Part 2: OPEN DEBATE! Islam, Catholicism, Protestantism, Evangelical, Atheism!

Le Christmas Time and cookie sweatitors and Karen Kutz and Ugly Betties Christmas Time.

What's up? Man?

Hey? Hey, hey, am I am? I coming in clear?

Yes, sir, Yeah, I wasn't originally gonna do this, but a friend of mine recommended you to me.

Uh he's an Orthodox himself.

I myself am well, I just I guess I want to just point out that I do believe in Christ.

You know, I'm not an atheist. I'm not trying to troll you.

Sound kind of you sound kind of tired from all the atheism in the general moronic nature of them all.

But uh, I mean I'm pretty good. I'm running on about seventy percent gasoline right now. I'm pretty good.

Oh yeah, I know the feeling.

Brother, I I guess what I'm trying I want to say is and forgive me if I go on a few tangents. Uh stop me at any time if.

You, if you wish. But uh uh I was raised.

Uh.

I guess you could say Protestant, but you know, I.

Never really knew what that was back then.

Uh.

I just went to church, I you know, prayed to God, read the Bible, all that, all that stuff. You know, uh, pretty pretty innocent stuff. My mother was raised Catholic, but she uh abandoned that. Uh, she sort of became Protestant. But after a lot of church hopping, because admittedly none of the churches in our area were very uh well, they never seemed genuine, so we just just straight up to stop going to church altogether and just, uh, I guess you could say we became sola scriptura.

I guess that's what it's called.

But I didn't know what that was until my friend pointed it out. And uh, He's told me a lot about Orthodoxy, and I admit it is interesting, it's fascinating. It's certainly more better than Catholicism. But okay, I guess some of my disagreements that I have with it, I guess I will admit I don't know much about.

What's the question.

Regarding saints?

Is one thing, prayer to the saints, I guess, because that's a thing that Orthos do, right.

Yeah, if you read Revelation five through nine, you'll notice that John is on earth participating in the heavenly liturgy, and there's specific statements, particularly Revelation I think it's eight, where you have the saints in heaven, the angels in heaven offering the prayers of the Church of the Saints. The saints that are martyred in heaven underneath the altar

Okay, all right, that's uh, Revelation.

Five, five through nine. So those chapters are where John specifically sees a heavenly liturgical worship service going on.

Okay, yeah, because I didn't get that at first. I assumed it was that it seemed like prayer to dead men, and it's you know, it sounded like niicromancy.

And you know, I understand. I mean, I was a protest and I used to have that that mindset as well, so I get it. But I think if you look at what's going on in Revelation five through nine, and if you consider the fact that you know, in the Orthodox view, we think that the heavenly liturgy is the earthly liturgy that they're the same liturgy. That's the thought process, the basis behind why why would we do that? Conspiracy theorist? What's up man? Christmas?

Dime mus Alli here, cookie sweaters and nasty beer?

What's up? I'm mute? Conspiracy? Therest simply Harvey wonderful Christmas. The thing about Christmas is the worst is all these horrible Christmas songs that you hear everywhere in the stores, like freaking Paul McCartney Christmas wings. Christmas songs are the worst, and all the freaking department stores love those wings Paul McCartney Christmas songs that are just awful. I'm mute, man, Do you want to talk or not? He left has

Man?

Hey, I come from kind of a evangelical background.

I come from the water mm hmm.

And so all around me all my friend's family constant like signs and miracles that they kind of view as stamps of approval that they're.

Walking the right faith.

Lately kind of just seeing like what's going on.

In Syria and stuff.

It's like I'll have friends talking about how God healed their iPhone after they prayed over it.

Like, okay, wait, heal their yield their eyes phone?

Yeah, like their iPhone wasn't charging. Just trust in God and it starts working.

Okay.

They seem really sincere about it.

But at the same time, it's like I see all these ancient Christian communities getting wiped out, and it's like, okay, so why is God doing all these wonders for us and like the most pampered.

For Yeah, there's a bunch of evangelical idiots here. There's not signs and wonders with iPhones miraculous are being healed.

Yeah, is there a way to like even to even reason with that? Like, how do you how do you even break someone out of it?

I don't even know, man, that's a great question. I don't. I mean, if somebody thinks that the iPhone got healed and it's a miracle, find new friends. That's all I can think of, Anthony, what's up, man? I know it's tough, but give them time. I don't know, try to be nice to them. Although Paul did have the miraculous gift of healing phost is there a patron saying of iPhone? Anthony got to mute, man, what's up?

Ja? Can you hear me? So? Sorry?

Excellent?

I was curious, what do you think of the cosmic temple view of Genesis. I'm not sure if I heard you say anything about that recently. What are your thoughts? What cosmic temple view of Genesis? You familiar with that?

I mean, I'm familiar with like James Jordan's research, that Genesis speaks of the creation of the universe, like the Biblical temple. Is that what we're talking about?

Yeah, the creation of the universe. Yeah, Yeah, that's what I was talking about.

Yeah, I mean that's in Three New Eyes, is a great book by James Jordan that covers that. I think that's a good perspective.

Okay, I'll check that out next A good question.

Yeah. Three New Eyes is a classic, even though Jordan wrote that when he was Protestant, when I guess he technically still is Anglican or whatever whatever he's made up. But R JB. What's up?

Man?

It's still a good book. It's essentially kind of patristic. Hermeneuticts a lot of typology going on. The universe is structured in a three tiered you know structure.

Go ahead, Hey, j how are you doing good?

Uh?

You know, this is not the first time that we've spoken. If you remember a alternate current radio.

We we spoke there a long time ago.

Remind me. I'm sorry, I don't remember what Who are you or do you don't want to know you?

