Trent Horn, Gavin Ortlund, Bless God / Ruslan Refuted AGAIN AGAIN -Jay Dyer

The the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the late night stream. We're gonna have fun. There was a lot that I wanted to hit in these videos the other night that we didn't get to, So we're gonna hit them now and then we'll open it up to debates, questions, answers, challenges, argumentation. Let's go ahead and get into it because we left off with Trent Horn in this video that's

going around from the Roman Catholic trad and not so trad circles. Mass of the Ages discuss seeing the Latin Mass, the attempts to suppress them, a part of Francis and the reaction of Catholics who don't want it suppressed and who think that they can tell the Pope what to do when it comes to writes. The first couple installments had several one hundred thousand views. Le's know one hundred thousand, so Mass of the Ages guardians of tradition. Let's see where

Trent's arguments go. We had seen earlier that his argument was basically, I know this is going to be a shocker to everybody but the Keys mckey's, mckey's and mckey's Matthew sixteen is really the only passage that exists in the Bible from the minds of these people, sort of like if you're a Calvinist, Romans nine is really the only passage that matters. If you're a Roman Cathol

Matthew sixteen. There's some other verses in there. There's a couple other chapters that might matter, but let's see if we get any more argumentation beyond McKees. But that does not mean that every single thing the Church does is always going to be optimum. There are prudential decisions that are made, such as what kind of liturgy is put forward in a missile? For example, we got to take the sixty two missile. Go oh really, so liturgical rights

are not necessarily optimum. As I mentioned, these people have not read Denzinger, because had they read it, they would know that there's a document called

doctorum Fide. Doctorum Fide is the condemnation of the Jansenists. We'll go to the Catholic Encyclopedia summation of it because it's not easily accessible, but it said seventeen ninety four document the Condemns. It's in Densinger while Pious the sixth, the Sonata Pistoia, which was the Jansenist Synod, and it says that actually you should probably read the actual document, but it basically says that you have to listen to the Roman seized decisions on all sorts of matters that you can't

pick and choose. Let's see if we can actually find the text itself. Maybe here, yeah, here we go, and there's a specific statement about the rights. No, that's not it. Here we go. So the forceful condemnation of the errors of the robber Sonata Pistoia in seventeen eighty six in Italy, like the modernist Second Vatican Council of this website is arguing correctly, the Snata Pistoia introduced novelties under a veil of ambiguity and thus injecting the air

into the church. Pull Pius the six fired back with this apostolic constitution. This is Densinger fifteen oh one to fifteen ninety nine, and here are some of the highlights. There is a conspiracy against the church novelties innovation. I'm gonna skip past all this flowery language, and the essence of it gets to the point that even this document's missing the point. The point is that you can't. I wish that Denzinger was accessible. Maybe it is, let's see

fifteen oh one, let's try this. Here we go, Yes, and it was to fifteen ninety nine. I think yeah. It's it notes that it's similar to the Gallican error right where you can pick and choose the rights, or that you can pick and choose the synods, or that you can introduce a national synod that goes against the Holy See. You can't have provoking a national council. But since there's ninety different propositions. Actually as a part

of this, I don't have my Denzinger with me. How it marked, But there's a specific section where he talks about that you don't have the right to call into question the rights of the Roman See. So the Roman Sea

enacts a liturgical rite in oxhorn fee de. You can't reject that. And so that goes against the very thing that Trent said, even though Trent used the language of calling it imprudent, even that you can't call into question it is decision of the Roman See that's applicable to the church dogmatically or morally. It wouldn't make any sense to call into question the church can't give poisoned or what was Trent's word, non appropriate or non judicious? Let's say what his

word was. Again, Christ's promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church. And so we speak about things like the indefectibility of the church, like when we follow what the Church teaches, it will not lead us away from Jesus Christ, it will not lead us into error, it will not lead us into sin. But that does not mean that every single

thing the Church does is always going to be optimum. There are prudential decisions that are made, such as what kind of liturgy is put forward in a missile? For example, we got to take the two missile, go back to the council, see what happened, and reform that reform. You can say that those officially, probably the reformist, were a mistake. You know, there sure should be a lot of mistakes in history. You know, we're trying to correct the mistake. Man, you said nothing about pitch changing

the direction for nothing at all. The problem is the official Vatican two said nothing at all about changing the direction of the He stumbled there the liturgy pretty sure it did change the leturgy. So what are you talking about, like this boomer priest here a way where you've been so I'm pretty sure, Uh, he's out of touch. I don't know. But there's always this cope too of Oh well, Vdican two actually didn't change anything, right, this

is one of the copes. But I wanted to see specifically. If you remember, the Jansenists were arguing for a lot of what traditional Catholics and a lot of what Protestants also argued, and so they were calling to question the ultimately the authority and the reach of the Roman Sea. And the problem is that in Roman Catholic theology, Vatican one builds on earlier documents like the condemnation

of the Senator Pistoia. But the council, it says in the Catholic and Psychopedia the center of Pistoia, the Jansenist council was imbued with regalism and Jansenism a misregarded zeal for discipline and worship, and so they wanted to get a king to reform and change doctrine, discipline, liturgy, so it would have been more in the hands of the king rather than the Roman Catholic bishopric. Or the Roman Sea to restore to the bishops their native rights taken by the

Roman court. So now we're getting into the you know, the Roman College, the College of the cardinals, right, that's the court beyond just the office of the Pope. Eighteen Tuscan bishops convoke the synod. Of the eighteen Tuscan bishops, three canvote the synod. It goes on to say that the jansen Is propaganda was condemned undervaluing indulgences was condemned. Interestingly, it says that

Pious the sixth condemned sacred Heart. I was not aware of that. To me, that would suggest yet another contradiction if the sacred Heart becomes later on something that's almost universal in the Roman Catholic world. Of course, the sacred Heart devotion is itself a Nestorian error. It falls under the condemnation of the Council of Ephesus, because you can't divide up the adoration given to Christ has

to be a single adoration to the whole incarnate Christ. Goes on to say that the Council, with its theologians and canonists, had a notorious Gallican and Jensen's tennessee Gallicanism again, is the idea that synods. That's an older French tradition, that the council. It's basically an older Orthodox idea. The reason for Gallicanism is that the Church in the West in these early centuries still had

remnants of non papal ideas. So that's what Gallicanism is. And so the center epistoy was trying to introduce to a lot of these things that you hear trads repeat to this day. The Church can give bad liturgical rights, the romancy, the romance, he can give us abusive defective rights. Defective rights is a specific terminology that's condemned, I think. So anyway, that was

what the center of Pistoia was about. And there's a specific passage in Dingier where it says that if you say that the Romans he can give defective rights, this is a heretical thing that every pious person should close their ear to. Right, Let's see if I can find that exact statement. But we're

going to move on after this. There you go. Pious is six torm Fide, which proponents of the Novisorto sometimes appeal to, says that the Church can never promulgate a defective right Now this is an argument from Crisis magazine, But this is making the point that I'm talking about here. It is some people say that, citing octorm Feede, the church cannot probably get defective, useless, or harmful rights citing octorm feede. Yeah, that's because that's what

doctorm Feede says. Is it twenty five ninety seven? Maybe let's se if this is you can finally find it. Why would this go to twenty five ninety eight when I want twenty five ninety seven. Anyway, anyway, that's the that's the section. And then I'm sure the try the Roman. Oh well, I don't have to listen to octorm feede. Oh yeah, yeah sure. Right. So again it's infallible and it's indefectible until it's not. So that's how this whole thing works. Let's get back to Trent here and

see where he goes. Well, Promagator is a Vatican too, did say that a mass should be celebrated facing the Still he doesn't have the same weight as your captle of the document, you see, But wouldn't it be a faithful Cathletic who would say I am raised all six celebrated. Oh so the document that they all go by doesn't have the same authority as the rest of

the documents. So here we introduct this made up levels of authority the documents in which nobody can actually I mean, I'm not saying it's made up in the sense that they don't have levels, but who actually knows and can tell you what these levels are? Nobody, And that's why it's intentionally vague. And it's just people debating at infinitum about what the authoritative documents actually are facing the people. So to be a faithful Catholic, we should that'spolotry, that's

i papolotry. So doing what the pope says, which is what Vatican one says, is papolotry. Okay, I've lived through five or six popes. Again, sorry, father Boomer, that's not actually an argument. We don't care how many popes you've lived through. There has nothing to do with whether or not Vatican one says that you have to subm it with docility, even to the non infallible rulings of the Roman see, which it does teach I

can't readjust my life every time the pope comes on the sea. I have to attribute everything which any pope does according to the whole long two thousand issue this year, I can't. Oh so there's not a living magisterium by which you submit to the existing living pope, which is what Vatican One teaches.

No, No, there's an ethereal two thousand year long tradition that I will judge the pope submitting to or failing to submit to, and then I will judge him on that basis, even though Roman Catholic canalog to this day still says no one judges the first sea. Oh, you know, turn off the air conditioners, so I gotta do that. Well, one of the

new funds. This is the error that both this guy here in this example and Tim Gordon have made, which is that, oh, so if the Pope tells me that I have to sell my backyard to the Vatican so they can expand I'll have to do it because I have everything. The Pope says, No, that's a straw man. Nobody ever said that. You said that we have to do everything, the Pope said, the question is dog mus So he just made this dumb, false analogy to turning the air conditioning

on. By the way, they don't have air conditioning in Rome. So when you go to Rome, I mean half the places don't have it. Half the other places won't turn it on. So bad example too in terms of Rome, because Italy and Rome don't even have air conditioning if you go

so No, this is a ridiculous analogy. It's faith and morals. You have to submit with docility in anything that the Romans he teaches in terms of faith and morals, and you don't get the privilege, the prerogative to sit back and judge when it's what if we get two great holy folks in Rome, you know, John Paul two and Benedict and who who deeply Catholic faithful?

So wait a minute, if they were both deep holy popes, then why were they doing the novsorto like everyone else that you're saying is not the proper way to do it. So they don't even know how to do the novsorto right correctly, but you do, and the other pseudo trads know how to You see, how silly this is? What say he knows better than I. He had one shirt with him. I want to do what he

wants to do. You know, that makes a lot of sense, But the problem is they kind of confused the kind of conflated personal piety and brilliant with the office of Peter. Yeah, Vatican One makes the living person the

living embodiment of the office. So you'll notice right there, even with a novasorto priest who wants to kind of be trad he himself already has to utilize the platonic papacy, the ethereal papacy that exists in the clouds and in the realm of the forms that every trad is in union with, and not the actual guy over in Rome, who is the living vicar. Okay. The chair is not an ethereal chair, it's the person. The person is the

embodiment, not the chair. Chair is like a term. Okay, So if the pope, if he lost the chair, if it got burned up in a fire, so we don't have the sea anymore. This is silly, but it moved to France for seventy years. It's the person, it's not where he puts his butt. Okay, this is so dumb, and it's not a thing in the clouds. That is the list in your head of what you think Denzinger teaches and what you think the Catechism of teaches,

and what the way you want to read Vatican one and Vatican two. That's called Protestantism. And that's why everybody who's a set of a calm this for example, or Orthodox is correct to point out these people's contradiction in doing the very same thing that the old Catholics did, which is condemned in Etsy Maulta in cyclicals condemning old Catholics like Etsy Malta, and the condemination of the Jansoness a couple hundred years earlier in oxhorn Feede. They're condemning the very moves that

you're making, and so they have come with all these false equivalences. But we're not exactly identical to the Janseness. So it's not condemning that position. It doesn't matter. It's the same principle that you're violating at the church. And he has supreme juridical authority, and imagine, okay, authority in the church has absolute Yeah, but I'm pretty sure that the novis Orto comes under the liturgical jurisdiction that you just mentioned, because the novs Orto is a liturgy.

So the very thing that you just mentioned here, Chubby Man, is the very thing that is under the purview of supreme jurisdiction, and that's one of the things mentioned in octomp days. They all say this, they love to repeat this, but they don't actually show you the documents of Vatican one. And by the way, pasta Attornis is not the only thing in Vatican one that's part of Vatican one. And it's like, have they even read

Vatican one? Or do they just repeat the mantra, the nugget, the news line, the tweet that the Pope cannot do everything that anything that he wants to, he's not an absolutely rouller. Well have you read Vatican one because you repeat these lines and I don't know that they actually have, because I've shown I've put it up. I don't know how many times it's on

Twitter. I can share it again. And there's at least four places in Denzinger that say and condemn the idea that you're only bound to follow the Pope in his extraordinary and universal ordinary teaching. That idea is condemned four times, and it's explicitly said that you have to also follow the rest of the stuff, even if you disagree, even if you think it's fallible, you're still supposed to submit with docility, you don't have the right to publicly oppose the

romancy. And it's just so obvious to people that read those documents. And remember, this whole system is supposed to be based on what's obvious evidentially in the documents. We'll just read the documents. It'll be clear. Just read the documents. If you go back and read in the first few centuries, the privacy of the Roman sea is clearly there in all the documents and all the church fathers. That's what Leo the Thirteen says. Leo the Thirteen says,

