix. That's that perfectly makes the point there, with the same move that Muslims make. I've been debating Muslims for six years. Many of those debates revolved around their version of natural theology.
They literally think that if you're on a desert island and you just start reasoning, you would come to the Muslim god. That's what shaikh az ars, she'd argued, right, And so I mean that's literally and where do they get that? Well, the Muslims lie. They think they get it from the Quran. They get it from Greek Hellenic philosophy, they get it from Aristotle, they get it from Christian
I should say tomistic type theology. Chase, what's up? I'm saying there's a symbiotic relationship between the medieval Roman Catholic and Muslim theologists and thinkers. What's up cha?
Yo?
You know it's funny, is uh? I? Remember?
You know I message you that thing about how the people say, yeah they do. It's like, okay, well yeah you how do you have martyrs?
Then?
But another funny thing is this is actually already baked in the theological.
Fluidity is already baked into the system.
The Byzantine Catholics can venerate Saint Palomas and not.
Recite the Philioque.
So it's funny because it's actually already baked into their religion. That the theology doesn't matter.
The theology doesn't matter exactly, So theology is always secondary.
To paper exactly.
And so and people, you know, if they say no, look like we can have these these different things. No, you're denying massive stretches of you know, eight hundred years of history, even more, you know, twelve hundred years of history. We're you're not saying, oh, it's just it's just a uh, you know, energetic procession. No, you you're literally having a
different theology. You're venerating people in a sect of Catholicism that were never Roman Catholic, that have a completely different theology that you your own people.
Will call your No. No, they were actually extra communicated because if you didn't follow lions in Florence, those councils excommunicate you for not following them. So Palamas and all these people that Rome now venerates were previously literally excommunicated heretics.
Yes, so they all worshiped the exact same God though they were excommunicated as heretics. So it's actually it's interesting because you know, now you can there's so many horns of this dilemma for them through Vatican too, that they're finally having to be put in the hot seat with that they've been ignoring for you know, forever.
And well, I'm glad that I was able to put them in the hot seat. Uh. And you'll know not if you pay attention to the routes that he took in the debate. Even though it got heated and it was loud, he constantly contradicted. At one point, it's like, the documents are ambiguous as written by liberals, but it's still orthodox if you just give it the right interpretation. Oh well, then why is it using the word god capital G. Well, I don't know. I mean, it's it's
it's wrong, but it's also not wrong. Like he just he literally said it's bad, it's ambiguous, totally flipped like ten minutes later it's like, no, there's nothing wrong with it. It's fine. Yep.
And and what's interesting is and and I liked him. I think Tim's a cool guy. I know you you liked him obviously to Tim's he just seems like a likable dude.
And we went out to eat, We went out to eat afterwards.
For sure.
Yeah, And but I thought it was funny that he kept going, no, you're you're confusing, you know, the signifier and the reference. Like, no, it's the document, the documents literally saying they have the wrong signifier but.
The same reference. That's exactly insane.
That's the point. The document is saying that if we if we really get into it, we're all worshiping the same thing. It's just the words get in the way, exactly shape.
So then now another another aspect of the same dilemma, because there's it's so much fun thinking of how many places you can bring this to.
The funny thing is okay, why does why does Florence matter?
Now?
Why does lions matter? Why doesn't I see a matter? Why does chalcdon matter? If it's everything is pointing to the same reference, why does it matter?
Like like you, like you said, if this Vatican to theology is correct, there would never have been in any need for martyrs in the first three centuries, because why are you not, like, why can't you sacrifice to the emperor? Just read the Emperor as an image of the once your God, and there you're sacrificing to God.
See exactly exactly, And it's yeah, it's just it's so it's such an insane game, and I'm i think. You know what I'm excited for is I think people are finally going to see why you have been saying for years and then myself as well when I, you know, started getting into doing apologetics and got a blessing to do apologetics.
This is where natural theology leads. This is where it leads.
And I was reading the uh the ambiguou uh the Ambiguum the other day and it's funny because Saint Maximus, I gotta I'll find the quote later and I'll send it to you. Saint Maximus was talking about these things and and explicitly saying that like the human mind, uh looking around, can't can't reason up to any of these great things because it sees all the finitude of life constantly all around it. And they'll venerate him to It's just funny. There's so many layers, but uh, I'm gonna
pop out and listen. Thanks for pulling me up.
Well.
I think the kill shot too is the more I thought about it, every Roman Catholic will agree that Arians are heretics, and are you know God does not accept aryan adoration and worship, and yet Muslims are literally from Arians, and yeah, and we're supposed to believe that Vatican too is saying right that God still accepts it and and they adore the one True God. So I mean, yeah, that's why I always ask these people too, like do you think Basil thought that the Eunomians had the same
God as him? And most Roman Catholics who know anything, they'll actually ad meant no. And it's like, then you just shot your whole Vaticans who document in the foot.
Yep, and yeah, it's so, it's so funny, it's so funny. And and the funny thing is about the about the Aryan thing is is that this also ties into it's the you know, the whole meme of people saying.
Like, oh, saying Christ is king is is anti Semitic.
Say okay, but now when people say Christ is king in Christ is Lord and stuff, it's like, you see how they can just be a Muslim saying that it's exactly Catholics will go, yeah, dude, you got the slogan, let's go.
Well. Actually a lot of the track cass do cheer on the Muslims from the Muslims wool agreed and stuff like that. Yeah, but it doesn't make any sense because the Lord is a title of divinity.
So yeah, yeah, I'm gonna pop out and listen, have a good one.
Yeah, they get Jordan, what's up?
Yeah?
What's up?
Man?
Yeah?
I was discussing with the Roman Catholic about the energies the energy distinction, right, and he was saying, like, oh, if the so like, if the energies themselves are not identical to the essence and they subsist within God, how can you say that this isn't lead leading to polytheism or like, how why couldn't you just hold to Scotus's definition of formal distinction.
Well, I mean we've addressed this many times because there's multiple things going on here. There's modal collapse problem. First of all, there's a question of what we participate in. If you want to say that it's a formal distinction, I mean, do you see the church fathers Basil Cappudians letter two thirty four. Do they talk about participating in a formal distinction or do they talk about participating in the uncreated reality that is divine glory and immortality in life?
So God's energies have to be really distinct because everyone agrees through apithetic theology the via negativa that we don't know the divine essence, but what we do know is the energies that come down to us, as Letter two thirty four says. So really the key way to refute the Scotis type angle or whatever, or even the identification of the attributes and the operations with the essence in a strict identification sense is to look at participation. Because
there's no creature that can save us. So the grace that we participate in cannot inherently be created, because that's an aryan form of grace is just another creature. We actually need to be saved by the uncreated glory. And in John seventeen, Jesus says that his disciples will participate in the glory that he shared with his father before the foundation of the world. Everyone agrees God's glory is
not created. That's why the Theophanes also proved this, because they're not the divine essence, and yet they are the energetic manifestation of the logos in time and space that immediately destroys the absolute divine simplicity. Argumentation and scout doesn't really doesn't get you anything other than a harder distinction between the attributes and the essence. That's all it does. It doesn't answer the question of what we participate, what
we participate in. It doesn't answer any of the questions about Theophanes, It doesn't answer the modal collapse. All the same problems are still there.
So okay, oh yeah, that's actually great. I actually even in the Bible, Saint Paul talks about it and so forth to early Church fathers.