Do you remember the name Hesher? We Yeah?

I know Hasher?

Yeah?

Okay, yeah he was. I was one of the people in the Knicks on his website.

You don't want to say which guy you were?

I mean, Oh Ryan, Ryan? G Yes, sir? Oh what's up? Pretty good? How are you doing?

What's what's on your mine?

So? Yeah, I apologize. I could have just jumped into it.

Just just wanted you to know I'm not some strangers you as well, So funny enough, when we last spoke. Uh, you probably didn't even know my stance on any of this, but I was probably closest to what you could call it deist at that time. I grew up in Catholicism, but fell away spent about twelve years away from the church.

I've since come back.

I at this point, I am convinced of the truth of the Catholic faith. So I just thought I would call in and try to I mean, I know this is about debate, and I don't mind having a bit of a debate, but my goal here is more having mutual understanding and hopefully gleanings that hopefully we could glean something from each other.

But you know, I'm just saying that's my goal.

Where I would start it at is do we agree on the four marks of the Church as stated in the Nicene Creed.

Absolutely well, I think we would agree at least basically one Holy Catholic I wastall. But what I would actually argue that's an argument against the Roman Catholic position, because there's nothing in the Creed or in you know, sort of the Batristic era theological summaries, whether it's John Damascus is on the Orthodox Faith or whether it's a catechetical lectures of Saint Cirril Jerusalem, like, none of those texts really make Rome the focal point of the One Holy

Okay, when you say Rome, you're not I mean, just to clarify, you're not speaking geographically.

I'm speaking of the See of Rome, right, So I mean the See of Rome is geographic, sure.

Well, I mean it. I guess you could say the Charter is the world.

Though the Charter I don't know what you meant.

The scope of influence of the Roman Well, influences.

Influence is one thing. But like, if you read the Chiad Document of Rome from a few years ago, it admits that the Bishop of Rome did not have jurisdiction over the churches of East in the first millennium.

Okay, no, I actually that makes sense to me. I mean in terms of.

The as far as I understand it, there were multiple seas.

Yeah, but Vatican one claims that from the earliest days of the Church, the Roman Sea had universal jurisdiction over the entire Christian imperium, the Christian body. And I'm saying that, I'm saying that the Chiad document that Rome has up on the Vatican website admits that this is not true, that the Roman when was that published twenty sixteen?

Okay, Well, I'd probably have issues with that.

But.

So do you know better than Francis I.

I mean, I can't. I can't say in what in what particulars.

Well, I mean Benedict the sixteenth, Okay, Benedict the sixteenth, in his book Introduction to Christianity, says basically the same thing that in the first millennium the Roman seed did not exercise universal jurisdiction over the East.

Okay, well, so is Vatican.

One right or are they right?

I mean, I.

Think I'd be really interested to go over the exact lines where you're saying that those two are in contradiction.

Well, I mean, Vatican one says very clearly it's not even contested that the Bishop of Rome has universal jurisdiction and headship unilaterally over all the church without any need for a synod or any other bishop to approve what he says and does. That's the whole basis for ex cathedral. I mean, that's Vatican One.

Well, as I'm understanding that this all emanates.

From the primacy of Peter the patrion office.

Well, I mean what you mean by the first among equals or something like that, then Orthodox person could agree to that to the word quote premascy, because because in the councils, Rome is listed first. Rome usually signed the council first, but the Bishop of Rome didn't call any ecumenical councils. There were popes who were excommunicated by ecumenical councils, there were popes who submitted to ecumenical councils, like Virgilius.

Okay, but I mean, I guess I could.

I'm not going to say that you're wrong there, but I without having it directly in front of me, I'm not sure exactly where you're saying those tes.

That's fine. So so if you go to Papalincyclicals dot net, you can type in Vatican one and you'll get the full documentation of all of that. If you print it out, it's about fifteen pages. That's all of Vatican One. And then I would say, if you look at the G eighty document Chi e t I from twenty sixteen, that document is about the admissions of the Roman Sea to the Eastern churches. So that's why that's very relevant to

I think that there's I think we may have a common understanding here in terms of the concept of suy Urus self governing, that there there was a self governing or I shouldn't say, what was that. In some sense there's a self governing aspect of Eastern Catholic.

Church now, but that's not about This is not about whether there were autocephalist churches, which Ephesus Council of Ephesis grants autocephally to the Church of Cyprus. So there are autocephalist churches, which everyone admits, but that's a different issue from whether or not that it Caan One dogmatically teaches that the pope has unilateral universal jurisdiction. I mean, it's not even in question. It's what Vatican everybody knows. Vatican

So yeah, so I I grasp what you've said, and I'll definitely do more research on on what you've referenced there. What I wanted to more nail down in terms of what I was saying is the foremarks of the church stated in the Nicing Creed.

So for me, when I reverted, I had.

A fork in the road, which was Catholicism or Orthodoxy, And where where I had it was concerning the Nicene Creed, that I fell on the side of Catholicism.

But did you hear that I said about constantin Noble One, that when they wrote One Holy Catholic Apostolic, they were out of communion with Rome. Were you aware of that?

No?

But so if you look up the schism, the Malaysian Schism and the Schism of constantinople One, Rome did not accept constant constantinople One until centuries later. So retroactive says, Okay, we do accept the addition to the Creed and constantin

Okay, But so yeah, what I'm more getting at it so that I mean that that may be all just fine and true, and I I'm not necessarily trying to dispute.

That At the moment, what I'm trying to get at is one Holy Catholic and Apostolic.

So so, and that's fine, we can move on. But you're saying that the mindset of the people that wrote it doesn't really matter. It's what Rome says it means? Is that is that where we're going.

Not so much.

I'm just trying to nail down what my reasoning is oka why you might I think my reasoning is false.