I just have to go read the documents and it's clearly there. But you'll notice, oh, but it's not clearly there, because now we need a army of fallible Roman Catholic priests and philosophers and theologians to explain the infallible documents. See how silly this is. The dogmatic documents are supposed to settle the issue, but now we have to go to the interpreter of the interpretation,

of the interpretation of the interpretation. This is the silliness of this epistemic circle that they're always involved in. It's an epistemic bootstrapping exercise in the religious realm, and they don't even know when you critique the epistemology. They're totally lost. They don't know what you're talking about when you make this basic critique, which that they'd had an epistemology class, right, I mean, anybody

in the chat, anybody listening that's had an epistemology class. Everybody knows you're going to encounter classical foundationalism, evidentialism, and the challenge is to those positions. And these people act like nobody's ever challenged anything since the Middle Ages. It's just ridiculous. What the heck We got Himmler, We got Hemmler on here talking what the heck is going on? What am I listening to? Himmler's over here telling me about the damn Vatican One? We got some tiny

mustache man followers up in here. The Pope is not the lord of the liturgy, again, made up straw men terms. What does that even mean? Lord of the liturgy? Well, actually, Vatican won in the four places I mentioned in Denziger said that he has absolute authority over the rights. He does have authority over the rights, and hence why you can't say that

the Roman sea can promulgate defective rights. So this is false. But you'll notice that their rhetoric always paints the other position in this absurd extreme position that nobody's saying. Right, Oh, you think the Pope can told me to turn off my air conditioner because he's absolutely afforded and which has nothing to do with what's under the purview of dogma, faith and morals. Okay, yeah, wow? Is that he can get rid of this guy is all like

this guy. I don't even know who this guy is, but his fat fingers and his giant gut and his weird beard. Like I could just tell, like this guy and I we don't get along. I don't know this guy, but I can tell this guy hates me, Like I already know that just just from the look of this dude. And the only thing missing is that he has hair. Because everybody hates me on the internet, save beautiful Tristana is bald. It's like all these bald dudes have joined in a

coalition army to destroy and come after me. It's always the bald dudes. I think they're just jealous of my beautiful golden locks, which are kind of red to so they're kind of copper gold locks. So we got a lot of hair envy going wild on the internet. It's okay, but I'd do this, dude, I can just like I mean, he's got some damn viing a sausage Prince Charles fingers going on here, essential elements. And he looks mad. He just looks like a fat matted like he's ready to he's

ready to take you out back in brawl. But he's too passive aggressive I actually fight you, And so he'll just fume and like get really red in the face for the mess. He can't you say, we're going to concentrate instead of wheat. Oh okay, so the Pope can't do anything that he wants. Nobody said or ever thought or argued that the pope can do anything

that he wants. But by the way, there have been debates that Vatican won, and even before and after actually raising these types of questions anyway, because remember it's not exactly clear what this means, because the Roman gallic system doesn't actually give you the list. There's no infallible list of the dogma. Do you realize that, right, it's not just in Denzinger, Well,

it's not just in Denzinger. Is it the Densinger plus the Bible? No, no, no, You see that the papal and cyclicals, which are a giant collection of books as well, are also full of potentially infallible things. Oh oh, well, that's a lot more I gotta read, isn't it. Oh but don't forget the ecumenical councils and their dogmas as well. Oh so that's a whole other sack of books. Oh so where's the list,

Well, there's not one. There's general criteria. Good luck ferreting out the infallible and the non infallible in the tens of thousands of pages literally that you now must read. And by the way, canon law might also fall in terms under some of these rulings, because perhaps there's canons that relate to the Roman sea. Could those canons be reformable? Perhaps, but perhaps not. You see, the point is that there's no clear adjudicating between these things.

By saying, but there are clear criteria, okay, well, then let's just interject the criteria problem in epistemology of David Chisholm. Okay, so if there's three or four criteria, what's the criteria prior to that? That tells me the non infallible from the infallible. So there's a more fundamental criteria. So how do I know I'm putting which into which would basket? Oh, well, you just go get your canon law degree and you study really hard and you have to go learn Latin. Okay. So now it's not

the dogmatic office of the papacy that settles the issues. Now, it's getting all the degrees to actually know. And even getting all the degrees doesn't ever get you to the status of infallibility, right, So that doesn't actually give me anywhere. By the way, we're not going to just dissect this video, which many people requested. We're also going to dissect uh Tim's analysis of the papacy. And we're gonna get to this other Rouslom video again, which

is another video of why he's not gonna be orthodox. So that will come up here in a second, and then we'll open it up to Q and A and challenges and so forth. All right, come on, bro, this looks like evil Doug Wilson. Like, well, Doug Wilson's already evil Doug Wilson, but this is evil evil Doug Wilson because they come from the death of the down really more or less untouchable. You don't mess with that.

So you'll notice he's listing things, but that's assuming that he's using the criteria right to put what into what ben or what basket, And that's never gonna be solved. It's an it's an insolvable, unsolvable box. Due to the nature of the system. The epistemology of Rome can never actually give you this solution, you see. So the same as some very famous assume them. When he's talking about the universe, where he asks where is that Jesus

lifted his eyes up to heaven. Where is that in the scripture? It's not there. He said that there are many things that the Lord apostibles that are not written in scripture. Nevertheless, sacred tradition, and we are not free to get rid of them. We have to preserve them. In other words, pops don't have absolute authority. That supreme authority, and that's supreme authority, right, But that doesn't tell us anything about what to reform and

what to not reform. So you gave an example from a Quinas talking about apostolic tradition. Yeah, wow, good one. Nobody disagrees with absolute tradition except a Protestant maybe, but how does that tell us whether or not the post Vatican two papers he has the authority to enforce the Novasordo, which they clearly do because there are four places where Vatican two is stated to be authoritative and binding, and that includes the right that comes out of Vatican two.

And actually Vatican two, if you don't know, actually reformed all the rights. So the right of ordination is reformed, the right of marriage I think is reformed as well, and the ordination of or the novsorto, the divine liturgy, the Mass, the Roman right is also reformed. So all of the rights got reformed. If you don't know this, got confession as well, got reformed. Tradition including tradition, Mass is completely well, I don't know. Let's ask a cardinal or is he a bishop. I think he's

a cardinal. I mean and authority, that supreme authority, and that supreme authority is subbortining to the word of God tradition, including liturgical tradition. Yeah, but the question is not whether the pope is equal to or right below quote the word of God in the Roman system. That's not even the question.

The question is the interpretation of the Word of God. And every one of these people, when they argue with the Protestant, makes the very point I'm making, don't they What are they going to say to a Protestant You don't have the ability to decide between conflicting interpretations. Is the period of Protestant

sex. There's thirty thousand Protestant sex. You did the Holy Father, because the Holy Father, I'll be able to tell you the difference between the true of the false sex, and then you will have certitude in your epistific questioning. Oh really, But now when we get to the drama within the world of the Roman system and we have the exact same problem, the interpreter's dilemma, they're just ignoring the very question that's being asked, and they're just restating,

well, the Pope can't contradict tradition. He's bound by tradition. Okay, But that doesn't tell us whether this is in fact a true tradition or a false tradition. Because these people are all trying to argue that Francis can't ban the Latin Mass. The Holy See in their system has supreme authority over the rights. He can determine the right and Vatican One in the four places

I mentioned very clear about that. So they're all wrong, and they're denying the very arguments and the principle of the arguments that they make against every Protestant. Do we all see this? Is this not obvious? And I know this because I've made these arguments. I went through this whole thing for many years. And who is this person? By the way, Well, I don't know. The ships don't even know if the Pope can forbid the Latin Mass. I think he can't do that. I mean, I think I

think he has his power to do that. Oh, I don't know, but he can do that. So even the Roman Catholic bishops are like, so this Vatican One thing when it comes to supreme authority, like, can he banned the Mass? Huh? I don't know. I guess he can't. I love how candidn't just kind? I don't know. I guess all over the world because unnecessary harm. Back in the Woman, it says some clearish about people authority. Wait a minute, Tim, it says some clearish

things. Now. I don't know when Tim filmed this, probably before we had our interactions where I sent him the four places in Denzenger where it outlines exactly what you have to submit to, which is not just the infallible teachings. That's condemned. It's condemned. If you say I only have to submit to the infallible teachings, you understand that's condemned. Four places in Denzinger condemn that. But I don't know what it needs to be supreme and yet not

limit it until you've given hypos. So wait a minute, So the dogmas are only relevant to us as individual believers when we can list a bunch of hypotheticals. I thought the point of dogma was to settle issues. Again, what does every one of these people argue to a Protestant. We have the ability to settle the issues. You Protestants don't have that. You're oldest fighting

with each other in thirty thousand nominations. We can settle the issues. And then here we are when we're asking about key issues and the response is I don't know what supreme is without a bunch of hypotheticals. Okay, so hypothetically, can the can the pope ban the Latin Mass? How's that one? Let's try that one on for size isn't that what this whole documentary is about. Every practicing Catholic must attend at least two NBA games. Because here we

go so straw man false equivalence. Nobody is arguing or thinking that the definition of Vatican One means that Francis can come demand that you give your land to the Vatican or demand that you be conscripted into fighting for the papal army. Oh but wait a minute, the popes in the past have actually done that. Interesting, so we maybe he actually can demand that you go to an NBA game. I hope rather that Francis demands that you go to w NBA

games. That would be even more based and trad on the part of Francis as an excellent troller, because I think France is actually trolling the Roman Catholics all the time. So I disagree with tim and in fact, I hope Francis does mandate some sort of indulgence plenary at full plenary indulgence for attending two w NBA games, particularly if they have migrants on the team. I'm sure Francis will be all for that. Is it? Folks need to get hit

to the idea that has not been laid down. Yet Wait a minute, whoa Tim? Wait? First of all, folks need to get hip to the idea. Did Tim stepping to be in a boomer for like thirty seconds? Folks need to get hip to the idea? Okay, John Denver, I mean, what is this a total boomer boomer Tim those I'm joking. I liked him a lot, but totally disagree with Tim here on this point. And by the way, I'm pretty sure Vatican One's purpose was papal doga.

I mean, what do you mean we don't know what people's supremacy is that there was a whole council, two councils back about this, and you get you young whipper snappers need to get hip to the idea of the cool kids learning about hepcat and Vatican One. I mean, it's like what that those who say that there's a clear bright line that keeps that restrats the pope from altering discipline. Okay, well, he's still Scott Staff, He's still

creed dude. That's all I'm gonna say. Can you take me higher to operation where the holy seas and the clouds and the ethereal platonic holy see clouds right the Platonic Holy see that is not the one over in Rome giving us the new mask or making the New Mass the only Roan right. I wish they're right, yeah, but Tim that is what he can do, and Vatican one has that principle. There doesn't mention the rights. But the principal

Vatican One is that he had supreme authority over the rights. And that's also in octorm fe day. So I don't then and now I say, I hope I'm wrong on this, but I'm seventy five percent sure. There's no clear right line. That don't Well. I thought the point of the dogmas and the councils was to give a certitude on the key questions, and Vatican One was about the key question of the Roman Sea and the papacy. But

it only grants seventy five percent surety on Thames part. I mean, can you take me high power two e percent domatic surety the traditional from a meeting yesterday with author rofectively doing away with the portion of the local bishop in all aspects of the old Lafe right well, in canon law and Rome or the pulp issues a decree or castole constitution, the local bishop has the power where the canon as to dispense from provisions according to the pastoral need in his diocese.

Now that's all been changed. So this rescript is really new law, and it goes in the direction of deprived bishops of the rights they enjoy the canon law to make pastoral decisions based on what they see. Now it's fascinating because traditional is Aesodia position on the basis of a survey in which we were told that there's a lot of dissatisfaction among the world's bishops about the traditional la

mess. But I highly doubt that the way that was interpreted there gives the impression that every bishop can dispense with a papal what recommendation if he feels is not spiritually good. Maybe, but not in faith and morals. The fact that bishops to continue in their not something dogmatic or universal teaching of faith and morals. But you see the ambiguity of all of this, which is ironic because this whole system is premised on there not being ambiguity, and that everything

is being specifically scholastically defined so that you know with certitude. And yet here we are, with all of this ambiguity in the opposite so I think this is a Roman to further marginalize, restrict, and banish Latin Mass people. Catholics will very being so oh, thus the dilemma, and thus the point we often make, which is that Francis does not care about trads and mocks them and thinks that they're idiots. And our whole system is based around you

being obedient to your own worst enemy. So there's the irony of this whole thing. Very distressing. It is distressing because the whole system is distressing. You will be in distress in that system. Okay, I don't need to hear from boomers that want the Latin mass. I know, I know boomers want the Latin masks some of them. Yeah, okay, so enough of this. Have you got Scott Scott Han coming on here? This deal looks like a serial killer even got serial killer glasses. This is uh, this

is father Jeffrey Dahmer right here. What do we need? What is the problem? And we tailor he's assistance a secondstances so he's not a bague expectations and come down and he wouldn't have me if we see reality. Okay, so here we go, Scott hand the premiere convert Bible scholar of Rome. Right, what's Scott han gonna? What's going to be his verdict here? And why why are we getting a giant Han Scott Hank cross shot here?