But also I would.
Talk what about the the incarnation itself? Because the Roman Catholic was like, well, the incarnation itself, the flush is created, that's a created effects.
So how can you say, if that's a creative effect.
Why can't we why can't we perceive the created effects as opposed to uncreated energy? So what's wrong with that?
Again, We're not saved by being participated by participating in something created. It's uncreated glory. In John seventeen John Damascus, when he talks about the human nature of Christ, he says that Christ transferred his immortality that he possessed by his divinity to the human nature. So the human nature that he possesses really participates in Jesus's uncreated grace, glory
and immortality. If you read the two Letters of Serials Sensus, he talks about how we all agree that it's not the essence of God that is what saves us or that we participate in. It's his uncreated grace and immortality by which he deified the human flesh that he assumed. So that has that requires a necessary Okay, yeah, the Eucharist requires an essencerityistinction because everyone agrees we're not eating the essence of God exactly.
And that was the point I brought up to him too.
It is the uncreated grace that deifies the flesh, which makes it like possible for us to partake in grace. So concerning that, though, does the energies does it have? Does it make humans who partake in it do this? Does it make them have a different view than people who don't partake in grace?
Like?
You know, so if babies unlive for some weird reason, right or die, let's say, since they don't get to partake in the divine grace, would would they have a different view of God? They wouldn't be able to perceive him?
You talk about like an unbaptized infant or.
Something even that, or like even like people of other face. They perceive God differently because they don't partake in God's grace the same.
Way that Actually, yes, actually I think both things are happening. So the unbeliever, as Paul says, the natural man, cannot receive the things of the spirit. So that's what the reason Roman Calviyus can't see this stuff or understand this stuff. It's not an intellectual problem, it's a spiritual problem. It's the same with atheists. So you're correct, they can't actually
see or perceive any of this. They think it's foolishness and as polytheism and all the other ad hominem and stupid blasphemous things they say about the divine energies, which are literally in Paul's epistles. They say it because they're stupid and they're blinded. And I don't say that out of pride. I say that because I want them to
be saved. But in the case, so that's the case of anyone's perception that you can't even perceive the things without having the Holy Spirit, which you get three repentance and the orthodox sacraments in church life. But separate from that, I would say, yeah, there is a tradition that in some of the Church Fathers that the the Cappadocians Uh even talk about at times. It's not exactly limbo like the Roman Catholic sab but it's a version of hold on one second, I'm trying to buy something in me,
just one second, excuse me. Some of the Orthodox Church prayers talk about that we just simply commend infants to God who have died baptized. We don't know their exact state, and we don't think they're necessarily damned because they don't have any actual sin. Because we don't believe in original guilt, we wouldn't say that they're automatically damned. That was even
the Roman Kelly Church doesn't believe that anymore. But so there's some speculation, and then some of the liturgical prayers talk about how you know, God will take care of them and that kind of stuff, so they're not necessarily damned. But there's no evidence either that they're necessarily partake of theosis. So exactly what happens with unbaptized infants is unclear. There's just a little bit of liturgical prayers that discuss it. So anyway, so what would it.
Be like though it would it would they still have eternal happiness, they just don't have the vision of God with the beatific vision, like they can still have eternal Yeah.
I think the one statement that I've seen from Nissa is that he speculates that they would be put into a place of natural felicity, which is kind of close to infant limbos of the Roman Catholics have.
Okay, and like, because why come from like a reform background, so I don't want to think of I know, Orthodox doesn't think of God as as legalistic, but well, i'd say, like, would you say that damning itself just talking about like regular humans here is it to satisfy God's wrath since you are in opposition to his will?
Is that the whole basis of hell. No, I think that the Orthodox conception of hell is a lot more sensible the whole river of fire thesis versus some satisfaction notion. First of all, no creature can satisfy God. And this is one of the reasons why we don't believe in, you know, the penal substitution reformation idea, because that's all premised on the father damning the son to satisfy his
justice and his infinite holiness. But the problem is that what's offered in the in the triad cannot be one person to another because anything that happens in nity is all three persons. So you got to have a triadic action in the traditional offering notion is either anti trinitarian or can you stop doing that? The background is really loud. Oh yeah, yeah, right, so they so so you you know, if you have the traditional reformed idea of like the
damning of the sun, then that's anti trinitarian. So you can't, we can't do that. So the business E Sonos the eleventh century points out that what's offered is the humanity of Christ to the Father in the spirit. So it's a triadic action or this whereby the son is offering his humanity to the Father in love in the Holy Spirit. So uh, that's not any like a penal sanctioned imputational model. It's a offering of love that restores heels and deifies our nature. So is that Oh.
Yeah, that that answers it. Well, just just one more thing, just just like about the litargy about how God can do you think that not just in scripture but also like through the liturgy. God could speaks obviously through the church, and he speaks through liturgies. Is that like, you know, when we proclaim the invocation of the saints, you know Mother Mary of course.
Or Buss and Mother. Is that God's speaking through the liturgy?
Well, actually everything is God speaking, So in a sense, yeah, I mean everything that's happening in some senses, you know, God's providence. Everything that happens in our lives is God's providence. The liturgy is yes, God's speaking to us. I mean, lives of the saints speak to us, the Bible speaks to us. All these things are potentially you could say, God speaking.
Okay, yeah, oh yeah, that's some great answers there. I actually learn quite a bit. Well, yeah, thank you for answering my questions. I appreciate it.
Yeah, great questions. We got a lot of you know, talk some videos on all those topics. So Joshua, Hello, Yeah, what's up?
Hi?
Can you hear me?
Yeah? I go ahead.
Yeah, I just had a quick question on Oriental Orthodoxy because just within the Orthodox Church right now, I find that there's a bit of like an acceptance of the Oriental position without I guess I guess I want to know more about it. I'm just scurious if you know, if you like have any recommendations on books that that might just give some insight into the controversy as well as.
Yeah, one of the best books is joh John mcguckin's book Saying Cyril of Alexander in the Christological Controversy, Okay, and then I would read say Maximus's Little Book Just be Tation with Purists, and then I would read John Damascus's book three of on the Orthodox Faith. That's really good too. So all those three things will will I think helps solidify. But especially at the end of the macguckan book is the Two Letters of Serial to six Census, which is really important.
Okay, that's awesome, all right, thank you so much. Ja.
Yeah, we're going through. We're still doing our Oriental series. We've all we've only done three, but we're going to continue. Joshua other Joshua you there, oh hey, sorry, yeah, sorry, go ahead. Yeah.
So, I was just wondering where is where does Luminingentia mentioned Hindus.
I'm just looking it up right now, let me see, I know know Tratte does in three right, So Okay, okay, I'm it's we read it earlier, loyell On, let me see. I'm sorry, it's it's paragraph too. It says in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition, and through esthetic practices or profound meditation, or a flight to
God with love and trust. Okay, which is not true. You don't. You don't have a flight to God in love and trust and into it.
It's pretty much like Romans one, but exact opposite, exactly.
Yeah.
No, I'm just reading, like I'm just trying to find on Luminegentia and paragraph sixteen.
Like what Catholics have to say about that, And.
Yeah, I can't figure out like.
How they like why it's singing Muslims specifically.