So I mean, so you're going to say what that like, the Catholicity involves numbers. Rome has a lot of numbers, and Orthodox don't. Is that where you're going?

Well sort of, I mean you're you're not far off.

So what was Catholicity true in the fourth century when most of the church was Aryan or semiarian? Where were the numbers?

Was Catholicity true?

If it's numbers, it was?

It was, Well, what do you mean by numbers?

Well, if the argument is going to be that the Roman Catholic Church is the one Holy Catholic Capsolic Church because it's the one that has the numbers, then that's false because they didn't have nobody. Whether you're Orthodox or Catholic. In the fourth century, the majority of the Church was Aryan or semiarian, and at one point there was only a handful of bishops that were Orthodox, st Athanasius being

That's so, that's not Yeah, I don't understand it in terms of numbers.

How I understand, Like, if you wouldn't mind, I'll just break it down.

Catholic means universal, means applying.

To the whole fullness agreed, we agree.

So, and then holy would be uh from God.

Well and produces saints.

And yes, so, but but essentially sanctified. It would be another way to put that.

Apostolic would be emanating from the apostles, which which we agree with that ultimately saying a mission from Christ given by Christ.

Well, it means Apostolic succession, right, But.

I'm saying the the apostles are the apostles because they were given a mission by Christ.

Well, that's part of episode succession, is that the apostles are the successors to Christ.

Right, and and then one meaning unified, and so my issue comes in when well, I'd say I have two issues, but the latter is maybe more easily resolvable. So I think one and Catholic are an issue. And but but Catholic maybe not. Like I said, maybe that's easily resolvable.

But I think that, Uh, let me give you an example of where I would say that the Romaic Coley Church is not one. The Roumancallolic Church allows all of the Eastern Catholics to recite a different and creed than the Western Church. How can the true church have two different creeds? And in the first thousand years the church didn't have two different creeds, they had one creed.

Oh, I think that's a big issue. But but to say.

That, well, then so then what does one mean? Just the pope. It doesn't mean actual faith. They're not one in faith.

It's just one of the faith one baptism.

Okay, but how is it one faith if the church has two creeds?

I mean, that's an issue.

But but I think that when you say the Roman Catholic Church says, that's where I'm not connecting with what you're saying.

It's not I'm not trying to say that. What where you got that is wrong. But it seems that.

What what did I whether I say that? What what did I say? Rome says that you're unclear about? And I'll sort of cite you whatever documents you want.

Wait, I'm sorry, I could you're.

You're saying to me Jay when you say Rome says, I don't know if that's accurate or where you got that, And I'm asking you, which thing are you unclear about? I'll give you the source. Oh sure, I mean, I've got We've got Denzinger right here.

Well, it's just I noticed that you and many people say the Roman Catholic Church believes or says X, and I think that often you can have a source from those who claim to be of the Roman Catholic hierarchy.

Like the Vatican. I mean, I'm going to Denzinger. Do you know what Denzinger is?

Well? Are you talking?

I think that papal infallible statements are of at the peak.

Of what I mean. I'm not do you know what Denzinger is? Are you familiar with Denzinger?

I'm familiar with the name, but I could probably.

See this is the collection of dogmas that Rome has affirmed. So this is one place to start for Roman Catholic dogma, and hence it's called the sources of Catholic dogma. I'm not being arrogant, I'm not being mean to you. I'm just literally saying, that's what Denzinger is. It's the sources of Catholic dogma. And so when I say something like Vatican one says this, you can find it at paoplencyclicals dot net under Vatican one or in Denzinger. Because Denzinger

Okay, but well, where do you source the claim.

That you made the which one?

Which you know, I'm kind of blanking because I was so focused on what you were just saying. But you were suggesting hmm, well, I know, I know you mentioned about the Eastern churches having a different creed.

That's not that's not even a controversial. I mean, you can go ask any Uniate or Greek Catholic like they recite the Creed without the philioque. This is well known, right, yeah, so you need a you need a papal statement whether that's true?

No, right, no, no, no, I what I'm saying, Well, no, I guess I think I think I got lost.

In the mix there there.

You had made a statement that the Roman Catholic Church says, and I'm I'm just questioning, is that an infallible teaching or is that something that you read from the Vatican that may or may not be.

Well, Vatican one is infallible. It's a dogmatic ecumenical council. So in the Roman Catholic system, yes, Vatican one is infallible. And presumably, I mean maybe some Roman Catholic has some argument they would make. I would say Denzinger also includes everything that is quote infallible or ordinary universal magisterial teaching, which cornabatic in one is protected by the Petrine charism. So Denzinger also should be without.

Error, Okay, And that that may be the case. I can't speak to that. My issue comes down to when I think about the question of Orthodox versus Catholicism, I think that Orthodox is lacking the unity, and I guess I am to me now.

And my first question to you was, well, then why does if the Roman Catholic Church has the unity supposedly, is that a unity of faith and belief or just a unity of we all believe in Francis and then underneath Francis it's all fair game to do whatever you want, because that's what I see and that's what I experience in the Roman Catholic world. I see no unity between the no Asorto hippie mass and Nosra Tat and the SSPX Latin mass down the road. There's no unity between

I think that you and I have different concepts of unity going.

So what is the oneness of the Roman Caalic Church?

Then? Faith?

One? How is it one faith when there's two different creeds with two different faiths.

Both recite the Apostles creed.

No, no, no, the Nicene Creed, where the Uniates recite the Philioque. Ascume me. They don't recite the philio oquay and the rest of the Romancolic Church does. Do you not know what I'm talking about? I feel like I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be mean, but like, so, this is a really basic So all of the Eastern Roman Catholics, the Eastern Uni eight Catholic Church, Melchites, whatever a Russian Catholics, Greek Catholics, they recite a different creed, literally, a different

That's an issue.

