"Male Feminist" Trent Horn Becomes Muslim! Replying to Low Tier Pop Apologetics -Jay Dyer

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
More space wise. Let's create lives more space wise. God,
that's a body money, it's a very tool.

Speaker 2 (00:18):
He looks good.

Speaker 1 (00:19):
Good moons space wise, moons space wise.

Speaker 2 (00:30):
Space space space.

Speaker 1 (00:33):
Magic underwear fitting type magic underwear.

Speaker 2 (00:39):
It's feeling right.

Speaker 1 (00:44):
More man space wise, more men space wise, Lords of
the cool, I would like to have into masses with you.

Speaker 3 (01:03):
On the planet of the boom space wise.

Speaker 2 (01:13):
Magic under.

Speaker 1 (01:16):
Where right there, more man space Let's create lies mamon
space wise. God has a body money, it's a very
too money. He looks good. Good moon and space wise.

Speaker 2 (01:45):
Momon space space space.

Speaker 1 (01:54):
Magic underwear fitting type magic underwear. It's feeling right, more
space wise, more space, Lords of the cool, I would

(02:18):
like to have him into the season with you on
the planet and of the boo more space wise, magical
where where right there?

Speaker 4 (02:46):
Black kings, black bishops, black players, people of the Chocolate persuade,
black king, black bishops, black players, people of the Chocolate Persuade,
black kings, black tishops, black players, people of the Chocolate
Persuey Lang Kang, black bishops, black players.

Speaker 2 (03:04):
People of the Chocolate Persuasion. But the dark ages at
a time when black people rule Europe. So when you
go into the real history. You'll see King James with
that's King James, that's Dame Lebon, that's King Lebar right now, black,
he was not a white guy. You'll see his whole
lineage of kings, black kangs, black.

Speaker 4 (03:28):
Bishops, black players, people of the Chocolate Persue, black gang,
black bishops, black players, people of the Chocolate persue, lack Kang,
black bishops, black players, people of the Chocolate persuey Lang Kang,
black bishops, black players, people of the Chocolate persuasional, who
was a homosexual himself, who was in love with his

(03:50):
sister Lucretia.

Speaker 2 (03:51):
Who they made the image of Lucretia to be married,
and that became the Renaissance era queen. So are you
telling me little Cretia that's a black name. Are you
going to say that the people that was framing the
black people were also black? That don't make no sense. Lucretius,
a black as hell named Lucuetius. Church even allowed it.

(04:14):
You know what I'm saying. The church allowed for straight
pimping that have been suppressed, that have been suppressed. Listen
to my brother, the fifteen hundreds, it was legal to
be a pun black.

Speaker 5 (04:42):
Why are you so big? Why are you so?

Speaker 6 (04:46):
Why are you so big?

Speaker 5 (04:47):
Why are you super?

Speaker 3 (04:49):
Why are you so big?

Speaker 5 (04:51):
Why are you ski?

Speaker 1 (04:53):
Why are you so big?

Speaker 5 (04:55):
Why are you supert?

Speaker 3 (04:57):
By? Are you so kig?

Speaker 1 (04:58):
Why are you super?

Speaker 3 (05:00):
Why are you super?

Speaker 6 (05:02):
Why am I super?

Speaker 1 (05:04):
Why are you souping? Why are you soper?

Speaker 3 (05:08):
Why are you so?

Speaker 5 (05:09):
Why are you super? Why are you SKay?

Speaker 6 (05:20):
Why are you sure?

Speaker 7 (05:37):
I was born a.

Speaker 2 (05:37):
Romania in a Christian family.

Speaker 8 (05:42):
Fancy fancy.

Speaker 7 (05:46):
I was born a Romania in a Christian family. Fancy chant.

Speaker 2 (05:57):
That's when they have charged right now till about a charge.
So we're about to have an eye my shirt, church
party and the baby too, That's what That's what they
call the after party. I'll ever heard of the after party?
You know what I'm saying.

Speaker 9 (06:15):
I was born in.

Speaker 2 (06:16):
Romania in a Christian family. Fancy Costa, Santi Costa. I
was born Romania in a Christian family, Fancy Costa, Santi Costa.
I put my keys, said my fresh get you. I

(06:40):
put my kis dog.

Speaker 3 (06:41):
Shi on the first A.

Speaker 8 (06:44):
Depends on both it wrong.

Speaker 2 (06:47):
I'm like some what I'm wrong? This is a freaking weekend. Baby,
were about to have some chart. I was born in
Romania in a Christian family, tan pecock that.

Speaker 3 (07:02):
Contact.

Speaker 9 (07:03):
I was born in Romania in.

Speaker 10 (07:06):
A family can contact candy contact.

Speaker 2 (07:13):
That's how they have charged.

Speaker 1 (07:15):
Right now, more space, Let's create lies main space God

(07:38):
a body, it's a very tool. He looks good, good
moons space space space space space magic underwear fitting tap

(08:03):
magic undowhere it's feeling right.

Speaker 3 (08:10):
More man space wise, more men space.

Speaker 1 (08:15):
Wise, Lords of the cold, I would like to have
intimacies with you.

Speaker 3 (08:30):
On the planet of the boom space wise.

Speaker 11 (08:39):
Magical under.

Speaker 1 (08:42):
Where right there, man space, Let's create lies momonts space
wise Gods a body, money m It's a very tool.

(09:04):
He looks good, good, more space wise, more man space wise, my.

Speaker 2 (09:16):
Space space.

Speaker 1 (09:20):
Magic underwear fitting tape, magic underwear.

Speaker 2 (09:25):
It's feeling right.

Speaker 1 (09:30):
More man space wise, more space wise, lords of I
would like to have intimacies with you on the planet

(09:51):
of the boo.

Speaker 2 (09:56):
More man space wise. Right there. Oh yeah, it's by
that time. You all ready to call in. Let me
add I forget to add it to the stream. Here

(10:16):
is the call in. We're going to get right into
it to Trent Horn. Irritable bowel syndrome affects millions of
Americans every day, especially male feminists. And yes, Trent Horn
self identifies as a male feminist, and you can find

(10:40):
that in his debate with Tim Gordon on Catholic answers
some years back. So we're already off to a bad start,
or a bad fart, i should say, in the case
of the extreme disadvantages that people of colors such as

(11:02):
Trent Horn experience, and myself being sufferers of IBS. What's
funny too, because every every Trent Horn thumbnail has him
making this part face. It's like, just make a normal thumbnail, dude, Like,
what's with what's with the irritable ballast? Look here it

(11:24):
is again. It's like, also, Trent, that jufro is dolled
up to like a nine.

Speaker 3 (11:34):
You need to dial that.

Speaker 2 (11:35):
Back just just to look better, baby, just to look good.
Doll that jufro back down to about a five or
a four maybe, because it's just it's just not working though,
All right, where is Oh, here's the space, here's the space.

Speaker 3 (11:55):
Right here.

Speaker 2 (11:57):
I'll put this in the chat for you guys and
you can call call in right here. Why are you
so gay? Why are you so gay? Why are you
so okay? Are you so good? Okay, gay, there's the
link right there, the links in the show description to
call in yet another Trent Horn low tier pop apologist

(12:18):
response appealing to the lowest common denominator, insisting that Rumman
Catholics are just intent upon never understanding an internal critique,
a system level argument, transcendental argumentation, paradigms. They're just not

(12:39):
gonna get it, and gosh dang it, they will not
to get it. They will never get it. You will
never make them get it. Even though I suppose I
thought these people were supposedly all about philosophy. They they're scholastic,
they like to get into the weeds and the nitty gritties.

(12:59):
They like fancy terms from the Middle Ages. But then
when we actually get into the details of Paradigm's worldviews
and how tomism really boxes you into not thinking in
terms of paradigms, that's when it all hits the fan.

(13:20):
Trent's irritable bowel face syndrome hits the fan. The poop
hits the fan because we find out that Trent has
only doubled, tripled, and quadrupled down even though he's been
absolutely wrong over and over again about multiple things. For example,

(13:43):
Trent has tripled down that the Old Testament does not
clearly reveal the Triad and the Old Testament saints, we're
worshiping a generic Unitarian God. And that's why that's one
of the reasons that we can have natural theology leading
to Muslims, Christians, and Jews all worship the saying God.
Remember one, John two is a perfect clear as day

(14:06):
reputation of this stupid argument, and ever since the Trent
Doherty crash out live on air when he flipped out
on me and then later flipped out on multiple people
after him screaming, cussing, lying, having a literal meltdown, right,
not a exaggerated overused terminology on the Internet of crashing out,

(14:30):
an actual crash out. Whoever denies the son does not
have the Father, whoever acknowledged the son has the Father,
exactly what Jesus says in the Book of John. If
you don't have Me, you don't have the Father. And
of course, the entire context of all of the debates

(14:51):
were about whether Muslims, Christians, and Jews worship the same God.
The debate does not do they have the intention of
the same referent. The debate is worship Roman Catholics, Aypero,
do to think that worship is just simply a mental acknowledgment,
almost like Protestants the way they think that salvation or
justification is a mental notional act. No, salvation and worship

(15:17):
are not merely intellections. Certainly there is an intellectual assent
that is part of that, but that's not the essence
of worship. But of course, the whole Western ethos post Schism,
is actually locked into a duality view of man, that
man is body and soul, and soul is essentially intellect.

(15:39):
This duality view is not Orthodox. There's no place for
the noose or the heart by which we have direct
experience of God. That's very important because it's going to
answer this three two three day dilemma that's been going
on on Twitter with Roman Catholic's not understanding what it
means to have direct connection with God. For them, there

(16:02):
is no direct connection with God. That's delayed to the escton. Remember,
created grace removes you from having that direct experiential, heart
based noetic connection to God. So there's a veil of
the created that separates every person from having that direct connect. Now,

(16:22):
since that goes along created grace, Phillyoakuey, papal dominance all
comes to prominence in centuries eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve.
It's not accidental that the same heresies across the board
all flower. All the novelties of the Franco Latin position,
they all come to fruition and flower during that period

(16:45):
because they go together. So that means that there's no
direct connection with God because of created grace. That also
means that an office will step in to be the
created source of unity. Now I'm not saying that Christ's
physical body isn't a source of unity. Obviously Christ took

(17:06):
on a human nature and in the sense that is
a physical source of unity. What I'm talking about is
a juridical, supposedly epistemic source for the church's unity, namely
the office of the papacy. Why does the Roman calogiy
think that this is such a strong argument, Well, they've
already began from a presupposition of unbelieve in the power

(17:29):
of the Holy Spirit to lead and guide the church
without a single juridical autocratic office. Now, before we get
to Trent, We've got some good news. Got good news
this week because yah boy, Now I forgot to send
these links to my chat here. Yeah, boy, Leo, No, no,

(17:58):
I'm not talking about Leonardo DiCaprio. I'm talking about pote
Leo DiCaprio. You boy, Leo DiCaprio right here. Check this out.
Why I you so gay?

Speaker 1 (18:14):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (18:14):
I is so gay? Because it turns out that the
CHI eighty document its definitions. Oh uh oh, turns out

(18:35):
Leo has now expressed that the KI eighty document reflects
the papal mind and teaching. It doesn't matter whether KI
eighty is dogmatic magisterium. It doesn't matter whether Leo's letter
here is dogmatic magisterium. None of that matters because, first
and foremost, it now expresses Leo's theological view. So wait

(18:57):
a minute, Leo's theological view supports this right here, the
Joint Declaration and the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue.
Many Roman Catholics didn't even know what this was, and
they don't know how hyperlink works. Imagine being in the
era when Roman Catholics are too lazy to even look

(19:20):
at what a hyperlink is because they insisted that Leo
was never affirming KIATI. Oh really, what is the hyperlink?

Speaker 1 (19:31):
Oh?

Speaker 2 (19:32):
It's the documents like Kiati. It's literally what the hyperlink
goes to. Now, Roman Catholic apologies are so full of
Kazustri and lying that they said, no, it doesn't count
because it's a hyperlink. I kid you not. They don't
even care that the entire document expresses the acumenist mindset,

(19:53):
even to the point where Leo was recently saying, let's
not even worry about the Philioque and the Creed anymore.
The Pope himself is saying, for acuminous reasons, let's not
cite the filioqua and the Creed. Now he's not denying
the theology. So it doesn't really do anything. It's kind
of a worthless thing. But doesn't that show you, you

(20:14):
lying Roman Catholic apologists, that he has the mindset of
the Joint International Commission. Of course it does. On top
of that, he also made reference to the same stuff.

Speaker 3 (20:29):
In his.