Do I need to see Scott Han's junk? I mean, could we not turn the camera at a different angle to get his balls out of our face? Our father in heaven. If he's in heaven, then we're not home no matter where we head after mass done. Oh wow, that was really profound. We're in exile, but here we have no So that's the reality then in enjuring a life of hardship, enduring the life of humiliation, enjuring

a long protracted viadela rossa. Yeah. So in other words, uh, suffer, suffer, suffer, deal with all of the abuse of your hierarchs, because you're ultimately the bad person. Okay, so whatever what is that? What does that have to do with the Latin mass? I'm confused? And the endurance of who is the only rational response sufferings? You can endure? That all separates you from Christ naked pair of famine, the sword, no on the country, they from the wires in the chat you left my

rosary, which I don't ever never people just making up stuff. You left orthodoxy and quit debating. No, I said, I was taking a break from debating, especially Muslims U and I would be debating less because I've been debating for like six years. So it just made up nonsense. Do a da you know, or daily masks or Sunday data or something else? And what is this? Truly and fully inconsistently parents, So none of that I

had anything to do with the question of this documentary. I don't just be really pious, okay, to find the mass which is most consistent with the Church's living tradition. Yeah, but I thought that I can trust the Roman Sea to give me a mass and rights that aren't defective. I mean, that's the point of octorm p Day. So why would I have to scour the world to find Latin mass outlets? And by the way, the world or the people in the Latin Mass, if you don't know, are a

bunch of lunatics. So I've spent many years in that world and it's all a bunch of lune So why do I have to It's like this, it's all just madness. It's like you must suffer immense abuse and ridiculousness and nonsense, and you must submit to people in Rome that absolutely hate you and mock you and despise you, who are the champions of the revolution. But they're also the Holy Father. And they're also not connected to giant uh you know,

Gladio crime syndicates and giant Vatican bank scandals. None of that's actually true, even though it is. But just suffer because that's how it works, bro. And you don't have to do explain the chiu less, not really like we would do to there or that. You know, you don't want the prents ad to be correct the Priest's wait a minute, so kids shouldn't

have to correct the priest, but you're correcting your Holy Father. And now here we go with Tim Flanders, the most humble man on the Internet, who chided all of us as Orthodox because we're not as humble as him for submitting to humbly the Pope certainty that I can give my children a stable liturger information through all of their sacraments of initiation. Yeah, but that's the point

of the papacy is that it gives you that are not defective. So why are you now having to question the majority of the world's liturgical celebration is perhaps potentially defective. So you understand the absurdity of this whole thing. The papacy was going to be the guardian, the preserver, and the guide of tradition, and now all these people are having to scour the world and find outlets

that are not the normal Novas sort of liturgy. So the very thing that they say we should become Roman Catholics over as orthodox is the very thing that failed them. And then they chied us for being prideful into matermonitey. So notice he's been in the Roman Catholic world for what three or four years now, and he's already smarter than the pope. But it was all about humility.

But now he knows the rights better than the poop. But it's all about humility, because that would be the final sort of initiation into adult It would be this pinet facrament. And I want them to have literard or stadivity. I want them to have absolute rock certainty soud the ground. Ah see, this is the thing. I want, absolute rock certainty. And that's what he thought he would get with Francis and the papacy. But did you get that, Tim now that you're what two three four years into Rome,

did you? I thought you were going to get this with the papacy, and now you're a trad cat and now you're having to save the liturgy from the Roman sea, banning the true liturgy, this Emao musicucing them in apopties. Okay, you and elite right or again okay, So it ends with

just suffer and bear it, barrier cross uh. And one day the future trad Pope, even though Francis has stacked the deck with absolute loans, one day the Holy Fatima Mother will descend and announce and will anoint the trade pope for us, and then we will get our Latin Mass back because they actually

worshiped the rights. So it's just also ridiculous. I mean, I remember one of the trads a long time ago saying that if you, if you pay attention, you'll notice that for most of the trad world, they actually

worship the Mass like they think that they like. They don't care if the pope does like every action of apostasy, if he states every heresy, if he only promoted the Latin Mass, they would just they would they would be cool, which is just bizarre because it's like, I mean, the liturgy of the worship is a central part of the faith, but it's not the faith any more than any one element is the whole thing or the totality. It's very bizarre and a weird sort of just I guess it's a kind of

an idolatry. I guess, Like I don't know, but I guess the nature of that system works that way, right, because you can be an actual Satanist, you can be consecrated a priest that day forever the rest of your life. As a Satanist, you're still a priest consecrating the Eucharist to blasting. I mean, that's their system. All right. Let's move on to Ruslan. And this was actually, I think the video that I wanted to do yesterday or a couple of days ago, and I picked the wrong

video, But this is the one I was looking for. So we're gonna shift over to the prop bros the Protestants here, and I want to hear his reasons why he's not going to be Orthodox or quote Catholic. So let's hear what Ruslan has for us that we've seen. The last two videos have been full of gems, really sophisticated, high tier argumentation from him and Gavin or Landia. But something tells me it's not going to be as high tier as the others were. I'm just joking. The others weren't high tier.

Hey, I am not Orthodox Catholic Oriental Orthodox, a part of the Armenian Apostolic Church that I grew up in. I attended the World Symbolic World Summit with put on by my buddy Johnathan Pego. By the way, people were telling me that he also was a big promoter of the stabby and BLM. I don't know if that's true, but that would not surprise me. A lot of these more popular YouTube christiani Ish sphere people they push all this stuff.

You'll notice they always have the same agendas. They'll push like women, pastors, stabbys, BLM. I mean, just total nonsense stuff, which I'm more and more starting to think that a lot of these YouTube influencers, the destiny types. I think the system is promoting these people on purpose. What do you guys think? I just can't fathom. I mean, there's a lot of dumb people, a lot of people with absolutely no discernment who

can't tell anything at all. And perhaps that explains the popularity of Valsh and Destiny and sneak Oh. I don't know. I can't figure it out. People are just this this dumb. Maybe that's a big part of it. But is it also that there's promotion of these idiots. Neil and had a great time hanging out with my Orthodox friends. I'm actually going to be an

at an event with some Catholic friends pretty soon here. And sometimes I like have these beautiful relationships come seas and people and ask everyd be like, oh, he's about to he's about to convert, He's going to become He's gonnacome Orthodox, He's gonna become Catholic. They think I'm Jordan Peterson out here. Everybody's tart to claim Jordan Peterson for their own. I don't. I I am not playing. I mean, can we guess, can we just finally

get past this point of like Jordan Peterson's pseudo Orthodoxy. I mean, like at a certain point it's like, Okay, look he's not Orthodox. Uh, and yeah, I hope that he does convert, But to keep sort of tending and acting like he's kind of sort of a little Orthodox, I

mean, all kinds of people go to Mount Athos. Okay, so what And it's also you know, it's another thing that's weird about the Orthodox world is that, you know, we've been here for years helping thousands of people to convert, and you know, you'll get people who will latch onto Jordan Peterson who isn't Orthodox, and they will give him more time and attention,

more positive promotion, thumbs up, talk to them all day long. But then we are treated like we are second class citizens, treated like we're just these just the worst people on the planet. And for what. Oh he's controversial. He talks about, quote conspiracy. So the typical thing is I do debates and I quote talk about conspiracy. Now, what specifically are the

things I talk about that are false? Oh it's not even that, It's just you're mean and you talk about real things even though we don't want to admit that they're real. Okay, So, but didn't the Daily Wire people all push stabbys. Didn't Jordan Peterson push stabby's? And what does he push? Classical liberalism? I've critiqued him for seven years for pushing classical liberalism. But you see, that's what you can push and talk about and those people

don't actually want any pushback on those issues. And so because I've always in a friendly way critiqued and given pushback, and their response was to ignore on the download, say bad things about me, say I talk about how evil I am, how bad I am, all this stuff, all this nonsense, And I mean, at a certain point, it's just like, you know, I'm tired of being nice to all these people when they portray themselves publicly as nice and in the background, these people are a lot of snakes

about rouse Line and I don't know Jordan Peterson, but I'm just talking about a lot of people in these circles. This is how they operate, and they portray themselves as these really pious people. There's really nice people, but eventually it comes out that they're not that way, as we saw with Lofton. Right, we said this about Lofton years ago, people got so mad at me for so long. Now pretty much a large portion of the online

sperience figured out, hey, maybe actually Jay was right. Lofton's not actually as great as he said. And look, I still have all the same critiques that I have with Jordan Peterson. So I'm glad that he went to

Mount Athos or whatever. But Jordan Peterson is an Orthodox, and you know, you've got a lot of people in the Orthodox world who act like he is, and they'll promote the living daylights out of what he talks about, and then they turn around and they absolutely hate undermine everything that I do. So this is what you deal with, I guess in media. I'm used to it, but that's what really goes on. So you're if you're wondering, like, well, how come you don't do talk to these people?

Those people don't want to talk to me. But for what all I've done is critique classical liberalism to do either anything above. And that's because I know of church history. I've studied church history for a while. I love church history. This video that we're going to look at together. In my opinion, the other thing too, is that you know, from where I come from, it's always been the norm. It's it's the masculine thing to do,

to hash out your issues, to have a debate. But the sad part of the Orthodox world is that many of those people they're not even man enough to do that. They will act like women, they will act effeminine, they'll be passive, aggressive. They'll talk about you behind your back all day long, they'll make snide videos about you or whatever, but they won't actually engage you because they're actually just whissies. So that's a lot of what we deal with too, And I just don't get it, Like I don't

I'm used to. You know, if guys disagree, like then you have it, you hash it out, you have a debate, and a debate is like it's like the guy way of guys settling fights on the playground. If you have a fight with your best friend on the playground, you fight it out and then your friends again. And to me, that's like the norm. But what you learn is that in media it doesn't work that way. People in media operate like totally passive aggressive creeps, and it's all about

the presentation and the optics. It's all about, well, I'm just gonna present everyone that I'm a really pious man, and I hope that you all will worship along with me. I hope that you will publicly pray and present your prayers on Twitter. And to me, this is just like super transparent

fake. It's just all it's performative. It's not it's not authentic. So anyway summarizes the exact reasons why I am not Oriental Orthodox, just it's you get all you get tired of playing very you know, nice with people who are not actually nice, and a lot of you fall for these people. It's just weird, like a lot of you audience, people like you fall for these people thinking that everything's as it appears right, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox,

Sylian Church of the East, any of the other streams. Why I'm Protestant, Why I'm happy to be a Protestant, Why I will remain a Protestant. So sorry to bursting of your guys as bubbles, but I think these are important things that most people don't know. They don't know about these things regarding to Protestantism, and they have strong MANSI protestantsms, and they don't know of the historical positions outside of Protestants. So let's get into this.

This is from one of my but this is one of my favorite creators. We're working on having him on the channel. This is on the channel Truth Units. This is Gavin. I talked to him frequently. We actually had a whole offline conversation between me Hi and you and Jonathan Pagot He responded to my conversation from John's The Truth Unite subscribe to. So it's interesting, like, how come everybody's only interacting with people who are not into apologetics? Right,

I'm not criticizing Pajoe. I don't have any disagreement with his approach. He takes some more of an aesthetic approach. But why why wouldn't Ruslain want to interact with I mean, Gavin Ortland does apologetics and by the way, doesn't Gavin Ortland support didn't he support stabbys and open borders? I saw some

tweet for him saying that we should have totally open borders. Like what, So everybody in this whole sphere is just like out to lunch to Gavin awesome, awesome, awesome, awesome channel, And so this is not as a means to dunk on or attack folks. So does this guy only repeat what Gavin Ortland does? I don't get it, Like there's no other thing he's got other than to just cite Gavin Ortland stuff. Anyway, So let's get into come on, let's get into it. That's a reformation in the Western

Church. So wait a minute. This video begins at fifteen hundred, really or championship. Okayism is a branch of Christianity. The traces of Georgie is back at the sixteenth century Reformation. Okay, so I mean right there, within like five seconds of the actual video. Protestantism is a branch of Christianity trac againstself back to fifteen seventeen. So what was the Christianity prior to fifteen seventeen. Well, it was corrupt, defective, not authentic, right,

so we had to discover the Gospel in fifteen hundred. I mean, this is silly. The Western Church. There are different Protestant traditions, so they share foundational commitments like the Solas, two sacraments, the priesthood of all believers. No, wait a minute, this is not actually true. There are

Protestant churches that do not agree with these things. For example, there are High Church Anglicans considered Protestants, which do not agree with this these three bubbles here, Okay, there are High Church Lutherans that don't just believe in priesthood of all believers, but also believe in the sacrament of confession. Did you know that there are Lutherans they believe in that, And there are even some

Lutherans that the Roman Church thinks might have maintained their apostolic succession. It's like a small branch of Lutherans in like Norwegian Lutherans or something. I mean. But the point is that every time the Protestants try to make this case for an LCD Protestantism lowest case denominator Protestant, this doesn't actually exist. And by

the way, it's deceptive. It's a kind of a word concept fallacy to say that there is a Roman that there's a Protestant commonality on the five solos, because if you get to a dispute between an Armenian and a Calvinist, they're not going to believe in the same thing on sola fide. In fact, there's some Protestants that will interpret sola fide to mean that to be saved you actually have to believe the doctrine of solo fide, you see, whereas

many Protestants, these acumenist minded Protestants here, they don't believe that. So you see how deceptive this is to pretend like, well, all Protestants quote unquote agree on these things. That does That's not the case, and in fact, they always blow over past the fact that the first and second generations of Protestants killed each other over these bubbles. Luther had Anabaptist killed, Luther

hated Zwingley, Calvin had Cervidas killed. And by the way, did you notice that this bizarre bubble, these three bizarre bubbles here, it doesn't have trinity and Christology because, as we pointed out in the other Ruslam video, Protestants can't tell you if you can be a pollinarian or not, because most Protestants want to believe that William Lane Craig is a great defender of the Christian faith. But William Lane Craig is openly a pollinarian, which is condemned in

the ecumenical councils. So to be a Christian in the traditional historic sense means the concilier definitions, the Niceno Constantapolitan creed. So you notice that there's this appearance of a monality amongst Protestants, which is a historical which is not actually the case, but based on a vague sense of things like the Solas and many of the doctors. My punishment is to see this ad forever three reasons, about five minutes for whit it makes sense to be a Protestant Christian number

one Protestant is more Catholic. The word Catholic just to the entirety of the church, the major enough. Uh not actually in the patristic definition that that's more of a Latin Roman Catholic idea, that Catholic or Catholicity means totality in

the sense of like numbers. Okay, And so this is a really stupid argument that, well, if I'm an Acumenoust Protestant, then I actually believe that it's the biggest number because I include Protestants, Orthodox and uh Roman Catholics as part of the Catholic Church. Okay, But when the Creed says one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, that's not what Galvin Ortland means. Okay.

The Cappadocians compose the creed, they mean the visible Orthodox Catholic Church. That's the Cappadocian Creed at constantin Apologic night Suno Constantpolitan Creed at constant at number one at three eighty one. That's where the creed says one Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. And the sense that they mean is those who have Apostolic succession it was

presided over by Saint Melidios of Antioch. That's the Catholic Church and not just having a succession but also the correct faith, because some groups had the succession and lost the faith. So this is a deceptive move to say and to resent it as I actually have a more Catholic position. Well, this doesn't even work as a good argument that this assumes that you're understanding the word right.