But I thought you were saying between the Nova Sorto and the SSP, I.

Made a different analogy to a lack of actual unity between those groups. Yes, I did, but that wasn't in a reference to the creed. I'm saying that they don't believe the same theology. Almost all the SSPX and traditional Catholics do not agree with the theology Vatican two. So how is their unified faith when a giant portion of the Church doesn't accept or rejects, or doesn't want to believe Vatican two.

I think that there's a there's a distinction to be made between the what what is officially the faith that is prayed at Mass, and what is the faith that is demonstrated in say a typical novasorto.

I'm talking abou Vatican two documents in the dogmas and teaching the Vatican two. Regardless of what you believe, when you walk into a novsorto or an SSPX Mass, do you, as a Roman Caouolic captain, belie Vatican two.

I don't know what that would even mean. Believe Vatican two. It wasn't a dogmatic council.

It is a dogmatic council. No, that's totally false. No, it's not. It's what Paul the six said, was it quote proclaimed no new dogmas. There's four separate statements from the popes that say it is dogmatic. So it's a total trad myth. It's a trad myth. That's yes, it is. Do you want me to give you the four statements from the Vatican that you have to believe it?

Sure, but they they state that it's an that I don't even know what I'm saying is, I.

Don't know what that would mean. It's an ecumenical council, you're what they state?

Yeah, and you have to believe in acumenical council. You think that when the Pope confirms an ecumenical council for the entire church on faith and morals, you don't have to believe it all. All Paul the sixth said was that it proclaimed no new dogmas. He never said it's not dogmatic. And in fact, Francis and every Roman Catholic act, why are you interrupting? Every Roman Catholic after the Council, Every Roman, every Pope has enforced Vatican two and the

What must I accept from the documents?

All of the teaching, All the documents of Vatican two are signed off by the pepacy.

What specifically do I as a layers all of them?

The entirety of it. You don't get to reject any of it because it's ordinary universal teaching.

What new doctrine was brought in in Vatican two.

Well, Paul the six claims there was no new doctrines. I don't believe that. I believe that Vatican two, with no stro Tat, for example, taught that Hindus now worship the One True God as do Muslims. Do you believe that Muslims and Hindus worship the same God as Roman Catholics.

I think that that can be scrutinized a bit further than the way you just stated.

How do they believe in the Trinity? I mean, because that's the only one true God that exists.

Right, Well, so I think this is I do have an issue with that, And I see I've studied this problem, and I see the.

Same issue that you see.

Because it's not true. That's because you have some discernment. Correct, It's not true Muslims and Catholics and Orthodox do not worship the same God because they use the word God. And in fact, Vatican goes as far as to say that Muslims and Catholics have the same faith as Abraham. And yet Jesus says in John five that Abraham rejoiced to see his day and saw it was glad to see me John eight. John five through eight, Jesus constantly argues with the Pharisees that Abraham believed in him. Well,

I grasp what you're saying, and I've wrestled with the same problem.

Well, this is an example of why Rome is a contradictory position.

If I could, I just want to explain how I read what is in what I can do there. It's you know, I will say that this is what is called weaponized ambiguity, and I think that there is a huge problem.

I know, man, I mean, I've heard all this since two thousand and five when I was I was going to the Latin mass in two thousand and five, and I've heard about weaponize ambiguity. Do you think it's ambiguous when the Pope goes into the moss and praise towards Mecca? Is that ambiguous or is he acting? Is he acting out this theology.

Yeah there, that's uh, that's wackiness. Uh, and I'm with you on that.

But okay, well, then then then Vatican one is false and the Roman Sea has defected.

I don't think that's the case.

How are you keeping the true faith if you're praying in Moss towards Mecca.

I mean I don't think you would. You certainly are committing at least heresy, if not apostasy.

Okay, so then Vatican One's not true and Rome can error and the papacy is not indefectible.

I don't think that that's necessarily true.

I mean, you just literally said that you think it's heretical. Francis and Benedict did it?

Mm hmm.

So are they heretics who defected or not?

I can answer that, But I wanted to address the bit about Vatican.

To the you were Okay, sure, God Like.

I have no problem going through methodically on this, but I just I don't want to go all over the place and lose where we were.

Okay, let me can I read the paragraph? It says the Church regards with esteem the Muslims. Muslims adore the one God living and subsisting in himself merciful and all powerful creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men. Muslims take pains to submit wholeheartedly to his decrees, just like Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure. In Lincoln itself submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they honor him as a prophet.

So yeah, I mean, that's uh, there's a lot of problems in that statement, but I think that it's important to look at the specific wording, Like they, I don't have it in front of me, but I could get it in front of me.

They said that they claim to have Abrahamic faith or what is that?

No, it actually says that. It says that they adore the one God living and subsisting in himself. Doesn't say they claim to. It says they do it.

Well, So let me just explain how I read that and it's not may or may not be what was intended in the words, and I certainly think that the way it's worded is highly problematic.

Well, I thought that the papacy was here to give us clarity, certitude, and to guide us and preserve it. So now it's weaponized ambiguity.

Vatican two definitely did not.

Be Okay, Well, then then the papacy doesn't work, because.

I don't think that has to be true. But the way that I.

Read that, so we need you. I'm not trying to be reade, but you don't see how Protestant this is. We actually need you, an individual Catholic, to suss through all these stacks of papal documents to tell us the true papal meaning of the true papal councils.

No, I'm not suggesting that, well, but.

You are, because you're saying that the way to read it is blah blah blah blah blah.

No, I'm saying.

I'm saying that each individual has to apply critical thinking when they analyze anything.