Well, remember there's two I think because the argument in Lumgentium is and in No Ratt is that since Jews are not gonna at all have anything good to say about Jesus or Mary, if Muslims at least like Jesus and Mary, then they're closer to Us than Jews, although Jews are actually listed first Intate and limit Gentium, which is funny, right yeah, no.
Yeah, which is also like a shocking page where it says God still has like this.
People remains most dear to God.
I'm like, that's kind of a misinterpretation of there is.
No ambiguity there.
Yeah.
In fact, yeah, in fact, the two thousand and three document that they put out, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops put out, is even worse. It actually says that because God still loves them, you shouldn't try to convert Jews. So yeah, all that, Yeah, that's worse.
Yeah, like it's uh that that one's surprising.
And then just the one look like I don't know, like the idea that it even matters that you consider Jesus a prophet when Saint John says that where Jesus is incarnate, son of God.
Anti Christ exactly. Yeah, that's exactly my point with the whole argument, Like, Okay, so most Catholics are going to say that Arians are heretics and God doesn't accept arianism. Oh but wait a minute, Muslims are basically arians. They come out of arianism, and God accepts Muslim it's just stupid. It's like, hey, Yates, what's up? Man? Hey, diy can you hear me? Yes, sir, Hey, I'll make this quick.
With Lemon Gentium sixteen, I sent you a d with this information, but I'll try to make it quick as possible. The very last sentence says, and together with us, they adore the One merciful God. Mankind's judge on the last day. Mankind's judge on the last day, according to John five twenty two.
Is Jesus.
It's explicitly stated. So how on earth could they get around that?
Yeah? Exactly. And also don't Muslims think that Jesus participates in the judgment at the last day too? So, I mean, is that not even clearer against the argument that Tim Gordon was making.
Right, it's explicitly saying, yeah, we adore the One God with Muslims, but also Jesus is God. It's just a contradiction in the same sentence.
Exactly. Yeah, See, you can't there's no such thing as like half God. Right, Well, we're on the same page because we worship half of God. I mean imagine saying I believe in the same God as you, but only half of it. It's like, well, there's this thing as half God. Oh really there's not. Well then how are your works being the same God if it's not the Trinity?
Right my adults?
Exactly?
All right, I'm gonna let somebody else get up here.
Yeah a good qu a good point. Josh again, got a lot Josh's hey, I think I got a delay here.
So every time I request, like, it's delayed, so my bad.
Yeah, so I just want to throw Like Also, the natural theology move that they make when they go to Romans one is totally bogus, Like.
Yeah, it's not natural theology, like.
The idea that Mohammad and Saudi Arabia is sitting there reasoning himself to God as opposed to like he was taught under the threat of force that this is what I believe, Like this is not like, yeah, it's not right.
So, as we point out, if you read Romans One from the Orthodox perspective, Paul is talking about a darkened heart. Uh, it's not primarily about intellect and Roman Roman Caltholk read the Romans. Catholics read Romans One like if you just if a pagan just kind of sat there and reasoned correctly, like Aristotle like he was. If he was just doing like syllogisms, he would basically he would be aristotl right, he would come to the right conclusion about a first cause.
That's literally what they think Romans one is about is like syllogisms. No, No, it's saying that the reason that men don't worship the true God is that their hearts are darkened and they worship idols. It's the literal opposite of the of the problem which that Roman Calolus say, which they locate in the intellect. They act like the intellect is making a mistake in the way that reasons about creatures, and that that's what Paul's talking about if
they just reason correctly. But the whole point is that it's not even the reasoning faculty that is the problem. They reason falsely because their hearts are darkened, because Roman Romanic caalics don't have a doction of the heart of the news. So by wait, I think if I recall the actual terminology that's used there by Paul, and the Greek corresponds to the terminology uh in the Hebrew text that like David uses about the heart the news, and the news is not a Greek gnostic doctrine. It's a
Hebrew doctor the news. The heart is not the same thing as the intellect, but in reman Caltholic theology, the soul is basically just the intellect, the reasoning faculty spirit led what's up?
Yes, all right, I gotta I got a quick question for you, and is it? Is it okay if I ask you something kind of outside of the debate title.
If not, that's cool. We could we could.
Say no, I don't care, all right, So I just I want to get your opinion on like speech, so not that you know, not that we have to be I guess, like perfect all the time their speech. And I'm definitely not advocating for tone policing, but I'm just trying to figure out, like what is because when I read the Patristic Fathers, it's like they don't they tell us to not really like like curse, you use crude language stuff like that, And again this is not.
I disagree because they they curse and say horrible things and make mean jokes all the time. Gotcha.
Yeah, Like I said, I want to get your take on like like what I guess it's it kind of falls into economy too.
Like I just let's let's walk all all right, So let's walk through a couple of points there, right, So, like, you know, the Saint Cyril Jerusalem says hate all here at sics and hate the assemblies of the hero at Sis. That's actually in the rudder too. Yeah, So does that mean that I have to like go out and you know, like literally have hatred in my heart? I think he's saying, like,
you hate the theology, you hate their system. Right, if you read the way that Paul talks about, you know, people of Creed, he says Cretans are all liars, they're basically to comebacks. Okay, So if you read Jerome the way that he talks about Helvidius or Vigilantius, I mean he just calls him a dog, he calls him a monster, he calls him basically a loser. So it's pretty common in the Patristic writings that they call people these names all the time, especially they're the enemies of the faith.
They don't typically do that for people inside the church, although sometimes they even do that. But aside from that, I mean, the scriptures themselves tell us to avoid the fool. How can I avoid the fool? If I can't identify who a fool is, Yeah, so it just call. If I was to say you're a fool, I'm not going to waste my time with you. There's nothing wrong with
that unless the person isn't a fool. And if you remember, and when Jesus talks about he says, if anybody calls his brother a fool without reason, he is liable to the judgment. Well that's yeah, without reason. So if there is a reason, then you're not likeable to the judgment. And Jesus himself called people names all the time. He called Herod of Fox, he called you know, a woman who came to him, he called her he said, the
dogs eat from the eat from the table. So I mean Jesus used this kind of demeaning language at times too, So I don't see why even that language is a universally a problem. Now. Second from that, cursing is a different issue where I think I disagree with a lot of people on this because people think that what Protestants
decided that. So you have these Puritans in a few centuries ago in America, and they had this moralistic idea that cursing wasn't just like literally pronouncing a curse or using God's name in vain, which is actually what it is to curse, curse somebody with God's name or something, you know, to say GD for example, Like that kind of stuff is what blaspheming and using the Lord's name in vain is. That's cursing. Saying the F word or saying the word shit. That's just older English language that
commoners used. So there's nothing inherently wrong with the word. It's like there's nothing that makes the word poop more holy than the word shit. They literally are identical. And even the King James Bible uses the word piss, right, So do I have to say peepie or piss? So I don't believe. I don't. I don't believe there is
such a thing as quote cuss words. I think that there are things like propriety and taboos, and so, for example, it wouldn't be appropriate to walk into a church and say, you know, shit and fuck or something like that, because it's improper and that would be a vulgar speech. But if somebody says, you know, did you have sex with her or did you hump her or did you fuck her?
Between those three words, they all mean essentially the same thing, and there's nothing inherently like, there's not It's not like one of the words is magically more evil than the other word. That's that's just moral. That's just like Protestant Puritan superstitioning.
Yeah, I got you're saying, you're you're not like advocating for like vulgar speech.