It's like what Mormons do. Mormons say I believe in Jesus and the Father, that's in the Holy Spirit, and they mean totally different things. So you notice heresies, As I think Saint Basil said, they're almost always trading on some word, concept, fallacy, or some ambiguity. And every heretic will say he believes the terms of the Orthodox, he just redefines them to suit him. And by the way, Catholic does not mean just universal

in the patristic sense, it means the fullness of truth. In fact, Saint Maximus makes this point when he says, even if the number of true Catholics is reduced to a handful, I will still be amongst those. So you see in Maximus's definition it refers to the fullness of truth, and not so much to the fullness in terms of numbers, because in the Aryan Crisis, most of the bishops were semi arian and only at one point a handful

Athanacious amongst them maintained the Catholic faith. So Catholicity cannot be equated to or reduced to numbers. Many times in church history it is true that Catholicity can refer to numbers, it can't be exclusively referring to numbers because there been times when the Orthodox were very small in number. So this again is completely deceptive use of the term Catholic. It's not the meaning of the word in the Creed. Did you guys know that the word Catholic means the entirety of the

church. Catholic means universal church, the global church. We don't use that terminology today because Catholic today, in our context we think of Roman Catholic Church. Eastern Orthodox Church calls himself as a Catholic Church and so Catholic and he's the entirety of the church. And punchline, Protestantism is actually more Catholic than the Roman Catholic Church. Total nonsense, total non sequitor, same move, every heretical version of this does is to redefine the words to fit the system

that you want it to be. In the major non profits. It's just like when a Protestant goes into the church Fathers and they see a church father

mentioned that we're saved by grace. Boom, there you go. Solo fide, nothing to do with the juridical penal substitutionary view of solofide and Jesus being the damned substitute and I get his imputed righteousness, nothing to do with that, but they read it into it. You see, Ristians like Roman Colism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, the Assyrian Church of the East all played to be the one true church throughout the media to pretty much all the Roman

Catholics saint the non Catholics are damned. Pretty much all the Eastern Orthodox think that the non Orthodox are damned. Here's the issue. Now, this is an argument that we hear all the time, and it's a fallacy. I mean, I don't know. Again, I don't understand why people can see that this is a fallacy. Well, everybody disagrees the fact that one group condemns another group and another group condemns those two groups. Has absolutely nothing to

do with which one's true false. Can people not figure this out? So this whole Gavin video obscures the issue and is again here relying on a fallacy. I mean, it would be like saying a lot of people disagree on a topic, therefore no one can know what's true on the topic, so let's just say it's all true. Do you see how silly this move is. So because there's rival claims, therefore all claims must be true, and that's the Protestant position. But by the way, that's not the historic Protestant

position. There's not one historic Protestant position. And the Protestant Reformers were not consistent amongst themselves because sometimes, for example, Luther speaks as if there were great saints in the Roman Church, and other times he gets really vitriolic and speaks as if they're all damned heretics. And the Puritans did not think that Roman Catholics could be saved to the Puritans. If you read in the Puritan

writings, they believe that Rome teaches a false gospel. So this idea that there's this historic Protestant position of a super acumenist branch theory is not true. Branch theory is an Anglican theory which becomes the basis for ecumenism, and the Orthodox view is not branch theory. There is no branch theory in the Church Fathers. Then you get Anglicans posing branch theory. It's a Protestant idea. It's a Protestant view of the church, and you can tell it's ecumenus.

That's what Ruslan and Gavin or Land are saying, is well, our position's better because I'll just say we're all Christian. Well, that just assumes that all of these competing sects are actually a Christian. And you've noticed that the whole video is premised on there not being a clear definition of what a Christian is and isn't. It doesn't even include a reference to the Nicene Creed. Every Christian in the first thousand years would know that Christianity is first and foremost

delineated by the Creed. Gavin didn't even mention it. He started his ridiculous video with fifteen seventeen. We can pull up quotes from creeds of all the other churches. The issue now is that people have softened on this by Eastern

Orthodox Frindstick. I'm saying when count the friendstic, I'm saying the the wrong Well, I mean, if your Eastworthodox friends are saying that you're saved, then that conflicts with the same east Worthodox people who often say that we can know where the church is, but we don't know where the church isn't. So if we don't know where the church isn't, then we're not in a position to say, russelin, you're saved. Do you see how that's a

contradiction. If I don't know where the church isn't, I can't then make the proposition that but you are the church outside the church. It doesn't follow they soften on it is the church has soften on us, But historically their doctrine has been that the other streams of the church are damned right. If you believe and persist in the errors and the heresies, you're outside the church.

That is a heretic and we have not softened on that. So and maybe that's why we're not popular, because we don't make up nonsense and pretend like all the churches are part of the church, because that's branch theory and that's not orthodox. You're not truly said unless you'd not truly say it unless you're Katetholic. That has shifted recently, that a lot recently, but not to anybody I know. Let's let let's let up Gavin kirk it. So

he just admitted that ecumenism is a Protestant perspective and position exactly. But we're not a cumenist and ecumenism is a heresy to the highest levels of magisterial teaching. By contrast, Protestantism doesn't restrict the church to one institution. In the nineteenth century, the historian Philip Schaff argued for a vision of Protestantism as an organic renewal effort within the wintry church. Okay, so branch theory, right,

because Philip Shaff is talking about branch theory. So the argument here is that why would I convert to Orthodox or Catholic when the Ruman Catholics and the Orthodox Ecumenist friends that I have tell me that I'm saved anyway. That's a great point, but maybe they're not telling you the truth. Because if they're telling you the truth and they're telling you that there's one arc, there's one body, it's not my place to individually judge you, but it is my

place to tell you to join the church. And the councils don't treat all of the groups as if we're all on a level playing field. I mean, have people not noticed that the ecumenical councils don't operate the way that branch theory operates. If they did, why is branch theory a late theory? Where's branch theory? Prior to the Anglican proponents of branch theory principle of them?

I mean one Holy Catholic Capitsolic Church in the Cappadocian definition, except that at constantin noble one is not branch theory, and it's dishonest for people to pretend it is. And Rouselan even recognized that, prior to the modern ecumenist movement, the different bodies of the churches continued to say that the other groups are heterodox. And if you're going to read the Triumph of Orthodoxy, which condemns iconoclasm, you still are affirming that position. Iconoclasm is heterodox. Most

Protestants are iconoclasts, so Protestantism is heterodox. And Rouslan needs to hear that. Not because I hate Rouslan, I joke around, but I'm not joking around in a real spirit of meanness. I'm just joking around about the defects in his videos. The meanest thing I said was like that he doesn't know what he's talking about, which is a fact, and that they eat cabbage stew from wherever he's from. That was a joke. Okay, Oh feelings are Oh you hurt? They're so mean, I'm so hateful. No,

it's just a dumb joke, dude. We joke around all the time movement of progress in the history of the Church, and spoke of Itstholic Union at the past, insisting that the Protestant traditions have fundamental points of continuity with traditions outside Constant. People are often surprised to discover at this how the Reformers thought. Luther said in the Papacy there is trigger Christianity, even the right kind of Christianity, and in many great Yeah, that was the quote I was

referring to, But he also says things contradictory to that later on. I've read five of Luther's books and commentaries, and Luther is a contradictory figure. And if you don't know that, it's because you haven't read enough Martin Luther. So, for example, at times he says that there's grace in Moses, grace in the in the writings of Moses, and other times Moses says Luther says, I want to punch Moses' teeth out because he doesn't teach gospel,

he teaches law. So Luther is a contradictory, ridiculous figure, voted saints. The Christian is now under the papacy, is truly the body of Christ and a member of it. That's crazy. Luther, who led the Protestant Reformation, is saying, I still think that God is in the kind of church. WHOA, that's crazy? This is uh yeah. But Luther

says other things at other times. So all this stuff is solow tier, like all the quote mining stuff that Ortland and russeln are relying on here, just like one sentence quotes from thousands of pages of these people who, by the way, again contradict themselves over many decades of writing. Another quote from John Calvin. But why, by the way, why are we supposed to care about Luther or Calvin? Maybe the Puritans are right, because the Puritans

are all explicitly, they're very explicit that Roman Catholics are not saved. So but maybe the Puritans are the real Protestantism, you say, You see how silly this is? Why am I supposed to follow Lutheran Calvin and not John, not John Knox or a John Owen, the famous Puritan deny the papist the title of the church. We do not, for this reason impunch the existence of churches among them. So both John Calvin and Martin Luther said that

the Catholic Church the Roman Catholic Church. Soon. Yeah, but why would I not accept a Puritan argument that Luther and Calvin were too close to Roman apostasy and had not purged themselves properly. They were not pure like Puritans were pure. You see. Their logic is that, hey, Luther and Calvin did some good things, they didn't go far enough an Anabaptist reason. Likewise, Puritans Calvin Luther might have done some good things, they didn't go far

enough. So Anabaptism is the real true Christian faith. You see how silly this is? Has churches, godly churches within and even though we deny them in a superiority as the moment only chur Church's interesting, isn't it when we categorically denied to the papists the title of the church. We do not for this reason, imped in the existence of the churches among of explicity. For example, Calvin said, they make the Greek schismatics with what right? Because

of their throwing from the Apostolic seed, they lost their privilege? Why would not they fall away from Christ? Deserve to lose it much more? Now wait a minute, so he's using Calvin there critiquing the Roman Church from saying that the Orthodox are schismatics, and then Calvin is saying that Rome fell away from Christ. Well, if Rome fell away from Christ, then how are

there still true churches amongst Rome? For those statements with the pre modern ways of thinking in the non Protestant traditions, and you get two fundamentally different ways of construing Catholicity. Yeah, so let's just point this out. Where in the New Testament and where in the first thousand years with Christianity is there the branch theory? Because this whole video from Galvin is relying on the assumption of branch theory. And by the way, just because Lutheran Calvin at one point

said this, why should we follow the Lutheran Calvin. Maybe the Puritans were right and Lutheran Calvin didn't reform enough. If you were opposed to shrinking the Church down to one institution, you should probably This isn't just in Catholics not thinking Orthodox culture saying, and in not boiling the Church down to an institution. The church then loses its normative authority, doesn't it, Because now there's no body that actually is authoritative. It's all the bodies, all the sects

that hold to quote, the basics. And what were Gavin's basics three bubbles of Protestant doctrines? What? Well, if Protestantism's basics are three bubbles of Protestant doctrine, then where was Christianity prior to Protestantism. Well, it kind of existed amongst Rome and the Orthodox, okay, But now it's all the groups. So it's not actually the body of the god Man. Do you understand that in Christology this would be heterodox? How many bodies does Christ have?

One? Is Christ's body visible or invisible? Oh? It's visible because it's an actual human body. So unless you want to undo the incarnation Christ's body, the Church is just as one and just as visible as his physical body to posit an invisible church, which is the entire basis of this video, and Protestant ecclesiology is to posit a Nestorian ecclesiology, that is, to divorce Christ from his actual historical manifestation. Oh now it's an invisible body made

up of a thousand different sects who all fight with one another. And so now we have the gates of Help prevailing against the church, which he said would not happen. How can the church be overrun with error and totally fall away? And this is where the Anabaptists come in and say exactly, and since the church, the Anabaptists are more consistent than these people, is what

I'm arguing. I mean, out of Anabaptism is completely retorted, okay, But they're more consistent than these people because they understand that if the church fell away after the death the Apostles from the Solas, and if the Solas are the Gospel, then they didn't have the gospel, did they? And so the church had to be restored. Now we're getting over into beyond an a Baptist territory. We're getting in a Mormon territory now, you see, So you see the logic of how this. I mean, it's not just branch

theory. This moves over into cult theory, and this is why many Protestant groups end up being cults. Absolutely orthodox folks. I think this also unfortunately bleeds into certain fundamentalist Protestant camps, meaning that there are certain fundamentalists Protestants, fun those Baptist independent Baptists who think only their true only their little circle,

was the true church. Yeah. Now I understand the motivation for this critique, but to constantly harp on the annoyance of people saying that their group is the one true church doesn't prove or disprove their claims, so that you're annoyed and that your position is quote, a broader tent has nothing to do with whether it's true false. So it's almost like a sales pitch, like my position is superior because I have a broader tent. Okay, but what if

your position's wrong? What if it's not right to have a broader tent? You said you understand, this whole dumb argument just assumes that having a broader tent itself is the right position, when that's the thing in question. I mean, why not have a broader tent in the fourth century with the semi Arians. Then we won't even have an Arian crisis. Let's just say we're all. Why didn't why didn't Athanasians just say, oh, well, we're all we're all Christians, we all believe in the basics. So what if

some people think Jesus is homo woyusius? Why are you fighting over one letter in a Greek term? But this isn't just exclusive, but it is in magisterial teaching of Catholics and Orthodox that they believe they're their one true church and that everyone outside of that is a matha an anthem. Do not like a mathemaise Now I used to fall victim to outrageous insurance crisis. I believe I'm not anyone listening to any advice from that boomer in any regard, especially not

money. Doesn't agree to the same creeds Nicia two, for examples, when he started venerating saints all that kind of stuff, they're damned. Yeah, so he thinks that Nicia two is where the church started venerating saints. So number one, it's about icons, and icons are older than Nicia two. In fact, the very first sections of Nicia two appeal to the ancient aposlotic

traditions for why there's iconography in the church. And iconography comes out of the liturgical tradition of the Old Testament, the temple in the synagogue, which had imagery if you didn't know of the Dury Europo Synagogue, that's the basis for the iconography. Not seven eighty seven deciding to worship saints. Okay, it's not even It wasn't even about saints. Yeah, that's been changed. So again I'm not saying to be mean, but he doesn't even know what the

Seventh Council's about. It's not about the veneration of saints. But it's still pervasive in some Protestant circles as well. To be Protestantism has a more realistic and compelling relation to church history. The Cardinal Newman famously said, to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant. And to be sure, many contemporary Protestants do have a shallow historical consciousness, which is up for

it. Protestantism has like this video and like Ruslan and thinking that seven eighty seven was about the worship of saints, that was nothing other that's a shallow understand than an effort of historical retrieval. The magisterial reformers appealed to the Church fathers just as much and sometimes more than they appealed to scripture to oppose what they saw as the novel accretions and innovations of the Medieval West, things like

the following seven examples. Number one, the financially abusive system of salvation involving indulgences, the treasury of Americ masses for the dead to reduce type. Okay, so first of all, to be fair, I mean, I reject indulgences, but indulgences are not about salvation. It's about temporal punishments. But I mean, I think it's ridiculous, and it's a ridiculous medieval Roman Catholic

accretion because there's nothing about indulgences in the Patristic period. But and I know all the arguments about the development of that theology I was used to make the Roman Galic arguments, I know. But to be fair, it's not about salvation through purchasing something that's not what it is in purgatory and so forth. Number two, transittentiation has the required mechanism for real presence in the Eucharist number three. Yeah, but I mean the transformation is what's taught by the Church

fathers. So again that's not an accretion. It's in the Patristic writers very clearly, and the Eucharus was always venerated from the early stays. So I don't know what he's talking about infallibility number four. That the numbers, I do agree that people infallibility is accretion. Sacraments is seven. Number five.