Does Vatican one say that you judge the first see and apply critical thinking to its teachings, or does it say you submit with docility to whatever it teare, you're.

Not supposed to violate your conscience.

So it's not an issue of conscience because it also says that you submit with docility. That's the teaching of Vatican one is that the laity do not judge the first see you submit with facility to its rulings and teachings.

That's true.

Then you're not in a position to say that this is weaponized ambiguity.

I think we're getting too scattered, and.

No, it's this is precisely the issue. It's not, it's precisely the issue.

Well, it's just I want to be able to address that one statement that Vatican too.

I'm perfectly fine to move on to the other points.

But uh, the way the way I grasp what is said there in Vatican two, which admittedly it sucks, the way it's worded, it's like, I.

Mean, these are dogmatic statements, and you're saying it sucks. So this is like saying that divine revelations sucks.

They're not dogmatic states.

They are dogmatic statements. I'll give you four examples of the pope saying that you have to accept all the documents of Vatican two.

There's nothing for me to accept.

There's that's just that you're lying to yourself because you are told in other places four times that you must accept all the Vatican.

Two and that means nothing. That they can keep repeating that.

But that so you don't actually follow the papacy. So that thank you for admitting my point that you interpret off all the papers when you want to. No, you literally just said you don't have to accept Vatican who's dogmatic even though the Pope tells you you have to.

No, again, we're jump We're jumping to another point.

I just wanted to address because you're saying that a dogmatic teaching is sucky, and I'm telling you that you don't get to say that in the Roman Gothic system, and it is dogmatic, Yes it is. If I so if I give you four places where the Pope says you have to accept Vatican two, you're telling me that you don't have to listen to.

That except Vatican two, yes mean something in practical reality.

It means you must believe. Are you Why are you lying to yourself and lying to the audience because I can open up the Catholic the Roman Catholic Catechism sites from Vatican to countless times, and you're telling me that Roan.

Doesn't teach that. It's absolutely authoritative and binding. It doesn't have to be infallible. Yes, it is binding. It is ordinary teaching. Do you know what ordinary teaching is? You don't even know. There's two different creeds in the church. Do you know what ordinary teaching is?

What do you mean two different creeds?

No?

Earlier, the two different creeds between the West and the East, the Uniates and the Latin Church. Okay, so what do you know what ordinary teaching is? Yeah?

The ordinary magisterium?

Right? Do you have to accept that? According to Vatican one? If no, there's no ifs. Do you have to accept this? Okay? What's the criteria for ordinary?

Right?

What's the criteria for it?

I mean, I can't spit it out at the moment.

It's any time that that the pope is teaching authoritatively in concert with what the church is always st taught for the entire church. You have to accept that, and it's and it's free from error. It is also according to Vatican one under the Petrin kerorism. Vatican Two's documents listen Attican two's documents are affirmed by the Roman sea for the entire Church on faith and morals. You are told in every Catholic church in the world that you have to accept it, so you do not have the

All right, here's the issue. What you just said, it can't contradict itself.

Only if romanicanthalsism is true. I'm arguing that it does contradict. That's the whole point of why we're having this conversation.

No, but what I'm saying is that if there is a contradiction, which you're highlighting, and I'm with you on that, then that's the problem.

Yeah, And it means the Roman system is false. It means the system is false. That's the point.

I don't think.

I'm sorry that you don't see that, because it's a systemic level refutation.

I get where you're coming from, but I don't think that you've heard my case on that, and I'm just trying.

To your case was just the wording is sucky, which I've heard for twenty years.

Yeah, and I'm just trying to parse out these two issues. I am perfectly fine to have the conversation that you're trying to have right now, But we have not addressed that statement from or I haven't been able for it. So the way I read that is replace them with unbaptized individual.

Can an unbaptized individual pray?

None of that has anything to do with the fact that it's trying to say they have the faith of Abraham. That's the problem in the statement. The faith of Abraham was faith in Christ.

Is a single Muslim representative of the entirety of Islam the religion.

I don't see how that's relevant because Islam, as a universal position rejects the Trinity and the deity of Christ. So it doesn't matter what one Muslim thinks or believed when the public profession of the religion is that they are unitarian and they reject the Trinity. In fact, they believe in putting to death people who believe in the Trinity.

But this is what I'm trying to say.

If an atheist is unbaptized and praise, is that somehow invalid.

Can an atheist not pray?

Praying? And none of that has anything to do with the public profession of their faith. What the theology is the public profession of the religion. This is not saying it's not saying, can God choose to listen to an individual when they pray. It's saying that Muslims have the same God as us, and it's just categorically false. They don't.

I totally see where you're coming from, but I think there's a discontinuity and how you're reading it and how I'm reading it. I'm reading it from the perspective of they shouldn't.

And all of this begs the questions, and that's the whole time. And man, I give up, because I'm going to give you right here. Actually, it's actually five places that tell you that you have to believe in Vatican two. All of these are right here underneath my I wrote. I did a video called was Vatican Two Infallible? If you look up this video, I list five papal documents underneath that tell you that you have to believe Vatican Two. So look, I appreciate you coming on, Ryan, it was

Speech.

This one is John the twenty third's opening speech to the Vatican two, and he says it is an ecumenical council that is dogmatic and must be accepted. The third one is this one, which you have to hit translate into wish. It's only in Italian. It is a discussion from Paul to six I Believe in nineteen seventy six, where the sixth says that you have to believe it. It's dogmatic, it's just a trad myth. This is like they're inventing ways to try to make the system work.

You know, what's up? Change?

Somebody told me this uh theory they had about like ascaton.

Theology, that they think that just because a scripture says that God wills all.

To be saved, that means that everyone will.

