The SLIMY Tactics of Orthodox Apologists

Thank you for supporting Scholastic Answers
Slimy Tactics of Orthodox Apologists
Watch the rest of the stream here: • Video
Click the join button above to get all your livestream questions answered.
NEW AQUINAS ACADEMY
Link: www.christianb...
Discord: aquinas.cc/la/...
Donate: / newaquinasacademy
FURTHER RESOURCES
To get Tutoring: www.christianb...
Annotated Thomist: www.christianb...
Scholastic Courses: www.christianb...
SPONSOR
Use the code “Militant” for 20% off to learn Greek here: fluentgreeknt....
MUSIC
• Song of Kings - Clamav...
• Solemn Mass in Thanksg...
SUPPORT
Subscribe: / @militantthomist
Become a Patron: / militantthomist
Donate: www.paypal.com...
SusbscribeStar: www.subscribes...
FOLLOW
Website: www.christianb...
Facebook: / militantthomist
Facebook Group: / 543689120339579
Twitter: / militantthomist
Instagram: / militantthomist
WATCH
/ @militantthomist
LISTEN
Podcast: www.christianb...
Spotify: open.spotify.c...
Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple...
Anchor: anchor.fm/mili...
SHOP
Book Store: www.christianb...
Merch: www.christianb...

[@MilitantThomist]

Me: "For the sake of argument." "Let's just pretend." "Here's an example." Orthos in my comment: "yOuRe MaKiNg aN AsSumpTioN"

[@GhostofFranky]

Well of course the entire line of argumentation of all RCs is grant me all my assumptions first and then you will see Papacy. Jay Dyer points this out all the time. The paradigm itself is in question so we dont just grant you all of your assumptions. This is low tier dude. Youre getting dunked on by a casual jay dyer fan, how could you argue against jay?

[@SevereFamine]

@@GhostofFrankyLol, I don’t think I’d use the word “dunk”

[@GhostofFranky]

@@SevereFamine well he has been thoroughly refuted by quite a few people in the comments already. I guess you can’t lose at basketball if you don’t know how to play basketball. Its like you’re over here scoring touchdowns on the basketball court and saying you won the basketball game.

[@marvalice3455]

@@GhostofFranky slimy

[@GhostofFranky]

@@marvalice3455 when your only perception of reality is that of a worms I suppose you would see slime wherever you turn

[@AppalachianPaisano]

Remember, half of the Orthobros commenting online are not even actual members of any Orthodox church. This will make them seethe.

[@user-vv1do1wg1j]

all of the catholics are not a part of the one Apostolic Catholic church go get your barney blessing

[@USDebtCrisis]

you would actually have to find one first

[@genericname7020]

I don't think I have ever seen an Orthodox church. All I see is Catholic and Protestant. To be honest, I didn't even know what the Orthodox were until last year

[@andrewvee7793]

@@voxpopuli8132No way 😭😭

[@S.LouisIX]

@@voxpopuli8132wait, where did you see that?

[@George_Eréthion]

I'll admit, there are issues with our Orthodox Apologists. I think they're very impatient a lot of the time as well. As an Orthodox think I'd have a hard time discussing with them.

[@rass4609]

You are very introspective George, i commend you for that. My favourite online person from y'alls camp is a guy called Jonathan Pageau, i find him extremely impressive but he doesn't do apologetics like that.

[@George_Eréthion]

@@rass4609 He's quite the man for sure. In general I recommend people to priests rather than twenty year olds on the internet. They may know more than me (even though I'm studying apologetics myself), but It's just not a peaceful learning experience.

[@dianekamer8341]

​@@George_Eréthion I honestly think some of them are still in middle school.

[@bruh-dg5yw]

@@rass4609 The only thing about Pageau is that I think he entertains other people’s positions so heavily in discussion that he almost concedes too much to opposing positions. Like the way him and some others in his community (like Paul Vanderklay, Jordan Peterson, and John Vervaeke) speak, it seems like they don’t think God actually exists. I do love Pageau, he was a big part of bringing me out of materialism and agnosticism and back to Christianity, but after consuming so much of those people’s content I became confused and maybe a bit suspicious about what they were actually teaching.