Cultic practices like the lineration of icons number six, withholding communion in both kinds, that is, in both bread and okay, icons are again a development, not evolution wise, but out of the original temple and Synagogue liturgy. So again, Protestants, where do you think the worship service comes from? Why did God leave us, like you know, with no instructions on how to worship? Oh guess what the apostles gave us liturgical traditions that they established

in the seas that they set up good wine from the laity. Number seven. The elaborate role assigned to Mary in the piety and dogma of the Church. Well, I mean, if you read the Council of Ephesus, you'll see why Mary has an important role. In fact, Saint Cyril says that ephesis that the entire Gospel is contained in the word Theotokos, Mother of God. And if you understand that, you understand the Gospel. So again they

don't even know why ephesis matters, why Theotokos is a big deal. And I mean, again, why are you guys going to Protestants who can't even tell you why Theotokos matters. I mean, you're not going to get Christology in Trinitarian theology from these people. That's not going to be whack she's presenting. Here are all medieval issues that's sprout on up, so there are all issues that came up later in the church. No, the real presence did

not come up late. You even said, according to your own false example, that saints were invoked in seven eighty seven. And now you're saying that it's a medieval thing, because seven eighty seven is not quote Middle Ages, and it's early Middle Ages. But you're talking about medieval Latin stuff. So he just contradicted himself. That's what a lot of Luther's issue was the veneration

of icons. They would say that they don't worship them, but almost seemingly seeing people kiss pictures of icons the way like Protestants treat the Bible for example, Yeah, and bow to them. It's kind of kind of kind of weird, right, especially as a Protestant verse three hundred and four hundred years of the Church. But it is. And if you go deep into the Patristic writings and the early liturgies, I bet you these guys don't even know

there's early liturgies, do they. Liturgy of Saint James, Liturgy of Saint Mark, Alexandrian liturgy right, the Roman Rite. These are ancient liturgies. You can read the way that Irenaeus and Justin Martyr described the liturgical worship in the church at that time. This all came later, This all came later.

It didn't though, so again ignorance of the topic, just assuming that it came later, most of it specifically, I mean, there's some language of the early church fathers regarding Mary being viewed as the Mother of God, but all the other stuff came way, way, way way later, and so that that is, that is what he's going. None of those issues

has a solid basis in Patristic Christianity. Not to be clear, church history but it does unless we assume that basis in church history or Patristic writings means that it's explicated to the satisfaction of Gavin or someone else. So again, we saw this in the other video from Gavin that it must be written down in the Patristic period for me to accept it as evidence. Oh really, you sure you want to go with that, because where in the Patristic period

is the Protestant canon of scripture? Oh exactly, So the very criteria that Gavin just set up his own argument for the Protestant canon fails there. Did you know that? And James White admitted this in his debate with Trent and then tried to run to saying Melido as artist had a proto Protestant canon. Sam Sheamun showed in his recent video, No he doesn't. He doesn't have. He has not the Protestant canon. So Melido doesn't work for proto Protestant

canon. The only thing that works is Jerome. But why are we supposed to follow Jerome? Like on what basis is a Protestant? Am I supposed to? Oh? Well, we all know that Jerome. Of course we should follow Jerome. Why well, because it's the Hebrew rabbinical canon. Oh so I'm supposed to submit to Jews who don't believe in Christ and who reject the teachings of the Church, not the Church. The Jews have the authority,

not the Church. That makes absolutely no sense for a Christian complicated it doesn't neatly or consistently serve as a support to any one side in the correct debates. But Protestants can simply accept that messiness because tradition is not for us an infallible guide. Oh but wait a minute. So, as we saw in the other video, if tradition is not an infallible guide, then the Bible is a collection of fallible is a fallible collection of infallible books, which

is a contradiction. So if this book, which is a bunch of little books, can be edited and have books removed from it, then it's fallible, and therefore Scripture can be reformed or reformable. And we saw in Gavin's other video he said that if it's not infallible, it's reformable. Well, post Apisolic tradition, according to Gavin, is reformable. That means that the compilation of the canon of Scripture is therefore reformable because it's post Apostolic. Do

you see this. It's not very hard to figure this out. And Protestants have operated as if the canon is reformable, hence why many of them have tossed out and rejected the books as they list, Well, I've studied really hard, and I know the great text, and I prayed and I'm really special, and the Holy Spirit told me that it doesn't need to have Hebrews, nation have James, and blah blah blah. It's the same model, the same ideology of the higher critics, meaning that I can't affirm the earlier

creeds, but I cannot affirm the later creeds. Can't You don't affirm their earlier creeds because when the Creed says one Holy cow an absolute Church, you just redefined it to be Protestant branch theory. They did not mean branch theory. If it's admitted that branch theory is a late Anglican development, then it's not in the mind of the Cappadocians who wrote the Constantopolitan Creed. So one Holy Catholic Apostolic does not mean every different damn sect. And you can read

about ten pages in the Cappa Docians to figure that out. Do you think Basil thinks that Eunomius is part of the same group as him? Does he think that the Namatamachi are part of the same group. No, of course not. It's just silly. I mean, do you understand it's it's deceiving you. It's it's it's it's not telling you the truth. Do you and the audience understand that it's not getting to me, it's deceiving you, guys.

I'm not saying he's bad will He probably really believes these things, But it is not intellectually honest to take from the Kappadocians and pretend like they're teaching the Protestant Anglican branch theory when they're absolutely not. Go read the catechetical lectures, for example of Saint Cyril of Jerusalem. He says you should hate all heretics and they are outside the church. Does that sound like acumenism and that

we're all actually in the same church. That's ridiculous. Do you think that the catechetical lectures of Saint Cyril, which we lectured through those six years ago on the channel, do you think that they teach that one Holy Catholic Epistol. It means all the churches, of course not so this is just made up. It's from the creed. The creed doesn't mean the Protestant branch theory. Can you guys figure this out. It's not that hard. Now.

Maybe you don't agree with it, maybe you think I'm wrong and you disagree, but so be it. At about just then the church fell away, Go be with Joseph Smith and it had just been restored, and Angel Moron came to him and you guys, have you know, go get your prayer muffin wives or four or five of them, because the Angel Moron came to you and told you that that that you that you're going to restore the true

Church. I mean, that's where that logic leads. So if you don't want one true church, then go restore the church with Brigham and and Jojo. That's the logic of it. I can't affirm people infallibility. I can't peoples old you know what I mean. A lot of these creeds came later, a lot of these statements came later. That that just Vatican one and

PayPal fallibility is not a creed. So he doesn't even know the difference between dogmatic definitions and counsels and what a creed is or what the creed is. This is I mean, I'm not sure to be mean to this guy, but I had no idea what's going on. Aren't in the first couple hundred years of the church, right, they're not a part of the first I see in council there there later and so, and I could acknowledge that there's certain things that are just better and messy. And I could acknowledge that lu

I'm making a joke. Okay, The angel Moroni is who appeared to Joseph Smith, and I call an angel Moron. It's just a joke. Wrong on certain things, I could acknowledge that Calvin's got it wrong on certain things. That's that's the flexibility that I could acknowledge that the church Father's got it wrong on the Trinity. I could acknowledge that the Church Father's got the canon

wrong. You see, The logic of this allowed is that no one creed is superior to scripture, which is okay, is anyone can in a scripture superior to another canon of scripture? Do you see the logic of this. You's gonna get into next in place is Holy Scripture over the authority of the

Church. This does not mean that we reject tradition whole sin, but it doesn't put the Scripture in a unique position of paramount authority because we recognize that only the words of Scripture are God breathed, carried along by the Holy Spirit the oracles of God. Jesus quoted the Old Testament as God speaking and warned against elevating tradition to a role that nullifies this work gout. To put it simply, we as the Church have no rule of faith that is coverable in

authority to the very words it found that we have in scripture. Protestantism makes sense because it keeps that authority uppermost and thereby keeps us accountable to the Apostyloe deposit. To sum up, Protestantism is first a renewal within the church, second a removal of historical accretions, and the third a return to the authority

of scripture. But again you see the slippery slope of this because Gavin is pretending and acting like Protestantism is a unified thing which has this basic lowest common denominator principle of his three bubbles of the solos and two sacraments. That does not exist. That is a fiction, that's an online ethereal made up idea that there is this generic quote Protestant church with these basic Have you spent much time in Protestant churches. I mean they can't agree on the color of the

carpet. Dude, They'll split over Pastor Randy sleeping with sisters. Sassy, Okay, you got a new denomination over Pastor Randy Balls sleeping around the congregation congregation and changing the carpet color to purple at the megachurch. There's no one Protestant lowest common nomen that's complete fiction. Now, are there some commonalities in the classical Protestants. That's true, But what did I just point out a

minute ago where the classical Protestants disagreed they killed each other. Luther had Anabaptist drowned because they wouldn't baptize infants. So, but my point is not when are the Protestants going to return to killing the Baptists. My point is to say, like you understand that there's no clear indicator of the basics if the original Reformers kill each other over what you call basics, right, I mean, this is so sense. Do they not know this? Why do Protestants

always ignore this? They always blow past this? Do you know High Church Anglicans went to war with Presbyterians in England, the Royalists and the cavaliers killing each other over church government, The very thing all these deceptive goobers pretend is not essential. Yet your forebears killed each other over it, so they thought it was absolutely essential. So just because you don't think it's essential does not

give you a privileged position, and it doesn't make your position true. This is a ridiculous fallacy to be a Protestant because it has a more compelling appeal to Okay, what if I just said that my position is super broad and appealing, does it therefore become true? I mean, if I can coct the position. The logic of this argument from Gavin is that it becomes a

better selling point because it's broader. So if I theoretically concoct a super broad perennials position where all the world religions are basically versions of Jesus, wouldn't that therefore be true? It's broader? Do you see this stupid logic here? This is so dumb. Why can't I say that all the world religions, which is, by the way, where Francis is moving things, all the world religions are kind of connected to Jesus. That's broader than what Gavin outlined.

So that's better and more true. This is so dumb, Like the logic of this argument is just redunculous. Dude, trupy Knights. So okay, they thought this was great. That was like, that was the most low tier video I've seen in years. Dude. That was actually worse the other than the Soul Scripture video. This one was really bad. So anyway, you suw mean you s mean mean? How long have we been going?

Uh, we've been going for two Let's do some super chests. You get on super jets, all right, Sigma Mail on a grind set three dollars. I wanted to reach out and say thank you for all the content, especially bringing on clergy and priests for these discussions. I'll be brought into the church tomorrow morning. Glory to God for all things blessed. Lent to you. Hey, many years to you. So glad to hear another person converting. So you know, it's like, what exactly have we done that?

So bad? Oh? You're mean. Yeah, okay, whatever, I mean, what exactly is mean? Oh you made a joke, okay whatever, So whatever, big boss. Twenty dollars. I hear. It's amazing when famous purple st worm in a flapjaw space with the turning fort does a roll blink. Okay, that looks like a bunch of nonsense, but pretty wacky. I'll take it. Thank you for that. Twenty dollars, BO five dollars. Why do priest say never to judge anyone? Isn't it

contradictory to the Gospel. Shouldn't we call out evil people? So I think there's a time and place for this. So there's right. Two things are said, and John seven Jesus says, judge with righteous judgment. But he also says not to judge in the sense of like condemning people if you have the same issue. So both of those things can be true and can be done at the appropriate time. It's just like we were talking about the other

night. In terms of self defense, there might be a situation where self defense is called for in another case or another a situation it might be appropriate to accept martyrdom, and the situation can determine the appropriate action. So we're not like Protestants where we think that there has to be one size fits all or a Kantian categorical imperative where you have to do this one thing in every case. Okay, if you look at the example of Solomon, Solomon uses

wisdom in the specific cases, and that's different than just having knowledge. Wisdom is the appropriate application of knowledge in the right case at the right time. So do you see what I'm saying here. So, in some situations, it might be appropriate to call someone out. In other situations, it's not appropriate to call somebody out, and you should accept the humility that's necessary to confess your sins. Let me give you an example. You're going to We're

going to the liturgy tomorrow, Okay, is that an appropriate time. Let's say we're walking into church. Is that an appropriate time to start calling people out for their sins? Of course not. You're going there to prepare for communion and you're going to go to confession. That's not an appropriate time to be calling out other people. Maybe in another situation, you're at work and you know somebody's corrupt and they're trying to get somebody else fired, and you

save somebody their job by calling out to do this lion and corrupt. That's absolutely appropriate. So you see how the context can determine whether an action is a lawful, virtuous and righteous or not. And if you read my essay on the death penalty, this is what St. Anthonatia says. Athanasia says, in some cases killing can be virtuous and lawful, and in other cases it's a crime and it's murder. So why it depends on the situation.