End up, uh, you know, with salvation, and that how.

This happens is that hell is temporary. In the fires of Hell are there, and.

There's no place in the New Testament where Jesus says anything about it being temporary. In fact, he always speaks it of us everlasting. So I mean the fact that God permits something doesn't equate to him willing it. So God permits death, God permits bad things to happen, doesn't mean that he wills it happened. So the fact that he desires all men to be saved does not mean that he will cause almen to be saved.

Yeah. I guess I didn't know how to explain it the way he were it.

But yeah, thank human, Yeah, no good questions. Appreciate it. Yeah. I think universalism is kind of a It's obviously not anywhere in the scriptures, so it's really a stretch when people try to argue that B three A K three MKG hope all as well. What are your arguments against Anglicans. I mean, we had an Anglican come on a livestream about a month ago and we had a whole, I don't know, hour long debate about branch theory. So I would say, look up my argument with the Anglican branch

Manuel Hello, m hm oh, yeah, so I was.

This is my second time here.

I would like to ask about icons.

Uh.

See, I was debating a Muslim, right, I just having a discussion with a Muslim, and he brings up, like this the objection that in the Old Testament, I think it says that you cannot like bow down to images and stuff like that, right, So I was asking.

No, it says to not bow down to idols, because the Jews bowed down to images, to the Arc, to the Temple, to other human beings all the time. So go read my article on icons. It's right, I did have it up here. But read my article Biblical Defensive icons and you'll see that. Also Joshua five, it says that they all Joshua five thirty seven somewhere in there, So they all prostrated before the Arc of the Covenant. So I guess they're all idolaters. No, it's saying that

What something?

All right? We'll go to Ivye Mohan.

Hello, yep.

So I had a question regarding the church and its importance. My father and my mother have been Protestants for like forty years, and.

I can see that there's.

An issue in Protestantism where they leave out the church and it becomes irrelevant basically, So I wanted to know, like, since my parents disagree about the church and its importance, Like, what's the best argument for why the church needs.

To be Like well, I mean, I mean Jesus says in the New Testament that the church is his body, it's his kingdom. Paul says, not to forsake the assembling together. I mean, all those are direct injunctions against people who would forsake the church.

But what if But what if they're just like two together?

Isn't that the church basically.

Well, no, I mean two together is he says, his presence is amongst them. That doesn't mean that there's not a liturgical worship service, because you're leaving all the rest of the New Testament where he says that you also have to feed and you know, feed on his flesh, drink his blood, participate in the sacrament. So you don't take that one passage in isolation from all the other things that we're told to do.

Okay, So what if you live in a country where like the churches are controlled by the state and they're very like infiltrated by progressive ideology and there isn't any like churches basically that you.

Can go to well, I mean, I mean I would say you only can go to Orthodox churches to begin with. So I'm not sure what you mean by infiltrated in what since you mean it? Do you mean like like what kind of a country you're talking about?

IM?

So like, oh, yeah, it's it's it's pretty bad.

Yeah.

I think in those situations, like, you do the best you can. So it's not like like if you aren't able to get to a church, I don't think God. God's not going to hold that against you. And it's not your fault, it's not your you know, yeah, you know, for example, in Tristan's case, he's eight hours from a Serbian Orthodox priest and he had to make he did a long distance kind of kisis and then you know, he waited until, you know, six months to where he

Go ahead, Hey, so that's just a question.

So what are the main reasons why you don't believe in the theory of evolution?

My reasons are usually typically philosophical. I have read some of the scientific critiques and questions about it. I would say, just off the top of my head, it would be something like, it's not directly observable, there's no evidence, is not coherent to me, or the arguments have not been convincing for why I should believe in a transmutation of species. I think that philosophically the concept makes no sense. So that's my approach to it.

Okay, And another question, what is what is your opinion on I know there's there's a debate in Christianity about like how old the Earth is, and they're like young Earth people. You take a younger view and is there like a is there like.

A reason for that?

Yeah? I think that divine revelation backs up a youngervie. I was looking for the best critique I've ever read of evolutionary theory is actually in a in an odd place, and it's about a sixty page critique and it's in this book called sort of Nosis. I'm not recommending everything in this book because this book has a lot of kind of it's a lot of perennialist stuff, so there's

Was that man?

It's accel On? Yeah, Hey a man, how are you first?

Good? I was just making a joke.

Okay, there's no problem with that. I do have a pot amount of question for you.

But first of all, I want to talk about about the mark lam in twenty four.

The way it says, what Mark markulem in twenty four.

It's in the Bible.

You're just talking really fast, man, slow down.

Okay, I'm so sorry. Uh Okay.

It says, therefore, I tell you whatever you ask for in prayer, plus that you're receiving it and then and it will be yours.

Okay. So okay, let's just imagine you're praying. Okay, you're praying to God and.

You ask God uh to make you super comfortable person.

Okay, what then to make you a comfortable person? To make you super.

Comfortable comfortable person? What does that? What does that mean?

Everybody? Everybody needs to be everybody needs to.

Feed comfortable person because of because of the thinking process all the time.

So like, God, give me a giant swede couch and give me a bunch of puffy coats, like Kanye like comfortable. What are you're talking about?

It's about the feeling.

It's about the feeling process that the process of being calm and comfortable.

Okay, okay, God, make me comfortable. Go ahead, make me cozy, baby. What's up?

You don't you don't believe God is gonna provide you with.

I just think that the phraseology is funny.

Man, go ahead, okay, okay, okay.

So according to the first that the first that God is to provide you with that one. Another question is if you if you asked, if you ask him for there has to be some thoughts and the thoughts must be a tit sue to the feelings.

But if you ask, if you.