But it's just like, who are we kidding?
Right, Like if you say hump, it means the same thing, right, So I get.
Well, but no, wait a minute, So you understand that people talk about like you have to talk about these things at times, So I'm not sure what you mean by that, Like, so if so, first of all, when you talk about vulgar, the term vulgar again meant the
common language. And so in the West, what we think is vulgar terminology or cuss words is just identified with what the poor people and the bar people and the wench made maids would say, you know, down at the pub when they would talk about going to the bathroom or having intimate affairs. Right, that's the speech of the vulgar people, the commoners. That's why it's called vulgarity. That's literally literally the origin of it and so the point is that if I is it really any different if
I say poop is out of shit? Now? Okay? So, and is it necessarily wrong to talk about poop if I have to have you know, I have to explain where are you going? I'm going to poop like like, there's nothing wrong.
With that, yeah, yeah, yeah.
And there's nothing wrong with saying I'm going to take a ship like this, There's no it's just silly to quibble over this stuff. But again, I do agree that there are there is such a thing as propriety, and uh, you know, for example, if I'm in a comedy club, that's a different setting than if I'm in the church, And so it's proper in a comedy club that you're gonna hear. And by the way, I'm not for nasty, disgusting jokes. There's a lot of raunchy stuff that I
think is over the line. Yeah, so there there is speech. As Paul talks about that is I mean that the English translation used the word vulgar. But you know, let no unclean speech come out of your mouth. Paul says, But even that, you could argue, it's more it's it's you know, if you're talking bad about your brother. That's worse than saying the word shit. So Paul might even mean unclean speech in that way. But anyway, go ahead with your points.
Yeah, No, I I just, you know, wanted to get your your take on that, because I've even noticed you kind of like tone it down a little bit too. Like I hear you a lot of the times, kind of like qualifying and telling people like, I'm not trying to be mean to you.
But so I think like you, at least from.
What I've what I've seen since I've been watching you, is that you actually take care to let people know like, hey, I'm not trying to be mean to you or whatever, but you know, I gotta, I gotta kind of.
Correct you on this point or whatever.
And it's really only when people I guess get ridiculous where you kind of have to shut them down. Might call him an idiot, might use some of the language that the Patristic fathers utilize.
But I don't.
I don't really see you going out of your way to like just randomly insult.
People because you want to be mean.
No, I don't.
I mean, which is what you get, which is what you get accused of right, right, Yeah, So I just wanted to.
I just wanted to, like I said, just kind of wanted to get your take on that and just kind of see where you are coming from on how you view some of this language stuff.
Yeah, go read your own. I mean, he's pretty vicious when it comes to everybody. He had disagrees with King what's up?
Hey, what's up?
Jay?
I just wanted to agree with you on your earlier ex post when you said that this Vatican two is very Masonic. It absolutely is. It's something I wish God spoken about more. It's actually it's so new age, which you obviously know. It's I'm not trying to be a crass, but it sounds like something you know, when I was sixteen doing ascid with my buddies, that we would come up with this Vatican two. We're all one and so to the Catholics, I say, I mean, dude, is your
theology seriously just we're all one? No, We're not all one.
Yeah, it's like DMT brow theology exactly. Yeah.
So this Pope of the Future that your videos are so hilarious about it is totally this new age hope of the future. So yes, thank you. Jay, I appreciate you, bro, Yeah.
Thank you. That's exactly the whole point.
I mean.
The problem is not quibbling over words. The problem is that believing this theology is delusion and it will lead you to spiritual ruin if I believe all the religions are passed to God, which is essentially what Francis said, echoing Vatican too. That's the dangerous in result of this, and it also demonstrates the whole point that we've been making for many years that natural theology literally can just
lead to perennialism. If you read the Garby paper, that's one of the points he makes at the beginning, because he studied under the famous perennialist John Hick, and he said he argues, like, if I'm going to be doing natural theology, there's no reason why that has to lead me to Tomism or Catholicism. Why can't it lead me
to perennialism. And the argument I think that's kind of being made here indirectly by everybody via this Vatican into debate and what's happening with you know, Tim Gordon and stuff, is that Vatican too kind of is perennialism, Like why is it not? Why why does that have to lead me to tonis zone and sure as hell doesn't necessarily lead to Jesus. And why are we going to use the arguments and the philosophy and the metaphysics of Muslims and the Neoplatonists and all these people and then try
to get them into Christianity. It's it just doesn't make any sense. It's like, yeah, let me show you that we all believe in a monad. Oh, but it's not the Muslim monad. It's the Jesus monad. Like we all believe in the monad, let's just stick Jesus on top of it. That's the whole Roman Catholic approach. Here's inquirer. What's up? Yeah, what's up? Currit Yeah?
Yeah, okay, yeah.
I just want to say I've been seeing you on some bigger podcasts.
That's awesome, man, it's good to see you getting some recognition.
Cool enjoy your work.
So I just have a couple of questions, like.
I am in the process of like starting Catechism, and the one thing that kind of stands out to me is when they.
Say you Roman Catholic catechis hold on Orthodox Katechistas or Roman Catholic Catechism. Okay, gotcha. Yeah.
So I'm just wondering, like when they say theotokos like most holy, what do they mean by that?
Like that is the only thing that really sticks out to me.
I clearly they don't mean the most out of all. Right, No, we would say she's the queen of Heaven, She's the queen of saints, she is the holiest love creatures. We would agree with that. No, just I think it's just a delay. Can you hear me? Now there? Can you guys hear me out there in this? I think there was a delay with that guy. Can you guys hear me? If you can hear me, do like a thumps up or something. Can anybody hear me? He requests to speak? Okay, you guys can Yeah? I mean yeah. So Mary is
called most holy because she's the queen of saints. She is the the tokos, she is the godbearer, Mother of God. You know, in Psalm forty five, she's pictured as right next to the king. It's a Messianic psalm and Mary is the queen in that song. So all of the accolades that we give to her signify that she is the pre eminent of all the creatures. She's the new Israel, She's the again Tetoko's Mother of God, Queen of Heaven Revelation twelve. So it's just proper to her honor that
she be called and given that title. Kelly. I'm you, Kelly. What's up?
Hi?
I just joined the space and so I was reading the comments below. So it sounds like people are saying that Roman Catholics won't come up. So I'm a Roman Catholic. I'm not sure if we're against us or for us. So do you want to clarify or does any people?
Well, the point was that because I just did a big Roman Catholic debate. The debate centered around the fact that the text of Vatican two say very clearly that Muslims, Christians, and Jews all worship the same God, and that's essentially what we're taking issue with. It also says that Hindus worship God too.
Oh, I say, I was just gonna.
I wasn't quite sure if people were saying that, you know, our religion, I'm not sure if you're Catholic, but I am so, are my really isn't true?
Or if anyone had any questions about.
Well, I'm saying that it makes it not true because it's a contradiction from the basics of the Bible and traditional Christian teaching. Muslims and Christians and Jews don't worship the same God. And if Vatican two says that, then from Catholicism is not true.
Correct.
Yes, I mean they don't see Jesus the same as Catholics.
To well, then it's not the same reference, it's not the same deity. So then Vatican two is false. That's the point.
Oh, I see, Okay, I see what you're saying. Well, I mean, that's that's fine. I mean, you know, I wasn't quite sure if just anybody was calling Catholics out as far as what it is that we believe. So, I mean, you know that obviously we're more towards the you know, I mean, the Jews kind of stop at the first you know, half of the Bible were more New Testament.