So I would say the same thing with knowing when and how and when not to judge. But a lot of people also make the piety signaling mistake of acting like the proper pious position is to never say anybody's wrong or to never call anyone out. That's actually a cloak for cowardice. And we've had many saints call that out and say that's a cloak for cowardice. So there's two

extremes here. The cloak for cowardice where you pretend to be pious because I would never call anyone else because I would rather just cower in the cord and consider myself as cider. No, that's actually just pride and self worship pre west. Then the opposite of that is every day all while I'm out here calling everybody out, and I mean I'm trying to people do this on Twitter.

The other extreme is like the Judge all over Judge and everybody on Twitter and all the evangelical Christ is King all day long tweeting Christ is King. It's like, what does that even mean? Is he really in your life? I mean, are you going to the church he set up? You're gonna tweet all day about Christ is King? What does that even mean? Though? You better be going to confession if you're saying that and now just plastering this nonsense all over Twitter when you don't even go to church, and

I'm not even saying that, Oh you just go to church. Now, those are all externals. It's got to be internal Anon three twenty six. I was raised comptic, but I was atheist for much of my life until lately I found Orthodoxy has mount more clarity than the Orientals. I think, So where should I look in terms of Orthodoxy? I mean, again, I don't know where you live. So the best thing to do is to check out all of your orthodox options and see which one has the best fit

for you. Because Orthodox churches could be very varied. I mean, you could be in one city where there's five different Orthodox churches and then there's one that's, you know, really appropriate for you. Who seld the button one dollar. Tim Gordon always brings up the ejection of the Orthodox view on divorce and marriage right before saying go anywhere but not Orthodox. Well, yeah, I think that they're under the impression that Orthodoxy promotes divorce, which is not

true. I've never heard it promoted. It's always derided and dismissed as the last option. But as we pointed out, the Canons of Saint Basil, which Rome used to accept and have no problem with, allow for separation and it's better for a person to be remarried than it is for them to be single and like you know, sleeping around or something, So it's a concession. We have a different interpretation of the text where Jesus says except for fornication.

They have this legalistic reading of that. And Ubi Petris just made made public his video which is the full video on divorce, So go watch Ubi's video on that. He just put it up, which actually explains the or our exposition. Seraph Leowend Dollar Orthodox who complain to much about conspiracies. Are blissfully aware of Elder Paisios and many great sayings talking about all these same things. I'm aware of that correct. What Elder Paisios wrote would make Lord Voldemort

blush. Yeah, but in the the past couple days, Lord v was actually getting pretty hardcore. Big Boss eight dollars. Here standeth the bird of Hermes, eating my own wings to keep myself tame. So Big Boss is over there, he's over there getting creative. He's engaging a little bit of creative writing experimentation. Little Blue five dollars, think it is so much. I like the way that Neon gives you a glowing, flaming halo, a glowing flamingo halo. Yes, I didn't actually plan that, so it must

be it must be a mystical realization. It must be. It must be providence. I'm just joking. Ricky three dollars. Streets will be scandalized if Jays cannonized as a saint, well, I wouldn't expect that to happen, So the streets will not be be scandalized. So you don't worry about that. No scandals in the streets. In the streets, uh, so let's see, this was long debate. I didn't really this is like over two hours. It wasn't really a debate. Let's see a little bit of terms.

We'll keep going because we haven't even gone two hours. So we're doing good. We got we got some times. I gotta open it up. I forgot. We've got people who want to request to speak. Before we do that, though, I want you to watch this briefly. Here. I gotta tell you something. We got good people behind us. We got good people. You know what I mean. We got good people and you need to hear what they have to say. So check this out first.

I'm gonna go T T I'm gonna put you on something crazy real quick. Most of these zoomer Jimbros are consuming macro guzzling synthetic dies and synthetic sweeteners on the daily. They don't even know it. Goofy af. There's nothing great about that. Do not listen any further unless you are an Alpha or Sigma male. This is important and there could be consequences. There's a new certified

Sigma male pre workout powder for sigmas only. It is guaranteed to empower you to dominate your co workers, fire your boss, aggressively, gamble, or invade a small village. Chad Mode stands out from the crowd by excluding artificial flavors, preservatives, sweeteners, and dyes. We've even avoided so called natural flavors which are actually not natural at all, ensuring a clean and effective formula. Experience the pure goodness of chad Mode colored with organic blue spirolina extract,

organic lemon cherry, and organic maple crystals. Forget synthetic caffeine made in a sketchy Chinese lab. Embrace the natural power of organic green coffee bean extract, which will get your mind going and pump you up to the max. Chad Mode is made in America with all clean ingredients, the first clean pre workout of its kind. Why are these people adding synthetic sweeteners to every single pre workout when there are many studied downsides to consuming nasty, fake sucrala Listen,

I remind you head on over to talk dot com. Use promo CODEJ fifty to get fifty percent off that tongkat ali to get fifty percent off that Irish moss, fifty percent off that action two point oh, all those great products over at chalk dot com. Use the promo go J fifty to JI five zero to get access to those great discounts. And by the way, if you really want to get Chalk on the regular, which I think you will once you try it out, we've also got, of course, the chad

Mo pre workout. If you use the promo go J five three life, that's J five three l I f E, you'll get fifty three percent off all recurring subscriptions, a little more more of a discount, and you'll get Chalk coming to you every month. Baby. That's that. That's that Jeff Bezos style Amazon recurring subscription, but with chalk dot com. All right, let's open it up to Q and a first question comes from, uh, I can't tell what that is, a little creature with red eyes, red

land, red land. Yes, sir, Oh, hey, how's it going? Hey? Hey, So I just wanted to ask really quick, what is the Orthodox opinion on priestly celibacy, you know, just celibate clergy in general. And why would you do if you think the Catholic position of a full celibate clergy is wrong. Why do you think that? Well, because because it's right. So the Orthodox position is that typically the priests are

married. It's not necessary in every case, but typically they are. And that's because that was the norm in the East and the West until about the Seventh Council. And the reason that we believe in it perpetually is that the Seventh Ecumenical Council accepts the quintessx Trolo Council. Rome for a time affirmed this and then reverse their stance on it and doesn't accept it, and so Rome doesn't then actually believe the Seventh Ecumenical Council. So Rome made it a mandatory

discipline. Uh or I think many reasons people speculate it could be because it would actually accrue more wealth to the church because you would no longer have inheritance given to the sons of the priests every priest. Then that inheritance goes to the church. So there's a lot of potential reasons as to why Rome might have made it mandatory, but it was not the norm in the church prior to that. And just like a quick follow up, but you know,

I'm currently Catholic right now. I mean, you know, I'm still searching around and trying to learn as much as I can, but I know a lot of Protestants protest a celibate clergy, But is it like strictly against Orthodoxy, Like, is that is that a problem for you guys that I mean most I mean the bishops are typically celibate because bishops are usually pulled from monasteries, and the reason for that was that bishops it was practically seen to be

difficult for bishops to administer their due in their jurisdiction having a family. So the practice of the church found it easier to have bishops that were from the monasteries, and the priests live in the world and have families. So I guess, just to really like dumb it down for me, it wouldn't. It's not like you don't see it as a problem as the priestly as I mean, let's just say it's for good reasons, right, and not for you know, the reason for the church with caure more wealth, as you

said. If it was just for like, you know, good reasons, is that like a disqualifying thing. I don't think it makes sense. I think it was a stupid decision, and it also betrays the fact that the Roman Church doesn't actually believe the teaching of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, because for them it's just, oh, the Seventh Council teaches us that we can have

images, and for them that means anything and everything. But there's actually a strict theology of the images at the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which Rome doesn't believe. And there's also the decisions of the Council in terms of the anathemas, which Rome doesn't accept, the anauticon things like that, And there's also the Seventh Council's acceptance of Trollo, which Rome rejects. So you see what I'm saying, Like, for them, an Ecumenical Council really doesn't mean anything.

It's just whatever the Pope decides in the council. So the Pope picks and chooses and dispenses with stuff and can reverse his previous papal decisions, his predecessor's decisions. And if you read this book, which I recommend here, the mind Or of Papadoccus book, it's about the period of one thy seventy to fourteen fifty three. This whole book is about that crucial divergence period between East and West, and it's one of the best of recent note on that.

Thanks. J Yeah, great questions. Let's see, I thought you were actually a like a Viking dude with a beard, and then I zoomed in and looked at your picture. It was like a little creature with red eyes. That was tripping me out. Dude, Ricky, what's up? Ricky? Hey, Jake, Hey, what's up? Many. I had a question about this quote from Saint Cyril on his commentary of John sixteen fourteen.

It's the versus all things that the Father has our mind. I mean, he shall glorify me, for he shall receive of mine and shall show it unto you and Saint Cyril right in this way like this is a lot in Katana, like a long unfamiliar with that. You're you're gonna say, is this the quote about Philly Oakuah? Yeah. If you read the Sashensky book, he covers that quote and it's talking about that the spirit doesn't the spirit. It's not like the spirit has no relation to the sun. The spirit

does relate to the sun, and he rests in the sun. But that doesn't make the sun the existential source of the spirit's hypostasis. Yeah, I just I was confused because what does Because I did hear you say that in the filioquid debate review with David But what what exactly could because I don't have this book, But what exactly does he mean by by what he receives from the sun? Right? So he rests in the sun and then manifest the sun manifests him. Right, so there is a move there's a movement through

the sun. So when this can this is actually brought up at the Yeah, and then it that because that text is brought up by the Roman Catholics and the response of the Orthodox is that, yeah, what he receives from the son is in terms of the resting and the manifestation. So there's a movement from the father that's not separate from the son or apart from the son. It's related to the son and through the son. Okay, Yeah,

that was my question, thank you. Yeah. And if you look at even modern Vatican assessments of that, like the Shassinsky book, because he wrote that book when he was Catholic, like they'll admit that it's not it's not really a quote Philioguay text because he's not. Because elsewhere Cyril explicitly states that

the son, the father's the sole cause. So resting in and receiving from is not does not mean that the son contributes to the existential production of the spirit, but it means that he does contribute to the manifestation or the movement of the spirit. So the so so the spirit absolutely moves through him, and that actually becomes because even at the time of Florence, excuse me, Blackerne and Florence. So you have Lions and then Blackerney and the pell like

Synods and then Florence. Some people were saying in the Orthodox camp that there's no relation between the son and the spirit. And if you read the Papadocus book Cristis and Byzantium, this is where Gregor Cyprus comes along and says, no, it's it's not correct to say there's no relation. And I think Gregor even cites this text you're talking about from Cyril where he says that this the spirit does receive from the Sun, not his hyposthetic existence, but manifestation.

Right, So my final question is where where can I find that Ceial quote that the spirit only proceeds from the Father has caused there's a dispute. It's when Cyril is rejecting aan the Nestorian Creed. It's in David's video. He David has a video where he talks about the Nestorian Creed that had the philly oquay, like that there were Nestorians that were making a philly oquay argument

and Cyril explicitly rejects the Nestorian line of argumentation. And it's in one of David's videos, but I forget which one, and it has but it has the citation if he's typing Cyril Comma phillioquay, David Rhan, that video will come up. Okay, thank you so much. Yeah, that's a great question, all you too, man. And uh. Also, I think there's like two or three quotes from Sishensky that from Cyril, and he has a good explanation of all those quotes in Ari sixteen twelve. What's up?

Go ahead, you got it? I'm mute. Are you talking to me? Yeah? I was wondering how you respond to a certain how you would respond to a certain argument that I've heard recently about Solo scriptura, And what I've heard is that a lot of the arguments that we use it, specifically about the canon, could have been used by the theirases against Jesus when he was arguing against their tradition. Do you think that that's a valid argument to

the proces bring up. It's not because there's a false equivalence between the authority and role of the Church and the authority and role of the Pharisees. And it also doesn't work because even in the Old Testament, Jesus doesn't doesn't even though he cites scriptures, he doesn't act like scriptures are the only authority. So citing something or referring to something doesn't. It doesn't fall from that that it's the only authority. Because Jesus refers in certain places to traditions that are

not in the mosaic written text. Right, So, for example, he goes to the feasts of Lights. Okay, so he's attending Honicah. Well, there's nothing in the Torah that tells you that you have to go to Honicah. Right, So he's giving obeisance to various traditions. But if the dispute is over true and false tradition, then it's true that Jesus might appeal to written traditions that trump the Pharisees made up traditions. But that's different than

how we would know, for example, that Matthew wrote Matthew's Gospel. There's no other way to know that other than Apostolic tradition, because the Gospel, for example, doesn't identify this is Matthew, the Apostle of Jesus. Right, it's the church's tradition that that text Matthew was written by Matthew. And so even though apostolic tradition is not the only element which goes into canonicity, it's one of the key elements and that can only be known from church tradition.