Ask him, how he's going to create that if you haven't, even if you haven't even created a thought, and by creating a poults you have to communicate with.

No idea what you're talking about. Man, I'm sorry, I'm lost, dude. I just I'm out out to lunch on this, have no idea what you're talking about. God made me comfortable. It needs to be that Boomer prayer, like the footprints prayer on the wall, Like God give me no of the AA prayer. God give me the serenity to accept the things I can't change. God give me the comfort to have a mushy couch that I can stretch out upon and the feather boa that I can dance for

Man, Hey, Jay, what's up?

Trying to get comfortable?

Man?

Can I ask you a question about God? Give me a bean bag?

God?

Give me a mess, a mess being back actually a mess. Being back does not sound comfortable. Give me a burl. Give me a burl that being back? Give me a question? Now, what's up?

Okay?

So, like if you go to Genesis twenty seven twenty eight, when Isaac is giving Jacob the blessing, you know, like he says, may God give you the doo of heaven.

And stuff like I you kind of see a parallel with.

That and Luke twenty two thirty two when like Jesus praised upon Peter that his faith may not fail, And like I was just wondering, is this completely completely idiotic or is there like an actual I.

Mean, did his face faith? Did his faith fail when he gets rebuked by Paul not too long after that? Yeah, like I guess, yeah, I would, I would. I mean Roman Cavolks love to do this kind of retroactive typology where I'm not faulting you, I mean understand what you're where you're going with this, where they like go back into the Old Testament anything that that's like a typology of the bishopric or the patriarchs or the high priest.

Man? Uh? Hi? So I have a question, ma'am?

Excuse me?

Is it?

Sorry?

No, I'm saying I said, what's up? Man, and you're a mam, and so I'm saying, excuse me, ma'am.

I'm sorry. I don't know. Anyways, I have a question.

So Phil Helper just came out and said that there is a study coming out saying that physicists are changing their mind on the Big Bang theory.

If it is the.

Origin of the universe, what does this mean for Christianity? Is it a net positive as it could disprove the ever expanding universe, or does it disprove the something from nothing, which would be a negative for Christianity.

I don't know who Phil Helper is. I'm not deal with it. I mean, I don't pay any attention to normy science, and like my religious convictions have nothing to do with what any science paper says.

Okay, so you don't think that if say, the Big Bang theory were to be disproven, if that would, like you don't know if it would be a positive or a negative thing for christian I mean, I.

Think the Big Bang itself is dumb and stupid and doesn't make any sense philosophically. So if it was quote disproven, that would just be people realizing that their existing atheist metaphysics and system is stupid. So yeah, it would be a positive.

Okay, So you just think the Big Bang itself is just silly.

Yeah, it's like atheist to magic magic theory for atheism. Yeah, okay, yeah, interesting questions. I didn't know about any of that, but I mean, the thing with like normy science papers is like literally every day there's a paper that says the opposite of what the papers said the day before, so

The existance of black holes.

It's like, oh, it's actually all sci fi, Like all these people are doing sci fi all right, Josh, I'm kind of wearing down now. Icono Matt, twenty dollars, can you prove with twenty dollars? Here's the twenty dollars, can you prove that you're not a plant from the Funko Pop Corporation to sell Funko pops? I cannot prove that. However, when I do my live events, well, at least the first year we did seven live events or so, every

No?

I would side on the side of that being a bunch of tarted psy ops. Guy has ten dollars, Greting, thank you. What is the single book that you would recommend on the errors of reformed theology and Protestism? I guess everybody likes Rock and Sand by Father Josiah a single best book. I mean, I guess that would be the single best book.

I mean.

Clark Carlton. His set is also good. Doctor Clark Carlton has a good set. H Brosey ten dollars. What's up? I am Hazony Armstrong. My phone keeps freezing. It dropped me add me back. Okay, I don't see you on here, dude. You must have left or did we already go to you? I don't see it, man. Thank you for the super chat though. Charles Charles in charge of our lives and our dreams. I don't even know if that's how it goes. I never watched Charles in George. Go ahead, Charles, I'm mute,

Can you hear me now? Yes, sir, I never watched that show either.

What's on your mind? Well, you could still be in charge.

I was gonna ask you about open theism, and now there's a rising army of guys online who are attacking Calvinism through that, and I just wondered, what is that similar to an ancient heresy that the ecumenical councils have already repudiated, or what's your orthodox response to that God changes open theism?

No, I don't think there's any evidence in the ancient Church or the Bible or theology to support the idea that God changes, because we actually confess in the liturgy that he became man yet underwent no change. So Christ did not substantially or essentially undergo any change. He changed in the sense that he entered into a new motive being and that he became man, but he did not

Right, Yeah, I haven't really heard them address the incarnation, but all the scriptures talking about God be pented and so on.

Well, I mean, I would agree with the argument that that's anthropomorphic language and so God is condescending to It's the similar if you read doctor Bradshaw's paper that he writes it's in the Newer Energies book. I forget the name of the paper. I think it's the one on essence energy, what kind of distinction. It's the first chapter

Okay?

So Eler.

Today I was debating a Baptist pastor.

And I will say one second. My first of all was assuming he was part of forma theology.

He wasn't.

But at one point I.

Asked him if me and him had a disagreement on the interpretation of a verse, I asked him, how could you possibly really know who is riot? And he said faith, And at least to me, that kind of that answer made me kind of it kind of felt lacking.

Well, I mean again, I don't think that the difference between it's it's there's two different things going on here. One is is there a way to adjudicate or have authority to say which position's right? That's normative authority? Did Jesus give the church any body of people to bind consciousness to an interpretation? And there's a separate question, which

Yeah, and then let's see what elles.

So I also asked him about one save always saved, and he said he doesn't really agree with that.