Speaker 2 (20:31):
Let's see what the other one is, the Apostolic letter. Now,
keep in mind every Roman Catholic deflects this argument and
this point into the most ridiculous Kazustri word games game.
They want to play word concept fallacy games. I don't

(20:52):
have to accept it I handwave anything I don't like,
because there's the Apostolic Journey saying that he agrees with this,
and in what sense does he mean it? The sixthiest
an sixtieth anniversary of Atat And what is noser Tate

(21:13):
the ecumenist document written by the Gage You yes, you
heard me right, I mean, I hate the way book

(21:34):
marks just doesn't even save anything. It's so annoying. We'll
come over here and I'll remind you because everyone has
forgotten that Nosra Tat, the inter Religious Ecumenist Mega Document
of Vatican two, also is said here to express the
mind of Leo. Now imagine trying to craft this into say, no,

(21:56):
Leo's not affirming the Acumenist interpretations that Kiatis the admissions
of Kiati that the Bishop of Rome did not have
universal canonical authority and jurisdiction in the first millennium. No, no, no,
that's not true, because it just says he likes the
fruits of it. It expresses his mind, just like Nostrattante does.

(22:18):
These are the most ridiculous liars. Now guess what He
also references it here in his Apostolic letter. I would
like the letter to encourage the church to renew enthusiasm
for the profession of faith. What profession, the one without
the philioque. This enduring confession has been the common heritage.

(22:42):
It deserves to be professed.

Speaker 5 (22:43):
To this end.

Speaker 2 (22:43):
A significant document by the Theological Commission. It's the same
commission that produced Kiati and Alexandria documents on the anniversary
of Nicia. In light of this, the Nicing Creed right

(23:06):
and then he talks about the Nicene creed and he
mentions the creed without the philioque. And I say all
this because this shows his mindset and attitude the teaching
of the Roman see the ordinary teaching of the Roman

(23:27):
pontiff right there. I believe in the Holy Spirit who
proceeds from the Father. Now I know that he's not
denying the phillyoqua, you idiot Roman Catholics, because you know

(23:50):
when you say this, oh Diary thinks he's denying the philioquay,
he's not even denying it. I know he's not denying it.
That's why I'm saying this is really worthless for our person.
But from the Roman healthy perspective, within the Romancoltic perspective,
I like how this guy Alex, I want you to

(24:11):
call in Alex C. Please call in Goes. This has
nothing to do with honesty other than that your so
called apologists are the most dishonest pieces of trash on
the planet. You'll notice that all the Roman Catholic apologists

(24:32):
for many, many years hand waved kiati doesn't count. Oh well,
now Leo says it reflects his mindset and he enjoins
Christians to support it. Oh well, it does. It still
doesn't count because it's not magisterium. Okay, let's see if
Roman Catholics are only bound by magisterium or also all

(24:57):
the disciplinary actions of the papacy, and we're not even
to the epistemic problem yet. So this is what I
said in this suite. Here, there's five places in Densinger
that condemn the view the Roman Catholics are only bound

(25:19):
by ex cathedral or only by magisterial pronouncements that are
official and clear. No, no, no, you're also bound by
the disciplinary teachings of the Roman Pontiff. So this is
Densinger eighteen thirty. The Roman Pontiff is the supreme judge
in all matters, in all cases about ecclesiastical exterminate examination,

(25:45):
that means if the excommunicate someone SSPX, you don't get
to say I reject it, it's invalid. That's Protestant. What
about obedience? What about disciplinary matters? Judicial juridical matters are

(26:06):
also binding Densinger, sixteen eighty three. In other words, as
Densinger seven twenty two relates, it is a condemned proposition
that the Roman Church is only to be followed of
the Roman see in Extraordinary Dogmatic Matters seventeen twenty two.

(26:27):
The obligation by which Catholic teachers and writers are bound
is only restricted to matters proposed by the infallible judgment
that is condemned. I know that you have severe reading
comprehension problems in the Roman Catholic world, but you understand
that's the proposition that is then condemned if you read,
If you have reading comprehension, just ban the people that

(26:51):
won't call in.

Speaker 3 (27:00):
You.

Speaker 2 (27:00):
Notice that in the response to all this, none of
them are actually dealing with the arguments. All they're talking
about is how I'm bad, and this is what they've
always for seven or eight years now. Roman Catholics have
only responded. I'm talking about the mainline Normy ones that
nobody follows with one or two thousand followers. Like, all
they respond with is why I'm bad. But that doesn't work.

(27:21):
That only works on the lowest tier people. And it
doesn't matter how bad I am, even if I'm the
worst person on the planet. What does that have to
do with whether my arguments are true or false? It
has nothing to do with that. So it's the last
refuge of It's a dying gasp, the last dying gasp
of a position that has already hemorrhaged thousands of people

(27:44):
to Orthodoxy in the last few years. That should be
a clue to you guys that it's not working to
just do this low tier Badmann stuff. But that's all
they have. They have no way to actually deal with
what Roman Catholic has actually dealt with Denzinger. I've been
putting this Denzinger argument out for over ten years. Has
any Roman Catholic even addressed this? They don't touch it,

(28:07):
They don't care. Vatican one says in Denzinger in seventeen
ninety two. The object of Catholic faith is not just
the dogmatic ex cathedral pronouncements, but also anything universal, ordinary teaching,
and beyond that even if it's not magisterial dogma, if

(28:32):
it's just ordinary, not universal ordinary, which is protected by
the charism of infallibility, but just ordinary normal teaching by
the bishops or the pope. What does Canon seven to
fifty two say about non dogmatic papal teaching. Does it
say you have the freedom and the liability as you

(28:55):
list to privately interpret and reject what you don't like
from Leo or Francis or whoever. It never says this.
This is a completely manufactured papal minimalist position that only
came into vogue in the last few years by pap
apologists who are dealing with our serious challenges to them.

(29:17):
So when they have the struggle of making no stretat work,
of making inter religious prayer with demonic religion's work, demonic religions,
satanic religions, what's the answer? I can handwave it because
of papal minimalism. Where in Vatican one, and in these
statements from Denzinger right here in my tweet, where is

(29:41):
papal minimalism. Papal minimalism is an ad hoc rescue for
these people, and now their gay papacy, they're gay pacy
is out here doing literal gay stuff just every week,
and they just handwave it. The Roman Catholic Church is
actually cursed. That's why there's so much pdfgay stuff everywhere.

(30:05):
That's why four out of five priests in Rome are
most likely homosexual. According to books that have been written
and talked about for decades. Even tradcats have written books
about the overtaking of the Roman Catholic world by skittles.
There's one called The Right of Sodomy written by a

(30:26):
tradcat about that.

Speaker 11 (30:29):
Now, am I saying that there's no gay people in Orthodoxy?
Every Orthodox bishop is a saint, of course not. We've
done two podcasts this last week on the fake and
gay world of Orthodoxy. So you can never please these
people or satisfy their dumb, low tier criticisms because I

(30:50):
never made the argument that Orthodoxy is true because we
have less gay bishops.

Speaker 2 (30:55):
I'm pointing it out as a sign that the institution
is cursed. Is that a proof? It's a sign, just
like miracles aren't a proof. They're signs. They're signs of
the true Church. They're not proofs of the true Church. Now,

(31:26):
if you doubt this article, oh that's just the liberal press.
It's the lubs, the lubs, the lubs. Four and five
Vatican priests that's within Rome are gay. New book claims.
If you doubt that claim, I enjoy. I encourage you
to go to Rome. We spent a week there a

(31:49):
couple of years ago. As you walk around Rome, you
will notice vendors everywhere sell hot priest calendars. It is
the gayest thing you have ever seen. It is real.

(32:10):
This is not fake. This is the twenty twenty six
hot priest's calendar in Rome. By the way, these all
look like AI. These don't look like real dudes. They
probably created an AI. But prior to that, this is
exactly what you see. This right here walking around Rome
is vendors selling hot priest calendars. It's not ladies buying

(32:32):
the hot priest calendars, you guys, it's dudes. Duh. Now,
now that you've seen that, which is very real, how
hard is it to believe four and five Vatican priests
are gay? Am I arguing that this disproves Romancantholicism? No,

(32:59):
I know, it's really hard for you guys to listen
to an argument and to mischaracterize it into straw man.
I don't think I've ever heard an Orthodox person say
that our church is true because there's less gay stuff
or less PDF stuff. No one has ever argued that

(33:19):
it's a proof of the extent of the corruption and
a sign an indicator of a false church. It's actually
the system level argument that disproves Roman Catholicism, that at
a fundamental level there are so many dogmatic contradictions and

(33:39):
changes and innovations. That's the system level defeater. For example,
Jim Gordon and his buddy Joe Enders recently made a

(34:00):
talking about how Joe Heshmeier was refuted on feminism because
Cassiy CANUBII is binding. Now. I went into dm discussion
with Tim about this, because well, now, wait a minute.
If Cassid Canubi is binding, then Mortalium animos is binding. Now,
Tim said, well, it is, but only in the parts

(34:24):
that align with everywhere else that it's been taught. Do
you see how silly this is from an epistemic standpoint,
Because now we're at a point where we have to go,
as I've been telling you guys for years, in order
to actually know what's binding and magisterial, I would now
have to cross reference any single paragraph or line within

(34:45):
an encyclical with every other Roman teaching to see if
it was always taut. We wait a minut mortalium Animos
actually says twice the Roman Sea has always forbidden its

(35:08):
members from partaking in acumenical gatherings. So, even on Tim's
own basis for why only certain parts of Casti Kanubia
are binding and Mortalian Animos are binding, even on his
own grounds, the part about not having inter religious meetings
and gatherings with false religions is binding. And it's even

(35:33):
described as a apostasy. It's a leaving of the faith
to engage in it. That means the popes are apostate
on the Roman Catholic systems grounds. I know that you
Roman Catholics are incapable of understanding hypotheticals like the Muslims
and internal critiques because every point at which they respond
every time, all the way back to twenty eighteen with Lofton,

(35:57):
is it too quoque about Joe church Wood? About what
about the EP? What about your bishops? What about? What about?

Speaker 3 (36:03):
What about? What about?

Speaker 10 (36:04):
What about?

Speaker 3 (36:04):
What a beut?

Speaker 2 (36:04):
What about what about what a belt? We will have, Uh,
we will answer that and we have with a different paradigm.
Why would I be subjected to a papal ecclesiology critique
when I'm not a papist. They cannot fathom different systems
because they don't understand paradigms and presuppositions. As we have

(36:25):
said for ten years plus, when you're an evidentialist, when
you stack things up as a classical foundationalist, you literally
just take think that will you have the same problem.
You don't like our pope? Will you got bad bishops?

(36:48):
I don't have the papal system, you idiot? How can
you not understand this argument that's been presented to you
for about ten years. If I thought the EP or
the pentarchy or whatever, if I thought that they were infallible,
then your reply would work. It wouldn't be a two
quoqu way. It would be a valid internal critique. But

(37:11):
you don't understand an internal critique. An internal critique that
I'm making to your system doesn't work on my system.
It's a different system with different rules.

Speaker 9 (37:25):
Duh.

Speaker 2 (37:26):
This is exactly what we're gonna do. I haven't even
watched Trent's video. I already know that that's exactly where
Trent's gonna go. Because Trent cannot understand paradigm level arguments,
paradigm critiques. He only understands evidentialism. And if you go
back to our natural theology debate, that was the conclusion
of the whole debate, especially the critique of self evidency.

(37:50):
When we got to that point, Trent completely failed. He
said something was self evident and then he said it
relies on other things. Well, then it's not self evident. Trent.
I mean, no Roman Catholic that's out there can do
epistemology at a one oh one level. None of them.
Why because their best hope was skittles Trent Doherty, who

(38:16):
literally had meltdowns and had to leave the Internet in
shame as the entire public viewing world turned on him
and cucking Christianity. Now, let's look at mortellium animos. Oh
it actually it's not two times, it's actually three times.
That has reiterated three Look at verse paragraph ten. So

(39:01):
venerable brethren, it is clear why the Apostolic sea has
never allowed subjects to take part in the assemblies of
non Catholics. Never allowed it Does that count as perennial
ordinary teaching if it's never been allowed by the Roman
See this is numbered differently. The challenge here is, let

(39:41):
me get to the Let's try the other version, because
this is numbered differently than the ten press version. Yeah,

(41:11):
I'm trying to find the paragrapher talks about the federation
of Christians that aren't part of the Roman sea. Let's
try the word federate because this is a different translation.
Then I'm using this one, which is numbered and translated different.
So let's try federation. Yeah, so there is no federation

(41:31):
of a humanist Christians, never existed. It can't exist. Let's see,
that's where he talks about the foundation of charity, is
what I'm looking for. Yeah, who could conceive of a

(42:06):
Christian federation of the members of which retain each of
their own opinions in a private judgment, even in matters
which is not concerned the object of the faith right,
for example, those who affirm and deny the tradition to
be found divine revelation, those who hold to an ecclesiastical
argument of Ambician priests have been devoudy constituted. In other words,
you cannot have the church without the Roman pontiff and

(42:27):
his infallible teaching authority. So there's no such thing as
a confederation of Christians outside of communion with the Roman Sea.
These pan Christians who strive for this union would appear
to be the noblest in ideas. However, everyone knows that
you cannot do this apart from the Roman Sea. Thus,
the Roman Sea has never allowed its subjects to partake

(42:50):
in the assemblies of non Catholics. Why is that? Because
they are separated. So Notice this is an acumenism of return,

(43:19):
by the way Pious the ninth. Also this is Pies
eleven in nineteen twenty eight, So two decades three decades
after this, from nineteen twenty eight to nineteen sixty eight,
four decades later, the Church, apparently the Holy Spirit completely
reversed what the Holy See had always forbidden to now promote.