So it's a false equivalence to like, because Jesus appealed to texts at times to refute pharisees that therefore, in the New Testament period, I have a time machine that I can get in and go back and see which were the autographa from Paul or from Matthew. Do you see how that's a false

equivalence. Yeah, I guess I actually did answer my question. There's just one kind of question I would have, is I guess I'm not sure how like you, if we if somebody was alive at that time, like the average person, how would they tell the different delinea between a true tradition and a false tradition, especially because there were oral traditions that were true at the

time. Right. Yeah, I think that if you're asking, like on an an individual level, like ultimately it's only the Holy Spirit that can guide us at that individual certitude level. Like, there's no, it doesn't matter how many external things we pile up, councils, popes, like, none of those things can actually ultimately give the individual certitude because those are just mean

external means to knowing this or that thing. So at the end of the day, the certitude only comes via you know, honestly seeking God in the Holy Spirit giving a certitude. So that's not primarily where we would disagree with a Protestant or a Roman Catholic. Where we would disagree with them is the means that are used, because Protestants, Roman Catholics, everybody admits that it's the Holy Spirit at the end of the day that gives a certitude. But

where we disagree is the means. And so that's why I'm always pointing out that as a Protestant, you don't have the means to get in a time machine and go back and see what Paul and Matthew themselves wrote down that's called the autographa, right, the original text that they wrote. Nobody has autographa. They don't exist. Literally, there's none. And for example, Muslims always bring this up, right, they're like, you don't have autographa,

right, you don't have the original text. All we have are copies that we're trusting that the bishops of the Church preserved. So you see that the canon of scripture in the case of the New Testament, is intimately bound up with Apostolic tradition, the liturgy, the maintenance and transmission and preservation of the

text by the bishoprics. So there's no there's no other way to get the canon, all right, there's there's no like, there's no scholar that we can go to, like some Protestant scholar who can figure it out for us, because every Protestant scholar is going to have to rely on writings of the church fathers. Does that make sense? So so so, like if you're walking around with Jesus, like or if you're in the time of prior to Jesus and you know, like, how are you going to know what's true?

I mean, you would have to ultimately trust the Holy Spirit was leading you to know what was true of false at the end of the day. Yeah, okay, thank you, that makes sense. Yeah, there's just not There is no external thing that can grant you internal certitude. And that's why I just look at the confusion in the Roman Catholic world, right, I mean, when Catholics are supposed to believe that this, you know, office of the Papers, He's going to give you this simple certitude, and

it doesn't do it. But I guess what I would ask at that time, I was a potetical like normative authority, Like what normative authority would be? Well, I think you're right. That's why I think. Yeah, I think Jesus answers that when he says therefore, because the Pharisees sit in the seat of Moses, do as they say, but not as they do. So they were the legitimate authority, but they were also abusing that authority.

And so I think in Jesus's answer, there's a kind of an assumption that the people will be able to figure out like, Okay, you know, they're telling me that I should tie this, and I should do this fast and so forth. But I'm not going to emulate the way that they go and visit the whorehouses for example. All right, thank you to answer to my question. Yeah, that's a great question. Mister Pink, what's

up? Thank you guys for these sports supergestin if you would, if you feel so inclined, you can also support via heading over to talk dot com. Use a promo co J fifty to get fifty percent off. It looks like mister Pink's having some difficult deconnecting, so we'll go here to mister White and mister Gray and all the other cast of characters from Reservoir Dogs. Ex. Nila, what's up? You gotta? Um mute, you gotta, I'm mute, Nila. Oh hi, Sorry, there's a bit of a

delay in that. I just had a question regarding like things like natural fol and the order of our philosophy, right, because I was I'm in some philosophy classes, and I hear a lot epistemology specifically, and I hear a lot of kind of statements by professors where we have to put what do you call it the epistemic chard or sorry, or rather the metaphysical cart before the epistemic course, And I felt like I kind of did agree, but as

I hear it natural theology falls into that problem where they do that. So I'm wondering, how is it that putting how is it that the order of the cart's kind of I don't I'm maybe taking the analogy too far, But

how is it that that ordering causes these problems? Well, because ancient and medieval metaphysics in general didn't think about questions that were raised by the time of Kant and human and the Enlightenment. So they raised the very question that you're asking, which is that a lot of the ancient and medieval metaphysical beliefs basic

beliefs first principles. They're premised on the idea that there are self evident truths, there's dosastically basic truth, properly basic beliefs, all these terms you can use. And what happens is that if metaphysics is where you start the line of argumentation assumes that you have an epistemology which has not yet been justified or fleshed out. So the Enlightenment philosophers are asking, hey, wait a minute,

you're putting your metaphysical cart before your episomic course. If you're going to tell me all this metaphysical stuff, I need to know that you can know things first, because how do we know that your metaphysics and all this grandiose stuff that you're talking about with t los and causation and you know, whatever it might be the soul, its virtues, the vegetati soul, you know, all this stuff that would be a part of metaphysics. I mean,

that's assuming that you have a some kind of adequate theory of knowledge. But that's what has not yet been established. So whether it's Descartes or whether it's Hume or whether it's Kant, they're all kind of saying, let's slow down here. First, tell me how you know things. Then maybe you can tack on all the metaphysics stuff. So that's why natural theology is typically premised on ignoring that question, because it comes out of that ancient, medieval world's

view of things. So it's not that there's no such thing as metaphysics or there is no quote natural theology. It's just that for us as Orthodox, as Father stan Eloy says, there's not natural theology. Really, there's natural revelation, but not natural theology and the tonistic two tiered sense it just doesn't make sense because it's resting on these kinds of unjustified self evident truths. So if you want to be a classical foundationalist evidence us and say there's self evident

truths, we need some account of that. And it's not unfair to ask that question like all these people say, I see, So would it be erroneous to say that if we could establish and just like a like a for the sake of making an argument, wherein we would put the metaphysical card for could we maybe argue for to say there is no possible world outside of the Christian world, like shaving away all other worlds possible worlds is completely impossible by

attacking the foundation of those worlds, possibly how they get their epistemology or even how they get them metaphysical knowledge. If we could wipe that all away, if we could disapprove all of that by attacking some kind of erroneous foundation that

they have, for example, the problem of induction. Could we I mean, I'm not fleshing up the whole argument here, but could we then reach a point where we could refer to things like scripture and revelation as the kind of metaphysical foundation of a world, as you know, refer to God as the metaphysical foundation of a world as opposed to just doing it through the epistemic way. Yeah. I think the argument would be that Christianity, as we

are arguing, gives a basis for epistemology. That basis is revealed epistemology, theonomous epistemology, and that then entails the metaphysics of Christianity. Okay, perfect, That answers pretty much. So basically we're saying we're not saying that everybody in ancient midial metaphysics gets metaphysics wrong. We're saying that the Enlightenment philosophers have a good question about assumptions, and thus we can answer that assumption and then

reassert the metaphysics. So we're not denying the metaphysics. We're not becomings, we're not Enlightenment philosophers. We're admitting a good argument and are a good valid question. I mean, why is it not a good question to say, how does Aristotol know that his first principles are correct? Maybe they are, and why should we believe that they are? Well, they just are. I mean that's typically what these people say. Okay, well that's not very

good. I mean, how is that going to answer a skeptic? Right? And they'll just say stuff like, well, skeptics skepticisms absurd because they're self evident truths. Well, that's just not good enough. I'm sorry, that's that's a weak answer, and most people in the modern world don't find that answer or an appeal to authority sufficient. So you can keep repeating parapateetic axiom, but nobody in the modern world is going to accept the parapateetic axiom.

So we need to answer those people according to their challenges, not just keep repeating tomistic metaphysics. Yeah, I see what you're saying. Yeah, I agree. It's like saying I'm not gonna I'm not It's like what like say Ed Phaser people, It's like you're saying, basically, I'm going to ignore your question and just keep going with what I do. It's like, well, why are you not going to answer their question? Well, and if you read the Five Proof Book, Phaser says something like these beliefs are

just basically held by most people. So it's true. It's like, that's that's a terrible argument. So then when we look at people like Thomas Reid and even Planting and like recent I guess recent philosophy, you know, Plantingo with his warrant and warrant to a true belief and stuff like that, and Thomas Reid with his kind of what is it like the minto of nature belief. I don't know if you've read read on this topic. I mean I've read Planting, I haven't read much Thomas Reid. I don't find him to

be very convincing. I mean, I mean, we had a class on the common Sense Philosophers and I didn't find it to be very convincing. So but I mean, I think that Planning has a good critique of problems in natural theology that I would agree with, but I wouldn't agree with Planning is

like Calvinists reform epistemoality. Fair enough, fair enough. I was more so wondering that, you know, if we were to if we were to argue for this, you know, metaphysical position and prove that the Christian you know metaphysics by the way, By the way, let me be more precise. I would agree with Planting that it is it makes sense to say belief in

God is properly basic. I believe that. I think that makes sense, But I don't agree with all of Like there's other Calvinist things that come along with Planting as a point that I would disagree with, but I do think, I mean, he makes some of the same arguments we make against natural theology. So sorry, I just headed a bit of a distraction there, right, So if that's the yeah, because because I was more so like pointing to you know, we have the metaphysical argument for this is just you

know, kind of assuming we've gone further in the argument. We have the metaphysical backing for Christian you know, apologetics, we have the epistemological backing for Christian apologetics. And now we want to you know, tell people, Okay, well, then how does the world work now? Right? Would we assume a kind of position where we would say, okay, well, we have the warrant for our beliefs, such as the way that Planting in puts it, where we assume the function of the mind is you know, accurate

and kind of like the way God intended. Yeah, right? Would this be faulty or would this be fair to say that? Okay, once we've established the paradigm, we can get into this kind of nitty gritty of epistemology. No, I think I think that's the line of argument that I usually go. Yeah. In other words, if God exists, that the Christian world view is true, it makes sense that our mind operates in a certain way, that we have the faculty of reasoning, remain God's image. We

can reason after God, we can. I mean that that's the line of argument. I just don't use the term properly basic, but I don't. Yeah, I would agree with that line of argument. Yeah, that's perfectly understandable. Yeah, okay, great, those are pretty much the questions I had. And just a little short notice about people in like college and stuff like that, a lot of people are kind of seeing things for how they are nowadays. They're not really falling for the old tricks anymore. Yeah.

I talk to a lot of atheists and like liberals and stuff like that who don't even really hold their positions as much as they claim to hold. And I've got professors who are extremely Christian, who are publicly Christian, and who are leading their philosophy departments and other departments. So things are looking up. And I live in the most liberal part of Canada, so interesting. Yeah, things are not as dark as they may seem to listen worried. So

yeah, glory to God. Thinks we'll be better in the future. Well, thank you for those positive words. That's good to hear. Man, appreciate that YouTube, man, thank you. Let's see Sapphire. What's up so far? You gotta are you there? You look you look like you're unmuted. You look like you look like yo mama, unmuted. I guess you're not there. If you want to come back in and try again, you can't, uh icono, Matt, Hey, what's up man? What's up doing? What's on your mind? Yeah? I just had a quick

question. Was wondering if you're looking forward to the new Beetle Juice coming out this year. We were at Universal Studios when we were in Los Angeles and I saw Beetle Juice walking around. I was like, you know what, I bet he's there to promote the movie. I don't know is it a remake or a sequel. I'm pretty sure it's a sequel. It might be good. I'm kind of iffy on a lot of these reboots and whatnot.

Gotcha, gotcha. I also wanted to shout out to you. You and Kyle have been like two of my biggest polls to orthodoxy, and my wife and I are now cad the Cumans and I just awesome show show you some love and appreciation. Man, thank you, Matt, I appreciate that. Glad to hear it many years. Man, yep, you thank you for that. So how are you gonna try again? I didn't mean to cut you off that quick, man, I sorry about that, Yes, sir, miss earlier you cut out? Can you hear me? Are you there?

We heard you for a second. Are you there still? Canna hear your dog? I heard you for like two seconds, enchanted hero. Everybody's having a hard time connecting now. I don't know. Spaces are Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. Nate, what's up? Nate? Hello? Hey, what's up? Heyway? So Jay, I'm a kind of cuman Is into Eastern Orthodoxy. And earlier this week I was watching a great compliant service from a monastery in West Virginia and I don't live there. I live

in Texas. But anyway, in the liturgy they said we worshiped thee Oh Mother of God. And I said it to my priest and I asked my body. He said it was probably like a translation error, And anyway, I just wanted to see PII your thoughts of that. I see father deacons in here too, so maybe maybe you can have the input or something. Yeah, I think sometimes the English translation for it doesn't distinguish veneration from worship,

so it's just they'll just say the same word. But no, we don't worship the Theo Tocos with the same worship as the Trinity, right, Okay, and that's what I figured too, That's why I said it to him. But anyway, all right, cool, appreciate it. Yeah, good question, And I can ask Father Deacon, but I'm assuming he would agree. I don't know if you want father digging, if you want to speak, you can't. Let's see, Assistant Professor Malkisa Dick. Where'd you

go? No? I thought I thought you were requesting to speak. My bad. Let's see ghostitious. I'm not trying to ignore you, but somebody was somebody who had been waiting for a long time. Here, Tye, he'd been waiting for a long time. Oh yeah, sorry, yeah, I agree. It's these are translationnaires, so your priest was correct. Go ahead, Tye? Hey, uh yeah, you muted all right? Goostitis Hm hey uh hey, uh my boyfriend's back. Ye, yes, sir, you know I just want to say really quick that uh, God willing

I'll be received as a cdcue my church. And I just want to see, like, thank you for your videos and and as well as father nice because like you guys helped me looking to our thoughts and and like you guys like com people like the best arguments and stuff. Thanks man, I appreciate that. Yeah, of course, and really quick, you're actually the first person. You're the sick in person. Pronounce my name right? Okay? Thank you? Gostitious instead of superstitious? Do scared of ghosts? Zoology?