So yeah, But this is more specifically an argument about the Vatican teaching at the Second Vatican Council, which is to basically admit that it's adopting a kind of a syncretism or a perennialism, where all the religions in some way kind of point to and participate in Christ in God and salvation even though they don't know it. It's a very problematic thing to say that Muslims, Christians at
Jews worship the same God when they clearly don't. For example, Jesus says in John eight that Abraham believed and worshiped him and that Jesus is the creator and God of the Old Testament. Well that's the case, then the Jews and the Muslims don't worship the same God as Jesus did.
Right, correct.
I mean I'm not well read on honestly what the Muslims and he Dos.
Believe in any way, because I.
Well, Muslims are good on this point, because they're a good example in this to make this case, because Muslims say that Allah has no sons. But if Allah has no sons and Jesus calls God his father, then Allah can't be Jesus's God and can't be God the Father.
Correct, And I mean do they I'm assuming that they don't believe that the Blessed Mother is the actual mother of Jesus, or they do, and then they just don't seem to.
Care about her.
No, they think that there is a virgin birth, but there's not really any reason why that happened. It's just it's because Islam is a copy paste cut from Christianity and Judaism, so it's kind of a mix. So they do believe in a virgin birth. They believe that Jesus was born from Mary, but there's no real reason why that's the case. In Islamic theology, there's not really an explanation for what the word Messiah even means, even though they think Jesus Messiah.
Interesting. Well maybe some of them will.
Well, actually, the Muslims and Hindus seem to be pretty hard pressed on their religion, so and they can stay there.
That's fine.
I'm not here to to kind of grab anybody over to the Catholic Church or anything, but I just you know, yes, I'm here for the Catholic faith if anybody cares about that, but I will drop if if you'd like me to.
Thanks.
I appreciate that. Good questions. Yeah, I'm an Orthodox Catholic, so we're the real Catholics. Not trying to be rude, but that's that's what Orthodox Christianity is it the Orthodox Catholic Church, anybody else, any Roman Catholics. I'm a little disappointed that only one Roman Catholic came out of all of these yappers, but I'm not surprised. That's usually what we get. That we don't usually get anybody who actually wants to come to discuss the issues. The one kid
that came that was it. And then all they have is like two quote ways. They're like, well, Carol said that he likes Muslims. That's literally what a guy's sending me right now.
It's like, so what.
Orth of gaul?
Hey, so I have a question in regards to what do you think about I know, the whole system in Orthodoxy and Catholicism is different. When they bring up Patriarch Crill and the humanist comparing that to you know, Orthodoxy and the Pope.
Yeah, exactly. I mean there's two things to say here. First of all, none of the patriarchs are indefectible and infallible. That's the teaching of the Roman Church about its Roman bishop. And so it's not equivalent. They want it to be equivalent, and it's just a two quote way, but they think it's a defeater when first of all, let's say for the argument that it is a defeater, well, then it's a defeater for both positions, and Rome is still false,
you idiot. So it's like, if you think this is a defeater by just turning it and saying that, well, Curle says bad things too, well, then that is implying that Francis and all these people are also saying bad things, so they're all false. So it's first of all, it's a stupid ass move to think that a too quoque proves anything. But it's also assuming that the Orthodox system is the same as the papal system, So they're missing the whole point that it's a defeater for your system.
If you're indefectible bishop defects, I don't I can believe. And we already know that every patriarch it has defected at some point in the history of the church. All the patriarchis have had heritics at some point, So what's it's not even the gotcha that they think it is.
But that doesn't speak for the whole like Russian Church, or for the whole orthodomy.
No, they think that like the it's like that the patriarchis are popes. They think it's like little popes. So they think that everybody's underneath a patriarchate and the patriarchs are little popes, and if the patriarch does something, they don't understand that it's all decentralized. A patriarch is just a canonical, privileged title. That's it.
And they would say, well, then why do they have leaders. What's the point of having leaders if you're not gonna if they're going to be a humanists and not follow.
Well, the Church has had bad leaders in the first thousand years in many cases. So if a Roman Catholic wants to make that line of argument and believes that the Church of the first thousand years is Roman Catholic, then that's a defeater for their own position. So that
again it's stupid. Yeah, if you think the Roman Catholic Church was the Church of the first thousand years, and you think the problems that you're laying out with the patriarchis are defeaters, guess where the patriarchal the pentarchy system comes from. The ecumenical councils of the first years. You guphus I was like, they don't understand that every time they make this argument, if they think their church is the church of over sousand years, is the.
Defeat for the coy Yeah, I think they're not getting that. I think I don't know.
No, they're not. It doesn't matter how they time you explain it, they don't get it.
I don't know, they don't care to look further, or I don't know. But do you think the sacraments and the other church, like the Catholic Church are I don't want to use the term ballid or invalid, but.
I think valid invalid is Romancolic terminology that muddies the waters. Uh. So they can do the rituals correctly, but we don't automatically think that they're efficacious so that they have the grace that they signified. The church can determine like whether
or not the rituals need to be repeated. But what's funny is that even in the traditional Roman Catholic Augustinian mindset, which is what they think they're all basing their sacramentology on, Augustin believes that the sin of heresy and schiz them prevents the grace. So even in the Augustinian ext opera operatal model, even if the baptisms are quote valid and efficacious, if you're baptized in heresy, being in heresy prevents you from actually getting the grace even though the grace is
quote there. So even their own system doesn't work.
So the pope is probably in I mean you would say the pope is in heresy.
So the whole church, oh, I know, we do not believe the Roman Calley Church has the faith. They are heterodox, meaning they're outside.
The completely like no, yes, oh.
It only takes one heresy to be outside the faith. That's the faith is the packaged deal. And ironically, get this, before Vatican two, Roman Catholic theologies said the exact same thing. You can reset these Cognitium and Mestici Corporus, two famous Roman Catholic and cyclicals, one by Leelald thirteenth the other by Pious A. Twelfth. They actually already say that if
you deny one of the dogmas, you're outside the faith. So, in other words, I can't be a Roman Catholic in terms of traditional Catholic theology and be like, I'm Roman Caloch but I don't believe the Imaculate conception, but I believe everything else. If you deny. If you deny, I know, but that's not consistent with their own theology. If you deny one dogma, you're outside the faith. That's their theology.
They don't even know that, So then there can't be healing right in their church.
That's the whole point of why this is such a dangerous thing. Like it's not just quibbling over the words of Vatican two. They have lost the healing of the sacraments and of the faith by all of these crazy heresies and all this nonsense and madness. I mean, it should be obvious everybody that the whole like the rampant homosexuality must the clergy and the pedophilia, is a clear
sign of curse, like their curse. Dude, Like, can you not see that with spiritual discernment that if this institution is a giant money laundering Vatican bank scam.
Full of do you think that their church produced saints like their saints? Are theyy different from our saints?
No, you can't do saints without the uncreated energies which are found in the Orthodox sacraments, in the life of the Orthodox.
Church, even the saints in the past, like all the like Padre Perrot and all of them are they like were they?
No?