(43:42):
Notice that it's not just a question in Pious the
Eleven's and cyclical it's about schismatic, heretical Protestant Orthodox groups.
No strette is about other religions and the common ground there.
So it's a violation of the idea number one of
the Ecumenism of return. For an ecumenism of everybody is

(44:07):
part of the concentric circles partial communion with the Roman Sea,
even the false religions that's the model about agantuinosretate. But
here's the bind that the Roman Catholics are in. Even
if you think in Mortalian animos is just ordinary teaching,
let's say it's at the lowest level, is it not binding?
According to Tim's argument, then about if Cassid KANUBII is

(44:31):
binding about marriage and women not running the household, then
by the same logic, mortalium animals a couple of years
before Castid Kanubia is also binding. That means Romancllolics are
forbidden to take part in those inter religious ceremonies. And
according to Canon seven fifty two, even if it's ordinary teaching,

(44:52):
although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of
the intellect and will must be given to the doctrines
of the Supreme Pontiff in the College of Bishops regarding
faith morals when they exercise authentic magiesstarium, even if it's
not ex cathedral or defender of action. See and how
do I know that? Go back to my tweet right here.
I'll put it in the chat for you guys. Five

(45:18):
places in Dnzinger as well as and I didn't even
include when I when I wrote this letter, I don't think.
I don't think I knew about Castid Kanubi I one
O four yet, which is another one. Castid Kanube also
says you're bound by the normal, ordinary teachings of the
Roman Pontiff, even if it's not magisterium. How come none
of you, all you people in the chat, all you

(45:39):
idiot Roman Catholics, you have nothing. You can't actually engage
with any of the actual arguments. All you have is
to call people names because you're losing, you're losing hemorrhaging members.
There's just a giant explosion in Colorado of Orthodox, a
massive conversion of Orthodox. There's massive the Orthodox churches are

(46:00):
tripling across the country, triple categ humans. There's an Orthodox
church that has fifteen hundred new members recently. So, any
Roman Catholic in the Chat, I'm going to enjoin you
to call in on my Twitter live space and explain

(46:22):
to me how you can handwave Kiati since it now
reflects the mind of Leo. Now, let's take this argument
to another level and say, Okay, let's say that Leo's wrong,
Kiati's wrong. And if you don't know, because a lot
of these people are stupid, they don't know what d
Katie document actually says. The contentious The most important contentious

(46:52):
statement is at the end of Kiati, which admits that
the appellate structure is not an autocratic structure. As Ali
Soren showed from a legal perspective, and as Ubi and
others have shown for years from a legal perspective, an
apple it structure is not an autocratic structure. This is
they're so stupid they don't even know this. They think

(47:12):
that the apple it structure proves autocracy. It's it's the
opposite of that. Furthermore, even if a pope did something
in the first thousand years outside of his bounds, that
doesn't mean that it's a proof of papalism unless you
presuppose papism. So, for example, when Pope Victor in one
eighty tried to excommunicate all of the East, he was
doing a out of bounds, out of jurisdiction action that

(47:34):
Saint aaron As rebukes him for and it gets walked back. Now,
on the Roman Caelic mindset, they would argue that Pope
Victor doing that proves papism because he did a universal
papal action in one eighty even though he walked it
back and got rebuked by Arnas. So why would that

(47:56):
be a proof of papism when my paradigm can also
explain it and give a more coherent account. In my paradigm,
popes doing things, even in the first thousand years outside
of their bounds doesn't prove papism. It proves they went
outside of their bounds as Canon six of Nicea limits jurisdiction,

(48:17):
as the Canons of the Apostles, the upside canons limit jurisdiction.
There's nothing in the ancient canons about universal jurisdiction. That's
why Kiati admits appeals to the Bishop of Rome from
the East expressed the community the church, but the Bishop
of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the East. Now,

(48:40):
when they brought on the canon law scholar to the
Carbohydrate podcast, what did Father Richard Price say to Lofton
and Candy Barra.

Speaker 12 (48:58):
Documents that are being used are spurious? Documents that are
being used? I run the documents that are being used.
Documents that three documents three.

Speaker 9 (49:20):
Why did the bishops in Calcidon feel they needed to
judge Theodore it if Leo had already reinstated him.

Speaker 10 (49:30):
Well, they didn't They didn't recognize Roman jurisdiction in the
Eastern provinces. So uh, there's reinstating for that was not decision.
The decision has to be made in the East. The

(50:00):
exposition at the contis is an interesting one.

Speaker 2 (50:03):
So Father Price is expressing exactly what Kiat says. And
now twice Leo has referenced that the Kiati documents in
the Alexandria document are his mindset, his attitude. So what
are we arguing. Now, let's say for the sake of
argument that the Roman Catholics can handwave all that. Well,

(50:27):
guess what it still means. Leo has affirmed heresy because
if Kiati is wrong about Vatican I, which is premised
on the argument that the Roman Sea always had universal jurisdiction,
Kiati says that in the first millennium he didn't.

Speaker 10 (50:45):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (50:45):
Oh, now he's a heretic. So even though it expresses
the mind of Leo, and Leo has enjoined the entire
Catholic world to agree with that, and with Kiati and

(51:06):
with the Joint Theological Commission, He's enjoyed them to joyously agree.
They say, I will not agree. I'm a papal Protestant.
I will pick and choose, and I don't care about
Rome's ordinary teaching. But even if you reject it, Leo
has now denied Vatican One by affirming Kiati, so that

(51:28):
means he's now accepted heresy. I mean nostre tat is
even worse. It's apostasy. So the mirror fact that they
taught nostre tat is itself apostasy. Now they're denying indefectibility.
Now the Roman Sea has defected. Can everybody understand this?

(51:53):
It's like the Muslim dilemma. It's not that difficult. Either
the Roman See is pert active from ever teaching error
and from defecting, or it can defect, and like Honoreas,
popes can become heretics. But if popes can be heretics,
then now we have another problem that Vatican One says

(52:14):
the roman See cannot teach error and has never taught error.
It is indefectible. And they can spin one thousand yarns
and mental gymnastics all day long and they will never
get out of this dilemma. There is no way out
of this dilemma. And seventy years plus of papal actions

(52:35):
confirm the apostasy interpretation of nos er Tati. Remember all
of the Roman Catholic gibbering and gibberish after I debated
Tim Gordon and Trent Horne, I mean Trent Doherty about
we worship the same God as the Muslims. They all
spun it as if Vatican two is giving a an

(52:55):
evangelism approach to try to convert the Muslims on common ground,
even though the papers, he says, stop proselytizing and all
the paths can now lead to God. Remember Francis saying
that all the pasts lead to God. They intentionally expressly
say many times over that they interpret Nosertate in an ecumenist,

(53:20):
pan religious way. They say it over and over and over,
and these lying deceivers turn around and say, no, it
doesn't it's about at They're trying to convert them. Oh really,
so going and praying in the mosques towards Mecca, which
is a total violation of any canonical limitations of the

(53:43):
first thousand years of everybody in the first thousand dars
of Christianity would just think it's absolutely unthinkable for bishops
of the Christian Church to pray in mosques towards Mecca,
to go in synagogues and pray in synagogues like the
popes do what your pictures. I don't have the same

(54:03):
system as you. You have a lattes sententia ipso fact
of you. Your review says that when you commit these
actions of apostacy or heresy, you're automatically out of the
Roman Calloy Church. One heresy satis cognitium and misteachic corporus, say,
remove a person from the Roman Calolic Church one public
obstinate profession of heresy. The Roman see has seventy years

(54:25):
plus done this stuff, So you don't have an excuse of, well,
it's material heresy because they don't really know. So wait
a minute. The pope doesn't know the faith. The pope
doesn't know the basics. That's what your argument is.

Speaker 8 (54:42):
Well, he might materially have an opinion of heresy, but
he's doing it out of ignorance.

Speaker 2 (54:48):
He doesn't know, he doesn't know what he's doing. We
have to educate the Holy Father. You have to educate
the Holy Father on what the Catholic Church faith is.
All you have to know is mortalian animals. Mortalian animals
alone or unam signed them and Dictatus Pope. Those are

(55:10):
kill shots, all right. So let's get to to Trent
here and see what he says.

Speaker 7 (55:23):
Eastern Orthodox Christians only make up one percent of the
American and four percent of.

Speaker 2 (55:28):
Here the numbers game, you have so low numbers, Well,
guess what. Our numbers are exploding and numbers don't prove anything.
There have been many periods in the Church when numbers
were in the favor of the heretics. So again, low
tier stuff. All of the Catholic answers. Trent stuff is
designed for the lowest common nominator, lowest level stuff. And

(55:52):
that's why the only people who respond. Now there's you
don't notice, there's no actual series intellectual responses. It's just gibbering, yaping,
cussing fifteen year olds.

Speaker 7 (56:03):
Relation. I've been seeing more posts from them saying Christians
should leave their churches and come home to Orthodoxy. And
some of the reasons these apologists give undermine their own
Orthodox commitments. So in today's episode, we'll look at those
reasons and I'll share my thoughts on engaging in Orthodox politt.

Speaker 2 (56:19):
Now, remember this already as a setup for Trent being
absolutely incapable of understanding internal critiques, paradigm level arguments, transcendental arguments, and.

Speaker 7 (56:31):
System DEFEATERSMX and help me do that, I've asked Eastern
Orthodox priest Father Laurene clean Work, author of Heath Broke.

Speaker 2 (56:39):
So clean Work is a rabbit ecumenist who wants to
be a uniate, So of course he's going to write
Invite on that.

Speaker 7 (56:45):
Guy and body understanding and healing the schism between the
Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches to review today's script.
All right, the worst arguments Eastern Orthodox apologists make against
Catholicism are the ones that would also apply to their
own church. And to be clear, what I'm talking about
seems to be unique to Eastern Orthodox who spend a
lot of time arguing on the internet.

Speaker 2 (57:07):
Oh see, we're bad. Even though Trent spends a lot
of time interview arguing on the internet. So Trent arguing
on the internet is cool. But if you're an ortho bro,
you're chronically online arguing on the internet. Now, remember this
is the critique that we get from feminists and church

(57:30):
moms and church core sewing circle wine moms that orthobros
are chronically online. Oh really, as if that doesn't apply
twenty times worse to twenty year old trad cats who
literally live online.

Speaker 7 (57:46):
Like many terminally online people the Internet.

Speaker 2 (57:49):
This is such a boomer level critique too, right, And
by the way, keep in mind Trent is a self
professed male feminist. Yes, you heard me right, Trent Horne
is a male feminist, which is a perfect exemplification of
normy Roman Catholic apologetics of totally cocked, totally feminist losers
who pushed the stabby during the coof period and made

(58:11):
fun of me as a chick track level conspiracy theorist
who's now he's you realize he's never admitted that he
was wrong about pushing the stabbys in the couve, or
that there's any geopolitical problems about a push for syncretism
a global government. No, no, he's a defender of the
anti Christ in chief, the papacy pushing for a global

(58:35):
world religion. Remember, Trent denies all that it doesn't exist.
It's a crazy tinfoil hat thing. And by the way,
get your stabby and become a feminist. According to Trent,
if you doubt me on that, go listen to his
debate with Tim Gordon on Catholic answers where Trent identifies
himself as a male feminist.

Speaker 7 (58:55):
And debt in your ability to think critically. It lulls
you into a complacency where you phost whatever feels good
or based.

Speaker 2 (59:02):
And oh so see Normy posting one oh one, Ortho
bros post what they think is based. Oh really didn't
All of the gropers also get into a giant war
with Trent Horn. So Trent is actually also undermining a
giant section of the online Catholic base who every day

(59:22):
posts based stuff. So Trent does of that. Also, if
you want to talk about two quoquays and what aboutisms,
what about chronically online Roman Catholics.

Speaker 7 (59:32):
Up to think of what you're posting makes sense?

Speaker 2 (59:34):
For example, Yeah, so yeah, we don't. We don't even
know what we're posting. It doesn't We don't even know
if it makes sense. We're just so low tiar it's
so stupid. Even though Trent says that the Old Testament
teaches not a trinity but a generic God, he didn't
even know that. Jesus says Abraham believed in the Trinity,
Abram believed in Christ. And when I brought that up,

(59:56):
do you know what Trent said, the Trinity is not
in the Old Testament. Where does it reference? Where does
Jesus say believe in the Trinity. It's a generic guy.
And then when I sent him church father's teachings about
the Angel of the Lord being Jesus and to Trinity
being the Old Testament, do you know what Trent said?
I said in passing the triad is all to the
Old Testament? Trent said, triad is an anti Trinitarian term. Yes,

(01:00:24):
triad is an anti trinit You heard me right. Did
Trent ever walk this back and admit that that's wrong
because he goes to an Eastern Catholic church that uses
the word triad in the liturgy. So this dummy thinks
that triad is anti Trinitarian even though it's used in
his own liturgy. He's that stupid, He's that ignorant of

(01:00:47):
his own church tradition and faith. And to notice that

(01:01:13):
Trent said, again, doubling down Jewish multiplicity in the Godhead
is proto Aryan. You would have to use the word triad.
But people who use the word triad are not worshiping
the true God. There's Trent's own tweet, in his own
tradition which revers palomass and books like the Triads, and

(01:01:39):
his own liturgy, which calls in the Greek the Trinity
the Triad. This dummy has tripled and quadrupled down, still
denying this. This is a fundamental blunder. This is so
bad that it should end his career. He should go
back to I don't know what he did before he

(01:02:00):
to be an apologist. He is literally the worst. I
wonder if we can find that the debate where he
identifies as a male feminist. Let's see Trent Horn. I
know it's only an audio, Okay, here it is.