We got a lot of people coming into the church this year. That's great, I'm sure and God willing to be a bunch more next year too. Zoology. What's up? Man? Another connection issue? Zoology? Are there? Do you want to come back out and come back in? I'll go to you first because it's not connected. Who's this next person? Oh? Hello? Yes, I just randomly saw that there was a speaker session sure

being open on Twitter? Correct. I just wanted to thank you for teaching me a lot about conspiracy theory stuff and how society has fallen since the eighteen hundreds, because I appreciate that. Yeah. Also, I really enjoyed your theology videos. Thanks as well debating other viewpoints. And I got received into the church around early February. Oh wow, okay, thank you for that many years. I got a lot of Categhumans and new converts coming in,

so thank you so much. Appreciate that. That's encouraging because we get a lot of hate, we get a lot of opposition, so to hear these kinds of things are very encouraging. So take note all the people that hate us so much, Like we're trying to do good work here zoology. Hey,

what's up? Hey? Okay, So I just have a question about like you make the argument about normative authority and individual sertitude, And I kind of had a bit of problems because I feel as though we like, if we're going to argue for the Orthodox position that you know, the historic Church is the normative authority, we're going to run into the same problem as the

protest as to justifying that. But I guess is that asking a different a question of epistemology, like individual service of how we know something to be true versus what is true by virtue of it being true? No? No, no, it's like normativity has to do with who has the authority in history to make decisions and say you ought to believe this about church teaching versus how do I as an individual have certitude about Jesus the Trinity and what church teaching

is. So they're two different things. They're related, but they're two different questions. One is about authority and history, the other one is about individual certitude. So they're just two different questions and a lot of times the only reason I always say this is that a lot of times people in bad argumentation conflate these. For example, Roman Catholics will often act like the papacy can give you certainitude on dogma, and it doesn't. That's the only reason that

I always always talk about this. Okay, So then what is the function of normative authority If it's going it's not really going to lead us to individual certain or that that's just not its function. Maybe I'm just confusing. I have a hard time understand. That's why I said they're related, all right, So I said they're related, But like everybody is in the same boat

as individuals, right, So I'm not in it. We're all whether you're Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, we're all going to be trying to interpret something that will grant us the certitude. For the Roman Catholic, it's the papal writings and decisions ultimately. For the Protestant, it's them in the Bible. Ultimately, for us, it's Orthodox. It's a multitude of things. It's liturgy, it's the teacher of the church, fathers, the councils, the Bible. It all kind of goes together. We don't have as

a strict a tier. There are tiers, but they're not It's not like this Roman Catholic idea that I can draw out, like the five tiered things of what you have to believe and not and don't have to believe. It's it doesn't work like they think it does. I don't even think their system even works, but they claim to have that tiered system. But so we have different means to knowing these things. And that's that's where we differ with the Protestant. We don't think it's just the Bible. We think it's these

other things. With the Roman Catholic, we don't think it's a papacy. We think it's the history of the Church and these other things. So, but ultimately, the only thing that's going to convince anybody is the work of the Holy Spirit. There's no other way to get there. And it's true that councils and things like this can overlap with normative authority or excuse me, with existential certitude, because for example, can I look to Nicea, Will

that help me get individual certitude? Yeah? But is that is good looking to Nicia for example, ultimately going to solve you know, a dispute between a Roman Catholic and a protest and Orthodox. Probably not. So it's probably gonna take more than just a council. So that's why you see what I'm saying, Like, there's elements in Nicea where I could point to Canon six, which basically equates the jurisdiction of Rome to Alexandria. So where is Vatican

one in that? Well, you know, okay, but that's not going to alone. That's not going to convince most Roman Catholics. So that's why I'm just saying that normative authority is a question of is there a body within history that has the authority to interpret a document? So like Father Deacon always says, you've got the Constitution, but it's not like we're all running around interpreting the Constitution on our own. The Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court

and they have the authority to enforce that. So that's an analogy to having bishops and synods with authority, right, Okay, So if I'm understanding this, right, it's basically there to dative. But because of that, you know, authoritative body of people, I guess you could say it doesn't follow

to having like this spot on dot of individuals. I guess it's just yeah, it's two different questions, Like that there is a historical body of people with authority is a different question from which is the right historical body of people? Yeah? Okay, yeah, because I feel like that the same problem will be like, yeah, how do we like interpretation in personal criteria is

always going to be an effect in correct the correct or the body. Yeah, I like it's the same issue that the causent has, but maybe not in the same Well that's why I always say that, right, That's why we always say to the Protestant so look, if there's not normative authority, and that's the Protestant position, there's nobody who has the authority to bind anybody in their conscience to an interpretation or to an excommunication or whatever. Then Jesus

basically left the church very deficient. He didn't even give the church what the Supreme Court and the Constitution have right. So to me, that's a very defective position by denying the existence of normative authority in history. So it wouldn't be identical to the Roman Catholic position. They would agree with us on that point. Against the Protestant though, so it would take a different course of action. With debating a Roman Catholic, I would say, well, is

the papacy the normative authority in the first thousand years? I don't think that it is. So it depends on the person's argument as to how I would go about making that argument. But hopefully that makes more sense. We're all on the same boat though at the end of the day. So where we

disagree is the means that are used by the Holy Spirit. Okay, yeah, so we're arguing for the means, right, we're for We're basically contending with rival means, and my approach is typically to point out those means that they have are failed means. They don't work. Yeah, okay, thank you so much. That Yeah, those are great questions. Yeah, it is a It is a confusing thing because a lot of times Rouman Catholics make this bad argument where they're like, the Pope gives a certitude and all you

Protestants don't got no certitude. Ahaha, And then it's like we just watched the video where Tim's like, I don't know what supremacy means and like I'm waiting for a counsel to do that. That's my impression of tent But well, I thought that's what the point about it can one was. But anyway, let's see next up Richard, what's up? Shout out to BMX nineteen sixty six cents fifteen dollars. Thank you so much, BEMX, appreciate that. Ricky says, no, we already we already read Ricky, Ricky,

did you want to talk? Richard? Get on immune? Uh? Richard, you're on, dude, you want to on mute or you don't have to do one yet. You just you just be muted if you want. I guess all right, we'll move on. Uh Yaru, what's up? Yah? Yeah. By the way, if you guys missed it, we did a big intense breakdown of the big events. I'm sure that YouTube's not going to be able to allow a lot of talk about that. You can go to my Twitter feed and I was on with Jack Pasoviac and Alex breaking

down everything yesterday in a big hour discussion. And then I went on Patrick Henningson's Twitter space which has like eighty thousand views now as well, breaking down the events from yesterday. So go check out those two things if you missed it. I thought we did pretty good breakdowns. Yaru, what's up?

Hey, what's up? So? I have a two questions, okay, for it seems like sometimes when you talked about Catholicism, it seems like you implied that they cannot be coherent to us, or that they must be foundationalists. Is that right? Yeah? I don't see how you could be, given what's in a lot of the dogmatic decrees about like evidentialism in terms of like Vatican wand or the way Leo writes and is encyclicals. Uh okay, I thought the incyclicals weren't dogmatic. I could be wrong. No, that's

not true. It really depends on what's being said, because, for example, if the pope is writing about faith and morals, and if it's something that the Church is quote universally held, it would be part of universal ordinary magistrum and would be dogma. But you see the tricky point there is that. Okay, but what are those things? Right? So so it's it's ambiguous, is the point. But no, the fact that it's in cyclical

does not mean that it's not dogmatic. In fact, some in cyclicals, many Roman Catholics argue, are dogmatic, like Humanivite or pastor returnus that becomes part of Vatican one. I mean, there's a bunch of these that could be quote argued or dogmatic. Okay, gosha, what exactly maybe you already answer this in different words, But what exactly makes a foundational is because of

the evidentialism. Yeah, I mean I think those things go. I mean, I know that technically they're not identical, but uh, it would be very odd to I mean again, like you know, the official philosophy of the Romancolic church's tonism, and we know that that's what permeates all of the medieval stuff, you know, all the way up until what's Leo's and cyclical on uh on Tomism. I'm trying to think of the name of it. I'm going blank. At the point right now, But I mean Leo's and

Cyclical says Tomism is the official philosophy of the church. So the official philosophy Roman Catholicism is classical foundationalism. Now, could a person theoretically try to make a Roman Catholic system as coherentist. I don't know how they could, but I guess people could try that. Okay, gotcha. So I think I

also have another issue. I mean, you would basically be saying that Thomas and everybody got their their epistemology wrong, which would just I mean, he's like a saint, right, he could be wrong, but he's not just a saying his philosophy is the official philosophy of the Roman Catholic Church according to what's I'm just going blank on the on Leo's and Cyclical. He might in the chat. Remember Leo's and Cyclical on Tomism anyway, go ahead, Yeah,

I think on a separate issue. Okay, I don't exactly see the issue with foundationalism. It seems like we can have a self evident believe in regards to the cogito or the law of non contradiction. Okay, well, I mean, like, as I pointed out in the debate with Trent. I mean, the cogito has famously been critiqued by many philosophers for assuming many things that are not proven and therefore it's not self evident. I mean.

Kant critiqued it that it assumes time determinants by saying that thinking is occurring, occurring as a time determinant. Bertrand Russell critiqued it as a non sequitor. And then there's the criterion problem of Chisholm. If we say that some things are self evident and therefore other things are not, then we actually have a prior criterion of what is and is not foundational, and therefore it's not self

evident because it's a more foundational criterion. Yeah. So, for it seems like the Kant one, and I won't get too too much into the so it seems like he affirms something with the unity of a perception, which is something very similar to the cogito. But none of that has anything to do with whether the cogito itself relies on a time determinant, which would mean that it's not self evident if it's relying on unjustified things like time. Sure,

su Sure. So let's say I have I say, the proposition that I am having an experience right now having might be a time, like a temporal notion. Sure, I'm fine with that, but I don't see how that's not a proposition that we can't that's not self evident. We might have to presuppose time metaphysically. Sure, but yeah, so if it's relying on something we already had this debate. You already asked me this exact same question. Not trying to be rude, but the fact that, okay, time.

So what Descartes wants is the most foundational truth that's self evident, that's not relying on something else. If the proposition or the argument is relying on the existence of time, which has not been proven yet, then it's relying on something else. So we might be relying on the metaphysical notion of time, but the time is not doing the just victoria work. It doesn't matter.

It's still relying on something else. So it's not self evident. It's a metaphysical principle that's not yet been established to make the argument that thinking is occurring. Okay, So I have the proposition in front of me, I am having an experience right now. I just want to know if that's a self evident believe. Well, you can call it self evident, but that doesn't make it so because you call it self evident. Because what's an eye?

We haven't even determined that what it's. It's assuming linguistics and grammar. You haven't proven grammar yet. I don't know what proving grammar. It doesn't have to do metaphysical work. It's still assuming things that are not self evident. It's relying on other things. So you're confusing categories. And we've already been through this exact same conversation with this guy in the past, So I'm not

doing this whole rehearsing again. So he brought all this exact same thing to a previous open for him, And if I keep going, I'll lose my temper. Steven, what's up? And then everybodelse have me? So I'm not going to give I'm not going to give a place to people saying that. I mean, when we've already had this exact same conversation, Stephen, what's up? By the way, the tomistic and cyclical is Attorney Patras. So there's pasta attornis, which is about Vatican One and people infallibility. It's

part of Vatican One. By the way, it's not the totality Vatican. Everybody Roman Catholics thinks that Pastor at Turnis is Vatican One. No, there's other things in there that's part of it. And then Attorney Patrice is Lee of the thirteenth in cyclical that Tomism is the official philosophy of the Romancolic Church. So Stephen, what's up? And by the way, can anybody point to a Roman Catholic who doesn't teach some form of foundationalism revidential? I've never

seen it. Maybe there is one, but I'm not going to listen to the Roman Catholics bark at me about this until they produce one example of it. And they do this all the time. All right, Richard wants to try again. What's up? H you gotta I mute man? If you're not gonna what'd you even request to speak? If you don't want to mute man? Crypto? H m hey, jay, can you hear me? Yes, sir, hey, I just wanted to say thank you and joined the other people who were you know, same, thank you for your help

into coming into Orthodoxy. Uh, my daughter, And now you're gonna get baptized on April sixth. Well, we're very much looking forward to that. Thank you, thank you, And you've been very instrumental in helping me change my mindset set from not being a Protestant to coming into Orthodoxy. So God bless you. Thank you. Yeah, it seems like the trend is moving.

It seemed like in the last few years there was a lot of Roman Catholics converting, and now it seems like more and more it's Protestants converting. Everywhere I go live events, it's like everybody's a Protestant convoy, which is great. I'm not but I think that it seems like we've maybe clean house of the Roman Catholics that are willing to I mean, if any Roman Catholics are left, it's like they're they're the holdouts, and it's like nothing.

I mean, Francis is going to have to like grow horns and you know, spit blood and before people will start questioning. But for me, it was a lot of ignorance, you know, growing up, I was just really unaware of the Orthodox Church. Oh me too, I mean I was aware of some of the art, you know, because I went to art school, but just like the actual Christianity of it. I was totally oblivious, has no clue at all. Absolutely, thank you, good questions.

All right, Uh, we're gonna call it a night, guys, Thank you so much. A lot of fun again. Go check out the big hour long breakdown that we did of the thing, the event on my Twitter. I'll put that in the link for you guys here if you want. If you don't, if you're not following me on x please do so. A lot of good a lot of good content that we post there. Some things we can post there that we can't post here. So there's that. You can see my breakdown to that big event on my you scroll down a

little bit. Let's see we got we got some memes, and then we got freaking I gotta get rid of this. I can't even look at destiny O this destiny thing off of here. Yeah, you can go check out this right here if you missed it. Yeah, you like how nobody got mad. There was nothing uncivil tonight. I exited the situation before I was gonna start getting he's too mean. Look look at him, we got him, he's mean. I'm not even gonna let people have the opportunity occasions of

meanness. You won't even get occasions of meanness anymore. All Right, thank you guys. Everybody having good night, and we'll pick back up. I'm liking this every day streaming every day show. I'm motivated, I'm in the mood for every day. By the way, we're coming back tomorrow night with Luigi. We're doing a review of his debate with Voice of Reason or whatever that guy's name is, right, the Cheech and Chong that he debated over

there on Michael Lofton's channel. We're going to be doing an analysis of that debate with Luigi tomorrow night, so look for that. It's gonna be fun. Everybody, have a good night.