[@rass4609]

​@@bruh-dg5yw i'm a Roman Catholic and i never really watch those other 3 guys, but for the rest i can totally guarantee you, Pageau is fully Eastern Orthodox Christian. And probably a more well versed theologian than the others alongside that Seraphim Hamilton guy. The way he described the Trinity in one video was pretty remarkable and it was text book Palamism too even though i don't agree with Palamism, it's called "Responding to Muhammad Hijab" or something. He probably just dislikes the sport of pop apologetics though he is similar to Militant Thomist in that regard. In other words he is an adult that is way too old for that crap

[@chad_hominem]

EO are basically just the New Covenant Korah's rebellion

[@Theparishioner_]

If I hear another orthobro say “paradigm” I’ll lose it

[@Corpoise0974]

Both are wrong, im so glad i chose OO. May the mercies of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ be with you.

[@DANtheMANofSIPA]

Do you think there is a big difference between EO and OO. Whenever I talk to Orientals they say they are the same as us EO

[@Corpoise0974]

@@DANtheMANofSIPA The OO theology is more Augustinian than EO. We reject the essence energies real distinction, and our view of theosis is different since sanctifying grace is viewed as created in OO.

[@libatonvhs]

Submit to pastor Jim's Free Will Baptist Church

[@Corpoise0974]

The true apostolic Catholic faith.

[@jalapeno.tabasco]

Free will is a myth and baptism is for believers and their children by sprinkling

[@heathc148]

😂 😂

[@aureum7479]

No

[@libatonvhs]

@@aureum7479 Jesus loves you

[@fatalheart7382]

"Pretend with me for a second."- Buddy, I'm a non-denominational protestant. I have been pretending my WHOLE life.

[@MeanBeanComedy]

Time to find some roots,Hoss.

[@TokenWhiteGuyAGR]

lmao

[@abominable.7800]

right lol

[@musician17]

Wether Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant. I hope all brothers and sisters in Christ reach sincere repentance and live a life that God wants for them. Humble, Holy, Self Controlling and Kind. May the Blessings of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.

[@libatonvhs]

Amen

[@tradertrader8838]

amen!

[@FireSquad101]

Amen, and thank you brother

[@hap1678]

Completely correct. They viciously attack our position like it proves theirs. This is the equivalent of an atheist attacking the resurrection of Christ thinking it’s proving his position.

[@alexeptop]

this is just an assumption that the orthodox church isnt the apostolic church so proving u wrong doesnt matter, but historically ur wrong

[@aureum7479]

Wrong

[@hap1678]

I am so glad I became Catholic instead of EO

[@rass4609]

Me too

[@jalapeno.tabasco]

they're both wrong lol

[@hap1678]

@jalapeno.tabasco Dude, no one cares about your church that was made in the 1500s respectfully. I much rather trust the Holy Theologians of the church.

[@TruLuan]

​@@jalapeno.tabascoAccording to who? On whose authority and interpretation of the scriptures and councils?

[@IsaiahINRI]

Same. Haven't regretted it since

[@namapalsu2364]

The more important point in Wagner video is not only that "if Cath is wrong it doesn't mean Orthodox is right." But the more deeper and important point is, ORTHODOX CAN NOT GIVE US REASON WHY THEY ARE RIGHT (or, what is the correct position) So, suppose you agree with Orthodox that the roman view of primacy is wrong, when you ask them "what then is the correct view?" They don't have an answer. Because their view is just "anything else but the roman view of primacy." Even now Greek and Russia are fighting over what "primacy" is.

[@Orthodoxology]

Well that’s silly. Regardless and unrelated, have you ever heard of apophaticism?

[@namapalsu2364]

@@Orthodoxology Yes. Proves my point even more.

[@serbo-bulgarianorthobro]

There are arguments that have been provided for why you should become Orthodox by Orthodox apologists. We also have provided responses for what the correct view of primacy is. Constantinople, at the moment, is in conflict with most the rest of the Church over what primacy is because it has overextended its power in many regards, and because it is promulgated some Ecumenist policies, such as apparently aiming for Union with Rome. Disregarding primacy though, I think we have provided good metaphysical arguments against Absolute Divine Simplicity, Created Grace, and the Filioque and for the Essence-Energies Distinction, Uncreated Grace, and Eternal Manifestation.

[@matthewoburke7202]

@@sihtnaelkk2187 Agreed, but conciliarism has no basis in the first millennium. Not even in the fifth council can you say that the first millennium Church was conciliarist, since the fifth council still recognized Pope Vigilius as Pope, preserved union with his see (even after removing his name from the diptychs), and beseeched him to participate in the council, since they still needed his authority to ratify the council and make it ecumenical. This remained the rule for councils, even up until the seventh council (Nicaea II) which openly declares that the Pope must approve of a council for it to be ecumenical.