Speaker 7 (01:02:23):
Now Welcome everyone to another episode of the Council of
Trent podc.

Speaker 2 (01:02:28):
Here is a Trent's debate with Tim Gordon where he
identifies as a male feminist. But I mean, what do
you expect I put it in the chat, by the way,
what do you expect, by the way, from like a
normy novis ordo leveled pop apologist who I mean, all
of these things that I'm listing are so stupid and
so low tier that she really put an end in

(01:02:50):
the Trent Horn apologetic but roma Catholicism actually flourishes on
the low tier stuff. It's all about numbers and low
quality people and low inf no information voters and converts.
That's why all of these fifteen sixteen year olds, twenty
year olds, they don't know anything about any of this stuff.

(01:03:11):
And in five to ten years they're going to be
faced with all the problems that we're actually outlining right now,
and they're going to start thinking, Hey, wait a minute,
why is my church so faking gay? Why is it
like a giant organized crime syndicate. Oh, I guess Jay
was actually right, and me calling him names didn't actually
do anything.

Speaker 10 (01:03:32):
Well.

Speaker 7 (01:03:33):
One common post by Eastern Orthodox critics of Catholicism goes
like this, the Pope did something the poster doesn't like
or thinks is cringe, like blessing of lack of ice
at an event about climate change. Therefore Catholic should become
Eastern Orthodox.

Speaker 2 (01:03:47):
No, the argument was never the Pope did something cringe,
so Orthodoxy is true and he knows that that's not
the argument. I think so. I think Trent is just
straight lying here at this point, because all we've said
for ten years plus is that these actions betray the faith.
And by the way, some actions I don't know about
blessing a cube of ice isn't apostasy, but some actions

(01:04:11):
like praying towards Mecca are apostasy because in the Roman
Catholic moral theology scheme interior interior beliefs can be demonstrated
by exterior actions. So for example, praying together in mosques
or in synagogues towards Mecca or whatever. I mean obviously
synagogues on praying of moss words Mecca or in a synagogue,

(01:04:34):
those are interior. Those are exterior actions of worship that
betray heresy, schism and apostasy interiorly. So it depends on
the action in their own system. That's why they talk
about certain sins in their canon law meeting with excommunication automatically,
it's called ipso facto excommunication, such as apostasy. So praying

(01:05:00):
in the synagogues and in the moss, here's Benedict praying
in the mosque towards Mecca. Here's Francis praying in the
mass towards Mecca. Common religious celebrations that we just saw

(01:05:21):
are condemned in Mortalium animos explicitly for Christian heresies well
obviously by extension that applies to false religions.

Speaker 10 (01:05:31):
Duh.

Speaker 2 (01:05:39):
And when you tell the Roman Catholics of this, they
just handwave it and say, well, maybe he's praying for
the Muslims. Maybe he has the motive to sneak in
and convert them. You don't understand. The action itself is
condemned because it is an action of apostasy. It is
signifying that one now believes in common that you can

(01:06:00):
prey towards Mecca. Because it's all the same God. Do
you understand this all goes together? And the sign that
this religion is cursed is the rampant PDF skittle stuff.
The PDF skittle stuff is everywhere, but it's a sign
that this church does not bear the fruits of producing saints,

(01:06:24):
but of producing criminals, PDFs and demon possessed people. Basically,
the ancient canons of the first thousand years of the
church forbid clerics from going into mosques, synagogues, or whatever,
any of the gathering houses of the heretics to do

(01:06:47):
any kind of common religious liturgical celebrations. It's forbidden clears
day and everybody knows this. So the argument is never
you do bad stuff, therefore we're correct. It's what type
of bad stuff? What type of actions not merely blessing

(01:07:10):
the ice cube. The blessing of the ice cube, in
my comment, was about globalism, that the pope is now
a servant of globalist powers, and the pushing of the
climate change agenda, which, by the way, Trent says, there's
no new world order, there's no push for globalization. Get
your stabbies. And by the way, I'm a male feminist
to quote Trent.

Speaker 7 (01:07:30):
But cringe isn't a synonym for heresy. And the patriarchs
of the East and Orthodox Church also do things the
poster probably doesn't like, such as supporting efforts to comback
climate change.

Speaker 2 (01:07:40):
Plus what's yeah, Trent, we've done podcasts on that for
almost eight or nine years, almost a decade. We've called
out the ecumenical patriarchy for the same actions. However, the
Orthodox Church doesn't have the same canon law which governs
the way that we would approach these types of bishops
in error. We have tons of patriarchs in the history

(01:08:01):
of the Church that have been heretics from many different seas,
including Rome, like Honoreus, or like Vigilius submitting to the
Council and admitting that he was wrong, and this has
been brought up in many debates. Eric Obarrow famously said,
I don't know how to answer that when UBI brought
it up. So, no, we recognize that there can be

(01:08:24):
actions that are sinful. The argument was never that the
papacy is impeccable, and no Orthodox person made that argument.
But when we harass on a daily basis, as you
also harass us for the liberal skittle stuff of the papacy,
we're not wrong in that because it exemplifies the fruits.

(01:08:45):
By the fruits, you'll know them. It's not an ultimate
epistemic proof. It's an indicator and a sign of the
spiritual rot and apostasy that is manifest on a daily
basis since Vatican Two, especially with Francis and Leo. Who's
Franci's point two point zero.

Speaker 7 (01:09:05):
It's wrong with the pope blessing ice given that Catholics
and Orthodox blessed themselves with holy water all the time.

Speaker 2 (01:09:11):
If there are this is so stupid. Obviously, the reason
that the blessing is bad is because it's an indicator
of his alignment with the World Economic Forum Davos technocratic
socialist agenda. And if you doubt me on that, remember
Mortellium or excuse me u gaudium at Spez Which has

(01:09:31):
have these pap apologists ever covered any of these topics?
When has Trent addressed when I'm signed them? And the
temporal supremacy argument? Never? When has Trent addressed the fact

(01:09:53):
that the papacy is the patron of the Talmud, the
most anti christ blasphemous work in Western civilization hist was
put into print by the papacy, You lying goblins. What
did John Paul the second say and teach normatively about Judaism?
Jews live in a covenant with God. Already, Anti Semitism

(01:10:18):
is a sin. Judaism has its own distinct vocation in
the Divine Plan. Christians and Jews affirm a self understanding
religious experience that excludes that includes respect for Judaism and Zionism.
That's Eretz Israel, the land of Israel. Jews and Christians

(01:10:42):
are already in a covenantal relationship with God. The scriptures
of the Jews have a revelatory value as inspired outside
of the Christological interpretation. That's probably the worst statement in
all of that, because that's a complete rejection of the
traditional Christian perspective and Patrician interpretation. Of the Old Testament.

(01:11:09):
And remember no stra Tate was written by a Jewish infiltrator,
a gay man who then left the priesthood and Catholicism
after he did his work. So let me find you

(01:11:32):
Gaudium at Spez. Why does the book marks like lose
every thing that you're looking for? Oh, come on, dude,

(01:11:59):
all right, it's on my here we go document. Gaudium
at Spez is the Vatican two document on the Roman
Catholic Church's official political stance. So here is it's document

(01:12:24):
right there, and it affirms open borders, open chain migration, disarmament,
all the leftist socialist stuff that you can imagine is
affirmed in Gaudium at Spez. There's the video on it
right there. Okay, So Trent, that is what we're applying

(01:12:44):
to Gaudium at Spez. That is why Leo's action of
blessing the ice cube for climate change is a problem,
because it's an alignment. It's Leo showing that he's in
concord with the technocratic global socialist operation. And that's what.
By the way, Trent has no clue what anything about geopolitics.

(01:13:08):
I've asked him three times to do a debate on
the geopolitics of the papacy, and he's declined three times
in a rown.

Speaker 7 (01:13:14):
Fox priests who bless ballistic missiles, then the Pope can
bless frozen water. Or Orthodox apologists will say, if the
Pope makes a doctrinal error, then all of Catholicism is false,
and so all of Orthodoxy must be true.

Speaker 2 (01:13:27):
Now, the argument is, if the Pope makes a significant
doctrinal error, not a theological opinion error, but a teaching
error in his encyclicals, letters, or whatever, then if it's
a issue that's part of Catholic dogma on your own
systems grounds, the papacy has defected. It means that the
Romancy has taught error. And if the Romancy teaches error,

(01:13:51):
then it's not indefectible. Then Vatican one is false because
from the Samakian forgeries Dictatis Pope all the way up
to Vatican one, the Roman Sea cannot teach error and
has never taught error. Is a teaching of the Roman Sea,
That's what it means, not the pub's private opinions. Just
like Honorius is explicitly condemned for theology errors heresy for

(01:14:17):
three ecumenical councils by the way, that means the papacy
is indefectible. Have you noticed that none of the Catholic
apologists have addressed the indefectibility argument. Every time it comes up,
they deflect into I don't have to follow it. It's
not infallible, it's not binding. Oh really, then give us
the epistemic criteria, the epistemic argument for how you know

(01:14:43):
and what the scope is of the authentic magisterium. And,
by the way, if they're going to be consistent, the
epistemic principle itself also has to be dogmatized, because if
it's not, it's fallible and liable to be wrong. So
that would mean that all of the arguments for what
that is binding would be based on something fallible unless
it's also infallibly defined. So the epistem your principle needs

(01:15:08):
to be infallibly defined as well. But guess what, it
doesn't exist. There is no epistemic principle for identifying what
actually isn't isn't binding in their system. We're talking about
internal critique. And not only is there no epistemic principle
that's clear and defined and coherent, the episode of principle

(01:15:31):
it self is not defined dogmatically, and if it was,
it would be a circular recursive argument. But they have
a classical foundationalist epistemology. As we saw from the Trent
Horn debate. The whole all of natural theology is built
on that. Trent would have to admit that, Yeah, at
a basic level, then all arguments are or authority claims

(01:15:54):
are self recurring or self referencing and self recursive. But
Trent can't admit that because that would be to give
up the Aristotelian heritage of self evident principles that he
argued for. That's why they will never, ever, ever ever
address the epistemic problems in Rome and in Tonism. They

(01:16:15):
will always deflect into getting you into debating the ambiguity
of whether this or that document or statement is infallible
in binding. Well, that argument, even if I grant you
that it's not infallible in binding, rests on the assumption
that there is a clear, coherent way to identify what's infallible.

(01:16:35):
What's binding? Now, every low tierro maccalou is.

Speaker 8 (01:16:39):
Gonna say, yeah, it's when the pope speaks from the
chair with authority on faith and morals for the entire church.

Speaker 2 (01:16:45):
No No, you didn't understand the question. I want to
know the epistemic principle that allows you as an individual
to identify and adjudicate which things are binding which ones aren't.
So you can list for me what you interpret from
posteraturnus and from lumingentium or whatever, the things that you

(01:17:08):
think give you the criteria. But the problem is that
are you interpreting those statements and the scope of those
statements correctly? Do you understand there's a scope ambiguity here?
What do I mean when you say something like as
Tim Gordon said when we were just discussing this on
DMS the other day, Tim said, Okay, Cassidy canubii is binding,

(01:17:31):
but only in certain areas. Okay, which area? Because there's
hundreds of paragraphs right, there's over one hundred okay, Tim?
Which sentences and paragraphs are the ones that are binding?

Speaker 6 (01:17:42):
Oh?

Speaker 2 (01:17:42):
The ones that are in line with what was always taught?
Are you serious? Are we dealing with kindergarteners here? Do
you understand that that's more ambiguous, more vague, almost infinity
scope broadening to answer something was absolutely asking for precision.
I need to know the clear defined borders and binding

(01:18:07):
limitations for the things that identify binding and not binding,
because that's what the argument has now has now fallen into. Right,
the Roman Catholic is saying, well, I don't have to
follow that it's not binding. Okay, how do we know
the things that are and are not binding? Oh? Because
of this? This is this from this document, this document. Okay,

(01:18:29):
let's say that's right. Let's give us a test case
on the ground. Example, Castid Conubia. Is it binding?

Speaker 6 (01:18:37):
Oh?