If you know? Again, so the idea of an Orthodox saint is vastly different from what Roman Catholics think saints are. Contrast the life of you know, Basil Gregory, uh, you know, Paul Simon, the New Theologian. It's vastly different from the histrionics of you know, Francis of a CC and you know, no, it's totally different. We don't have all this not blood letting and all this crazy stuff.
Okay, do you recommend any books you can just throw out there.
On what specifically?
What I like, you know, the Catholic an Orthodox system.
And well, I mean there's a good critique of the papacy by Michael Welton called Two Paths. That's a really good readable book. Okay, so I was I would start with something like that and then just read my just read Pomezansky's Orthodox Dogmatics to get a good basic idea of Orthodox sacramentology. I wish what some of these Roman Catholics would actually discuss. Why just saying that Kirol said something bad, It is not it doesn't work, but they
won't do it. They just want to have like a gotcha, go ahead, and I'm mute.
Oh okay, sorry, yeah, I think there is a little bit of delay. Can we back up to where the orthochiic just came up? Are you saying that our Catholic saint padre Pio is not a saint or how do you look at that?
No, we do not accept Roman Catholic saints. Correct.
Interesting, So padre Pios stigmata means what to you?
Nothing?
Or I mean, I don't know that he had stigmata other than that Roman Catholic claim that he did. Do you believe in all the religions and mystical gurus claims that they can do magic, mumbo and jembo?
No?
But I mean in terms of just taking Padre po just as an example, I mean, have you ever done research into him?
Or no?
I have a fact. I used to be a traditional Romancolic. So yes, I know quite a bit about Him've read a whole book on him.
Oh okay, so you used to be a Catholic. Okay, I'm not familiar with you, so just I'm sorry about that.
But that's fine. I'm just telling you. Yeah, I was a traditional Galic for about ten, maybe eight or nine.
Years, okay, and then what made you leave?
If you don't mind me asking some of the contradictions between the pre Vatican two and post Vatican two teaching is one of the probably the biggest issue.
Okay, So can we just talk about is it okay if we talk about Padre Pio?
Is that okay? I don't mind about Padre Pio. But what I'm gonna say is what the claims of these phenomena can't prove the religion when literally every religion or cult out there has similar types of claims. So how could that be the thing that proves the religion?
Well, I mean considering that, I mean if obviously because you were Catholic and you've done research on it prior hare Po, I mean he literally had this. I mean it's been scientifically proven as well as you know, just proven anyway, just that he had.
Yeah, do you know, do you know what a Muslim says about the Qoran?
No?
I don't care, but go ahead and.
Scientifically proven that there's miracles to show that the Qoran has to come from a law. Like the Muslims use this argument for like ten years online, like between two
thousand and five to twenty fifteen. So the point is that that's not a good argument for why the religion is true, because it's just there's no way to It's a non sequitor from the claims about the person and even claims that there's quote scientific proof to therefore the religion is true because every group has the same competing claim, right.
No, I mean I understand that. I think it's just when I look at somebody like Padre Pio as a as a Catholic, I mean, how do you not even.
I guess, lets that would just be purely subjective. It would be begging the question because the thing in question is is it legitimate? And is he a true saint? And it just I mean, you're already it's already assuming the Catholic idea of what a saint is that a saint is somebody who dumps buckets of blood out of their body or something, and they don't just literally just follow what the teacher of the church fathers are for the first thousand years, like that's what a saint is. Right.
But I mean, as far as if we're going to take Padre Pio, I mean he literally was. I mean that the Vatican hid him for ten years because of his stigmana. So they weren't even quite sure themselves what to do with him, and so they were like.
Let's again, I don't the Vatican has a history of lying, so I don't even know if any of that's true. How are we supposed to know that all that's true? The Vatican's an extremely corrupt organization and entity. I don't trust anything about against.
Those, Okay, I mean that's that. Yeah, I understand that.
But I mean, if you're you can read ten books about Pajepo and his life and they're all the same. And yes, I know that that doesn't prove anything to you or to anybody else, but I mean as far as he I mean.
And so look, don't you understand that there has to be a better way to delineate between competing claims like this, Because every religion, every cult that Cybaba has followers in India that will swear by his powers in terms of his miracles, right, and so there, I'm sure there's Hindu theologians that have quote scientific papers and proofs. So if there's a million different claims and so called scientific proofs, there has to be some other way to delineate between,
which is the true and which is the false. It could never be done through infinite regressions of miracle claims and science tipic papers. It just it doesn't get anywhere. So there has to be a better way to do it. Well, the best, the easiest way to do is to see which religion contradiction which one doesn't. I'll talk about contradiction an internal critique sense.
Okay, So in the Orthodox religion, did they recognize the blessed Mother as as the same as we do in the Catholic faith.
Well, yeah, Mary is the Theotoko, she's the god bearer, she's the Mother of God. But we don't believe that she was immaculately conceived. She's not some sort of like, uh, goddess or something. And I think sometimes Retolism tends in that direction.
Oh no, I mean we don't. We don't think she was markedly conceived. I mean she was conceived within with she was shared full grace.
No, no, you believe in the maculate exception she was immaculately conceived. That's a dogma in your church.
Oh yes, I'm sorry, I thought you meant like her, but you mean Jesus being no.
No, her, she is immaculately conceived. Jesus is born of a virgin. The immaculate conception is her exemption from original sin and Roman Calloy theology.
Oh I see, so Orthodox doesn't believe that.
So then you don't hold her in the same as the highest esteem is as we do.
She is the queen of saints, she is the queen of Heaven. She's just not immaculately conceived because she died, and everyone who dies is a son or a daughter of Adam. If she went to sleep, and if the Roman Callolic church has the feast of door mission, then she died. Why did she die because she's the son of Adam. Well, then she's not immaculately conceived and she's not accepted from original sin.
Interesting, okay, so but then oh yeah, okay, I see what you're saying.
Okay, that's that's fine. Thanks, I'll drop from speaker.
Oh well, those are great questions. It's open for him if anybody wants to come up. None of these Roman galaxies if I'm not much just uh, it's all all the ones that I argue about today, and I'll talk about anyone, any any anyone, any of the ones that I got intok with today. Uh, if you would like to talk about the subject matter. Uh, here's Ash, what's up in Here's a couple of people. We'll go to Ash the whole stuff the other guys.
Hey, So I was speaking with my wife today. We were just you know, rolling around and uh, going around on the buggy around the neighborhood, and we were talking about how, uh, when it comes to Protestantism and and their their justification for their canon.
I had an interesting thought.
I was like, if they're not basing their cannon off of tradition, you know a lot of them have to go, oh, well, it's just the most accurate cannon.
You know.
They like to make kind of like scholarly art arguments and kind of post enlightenment have presuppositions. I was like, there would be no like moral difference between a Protestant who accepts all sixty six books and then this other Protestant who's like, yeah, I accept like sixty four. I just you know, for example, don't accept Revelation or Hebrews because you know, the evidence isn't there.
Right. Yeah. We made this point up many times, all right. I was just wondering what you thought about that? And if it would be a good you know, yeah, that's a great argument. In fact, I mean that's essentially what Luther did when Lucter started to say that other you know, some of these books shouldn't be here. Totally agree. Guess a good fellow, what's up?
Hello?
Yeah, what's up?
Hey?