[@matthewoburke7202]

@@sihtnaelkk2187 Problem with this view is that some of the several councils did not have the assent of ALL the patriarchs at the time. Ephesus didn't have Antioch, and Chalcedon didn't have Alexandria. So if this is one of the things that is necessary for a council to be ecumenical, then this creates an issue for you. Also, Nicaea II does not strictly say ALL of the patriarchs of the east must assent also (since many times before not every Patriarch agreed with authoritative councils), but it does say that it MUST have the consent of the bishop of Rome. This is found not only in Nicaea II, but also in Chalcedon "Let him give a reason for his judgment. For he undertook to give sentence against one over whom he had no jurisdiction. And he dared to hold a synod without the authority of the Apostolic See, a thing which had never taken place nor can take place." But Dioscorus did not accept it, nor did the Alexandrian see for a very long time afterwards.

[@Patriarch.Chadimus]

As an Orthodox I've been exceptionally frustrated at this sort of "apophatic RC" that many in the Dyer crowd believe Orthodoxy is. I obviously believe Orthodoxy is true, but I experience this all the time (denial of Original sin, denial of Divine Simplicity, polytheistic view of the Divine Energy etc.) where Orthodoxy is basically believed to be what Protestantism and Roman Catholicism isn't... in all cases. But that's not what Orthodoxy is. We aren't simply an OPPOSITION to "da ebil West" lol.

[@javierduenasjimenez7930]

That's also what I feel like when an orthobro starts "telling the Roman heressies" or "the grave sin of ecumenism". It feels as if sometimes these people are more afraid of agreeing with Catholicism than not having anything to positively propose. Sometimes the Orthodoxy these people bring feels like the negation of something else. I feel you brother

[@jaykwonzzz]

Jay Dyer and everyone in his discord and on Patristic Faith are firmly set in polemics with no care regarding actual dogma or, the most important thing, worshipping Christ. Look at Christian: when he speaks of God, he does it reverently and with excitement. Dyer and his ilk mention Christ so infrequently, that they might as well not mention him at all. This is why Jay has bounced from Calvinism, to RCC, to Ortho, to RCC, and back to Ortho.

[@javierduenasjimenez7930]

@@jaykwonzzz That explains a lot

[@aureum7479]

This guy doesn’t understand orthodox apologetics at all, this entire video is a non argument

[@xabraxasx]

Convert to Orthodoxy

You should read russia and the universal church by Vladimir Soloviev. Dude was basically a prophet when it came to the orthodox church. He predicted a future break between the russian and the greek churches.

[@TheEdzy25]

One of the best book i've read til this day. Touches so many subjects.

[@eeroraute281]

He was a gnostic heretic

@@eeroraute281 nope he predicted what would happened with the orthodox churches. I don’t know what rites he received in the end.

[@serbo-bulgarianorthobro]

Soloviev believed in sophiology, which was a Gnostic heresy prominent in Russia at the time, and was also an ecumenist. I do not believe that he was ever formally baptized as a Catholic, though he supported Papal doctrines, but I could be wrong on this point and am open to correction. Note: I edited this comment because I initially said he was a theosophist, which is wrong - theosophy is different from sophiology.

@@serbo-bulgarianorthobro again you’re wrong. I believe he’s buried at a Russian orthodox church.

[@Euphrosynos]

I’m a former Protestant now Eastern Orthodox Christian. I love all my Catholic brothers and sisters! I don’t think the Byzantines are cringe, and I’m understanding of y’all’s liturgical changes. I just feel like if we truly try to love each other as we are supposed to instead of debating online/in person, given enough time and humility then we can get out of our way, and let the Holy Spirit fix this problem of disunity. Anyway that’s my rant. If anyone has any suggestions let me know. God bless you all my siblings in Christ. ❤

[@Apostola33]

Despite all the confusion and arguments online, never forget that we love our Orthodox brothers and sisters! May God bless you abundantly and may we one day see each other in Heaven! Let us pray for the reunion of our churches😀

[@javierduenasjimenez7930]

Thus is the kind of orthodoxy that will make you find salvation and eventual reunion

[@S.LouisIX]

Refreshing take to hear. Glory to Jesus Christ!