Speaker 2 (01:18:37):
Well, the ones that are in line with everything else,
that are universal and in line with everything else. So
in other words, I have to cross reference every paragraph
and sentence of Cassidy conubi with every other teaching of
the papacy for the last two thousand years. That's even dumber,
that's even more impossible. Do not understand this. This is

(01:19:04):
even worse than Protestants. Protestants only have this many pages
to deal with. Let's say that. Okay, let's go with that.
At least the Protestants only dealing with this many pages.
The papist has this many pages. And all of these
many pages, this is Denzinger and Vatican two. So now

(01:19:28):
I have to and that's not even everything that isn't
all the Apostolic acts. That isn't all the disciplinary actions
of the Roman See. That isn't all the papal encyclicals,
that isn't all the Apostolic letters. That's thousands and thousands
more pages to cross reference to see was it always taught?
This is idiotic lawyer talmutic crap. Dude, it's so stupid

(01:19:57):
and everybody falls for this with a you know, low
iq twenty year old on the internet to use Trent's
term chodically online, dude, are you serious? The Tradcats are
fifty times worse than the Orthobros for that.

Speaker 7 (01:20:14):
I saw a lot of posts like this when Pope
Leo reaffirmed the Catholic Church's opposition to the death penalty.
But Eastern Orthodox patriarchs.

Speaker 2 (01:20:21):
Oh two quaquay Trent. If the Roman See is our
infallible guide on faith and morals and he contradicts on
faith and morals, that is not equivalent to the patriarch
contradicting on faith and morals. Can you not understand this?

(01:20:41):
This is so low tier. If I thought Bartholomew was
what Vatican one says about the pope, this would be
a good argument. But all this shows is that Trent
is absolutely incapable of understanding system level arguments, system level defeaters, paradigms,
and internal critiques. It's literally just a what about Is

(01:21:04):
them a two quoque? Why? Because Trent is not that smart.
That's why Trent has a midwit level IQ, which is
why he can't identify globalization in his own pable documents.
He doesn't have a problem with the pope affirming globalization
and climate change agenda and just says, well, you're you
have a bad bishop too.

Speaker 7 (01:21:24):
And even groups like the Orthodox I've already debated Trent.

Speaker 2 (01:21:28):
Trent got cooked on basic philosophical epistemic terms. Trent said
that the Old Testament doesn't teach the Trinity. Trent is dumb,
and he triples down. He still thinks that the word
triad is an anti Trinitarian term, even though it's used
in his liturgy. Do you understand these pop apologists don't
even go to the Novis Ordo. They all go to

(01:21:49):
Eastern Catholic churches.

Speaker 7 (01:21:53):
Why Church in America have opposed the death penalty as well.

Speaker 2 (01:22:00):
The statements of an OCA or a on the OCA website,
or even North American archbishops or whatever, that doesn't matter,
It really doesn't. It's unfortunate to have liberal acumunist bishops
or clergy in the Roman in the Orthodox Church, but
it's not a system defeater. So we made a system
level argument against the papal system as it's defined that

(01:22:23):
Vatican One, and their only reply is two quote way,
what about your bad bishops? They don't understand that we
have a decentralized system. A decentralized system means that there's
no Grand Puba, there's no Quezas Hotteroc. There is nothing
damaging or defeating to the Orthodox acclesiological system or canonical

(01:22:47):
system to say that the Acumenical patriarch is a heretic.
By the way, Trent, they're so low tire, dude, do
you understand that would mean that your system if the
if if that's a defeater for our system, then if
the first thousand years of Christianity was Roman Catholic, it's

(01:23:08):
also a defeater for your system. This was a devastating
argument that David Rhan made to Ibarra years ago, and
can you believe they have never understood this argument. In
other words, let's say, for the sake of argument that
the ecumenical patriarch schisming, or having heretical views. Let's say

(01:23:33):
that's a defeater for Orthodox Christianity, Trent. If the first
thousand years of Christianity was your church, for the sake
of argument, it would be a defeater for your church
because that's a characteristic of your church. Then in the
first millennium, they're too stupid to see and to understand

(01:23:56):
that that is a defeater for their position. Now, I
guarantee you tons of slow boys are not even going
to understand the argument there. I wonder if we could
find that air hun video. Let's see this is it

(01:24:16):
right here?

Speaker 5 (01:24:17):
This is David Thria Medvite. I decided to make this
video spontaneously because I came across this comment by online
apologist Eric Yubara.

Speaker 2 (01:24:27):
Now this is the reason also that this is important
is to stress and to point out that David made
this argument almost six years ago. They have not addressed
actually what we are arguing six seven years later. They
are relying on very low tier, low information idiots not

(01:24:49):
actually understanding or caring what the argument is, because the
whole religion thrives on that low tier crap, not actually
listening to what we're arguing, not caring about argument, trany
of that stuff. So let's listen to David six seven
years ago refute the crap that Trent is putting out
seven eight years later.

Speaker 5 (01:25:10):
On that we know and the comment is mind numbingly stupid.
I will be very harsh in this because this is
one of the stupidest comments I have ever read concerning
Orthodoxy ever in my life. For those who don't know,
Erqubar is a Roman Catholic papal lawyer, apologist. His main

(01:25:30):
work is essentially collecting a bunch of quotes from church
fathers that speak nice things about Rome and acting as
if that means they're defending the Council of the First
Council of the Vatican. That's really what he does. But
when he goes outside of that, you see what happens
with him. And I will read this writing.

Speaker 2 (01:25:51):
That's a really good point.

Speaker 3 (01:25:52):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (01:25:53):
Comedian says Ubi made this same point against Voice of Reason.
No Roman Catholics could ever understand or even restate what
the argument actually was. They're Muslims. That's why this podcast,
this episode is titled Trent Horn is Muslim, not just
because he in a ridiculous, retarded way thinks that Muslims

(01:26:14):
and Christians worship the same God. But also because he
has the Muslim iq equivalent of not being able to
understand what an argument is or restate a hypothetical pretty.

Speaker 5 (01:26:24):
Quickly, and then I will step by step go across
what's wrong with this writing. So he says that there's
a bit of a jungle waiting for the convert the
need a communion. For while we speak of Orthodoxy in
the singular, there are in fact Orthodoxies, if you respect,
other Eastern bodies, such as the Assyrian Church of the
East and the Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic Indian Orthodox. The Byzantines

(01:26:44):
famously stuck it up with the vessel until the second millennium,
but there are earlier breaks within the East. Of course,
today there's a severance between Moscow and Constantinople, Antioch and Jerusalem,
the significance of which continues to be downplayed in light
of some category of half medium schism, and finally, the
true Orthodox communions, all of which never tie from finding
all sorts of reasons to condemn World Orthodoxy, as well

(01:27:06):
as the other non canonical bodies that don't agree with
their particular mission and Catholicism, you have the breakdown of credibility, morality,
and clarity from the hierarchy in the pope himself. One
should choose either one while also not putting their trust
in princes. All right, so thirty hours ago, maybe it's later,
but I came across this very recently, so I wanted
some comments on this. And this is the clear example

(01:27:28):
of what someone will say when they have absolutely no knowledge,
but they're trying to criticize no knowledge about something, but
they try to criticize that something. Eric Kubara has shown
in many instances like this one that he has no
idea what he's talking about when he's talking about the
Orthodox Church. So let me get through step by step
what's wrong with it. So, first of all, he's attributing

(01:27:50):
this gisms between the Church of the East and the
Monophysie churches Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic and whatnot to us. And
this is and if you and if you remember, this
is exactly what Timothy Flanders and Taylor Marshall did against us.
They did the same exact thing. Now, none of them
know church history, so they might be a bit surprised

(01:28:11):
but with a two minutes Google search, you can find
out that these churches schismmed in the fifth and sixth centuries. Now,
if you're a Christian, if you're Apostolic Christian, you know
what the problem with this is. If you're attributing these
schisms to us, you're inadvertently admitting that we are the
true Church, and you're also admitting that you didn't even

(01:28:33):
exist back then. Because if they believe that they existed
back then, they will attribute those schisms to their own church.
They will say they schism from us, but instead they're
saying they schism from the.

Speaker 2 (01:28:42):
Orthodox means brilliant.

Speaker 5 (01:28:44):
At that time, we were the true Church and they
didn't even exist back then. This is very simple. I
have no idea why people even make this argument. It
just makes them look even stupider than they are, and
it's frankly speaking, in embarrassment. I mean, if this is
a of apologetics that we have to do, give me
a break. This is you can look up Google two

(01:29:06):
minutes and you'll already know what's wrong with this argument.
But I also want to add this. If you watch
my Eastern Catholicism refutes Rome video, it's one of my
most popular videos. You can find out that this argument
actually applies to them because they aren't wild. They're not

(01:29:27):
I emphasize, they're not in communion with us. They're not
in communit with Orthodox, They're not in communion with the
Church of the East, nor are they in communion with
the Monoposide churches. However, however, they are in community with
the Suamla Bars and the Chaldeans, which believe the same
exact thing as the Church of the East.

Speaker 2 (01:29:43):
Police.

Speaker 5 (01:29:44):
They are in communient with the Byzantine Orthodox, which believe
the same exact thing that we believe. They are in
communion with the Coptics, which perhaps they believe or not.
I'm not one hundred percent sure, so I will not
make comments on it and unlock yubara. When I don't
know about something. I do admit that I don't know
about singing, but I do know that the business in
Orthodox and the Church, and the Ciri Malabars and the

(01:30:04):
Caldeen's do believe something that the Roman Catholic Church does
not believe. However, there are the Roman Catholic churches in
communities people, So as a matter of fact, this argument
applies to him, not to us. And again you can
watch Eastern Cafalim Refuges Rome video.

Speaker 3 (01:30:22):
It's explained right there.

Speaker 5 (01:30:23):
It's thirteen minutes.

Speaker 1 (01:30:26):
Moron.

Speaker 5 (01:30:27):
He says we're stuck with them unto the second millennium,
which is again very funny. He's actually been discuismim to us.

Speaker 1 (01:30:34):
But then, oh, you know, they.

Speaker 5 (01:30:35):
Stuck with us.

Speaker 2 (01:30:37):
So I don't know what's going on with this guy.

Speaker 5 (01:30:40):
But there are earlier breaks within the East, earlier breaks
within the East, so he's actributing these to us makes
no sense. Again, makes absolutely no sense. By the way,
I want to I want to also mention this. He
confuses us. He confuses us because we have the name Orthodoxy, right.
He confuses us with the Church of the East who

(01:31:04):
call themselves Orthodox, and with the Orientals because they call
themselves Orthodox. He confused us because we have the same name. Right,
we all call ourselves Orthodox. This is the mistake that
not even in Constantinople.

Speaker 2 (01:31:22):
Are You get the idea. You can watch the rest
of David's video in the chat a LinkedIn. Let's get
back to Trent's video here.

Speaker 7 (01:31:27):
Here's a priest on the popular YouTube channel Roots of Orthodoxy.

Speaker 6 (01:31:31):
We don't believe in abortion, we don't believe in euthanasia.
The death penalty subverts God's will for a person's life.
Even if the government kills a person in response to
a crime, it doesn't give the person their entire life
to repent.

Speaker 7 (01:31:51):
Eastern Orthodox apologists saying response that the Pope doing something
cringeworthy or being an error.

Speaker 2 (01:31:56):
No, the Pope contradicting centuries of papal t Trent. That's
the problem, not is their liberal clergy. So Trent's recasting
the argument again to make it not what it is,
even though that whole channel Roots of Orthodoxy is a
fraud because it's run by a Catholic who works with
Voice of Sleezing to subvert Orthodoxy by tricking priests and

(01:32:21):
then bring in Orthodox and then bringing on Orientals. And
they just brought Voice of Sleeezing out of the Goomer
catacombs to come back and make a resurgence when, by
the way, the next cringe course song is about to drop.
You're gonna love it. It's a voice of reason.

Speaker 7 (01:32:36):
This song is fatal to Catholicism because of the pope's
claim to be infallible. The Pope can't make mistakes.

Speaker 2 (01:32:43):
They say, no, the Pope can't make theological errors and
teaching errors. So notice he equivocated on mistakes. No one
argued that the Pope can't make mistakes. He knows good
and well that the argument is not about impeccability or
private opinion mistakes. It's about public teaching, normative teaching, ordinary teaching,

(01:33:06):
dogmatic teaching contradicting.

Speaker 7 (01:33:09):
However, according to them, the patriarchs and even national Orthodox
councils can make mistakes.

Speaker 2 (01:33:15):
Correct because we don't have the papal system, you idiot, And.

Speaker 7 (01:33:19):
So those mistakes can be ignored as they don't falsify Orthodoxy.

Speaker 2 (01:33:23):
They're not ignored, they're not system level defeaters. You understand.
He cannot understand this argument. I want everybody to understand. Yeah,
so the voice of sleezing cringe core is ready to drop.
In fact, if doctor Evo drops it, I'll play it
in the midst of the stream. It'll be awesome.

Speaker 7 (01:33:44):
But Catholicism teaches that the Pope only acts with the
charism of infallibility on very rare occasions.