J glad I can jump on here and chat with you. So I've been listening to Refuting Oriental Orthodoxy, the series you guys did, and just background. I come from like a Pentecostal oneness modalist background, been exploring Orthodoxy for the
last three years. Uh had a question about, you know, the person versus nature distinction, and uh, okay, I know you in that Refuting arthor you see, you guys were kind of laying out the metaphysics of the Orthodox Church and the uh, the fact that so the human nature is something that's shared across all human beings. That's it's something that's shared. And then individual.
It's a it's a it's a universal yeah.
Then and then individual hypostaces is the identities right or persons?
Yes, it's correct, it's the individual subject, the it's the it's the mode in which the nature exists, which is in the mode of the individual subject or the person.
Correct, right, So I mean I have I have issues with with modalism. But what I'm trying to kind of understand is, how do you get around saying that the Father's Time and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons with let's share a divine nature. How does that now make them three gods the same way that three person human persons who share a human nature are not three distinct persons.
Right. So if you read the Cappadocians, like Besil's letter, I think it's thirty eight where he goes into this distinction, he just he just makes it as an analogy. So humans are just are created, they begin to be, They're in time and space, they're discrete, they're separate. So it's just an analogy that humans have a singular nature, but they're distinct in person. It's an analogy to the trinity, and analogy means that not every aspect of it matches up one to one, some of it matches up as
some of a dozen. So if it was unifical predication, it would be what you're saying, right. So arians make this argument because arians say, well, if God is you know cause and the Father causes the son. Then causation requires time, because every father who causes a son is in time. That's based on what we call unifical reasoning. That would mean that it's used in the same sense, And we don't believe in unifical reasoning because that would
be arian, but we would say it's analogical. In other words, there's an analogy between the way that a father causes a son and that the father is the source of the son. But there's other aspects of it which don't match up to God, namely the temporal relations. So the father didn't start to become a father at some point in time. The father was always eternal, generating the sun and hence eternal generation. So the usage of person in nature amongst human beings is an analogy to the person
nature distinction in the trinity. And it's not unifical.
Okay, what would be a good you know, coming from a Protestant background, there's always kind of proof texts and everything else and involved. I'm just wondering, is there a good source I could read that would lay out, like you said, first of all, like the claim, which I don't have a problem with it, but just to substantiate the claim that God was always the Father, Like, how do I substantiate that in scripture?
Yeah? I mean you could get a good, a good easy book to read, like Palmazansky's Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. Most of that is really just going through the scriptural text for the Orthodox positions, and you're going to get you know, certainly a lot of positions about the eternality of the fatherhood of Father, of eternality, fatherhood of God the Father,
and uh separate though from that. If you're looking for somebody that addresses that specific issue, uh, Athanacius is I think it's the discourses against the Arians is actually addressing that very issue because one of the arguments that his teacher, Saint Alexander made against the Arians was that if God was eternally the Father, then that requires by necessity he eternally has a son, or else the word father makes
no sense. So this is a pretty strong rhetorical and metaphysical argument against the Arians, because you know it, it necessitates by by definition almost if God's eternally the father, the father of who, right, So there's got to eternally be a son. So excuse me. I would also say you could read something like Vladimir Lowski's books to Mystical Theology or Vision of God excuse me, vision of God. Uh, those also cover these topics pretty extensively. Okay, Yeah, good questions, So appreciate that.
Uh, what's up, dude?
Hello, what's on your mind?
Did you?
Did you already bring up the relativity of just making the statements in Vatican two? So that anybody who the Holy Spirit was just making words themselves be by themselves objective.
Uh? I think Chase, when Chase was on here earlier, or maybe the guy before Chase said that, his conclusion would be that the documents are thus relativized and the theology of God is relativized if no stretate is correct. And I think that's true. Now you're probably being a little more specific with linguistic philosophy, but yeah.
Yeah, because if you just say, you know, God is the Muslim God is the same as you know Christian God, but it takes either a good or a bad pope, or a good or a bad magisterium to interpret the words, then the intention of what the way it was written is irrelevant.
Exactly. Yeah, I think so. Temp. The last text ten sent me was kind of going in that direction where he was trying to make a distinction between authorial intent and the exact words that are used. And he was trying to argue that I don't even have to like he thinks the intent of the authors was nefarious and malicious and ambiguous, but that the words can be just simply re read and revised in an interpretive scheme to make the orthodox, which I think is just silly.
Yeah, that is that would never work in any other I mean that would would would that even work in law.
Only in a only in a in a sophistical legal system.
Yeah, yeah, like that would be. And then this idea of debating over whether there was a the before a god or an ad in the sentence, like we've talked about before. That's like, you know, a teenager child debating will Actually, I didn't say I was coming directly home after I was.
Yeah, I said I was coming home, but I didn't say when I was coming home.
Yeah, I just wanted to see.
No, that's a great that's a great point, John. In fact, yeah, and no other disciplines would this count except for vaticate to theology and RBIC. But also it also speaks to uh, like the again the relativizing of this, because if that's the case here, then well then what's wrong with what all the modernists did in the Roman Catholic Church in the twentieth century by rewording all the other stuff? Like why does it have to only be reworded or reread
in a conservative sense? Like what stops it from being read in some other liberal sense? And that's and that's exactly the point that I think you made this point too, John, which is that that's why it does matter how the popes act after Vatican Two, because if they act on the basis of these documents in the way that I'm saying, which is that they go pray in mosques towards Mecca, then that is relevant to how the documents are worded.
It's not it's not irrelevant to the documents, which is what they have to try to say.
Well, also, that means that the religion see and this is unfortunately I don't I don't say this like like oh, and I know you're the same way too. It's not like we're it's we're gloating like, oh, we're gonna school these RCAs, and it's it's not a mean thing. It's like you unfortunately have to say, hey, guess what.
I know.
You think that you're going to your TLM and you're you know, getting the Mass with the most grace because it was, you know, so reverent. But actually the church that you believe in is that church is the Novus Orto Church. That church is the Skittles Church. That church is the Vatican Bank Church. The TLM is like a is like a delusion.
Unfortunately, well they're shutting down TLM, so exactly.
Yeah, but some somedays, some trad pope's gonna come along and he's gonna interpret Vatican two in the correct way, and then once he does that, then we'll be able to have the TLM.
Yeah. I heard all of that in two thousand and six or whatever it was seven, when Rat Singer was coming. Oh he's going to bring to TLM and he did a moto proprio. I've been there, done that.
All right, we'll see if anybody else wants to talk about those. Yeah, the TLM or trads who are waking up to this unfortunate you know, you're gonna have to go through a rough period where you're gonna have to realize all that stuff. I just know that this is done in with you know, with good intentions.
Yeah, And that's what I was saying earlier, is like, if you buy into this perennialist stuff like, it would lead you right into perennialism. So and some of the Romancalloic tradcats just go actually do go in that direction. I've done several over the years that they went from Vatican to those trataate perennialism into the straight up perennialisms. And I don't see why it wouldn't lead you that way if you go that route, Patriot, Yeah, I got on mute.
Man, uh jay may I may I respond to your Vatican two critiques. Sure, okay, Uh Lifeline Catholic here, Uh sense baptism and appreciate nice meeting you. So I'm gonna give you the very basics of Vatican two, and I'm gonna use an anecdote to kind of push this forward.
Okay.
So I've heard the orthodoxy debate between the the TLM and Vatican two sucks, and mattig into is liberalism whatever.
Blah blah blah whatever.