He says he believes I either.

Saved or that you were not saved, And at least to me, I didn't quite know how to respond to that.

So what would you really have to say about that?

I mean, there's just so many passages in the New Testament, like Hebrew six or you know, the Parable of the Sower, where you have explicit statements of new life springing up in the case of the sewer, or in Hebrew six, where you have you were, you know, washed in the in the in region. You know, the baptism, you were, you partake of, you ate of the heavenly gift, and so forth, which clearly means that they were partaking of

Good luck? Go ahead, Jay, can you hear me?

Yep?

Okay, Jay, this is Matt.

And first of all, I wanted to tell you I find you fascinating because of your journey into Orthodoxy from Calvini.

Yes, I remember you've called in before. I remember how you doing?

Okay, Well, anyway, I wanted to do the fellow, the Roman Catholic that you were just talking to. And this is something that hasn't changed. I've been debating them for fifty years, but they're all the same in that regard. It's just meant justify the Pope's position and Catholicism.

You cut out it's what in their claims.

It's mental manipulation. It was like back and forth.

Now if they can't see when you have a pope France is saying that Hindu has worshiped the same God in Jews and Muslims. That that's outright apostle to see it in your face, I don't know what to say at that point. Now, this has been going on for some years with ecuminism and that sort of thing.

Having said that.

They're never at peace because and I talked to you about and I want to mention this a bit further asceticism and academia, but if you go into a full blown academia, you end up come unto me.

My yoak is easy and.

My burden is light.

Their burden is not light, and their yolk is not easy.

Right now, the Orthodox Church is the Church of Christ with the body of Christ. So they're in a place that's not the body of Christ, and it's right in their face, and for some reason it's very difficult for them to get out of it. The only thing I could say is it's a pernicious heresy is saying A says, and they're blinded by that pernicious heresy.

Having said that, Jame, I have a question.

For you, because it bothered me for some years, and you've been through the Ringers. So you're going to understand what I'm talking about coming from academia.

What a new term.

Something that we frequently hear these days is an Orthodox person.

Even preachs and bishops, they'll.

Refer to heretics, Mormons, Jehovah witnessed, Catholics, Protestants. They'll say, well, because they're learning it, they're er addition, they'll say the Roman Catholic theologian. I've even heard the Mormon theologian. This is so far from the ethos of the church fathers who came out explicitly and call them heretics, saying aaronais

So my question too, is this.

That came into the Orthodox Church, the idea that these heretical groups are. You know, somebody speaks and they're considered to be a theologian. My question too, is do you find it to be problematic?

I see your point. I mean, I think it's just more of a colloquial usage. I mean, I know that in our sense, we would say a theologian is, you know, one who praise and one who has Orthodox faith and all that. So I think we're really just kind of interacting with and talking to people in the world and outside the church that have this terminology. So even though it's not strictly correct, I don't think everybody's using it in an inappropriate way intentionally.

But I see your point, okay, because so because I see it as part of ecuminism, be nice. So you have to approach them in a nice way. And I can just tell you monks have known and bishops even that are ascetics.

They're not into that nice thing. They're more or.

Less straightened out. Yeah, that's for your sake.

So I think it's detrimental in that regard.

Can you explain to me, because you were a.

Trade cat, how how the apostlesia Muslims are the same blah blah blah, How can't they see that?

Jake?

Well, for me as a trad cat, that's exactly the thing that led me to more and more kind of sparse fringe traditionalism was that in two thousand and three when I became Catholic, I kind of thought and assumed that the Romancolic Church would be kind of like what I read in the Church Fathers. And then when you go to the actual Romancolic churches and it's really divorced from that, and it's like, you know, just guitar masses and skittle stuff and hip hop mass and just weird

Okay, because I noticed something else that God forgive me. But I was listening to some trad cat and he was talking about Francis.

I guess maybe.

It was somebody prayer Benedict, but that you you.

Can no longer.

You can't kneel when you're receiving the eucharis, and you can't receive it in your hand, you have to take it into the mouth. And how they are it out currently? When they do that, they're like children, you know, we're so childish.

Yeah, I forgot Francis saying. I remember him saying something about that, that it's childlife.

So this guy goes on to pontificate about this, and I'm like, how can you say that when you don't even commune little children, which is like written, you know, right in front of you, suffer the little children to come on to me for such.

As the kingdom of head.

So he yeah, So he inverts the whole thing into his own personal where where does it come from?

It? So it was like some kind of personal virtue exaltation. I guess.

Yeah, great point. Matt totally agree. I think I'm just Pato communion itself, if you really think about it, is almost enough to refute Romanatholicism, because the Latin Church communed infants for all those centuries. And it's not accidental that the departure of Pato communion happens precisely when the phillyoqua comes in and the temporal claims of the Roman bishop begin to exaggerate. So I think there's definitely a connection between those things. All right, Sam Hide messaged me. I

On to.

Before it got more and more sour. I don't wanted to go more sour. So I kind of Matt three dollars, are you going to go on Rouse Lawn show? Rouselan said, if I'm in California, I can go on his show, So it's not like flying me out or whatever, which is fine. I'm not expecting him to, but uh, you know, I told him something like, hey, we come out to La you know, twice a year for events and whatever, and he said, well, you're welcome to come on and

Are like aliens, dude, it's aliens.

Well, I give my forty five minute, fifty minute breakdown of the absurdity of the alien nonsense surrounding this issue right here. Shout out to Damien Slash always coming up with these funny videos. Anyway, Oh and forgot. If you're in the Florida area January nineteenth, we'll be at this movie convention here Tampa Bay Screams. This is kind of like the conventions that Jamie Kennedy goes to, like these scream conventions. This one, though, is I will be speaking