Speaker 2 (01:33:51):
Oh, that is not true. In fact, Vatican One extends
the scope, as we saw here, far beyond rare occasions.
So notice Trent Horn doesn't even know what Denzinger teaches
about his own papal scope. So now Trent Horn is

(01:34:12):
trying to revert to papal minimalism. So you'll notice here,
for ten years I pointed out Roman Catholics are bound
by far more than mere rare statements of papal minimalism.
In fact, all of Vatican two is binding as normative
for all Roman Catholics. Here's six documents, including Canon seven

(01:34:34):
point fifty two, proving that point. Okay, I'm gonna give
you guys this link here. You can look up every
one of these links that proving that Vatican two is binding.
That's not all. There's also the other tweet we just

(01:35:00):
read a minute ago, where to go right the five
places in denzinger tweet right here. So notice this is

(01:35:22):
a direct, absolute one percent reputation of everything that Trent
Horne just argued right there. The Pope is only liable
to be in error or to be under scrutiny when
he officially teaches. Now, we saw the epistemic problem earlier,
that there is no clear way to know when he
is and isn't officially teaching on Roman Catholic epistemic grounds.

(01:35:46):
But beyond that, it's already in Catholic dogma that Trent
is wrong. The position that he just laid out is
explicitly condemned, first of all, in Cassidy CANUBII one oh
four that private theologians are able to decide when the
scope of binding papal statements occur or do not occur.

(01:36:07):
That's condemned. It's rejected in Cassid Knubi I one o four.
It's also rejected five places in Densinger eighteen thirty, sixteen
eighty three, seventeen twenty two, seventeen ninety two, and sixteen
ninety eight. All of those explicitly reject what Trent just said.
Why is this the case? What's going on here? Trent

(01:36:27):
is a pop apologist who doesn't read Denzinger. He's never
read Denzinger. I read it back when I was a tradcat,
more than once, because I wanted to be sure that
I was a faithful tradcat. Pop Apologists don't care about
reading ancient documents, papal documents, reading medieval documents. They thus

(01:36:49):
only appeal to the lowest common denominator, low IQ no
interest in the nuance Gibberish goblins out there.

Speaker 7 (01:37:00):
Most of the time when he teaches, he teaches authoritatively,
but not infallibly.

Speaker 2 (01:37:06):
So if the pope were, oh interestingly, notice what Trent
did there. Most of the time when he teaches, he
teaches authoritatively, but not infallibly. What does authoritatively mean if
it's not binding, is it binding? Because if it's binding,
then it was binding to believe in the death penalty

(01:37:28):
for centuries as a Roman Catholic, as the Catechism of
Trent says, and now it's against the Gospel. How can
the pope change natural law? Trent? Do you remember when
I when this came up, when we analyzed Trent's answer,
do you remember what Trent said? I kid you not.
You can come up with your way to explain that

(01:37:49):
that was what he says. Come up with a way
as a Catholic, come up with a way. So now
we do papal isogesis to make the system work to.

Speaker 7 (01:37:58):
Air when teaching, it wouldn't fall fy Catholicism. So even
if the pope we're wrong on say, the death penalty,
he would just be making the same error as the
leaders of Eastern Orthodox Church.

Speaker 2 (01:38:08):
No, if it's natural law and natural justice taught by
the papacy for centuries. For the papacy to then say
it's contrary to the Gospel, which is what Francis said.
That's a defeater for the papacy guiding us into faith
and morals. The pope cannot err in faith or morals
according to Vatican One. So when they're presented with all

(01:38:31):
the problems and the contradictions where there are are apparent errors,
suddenly it's all not binding and authoritative. This position thrives
on moving the goalpost and denying and accepting when it
suits the individual Catholic So in reality they are papal Protestants,
as you can see.

Speaker 7 (01:38:51):
Right here, Chiz. But I don't think this bothers many
online Eastern Orthodox apologists because the patriarchs and national Orthodox
Church councils really serve more as ceremonial figureheads, so they
can use what looks like a Protestant method of individual
doctrinal for me, So.

Speaker 2 (01:39:09):
If they're ceremonial figureheads, why does the papacy now say
that Kiyati is a joyous position that he accepts for
ecumenical dialogue, and that the Eastern lungs of the Church,
which have preserved the faith for the last thousand years untainted.
Why is that now suddenly figurehead churches. If denying or

(01:39:33):
disagreeing with a decentralized system makes us purveyors of a
figurehead system, then you, guys, picking and choosing papal teachings
that you accept and reject makes you a protestantation.

Speaker 7 (01:39:48):
Neatly wrapped in the aesthetic of ancient JB.

Speaker 2 (01:39:51):
Peltier says, for five dollars, authoritative but not infallible is
the papist dodge. It's the same as the Protestant understanding
of dogma. It is a functional distinction exactly. It's meaningless.
I mean, I mean's absolutely nothing. So is it binding? Trent?
What is? What is authoritative teaching that isn't binding? By
the way, you see how ridiculous the system.

Speaker 7 (01:40:13):
Is and communal tradition. To see what I mean, consider
the issue of whether Catholics and Muslims worship the same God.
I've already done a whole episode on that subject where
I say, I don't like that specific language, but I
affirm Muslims like anyone can know, God exists for them.

Speaker 2 (01:40:30):
Yeah, that's why it was worship the same God. And
you all made a huge mistake by saying that worship
is the same thing as intellectually having in a sense
to our knowledge of or an intention of. And then
when you got called out on that, Trent walks it
back and says, well, I don't like the term worship. Yeah, exactly,
because that's what the debate was framed as. And then
when you all realize how stupid it was to say

(01:40:51):
that we worship the same God, because worship requires an
alternate sacrifice in Biblical Hebraic tradition, you realize that don't
have altars and sacrifices, so it's not worship.

Speaker 7 (01:41:04):
From reason and direct acts of worship to God. In
that episode, I address Jay Dyer's arguments that Muslims cannot
be said to worship God because they reject God being
a trinity.

Speaker 2 (01:41:15):
Yeah, that's not just my argument, Trent. It's first John
who is a liar. But those that deny Jesus as
the Messiah, like all of Islam, as the Son of God.
He that denies the Father and the Son is Antichrist.
Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father. But
according to Trent and all the Roman Catholics and Vatican
Two's Natural theology, knows rotate. You can absolutely deny the

(01:41:39):
Son and still have the Father. That's why John Paul
the Seconds acumenical statements that Jews still worship the same
God is just as bad. Jews have a valid theological
interpretation of the Old Testament without Christ. Are you noticing
a pattern? Trent preaches the same anti Christ doctrine of
John Paul the Second that the Old Testament teaches a

(01:42:01):
Unitarian God. It's the same teaching of Daniel Hakikachu and
Jehovah's witnesses. Remember, isn't Trent's background unitarian. Trent is still
a Unitarian modalist heretic. That's why he struggles with the
idea that triad is a anti Trinitarian term. Abu al Trent,

(01:42:22):
I'll shake Abu al horn. Well, at least, if you
were going to become a Muslim, Trent, you could become
a misogynist Muslim. I'm being silly here, right. You could
become a patriarchal Muslim instead of being a self professed
male feminist. So you're in an even worse position, Trent,
as a Muslim who's a self professed male feminist.

Speaker 7 (01:42:49):
How does Jay know that he's correct on this point
given as I showed him, I reply to him that
the Greek and Russian patriarchs say Muslims worship God.

Speaker 2 (01:42:58):
Again, I know that I'm on the basis of paradigm
level arguments and the coherence of my system because I'm
not an evidentialist, and because I'm not bound by the
papal type of system. When a patriarchary bishop makes a
theological error, it doesn't defeat the system. It's almost like
in this video, Trent's beginning to grapple with Wait a minute,

(01:43:20):
what is a system level defeater?

Speaker 7 (01:43:24):
And even saints revered among the Orthodox also say this
about monotheistic This is.

Speaker 2 (01:43:30):
Out of context. They don't say that. They actually say
that you deny Christ when you deny the Sun. So
these a lot of these. I don't know this one
specifically because.

Speaker 7 (01:43:44):
On Christians Watch Jason he just gave a meme.

Speaker 2 (01:43:47):
He didn't give an actual citation. And we saw, for example,
when Scamshamou tried to use that Garry Palamos quote that
Muslims worship the same God. When you read the actual work,
which I have and I've read, it's he's saying the opposite.
So those are quotes, usually out of context.

Speaker 7 (01:44:03):
When he does this reply to me, and notice how
he finds assurance that his personal opinion on this doctrinal
question is correct.

Speaker 2 (01:44:10):
Again, more lying Roman Catholics. No, Sam Shamou is not
waiting to debate me. Scam Shamou. And William Albrecht ran
from the debate which we already had agreed to. And
this is the third time William Albrick has run from
a debate that we tried to schedule. Let me play
you the clip again, because you idiots are so low tier.

Speaker 9 (01:44:37):
And I said, does that work for you? And he said,
does he agree to my thesis? If he does, then
we are set.

Speaker 2 (01:44:45):
And it says Andrew texting William Albrecht for the debate.

Speaker 9 (01:44:48):
And I said, oh, well, make it more clear for me.
And he said, okay, it's very difficult because I'm tending
to my daughter. Now give me a few minutes and
I'll write it out without ty spose. If he agrees,
where one hundred percent set, and then all we have
to do is iron now to date. And I said, yes,
he agrees to that. That the post Vatican two church

(01:45:12):
contradicts the pre Vatican two church. Magistrate and tradition. I
read Jay that exact message, and Jay said, I agree.
I told him, yes, he agrees to that. That's it,
It's done' slocked.

Speaker 2 (01:45:23):
In the next day, William predictably backed out of it.
So stop with your nonsense of when you go to
the big William Ohbrooks. William Aubrecht is a leather daddy.
I wouldn't go anywhere near him racked. And even if
Gregor Nissa spoke out of hand, it wouldn't matter because
we aren't, as Orthodox bound by every statement that a

(01:45:44):
church father says. We're not bound by the varying canons
that many church fathers propose. We recognize that no bishop
is infallible. Every bishop can become a heretic, every bishop
can say things wrong. Thank you for at least trying
to play the video of me saying the position John
says in the Book of John. You have an anointing

(01:46:06):
and you know all things. So I don't need a
magisterium to know truth and falsehood, because every person who
has been chrismated in the Orthodox Church has a direct
connection to God. This is what they don't understand, the
direct perception and knowledge of God. It doesn't mean that
there's no hierarchy or authority. It means that the Orthodox

(01:46:26):
position is not the Roman Catholic position that confuses individual
certitude with external juridical unity. So notice Trent still doesn't
understand the difference between how I come to individual certitude,
which is the work of the Holy Spirit, and even
his Roman Catholic Church confesses that at the end of
the day, it's the Holy Spirit leading and guiding the

(01:46:48):
person through the papal documents to know what's true. So
the final arbiter, even in the Roman Catholic system, is
supposed to be the Holy Spirit. But the problem is that,
as I argue at the very beginning of this live stream,
in the Roman Caloic system, you don't have a direct
relationship with the Holy Spirit. You have a direct relationship
with the created grace that the Holy Spirit gives, and
you don't actually directly know God until the escton the

(01:47:10):
be a typic vision. They do not believe in a
direct knowledge and perception and seeing the Divine Light in
this life. Hence why they teach the heresy of created
grace and that the light of Mount Tabor is a
created light.

Speaker 7 (01:47:23):
How is that any different than Protestant city.

Speaker 2 (01:47:25):
I knew he was going to go directly to Protenism,
so it's totally different because the means that are used
by the Holy Spirit is the difference. We've actually addressed
this argument probably five hundred times and ten years, because
every time we get a Protestant coming in, they say,
what's the difference between the Roman Orthodox and Protestant views
of how we come to know the truth. The argument

(01:47:47):
is not about individual certitude. Roman Catholics argue that individuals
get certitude by the papal decrees and documents. It's only
moving the problem back a step because you now have,
as an individual, the duty to interpret thousands of pages
of papal documents. It's moving the epistemic problem back a step.

(01:48:08):
And because Trent doesn't understand epistemology, he doesn't understand the
critiques of classical foundationalism all the way back to our debate.
He can't understand the difference between individual certitude versus the
means of the certitude and normative authority. Those are three
different things. Individual certitude is how I come to know,

(01:48:30):
with certitude what's right and what's wrong. That involves ultimately
the witness and attestation of the Holy Spirit. Now wait
a minute, though, because a Protestant, a Roman Calvioc, and
an Orthodox, all three of them will claim that the
Holy Spirit is leading and guiding them. Yes, that is
the ultimate final authority that everybody in the virtue of

(01:48:51):
their systems will have to appeal to. There is no
higher authority than God. Of course, that's where we have
to go. Even if Bora said, I don't know if
it's on our debate or in one of his posts
he said, we all agree between the three of us,
proud doesn't really the Orthodox that the final arbiter is
the testimony the Holy Spirit to the individual where we disagree. Listen, Trent,

(01:49:13):
I know you're slow. I know it's hard. Maybe get
that you know, trim that jewfro down. Maybe it's blocking
your ears. The means is the way the area that
we differ. The means are different. We believe the Holy
Spirit uses the ecumenical councils, the Church Fathers, the Bible,

(01:49:34):
the liturgy to directly communicate to us through those means.
That's not a contradiction any any different than the light
of Tabor is a direct perception of the light of
God through the humanity of Christ. It's both. This is

(01:49:55):
what they can't understand because they're in a system based
around created grace and a veil of creatures that blocks
you from a direct perception and knowledge of God in
this life. And if you want to read a critique
of that, read the Dialogue between a Barley Mountain Orthodox
by Saint Gregory Palamos, where he critiques that position of
Barleum into oblivion.