Well, you're gonna penalize the novisorder and so on. And so forth and modernity and whatever. Then you're gonna have to penalize me for a similar situation because the the TLM bros Are going to be very mad at me because I attended a Mass and Chinese. Okay, Vatican two is not some uh liberalization of the faith. It is a moving forward to the church. It is putting the Church in the English language of Americans.
Okay, hold on, that's that's only that's only one thing. Well, I mean that's that's.
A very important thing. Though very important.
The Orthodox Church has always done it in the vernacular, so we would agree with that.
Well now, but because there there's a faction and the and and the cat and the Catholic body the church, that's all t l.
M taling no disorder.
Mm.
But I'm arguing, wait, what are you arguing?
I'm Orthodox. I'm arguing that Vaticans who has theological contradictions, I don't care about the.
Vernocular like what like what the Hindu thing?
Uh?
Well, among many, one would be that it encourages interfaith prayer and gathering, and that's a direct contradiction from Mortalium animals in nineteen twenty nine.
Well, the ecumenical councils are not infallible.
Clarification, Are you serious? Okay, yes, correct, No, Ecumenical councils are magisterium and they are infallible in the Roman Gallic Church. So you have no idea what you're talking about. No, yes, literally, no idea what you're talking about. Nine nine nine. I want people to take note of that that the people that we're dealing with, that we're debating with, don't even know if Roman Catholic theology believes that cumenical councils are
infallible in the Roman system. That's Tilly says, thank you, brother.
You know, I just wanted to share one thing on on the Buddhist side, just because it relates to Hinduism. So the practice of Buddhism is is actually one part of Christianity, and that is thou shalt not want It's a it's a very big it's very big in Christianity. It's actually underrated. How important that is. Thou shalt not want anything but a relationship with the Father.
And and I'm not I'm not trying to rude, but that I don't really have anything to do with what we're talking about today, Jacob, what's up. Hello, can you hear me? Yeah?
Okay, yeah, So I've been dealing with Mormons, right. I don't know if we can get into about like the one of the many, but I've been running it on them, right, and the most coherent answer I've got in is that the three share like a relational unity, and that that somehow accounts for the one.
You wouldn't say that's correct, right, that's still by definition polytheism.
And to solve the one of the many has to be ontological unity, because if it's not ontological united, it wouldn't be one.
Right. Yeah, I would say they're not ultimately one because you know, human beings are separate beings, but they're not ontologically one. I mean, their nature is one, but they're still separate beings. So I would say a better argument might be about grounding the one and the many in a single mind. And that's why we believe that God has a one mind, even though there's three hypostases that one divine mind exists in the mode of the three
persons that possess it. So the the mind of God is a better means of grounding than I mean, I don't even see how three separate beings could ground something in a units of way when they don't have the same mind.
Yeah, because another thing I've noticed too is that they also say that they're divine in some way, but divinity doesn't equal uncreated because when I ask.
Them, they believe that God evolves. There's an infinite regress of evolving gods that are creatures, so it makes no sense. So they literally just redefine the word God to mean an evolving man. So it's like they don't actually believe in anything uncreated except for matter. So basically what so God isn't actually uncreated? Matters uncreated, but God is a man that evolves to become God. It's just total nonsense. I mean, anybody who tries to get into Mormonism and
doesn't see how stupid it is. Within like a little while, I don't know what to say any other Roman Catholics. I'm going to be at my hotel pretty soon, so I want to give another chance for any remaining Roman Catholics to pop up. He requests to speak. We only had one Roman Catholic who actually came to a dress Vatican two, and which is pretty telling, and I gave him a chance to speak. He was not honest with what he put on Twitter. It didn't go well for him.
He said he didn't know what Vatican two meant. He doesn't know why No Strett says what it says, and he would not go into the issue of the Muslims. And what does that tell you? Max? What's up? I mean?
See, I just wanted to act to Jay. Why don't you debate Eric again? Hello? Eric Yaborrow.
Yeah, he's basically said he won't have anything to do with me.
So oh yeah, so we gotta we gotta push him to debate you. I guess right.
I mean, he's well, he's not gonna debate. He just wants to quote mine. He's not going to debate. Like so when we had our so called debate, I said I wanted to debate pre Vatican through post Vatican three contradictions, and he said we can debate that some other time. So if he wants to debate that, yeah, I'm not for it. But he says not too mean to interact with.
So understand if I want to, like look into a book of understanding orthodoxy more I'm a Roman Catholic, one book you would recommend in layman terms, not liking a very theater.
Yeah.
No.
The easiest readable book is Two Paths by Michael Welton. Two Paths.
All right, thank you, Jaed, I appreciate you.
Yeah man uh noah, non none yet? Biz? What's up nine? Youa biz?
No?
Anybody else? Any Roman Catholics who disagree? Anybody want to bring hup an issue of contention. You want to make an argument, I'll give you sixty seconds. I won't talk. That's a good idea that Jim Jotras had was to introduce the sixty seconds rule that if people want to come on and make an argument, I will agree to not talk for sixty seconds. And then the Roman Catholics can't say that I'm mean, I talk over them. Paul.
Just make a little argument and run it by you, kind of vet it with you. The woman who called in earlier and was talking about the miracles performed by these Catholic saints. You know, I have a lot of family members who are, you know, kind of charismatic, and they make similar arguments like, oh yeah, but the miracles.
And I just wanted to say, if we're if we're relying on supernatural proof for things, it's it's not a very good argument, and I my very simple, small little argument against it is that that would assume it like if if we if we're if we're claiming to be able to identify that which is supernatural, we would have to claim that we completely understand what is natural, you know, we would be able to have a knowledge that circumscribes the natural world.
And no one is going to make that claim seriously. And so.
Since we don't know what's what's possible in nature, how can we say that something that is that we that appears to us as a miracle is indeed some you know proof that you know, Oh God is God is with me and loves me and supports them.
Well, this is actually some of the atheists and naturalists will actually make this line of argument against evidentialists that try to use miracle claims as truth. And I think this is actually a good point. Like like I'm being I'm not an atheist when I say this, but it's like if if an atheist says, how do we know that this so called event wasn't just some natural phenomenon
and we just don't know? I mean, is significant enough doubt because it's very possible, it is not a significant enough doubt to raise to raise doubt, I should say, and thus it doesn't become a very good proof. I just don't understand why people think these things are good truths. When I mean you just talked about charismatics. I mean, if you talk to the charismatics, he's going to tell you, oh, I've seen miracles of my holiness Pentecostal Church. I've seen
God grow legs back. And it's like, I don't believe that, dude. And it's like, well, I don't care what you believe. I've seen it and that's proof. That's all proof I need. And it's like, well, Ron mcalleys do the exact same thing. It's like, how is that proof.
It's it's a very dangerous form of proof and a not a very good thing to rely upon obviously, and could really lead us, you know, lead us astray.
They can't can lead it to a delusion. And that's why Jesus says, a wicked and adulterous generation seeks signs exactly because they say stuff to Jesus like, if you are the Messiah, do this miracle, give us some proof, do something, do some neat trick, And he says a wicked adulter's generation seeks these things last one. Moroki, I'm you, hey, j Yeah.
Quick question about icons. Are icons of God the Father allowed?
Uh no, typically no, it's the only exception as the Ancient of days. But that's a that's Christ as the Father. Okay, thanks, that was it. All right, thank you, everybody, have a good night.