Transcription
So, in 1928, was it true that interfaith gatherings were abominable and apostasy? Yeah, I mean, I Okay, so in 1928, that's true. And that's on faith and morals. That's Mortalium Animos Pope Pius XI. But a couple decades later, the opposite is now true.
Um Yeah, I mean, no, I I see the difficulty you're pointing out, for sure. Now, how does the papacy act on these Vatican II documents? Does it go in synagogues and pray? Does it go pray towards Mecca? Does it participate in Buddhist services? Yes, yes, I I I'm well aware. There you go. So.
But I you know, I wanted to ask about like why should I leave Catholicism from your paradigm? Uh the Catholic Church has become an organized crime syndicate. That's one good reason. The Catholic Church Hold on, let me get Let me get Hold on, let me Let me give you a couple uh kill shots. That's one kill shot and that that just popped in my head. The other kill shot is the Roman Catholic Church has dogmatically contradicted many times and that shows that it's a contradictory system. Okay, where did they contradict? The temporal supremacy of the Roman bishop was necessary from the 11th century all the way up until Vatican II and now is explicitly longer no longer necessary for salvation.
I'm Orthodox, but I was previously Roman Catholic. So, I hear the argument that Nostra Aetate is not dogmatic. So, what's your thoughts on that? Does that like help their case in any way? No, it doesn't. It's It's not just Nostra Aetate. It's also Lumen Gentium. Every one of the documents of Vatican II is signed off with full apostolic approval for the entire Roman Catholic Church with Petrine authority and it deals with faith and morals. Even if you could argue that it was not extraordinary magisterium, even if for the sake of argument, And grant that it is, even if it was ordinary teaching, you still have to submit to ordinary teaching with the facility, so it doesn't matter. It's a deflection.
>> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. That's clear for That's Actually, that's helpful, yeah. I got one last >> Roman Catholic Canon Law, I think it's What is it? Canon 752 says that you have to submit even if it's not ex cathedra or even if it's not magisterium, you have to submit to the ordinary teaching whether you believe it or not. That's their uh whole thing, and notice how many of them don't care and don't abide by it. So, it's just a joke. Like interpretive? Like how how does that work?
>> What? What? Do Do they believe like the text is interpretive or they It says uh this cuz uh for example, like the word adore right? They they interpret that many ways. It's a It's a cheat for them. In their own In their own There's no adore There's no cheat code there. It doesn't like the the word is used for them for worship, adoration of the sacrament. It's a It's a worship term. That's even worse for them. Yeah, yeah, I see that. Okay. Notice right here, Canon 752 says your intellect and will must be submitted even if it's not dogmatic. Even if it's just normative teaching. So, the whole system is predicated on even if you think they're wrong, you submit. There is no I do my own thing in the Roman Catholic Church. It's all Okay. Okay, yeah. Thank you. That That helps, yeah. Yeah, Canon 752 of their Canon Law. And notice they don't care. Like you could tell them this a million times a day, and they don't give a They just say, "I don't care."
Errol, what's up? >> Errol. AJ. So, I believe in Old Earth Cre as well as Catholic, so I'd be happy to uh As well as what? either of those positions. >> As well as what? Uh I'm also a Catholic, so I'd be able to uh depending on how much topic you want to >> [snorts] >> You know I'm to go to the papacy, dog. Okay. All right. Um So, yeah. I mean, you actually had a guy on here earlier who was talking about how um uh Pope basically [clears throat] a lot of the Vatican II documents, uh even if they were ordinary, they're still binding. Um I I just don't see that. If it's not infallible, I don't see it as a defeater for the position um because uh um >> all, it is, but even if it wasn't, you don't have to follow Canon 752? I'm I'm saying you still have to follow it, but it's not a defeater for the the the whole church and theology.
>> Okay, so you have to so so I have to submit to Muslims, Catholics, and Hindus worshipping and adoring the same God? Well, Muslims are are going to are separate in in in the documents in terms >> No, they're not. >> in terms of that. Uh No, they're not. in terms of the specifics of the language. No, they're not. It says Hindus have refuge in God in love and trust. Um yeah, I mean, Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> problem with the language, to to be perfectly honest. >> care whether you have the problem with the language. What's the argument that makes this work? How do Hindu How do Hindus love God in the same way? They they explore or try to apprehend They're basically have a They're like looking at God through like a keyhole, basically.
>> Yeah, but it says It says a flight to God with love and trust. Yeah, I mean, they're trying to I mean, they're trying to apprehend God. >> Where in Hindu Where in Hinduism is capital G God? Uh sorry, say that again one more time. They, Hindus, seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition through ascetic practices or profound meditation or a flight to {quote} capital G God with love and trust. Yeah, a flight to God doesn't actually mean they they reach it, right? But it doesn't matter because there's no aesthetic practices or meditation in Hinduism that gives you access to God in love and trust. It says capital G. Um Yeah, I mean So is all is Hinduism a demonic religion? I um You don't know? You don't know? I'd probably say so. I mean >> Probably. How did How did the Roman Catholic Church prior to Vatican II consider religions like Hinduism? Um I mean pagans general It was the responsibility moral rulers to kind of root them out. Um How did [snorts] What are you talking about? How did Roman Catholicism theologically view religions like Hinduism prior to Vatican II? Well, not favorably. I mean >> No, how Were they demonic? Why can you not just say they were demonic? Obviously, they're they're called demonic. Sure. Sure. Okay, so they're they're demonic, but through demonic demonism, there's a flight to God with love and trust? Well Yeah, I They uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh So in So So in in in the ritual where you burn your wife, is that kind of like the Eucharist? Or is Pachamama kind of like Mary? No, I don't I don't think it is.