Speaker 7 (01:50:17):
Saying they have the Holy Spirit guiding their personal interpretation
of scripture and Church history. Now, Orthodox apologists might say
they aren't relying on their personal interpretation because they have
an infallible tradition or sacred tradition to guide them. But
how do they know?

Speaker 10 (01:50:32):
This is.

Speaker 2 (01:50:34):
The epistemic certitude question is different from the normativity question.
So even if Trent thinks that he can just appeal
to the deridical decisions of Rome, there's no you're in
the same boat when it comes to epistemic certitude. That's
why I critiqued his system at a system level. That's

(01:50:56):
why I critique his classical foundationalist epistemology. And you notice
right here he's struggling with understanding our position and why
it's a critique. He just thinks, well, don't you have
the same problem. Are we all in the same boat. Yes,
that's why systems are self recursive, self referencing, Trent. This

(01:51:21):
was the point I made to you in the debate.

Speaker 7 (01:51:23):
You just didn't understand the contents of that infallible tradition.
Be Orthodox because Catholicism contradicts what I think is true
is a bad argument, because no.

Speaker 2 (01:51:33):
It's what your system said. We're not saying that it's
my private interpretation of the papal documents that proves the
papacy is false. It's your system in an internal critique.
This is amazing that Trent can't understand an internal critique by.

Speaker 7 (01:51:48):
Their own standards. Eastern Orthodoxy itself may contradict what they
think is true, or Orthodoxy may leave a theological question
open and not condemn the Catholic position on the matter.
And there are many other case where I advise gung
Ho online Eastern Orthodox apologists to stop and reflect for
a minute before you try to dunk on Catholicism. For example,

(01:52:08):
Jay Dyer reposted Taylor Marshall lamenting the decline and mass attendance,
and Dyer said Papism is dying. Orthodoxy is exploding. But
the same Pew study martial side.

Speaker 2 (01:52:19):
Oh, that Puse study, by the way, was focusing. If
I recall on go work, I'm reporting on the ground
being coast to coast in lots of Orthodox churches. And
as you'll notice here explosive growth in Colorado Springs as

(01:52:40):
one example, new catechumens almost weekly. There are Orthodox churches
that have seen growth up to fifteen hundred people. So no,
it is growing. And I was correct to cite the
growth of orthod And the fact that Pew Research probably

(01:53:03):
interviewed or researched dying go Arts churches doesn't prove anything
I did.

Speaker 7 (01:53:07):
That says only twenty nine percent of Catholics attend Mass weekly,
says only twenty three percent of Orthodox attend divine Liturgy weekly.
What about the large number of cafeteria Catholics who disagree
with major church teachings. We you can find similar rejection
of church teaching on issues like abortion and homosexuality in
large groups and even majorities of lay people in predominantly
Orthodox countries. But what about scandalous liberal Catholic priests. Well,

(01:53:31):
you can find liberal Orthodox priests and bishops who creates
scandal around things like so called same sex marriage.

Speaker 2 (01:53:37):
Yeah, but nobody argued that the fact that there's liberal
bishops itself proves or disproves any position. The argument was
more so about the rampant scope of the PDF crisis,
not is there a liberal bishop in Orthodoxy versus is
there a liberal bishop in Catholicism. So this is again
just deflections.

Speaker 7 (01:53:57):
After some Orthodox priests said that lay people should not
view Jay Dyre's content, di Er lashed out at them
for not addressing the rampant liberal problems within Orthodoxy.

Speaker 2 (01:54:06):
Yeah. Again, I've always talked about this, Trent. This is
just your ignorance of what I talk about and what
is the real problem in the Orthodox world versus the rampant,
massive scope PDF stuff in your gay church. Now you'll
notice that. Well, I'll let him finish this part.

Speaker 7 (01:54:22):
He posted a meme saying that they should focus instead
on real problems in the Orthodox world related to abortion, homosexuality,
and deaconesses, one of which was ordained in Zimbabwe.

Speaker 2 (01:54:32):
And so one heretical bishop now right in Zimbabwe. Bro,
this is reaching when you're trying to compare scope. I
don't even think that the scope. Argument proves or disproves
anything necessarily, it's just a sign, as I've said many
times over. But laity resonate with this type of stuff,

(01:54:53):
just like low tier people resonate with Aisha being nine
years old. That converts way more people that it's out
of Islam than all the metaphysical arguments with the Jake,
the Muslim goober. But it's worth talking about those things
in terms of the rampant size and scope, because Roman

(01:55:14):
Catholicism makes very extraordinary claims, and as one perceptive friend
of mine used to say, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidences.
So if the extravagant claims of Vatican one, the grandeur
claims of Vatican one, or the extravagant quisos Hadaract claims

(01:55:35):
of the of the papacy for millennia one millennia being
a temporal queisas hodaract God being, that's a that's an
outlandish claim to say that you have to submit to
my temporal supremacy as king of kings to be saved.
That's what Unamsangtam and Dictatus Pape said, and that's reaffirmed

(01:55:55):
all the way up in Pious the ninth says, you
still have to believe in the temporal supremacy the Roman bishop.
It's in this book now that's been discarded since Gaudium
at spez At Vatican two, and it's Marxist teaching.

Speaker 3 (01:56:09):
So what do I do.

Speaker 2 (01:56:14):
With that level of contradiction? What do I do with
that level of extravagant extraordinary claims. I expect extravagant extraordinary
proof from your church, from your position. Thus, I should
not expect to see rampant skittles priests, rampant PDF crisis.

(01:56:39):
That's the point.

Speaker 7 (01:56:42):
Alexandrian Patriarchate Dyer also wants to debate Catholics on Vatican geopolitics,
as if the Vatican's political involvement disproves Catholicism. But Eastern
Orthodoxy has a long history of second Oh but wait.

Speaker 2 (01:56:55):
A minute, Trent, it disproves it because of the super
natural claims of Vatican One. So if I can prove
that Vatican two is atat drafted by a gay Jew
who left Catholicism or left the priesthood or whatever, if
I can prove that that is the case, and that

(01:57:16):
that's what's subverted Vatican Two's documents, Gaudi Metspez Nos tate
the decree on of humanism. Then you have a harder
line to prove to me that that's the kerosm of Peter.
So the Keroism of Peter. The Holy Spirit is now
guiding Jews to redefine Roman Catholic teaching. The Holy Spirit

(01:57:40):
wants me to accept Marxism and socialism at Gaudi Metspez.
What's a more likely explanation for the doctrinal contradictions via
Vatican two, the guiding of the Holy Spirit, the patrine kerosm,
or the documented geopolitical subversion by people like Klaus Swab,

(01:58:01):
the CIA doctoral warfare program and your own Roman Catholics
have done interviews with David Wimhoff some of the people
in your own circles on his book on the doctoral
subversion of Vatican two by John Corney, Murray C. D. Jackson,
Henry Lose and the declassified doctoral warfare program. You understand

(01:58:24):
this is real. So what's a better explanation. What's a
more logical explanation? By the way, the argument was not
did the state ever tried to influence the church? So
notice he recast the argument. We absolutely understand that the
state has for centuries tried to redefine and change the

(01:58:44):
teaching of the Church. The Aryan emperors tried to do this,
The Iconoclast emperors tried to do this. The difference is
the Vatican claims to be doctrinally preserved and free from error.
Via Vatican won it indefectible. So if I prove and
showed to you that Gaudium mespest teaches socialism and the

(01:59:08):
Vatican previously condemned socialism many times over Marxism socialism, then
your church has contradicted. Your church is geopolitically subverted. But
why would we expect you to have any discernment about
that when you have no knowledge of geopolitics at all
and you promoted the Stabutes throughout the kup you liar.

Speaker 7 (01:59:28):
Bular rulers like the Byzantine Emperor, being deeply entrenched in
church leadership.

Speaker 2 (01:59:33):
Does Trent know that in the eleventh century for seventy
plus years, for around seventy eighty years, that the Frankish
kings appointed the pope. For almost an entire century, all
of the popes were appointed by the Frankish kings. Oops,
he doesn't know.

Speaker 7 (01:59:53):
That even today the Russian Orthodox Church is accused of
being a propaganda arm for the Russian president Vladimir.

Speaker 2 (01:59:59):
Here we go, Now Trent is a normy neocon. What
could what should we expect? I'm starting to think Trent
is a subversive honestly, because he promoted the kuf He
says there's no new World Order. It promotes the worst
possible stuff. I'm sorry to think he's actually a subversive
because who gets into this kind of stuff with like
the the Putin bet I bet he believed Russia Gate too.
What do you want to believe that? What do you

(02:00:19):
want to bet he believes the p Gate, Russiagate nonsense? Putin?

Speaker 7 (02:00:23):
However, none of that disproves Eastern Orthodoxy, So similar accusations
don't disprove Catholics again.

Speaker 2 (02:00:30):
Their system level defeaters when they demonstrate system level contradictions.
Trent not who has more Libs and who has more
or less state influence? That's never been the argument.

Speaker 7 (02:00:42):
System. And if Jay says Catholicism has an infallible Kearism,
so it's different than Orthodoxy, I would respond by pointing
out again that the Church's divine guidance does not guarantee
every prudential decision. Church leaders make will be good.

Speaker 2 (02:00:56):
No, it has nothing to do with prudential decisions. It's
teaching even he said, Leo's teaching is authoritative even when
it's not magisterial. Okay, what does that mean? Does that
mean it's binding? Then you must accept Kiati, You must
accept all these things that now reflect his.

Speaker 7 (02:01:15):
Mind been that all their teachings will be correct. A
Catholic teaching that has not been infallibly defined could be
in error.

Speaker 2 (02:01:26):
Interesting, but you said a minute ago it was authoritative.
So even if it's not been infallibly defined, Trent earlier said,
Leo's normative teaching is authoritative. What does that mean, Trent?
What is authoritative non infallible teaching? Does that mean you
can reject it? And Trent? What are the ex cathedral statements?

(02:01:50):
Where is the list of ex cathedral statements? And to
make this again a very devastating epistemological argument, if we have,
for the sake of our argument, say ten ex cathedral statements,
I need to know where the list is that is
also ex cathedral because if the list of ex cathedra

(02:02:11):
statements can be wrong, then you're in the same dilemma
as the Protestant on the canon question. You make the
same argument epistemically to Protestants about knowing the canon of scripture.
Apply that same argument to your claim about knowing the
ex cathedral statements? Where is the infallible decree of the

(02:02:33):
infallible list of ex cathedra statements? You just refuted yourself.

Speaker 7 (02:02:38):
If these kinds of teachings did not exist, then it
would not make sense to have infallible definitions of doctrine,
because by this standard, all doctrines would be infallible.

Speaker 2 (02:02:49):
Trent, that's the question, which ones are infallible? Where's the list?
How do you know? Where is a Roman Catholic actually
giving you a coherent account of the scope, end list,
and epistemic principle for identifying these things. Now, we've done
podcasts for years, me and doctor FATHERA Digan, doctor Anonias

(02:03:12):
on epistemology orthodox epistemology. We've written papers, he's written conference papers,
presented these papers and conferences on this topic. They don't
even touch it because they know that low tier low
IQ people don't know what epistemology is. That is why
there is zero epistemic answer. Their best hope was Professor

(02:03:35):
Trent Doherty, because he is a professor in epistemology. How
did Trent Doherty handle the Catholic epistemology question. Oh he
melted down, screamed, and left apologetics in embarrassment.

Speaker 7 (02:03:50):
But they are not all infallible because the Catholic Code
of canon law says, no doctrine is understood is defined
infallibly unless this is manifest sleep evident.

Speaker 2 (02:04:05):
So his answer is, the things that are infallible are
the ones that are manifestly evident. You can't make this up.
This is the stupidest most This is T Jump level.
He's literally T Jump. Reality is reality. The ones that
are infallible are the ones that are manifestly evident as infallible.
This should end this whole retarded system and Trent Horn's career.

(02:04:29):
This is so stupid, And imagine Trent Horn saying the
same thing as t Jump. Let's replay that because this
was this was better than I hope this was, Like,
this is funnier than I expected. Let's go back. Trent
Horn's epistemic criteria is to go to by the way

(02:04:50):
canon law. Trent is canon law infallible. Most Roman Catholics
would argue that canon law is not infallible. So wa
a minute. The thing that Trent goes to to know
the canon what's infallible? Is it self fallible? You can't
make this out. This is what you get when you

(02:05:13):
don't know basic epistemic questions and basic epistemology. Do you
remember in the debate with Trent, I said, Trent, tell
me the things that are self evident? He said, descartes
cogitoe What dude, that's been savage by philosophers for centuries.
It's laughable. And that's what every person who takes in
epistemology one on one class. That's like the first thing

(02:05:36):
they think, dude, like discards coketo.

Speaker 3 (02:05:38):
Man.

Speaker 2 (02:05:38):
It's like, I I look, I exist or whatever, right.