>> Is Pachamama like Mary, though? Hold on. So Lofton argued that Pachamama is kind of like Mary because they're both women. So is that how it works? I wouldn't agree with that, but Well, why not? But it's the same it's the same line of argument. Why is a person Hold on. If a person is engaging in seeking God in love and trust through Pachamama, why wouldn't it be like Mary? Because it's not not the mother of God. It's not It's >> Oh, but who's the refer- Who's the referent of the deity in Hinduism then? You're by that you just you just destroyed your own argument right there cuz it's not God in Hinduism. Okay, first of all, my whole argument was that you these these documents aren't infallible anyways.
>> First of all, yes, they are. First of all, yes, they are. Do you know there's like five statements from the papacy post Vatican II reaffirming that they are binding on you? Where do you get that they're not infallible? I said infallible, not binding. I agree that the Where do you get that they're not in So, wait, you're bound by things that are wrong? You could be, yes. So, the Church of Rome errors? Um Does the Church of Rome Yes, it can not >> Theologically? The Church of Rome errors in in faith and morals? It can have um Have you read Vatican I? Not every every statement from the magisterium is infa Now, see there there you go. Now, you just shot yourself in the foot because anything by definition magisterium cannot have error cuz you have it you're not you're now rejecting Vatican I. Vatican I says the ordinary and the extraordinary magisterium are indefectible, inherent, and infallible. So, you're not even a Roman Catholic. Inherent and the ordinary magisterium is infallible. That's what Vatican You didn't know that? Um The ordinary mag Well, You didn't know that Vatican I says that? Okay, well, I I I got it up right now. I mean, I know it's a short document. Um but uh oh Yeah, but you didn't know that? You're trying to debate this? You You're trying to debate this and you didn't know this? This is why I have little patience and respect for you guys is that you don't even know your own theology and you want to debate. You don't know that Vatican I teaches clear as day that ordinary magisterium is also inherent, binding, and infallible? I know universal That's what I'm talking about, universal ordinary magisterium. Okay. Okay. So, I wouldn't hold Vatican universal ordinary magisterium. You wouldn't hold what? I wouldn't hold Vatican to be universal ordinary magisterium.
>> Okay. Is it from the papal chair binding on the whole church on faith and morals? Um it's pastoral. That that has nothing to do with that has nothing to do with it. That has nothing to Calling the council pastoral has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is magisterial and under the charism of Peter. Mhm. Is it from the chair Is it from the chair of Peter for the whole church on faith and morals? Cuz that's all that's required according to Vatican 1 to be under the charism. Faith and morals would be the the part that is maybe more contentious because So, you don't think the worship of God is under faith and morals? It's not just Nostra Aetate. It's also Lumen Gentium 16. You don't think that both of those are count as faith and morals? I think a lot of these documents that talk about we should interact think about other religions trying to how we can outreach. This has nothing to do with outreach. This is the opposite of that. That's because it Have you read Mortalium Animos? Um I believe I have. I just >> Oh. What is that about? What is that about? What is it about? You've read it. What's it about? I don't recall. So, Well, how do you know you've read it then? What can we do so? Mortalium Animos is the 1928 condemnation of interfaith gatherings and worship services. So, it's a condemnation. It's a condemned position in 1928. So, if it's now approved at Vatican to do the opposite of what Mortalium Animos says, how is that uh an outreach when it it's condemned as not an outreach in 1928. It's a surrendering of the faith. Okay. Um Yeah, I mean um I would I I would probably say that uh the [clears throat] Yeah, again, it I don't know if the the teachings in in Vatican II are universal What does that have That has nothing So now you're just deflecting away from the argument that I just made.
>> it it could be it could be an error, you know. It could be an error. Okay, is Vatican Are the documents of Vatican II about faith and morals for the whole church from the chair of Peter? They're about faith and morals for the whole church >> have to repeat every statement? >> argue that, but you could also argue that they're ential and Where are you getting that it's not Where you Where are you getting the argument that it's not binding or infallible or that you don't have to hold that it can have error? Where are you getting this? You're just repeating something Trent Horn said. Where do you get that? You didn't even know what Vatican I said. I didn't say Okay, separate binding from infallible. Binding, yes, it is certainly binding.
>> you understand that if you're bound by it, even if you think it's fallible, then the then the papacy is binding you to error on theology and it's denying Vatican I. Any way you go, this is screwed. Okay, so your argument is that it is if you're even in the short term bound to any sort of error that that counts as >> Dude, it's errors on faith and morals. That's the thing that I'm not talking about Can Ratzinger have a private opinion about the text of Genesis that's not binding? It doesn't matter. These are documents that bind the entire church, and Rome has bound everybody to confess this and act on this for 70-plus years. So that means that Rome has bound the entire world to countless errors for decades. That's impossible according to Vatican I. One. Yeah, um a I I um I I see your argument. I don't I don't really um Yeah, I I understand where you're coming from.
>> So in 1928, was it true that interfaith gatherings were uh abominable and apostasy? Yeah, I mean I Okay, so 1928 that's true. And that's on faith and morals. That's Mortali Animos Pope Pius XI. But a couple decades later the opposite is now true. Um Yeah, I mean no, I I see the difficulty you're pointing out for sure. Now, how does the papacy act on these Vatican II documents? Does it go in synagogues and pray? Does it go pray towards Mecca? Does it participate in voodoo services? Yes, yes, I I I I'm well aware. There you go. So, appreciate your call. Thank you so much for calling in.
>> [clears throat] >> Mad little monkey Mad little monkey >> [music] >> Mad little monkey You like them >> [music] >> see monkeys with them bananas between the trees hanging down upside down found [music] that a smile. Mad little monkey, what you doing to me?