Speaker 8 (02:05:43):
It's like I think therefore I am uh so, like
that's why I'm self overed it or whatever right?

Speaker 2 (02:05:50):
And then the professor in your first class or first
day of epistemology shreds that because it's stupid. That's literally
what argued in the debate with me. To show what's
self evident, descartes cogito, What are you serious, dude? Is
so easy to refute. It's not even self evident. First

(02:06:12):
of all, it relies on time. Determination has descartes proven
time yet No, it relies on language and words having meaning.
It relies on the existence of a self which has
not been proven yet. It relies on the existence of
logical inferences. Has Descartes proven logical inferences yet? Okay, So

(02:06:33):
if it relies on all these other things to be
the case, to say, the sentence of the cogitoe, then
it's not self evident. Anything that relies on another thing
Trent isn't self evident. Look up the criterion problem. But again,
I cannot believe that this goober, in order to show

(02:06:59):
what they are ex Cathedra, actually goes to a thing
that Roman Catholics say is not infallible. Now, maybe there's
a Roman Catholic trade who will argue that canon law
is infallible. I've not seen that. Maybe they do. It's
similar to their approach to the Catechism, the Catechism of
the Calolicy Church. It's authoritative, it's normative. But I don't

(02:07:20):
think most Roman Catholics would argue that everything in the
Catechism is infallible. There would be differences of levels and whatnot. Okay, fine,
so is canon law infallible? Most Roman Catholics would say,
probably not, because it's changeable and it can you know,
move around, and it deals with a lot of practical
stuff that's not eternal divine revelation, divine law. Right, Okay,

(02:07:43):
So if it's fallible and changeable and mutable, then how
are you going to the thing that is changeable and
fallible to tell me where I identify the infallible? This
is so simple. This is epistemology.

Speaker 7 (02:07:59):
One says, no doctrine is understood, is defined infallibly, unless
this is manifestly evident. That's why I said Jay's complaint
about the Second Vatican Council saying Muslims worship God does
not disprove Catholicism as a whole, because even if that
teaching were false, it's not an infallible definition.

Speaker 2 (02:08:22):
No, even if it's not infallible, you are still bound
Trent by what we saw here to the normative teaching
of the papacy, and all of the documents of Vatican
two are normative and binding. So that means you are
now bound by the Roman see to error. That's the point.

(02:08:44):
You don't get to reject more telling no state, because
as we see here five places in Denzinger that say
that you have to support all of the normative ordinary teachings,
even if it's not infallible. You are still bound by
religious submission of intellect and will to the ordinary teaching.

(02:09:07):
That's Kenon seven fifty.

Speaker 7 (02:09:08):
Two for a dogma that cannot possibly be false. And
in some cases Jay complains about statements from the Vatican
that aren't that like.

Speaker 2 (02:09:22):
As if we can't say the Vatican, I mean, does
he not realize that the Vatican is not merely the
papacy but also the Roman College. When the Roman College
makes decisions, for example, the election of a pope, does
the pope decide who the pope is? No, the Roman
College decides the pope. So yeah, it's correct to talk

(02:09:45):
about the Vatican.

Speaker 7 (02:09:46):
Trent aren't even church teachings at all.

Speaker 2 (02:09:50):
The actual Vatican source that loft Dog mc Lofdog pulled
up which refutes what Trent says. The Holy Spirit the guys,
the Church is at work in the religions. The universal
presence of the Spirit cannot be compared to the presence
in the Church, although one cannot exclude the salvafic value

(02:10:11):
of the false religions. This is the nineteen ninety seven
Vatican document clarifying what you see in Vatican two. So
notice they don't explain things the paup Apologists because they
have some idea that this is absurd and obviously a contradiction.

(02:10:31):
They don't explain things the way their Vatican does.

Speaker 7 (02:10:34):
The Catholic Church often permits theological opinions without Oh, but.

Speaker 2 (02:10:39):
Trent, the theological commissions just got approved by the Pope,
so they reflect Leo's mind. We just saw that with
the Theological Commission on the Eastern Churches. So you understand,

(02:11:04):
this is so great that Leo, Leo is now going
to be the great apologist like Francis because they were
able to handwave They tried to handwave for the last
several years Kiyati and Alexandria by saying that it's just
a theological commission, it's not approved by Rome.

Speaker 3 (02:11:23):
Oh.

Speaker 2 (02:11:24):
But now turns out Leo has expressed his approval of
Kiati and Alexandria and that it expresses and fulfills his
desire and his mind. So notice when I go to
the same documents that Loten uses against Trent and Tim Gordon,
that document that Trent was talking about the theological commission

(02:11:46):
is approved by the Vatican, and then Trent says, it's
just a Theological Commission document. It's not binding. Oh but
wait a minute, Leo has now approved the Theological Commission.
It reflects his mind right here. It doesn't matter. It's
not binding anymore. I don't have to follow it. I
can reject it. How do you know what? What did

(02:12:10):
he say at the beginning of his video? He said,
Leo's teachings, even if they're not infallible, can be authoritative.
Watch Trent contradict himself right here. Watch this.

Speaker 7 (02:12:23):
As they don't falsify Orthodoxy, but Catholicism teaches that the
Pope only acts with the charism of infallibility on very
rare occasions. Most of the time when he teaches, he
teaches authoritatively but not infallibly.

Speaker 2 (02:12:37):
What does that mean, then, Trent, that it's authoritative but
not infallible. Are you bound by it? Are you bound
by the Apostolic Journey letter that you should joyously embrace
what Kiati and Alexandria say. Are you now supporting Leo
in dropping the filioque just the recitation, not that the all.

(02:13:02):
Do you not see how arbitrary and ridiculous this system is?
This is the most talmutic ridiculous, Like it's like rabbis
writing documents to refute documents, to make documents work with
other refutations of documents to then refute and make the
document where it's just crazy level insanity. And that's why

(02:13:22):
it only appeals to SuDS. And I don't know people
with you, Froze, I don't know, like who finds this appealing?
What in this system do you get? Trent? What are
you getting out of this other than your paycheck? I
think Trent is also mad because I asked him if

(02:13:44):
because people were alleging that Trent took money to promote
stabbes during KOUF. I asked Trent, was that the case?
Trent said no, but I think that might have been
what prompted this angry Trent video here.

Speaker 7 (02:13:59):
So if the pope were to instead it publishes permitted
opinions that have gained a consensus among members of the MAGISTERI.

Speaker 2 (02:14:08):
Yeah, but Trent now, Leo affirms Kiat and Alexandria and.

Speaker 7 (02:14:14):
The document JA sites is not an error on the
point JA raises because it says salvation quote is not
produced independently of Christ in his church.

Speaker 2 (02:14:24):
Yeah. The problem is that it says that salvation occurs
through the false religions.

Speaker 7 (02:14:30):
It also does not outright say other religions have salviavic value.

Speaker 2 (02:14:34):
It does. It says that salvation can occur by Christ
saving them through Islam.

Speaker 7 (02:14:39):
It discusses the question of whether we can say non
Christian religions that predispose people to truth have Salvavic value.
This is why the document talks about, quote, the possibility
of the existence of Salvavic elements and.

Speaker 2 (02:14:53):
So look at those ridiculous kazustri just word games. Well,
it doesn't actually say that they can be saved in
those religions, and the discussions the possibility of them being
saved to those religions.

Speaker 7 (02:15:03):
As whether the religions as such can have Salvavic value
is a point that remains open.

Speaker 2 (02:15:09):
Oh, it says that it is possible, So.

Speaker 7 (02:15:12):
That document doesn't say what Jay claims.

Speaker 2 (02:15:13):
It says. That's why Lofton is actually correct here. So
you understand that the Roman Catholics, with all the clarity
between themselves and they're apop apologists, refute one another every
single day. What the papal teaching is on castid Canubii
and marital relations is abundantly clear because of the papacy, right,

(02:15:34):
Tim Gordon. But then the top Catholic apologists are calling
themselves male feminists because they say Tim Gordon is wrong. Well,
I thought it's clear. So if we're gonna make the
argument that the papacy provides clarity, how come the top
apologists completely disagree over fundamental questions about salviafic roles of

(02:15:55):
false religions. You can't even get that right now. I'm
not saying saying that itself is a defeater of the system.
That's just an observation, an anecdotal observation of the absurdity
of the claim that the papacy provides unity, clarity and
moral guidance. Where is the unity and clarity and moral

(02:16:18):
guidance on a basic issue of whether or not I
can be saved in Hinduism or not? You and Lafton
and Tim Gordon can't even tell me that.

Speaker 7 (02:16:30):
And it isn't even an official teaching of the church.

Speaker 2 (02:16:33):
What's the official teaching, Trent? Where's the list?

Speaker 7 (02:16:38):
In that respect, it would be like many documents proposed
by orthodox the elogians that Jay or other online apologists
might disagree with it, but don't disprove orthodoxy. Now, Jay
is correct that Catholics must submit even to the non
infallible teachings of the Church, oh really, including the teachings
of the Second Vatican Council. But since those tea teachings

(02:17:00):
are not infallible, that means, in rare cases a Catholic
could privately, not publicly, but privately fail to accept these teachings.

Speaker 2 (02:17:10):
If notice the level of like how they're saving this system. Now,
when Vatican two teaches obvious contradictions and heresies, just privately
keep that to yourself because you have to submit to
the Pope Canond seven fifty two. So I mean, I
think you get what you deserve. So the people that

(02:17:30):
want to follow this, the forty thousand idiots that are
over here supporting this and loving this like you this,
you get what you deserve. You want a giant organized
crime syndicate Operation Gladio thing running your life and ruining
your life, and you want to take your kids to

(02:17:51):
be around these creeps. You deserve what you get.

Speaker 7 (02:17:55):
If they have a proportionate, serious reason for doing so,
and such an act would not constitute the grave sin
of heresy.

Speaker 2 (02:18:02):
Oh really, so private theologian. Random dude Trent Horne, who
was a Unitarian not too many years ago now is
an expert in canon law and identifying when it's magisterial
how what's what? Was Trent's I gotta go back to
this because this was the best thing in the whole thing,
the best thing in the whole discussion.

Speaker 7 (02:18:27):
All doctrines would be infallible, but they are not all infallible,
because the Catholic Code of Canon Law says, no doctrine
is understood is defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

Speaker 2 (02:18:41):
This is the greatest reaffirmation of a circle that I've
ever seen. Could you imagine something being more stupidly circular
than this? Now you say, wait a minute, Jaye, don't
you argue that at base all arguments are self referencing
and self recursive. Yes, that's why I'm a pre subpositionalist.

(02:19:02):
That's why I believe in Trence in all argumentation. That's
why I don't believe in Trent's classical foundationalism. But do
you notice what Trent is doing here? The papal epistemology
is forcing him to commit a vicious circle, which he
said in our debate should be rejected. All vicious circularity
is rejected, according to Trent Horn. Oh really, Trent, how

(02:19:25):
do I know what's ex cathedral? It's the ones that
are manifestly evident as ex cathedral. You cannot make this up.
This is literally what he argued. Right here. I'm gonna
play this again because it's so stupid. How do I
know what's ex cathedral? The ones that are self evident
as ex cathedral? But Trent says, don't make circular arguments
of any kind.

Speaker 7 (02:19:45):
Of infallible definitions of doctrine because by this standard all
doctrines would be infallible. But they are not all infallible,
because the Catholic Code of Canon Law says, no doctrine
is understood is defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

Speaker 2 (02:20:05):
Okay, I'm done. I mean, this is just so stupid
that if you don't understand that, you're not gonna understand
anything else that we're going to say here today. What's
up man? Actual? What's up on you?

Speaker 5 (02:20:21):
All?

Speaker 2 (02:20:22):
Right? Well, we can't hear you. I've got, by the way,
I forgot, I've got to go on a podcast. I'll
be on Millennial Woes podcast here in a moment. Uh,
this is a flashback to twenty sixteen twenty seventeen, guys,
remember head on to to chalk dot com. Use a
promo go Ja fifty to fifty percent off all those
great products chalk dot com. I'm gonna try to breeze
through the superchats. By the way, I didn't realize it

(02:20:43):
was five o'clock, so I may have to read the
superchats on the next live stream. I apologize. I promise
you that I will get to all of your superchats.
I just did not realize it was five o'clock, and
I promised months ago that I would go on Millennial
Woes stream son Credo ten dollars. Thank you for the
response to Trent. Look at the video that Trent did

(02:21:04):
with a redeem zoomer from two months ago. It a
further exposes Trent's thinking and how far he doesn't get
any of this stuff. It pairs well with this video.
Our vaydoo ten dollars. Coin a is the best most
beautiful language ever to exist. Okay, thank you guys. The
rest of the super chats, I promise you will read
them on the next stream.

Speaker 5 (02:21:23):
I just

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

The Bobby Bones Show

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}"Male Feminist" Trent Horn Becomes Muslim! Replying to Low Tier Pop Apologetics -Jay Dyer

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

The Bobby Bones Show

All Episodes

"Male Feminist" Trent Horn Becomes Muslim! Replying to Low Tier Pop Apologetics -Jay Dyer

Stuff You Should Know