[@cloutfrogger]

Do u think Muslims worship the same god ?

[@RedWolf5]

I suggest you become Catholic brother the orthodox aren’t a church, I considered it back then.

[@XiHamORTHOCN]

Cope

[@everettpeabody8024]

As a protestant really appreciate this video lol

[@rass4609]

He indirectly praised you here and put you above the EO, well if you are a magisterial protestant atleast

[@everettpeabody8024]

@@rass4609 I'm an Anglican

[@rass4609]

@@everettpeabody8024 wonderful God bless you

[@Totustuus-gu9do]

But don't protestants do the same thing though?

[@harrisonphillips8365]

❤

[@DM5550Z]

Im agnostic and I can observe due to anti catholic sentiment, only the best catholic apologists are out there. Really goes to show quality and integrity.

[@Callixtus-sc1en]

Come home please.

[@DM5550Z]

@@Callixtus-sc1en I have converted to manichaeism. You can still be agnostic and manichaean because intent matters, not faith.

[@OVOFloyd]

@@DM5550Zmeme religion but still based 😂😂

[@Callixtus-sc1en]

@@DM5550Z Maybe give some of St. Augustine’s writings against Manichaeanism a read, such as his “On the Morals of the Manichaeans.”

[@dianekamer8341]

And...I see that the Orthobros have shown up. LOL!

[@serbo-bulgarianorthobro]

Yup! We're here.

[@dianekamer8341]

​@@serbo-bulgarianorthobro Don't you have anything better to do?

[@EcclesiaInvicta]

​@@dianekamer8341 No they don't

[@HellenicPapist]

That name doesn’t even fit on my phone screen 😂​@@serbo-bulgarianorthobro

[@serbo-bulgarianorthobro]

​@@HellenicPapist Yeah, it's the most autistic username I've ever made.

[@Jericho2323]

As a person who is in between and too ignorant to choose. I wish the Orthodox and Catholics had better and more discussions on these topics. I know it happens occasionally but not as much as it should considering we all want the truth and have universally concluded Jesus is our savior.

[@UnionSince452]

You can find good debates between Ybarra and others, like Father Patrick. There are a few better discussions out there you can find. Even Wagner’s debate with David Erham is quite civil. Take your time and let the Holy Ghost guide you!

[@novaxdjokovic9592]

all complex arguments aside...Matthew 16: 18-19

[@EcclesiaInvicta]

​@@novaxdjokovic9592 You gotta love it! 😂

[@WilliamMcAdams]

If you're still stuck between Catholic and Orthodox, start asking some lesser theological questions. That sorted me out real quick. Finding a solid, acceptable, answer to lesser theological questions is like pulling teeth in Orthodoxy. Catholics have a lot of schools of thought, but they have a defined set of guidelines for even minor theological stuff. Trying to find answers in Orthodox circles was essentially one group of Orthodox saying one thing, then the next saying another, and each are calling each other heretics.

[@jackneals5585]

Memento Mori

[@SpokenThroughLeo]

EO btfo comments cry

[@dailyDorc]

I've never seen these advanced tactics. I thought that they just say the word "economia" as if it was a complete and definitive argument and then you both stare at each other blank faced. The Orthodox, assuming you have no idea what that word means, starts their unsolicited explanation. Meanwhile, you listen and start to wonder if they actually know what it means since it doesn't relate to your point at all

[@javierduenasjimenez7930]

This is copypasta material. I'm going to steal it

[@mcnicholas3]

I'll bet Ubi Petrus would absolutely take up that Erick Ybarra debate on EO Ecclesiology. Set it up!

[@Shane_9590]

This is my first time watching this channel, and this clip was great. I couldn’t agree more. I needed this one.

[@DCWoodWorking]

Slimy tactics aka pastristics, logic, and philosophy. 😂

[@Rome_77]

Where did you buy that bloody crucifix?

[@Thmst-o4e]

?

[@Seanain_O_hEarchai]

@@Thmst-o4e there is a crucifix on the wall with the Lord covered in blood, it looks amazing.

[@dianekamer8341]

@@Seanain_O_hEarchai I think it's called the Passion Crucifix. I think it's available on Amazon.

[@novaxdjokovic9592]

Orthodoxy is wrong. Took me years to realize that

[@danvankouwenberg7234]

I am impressed to see men your age who have so much knowledge about this stuff. I think this take makes so much sense. You know what else makes sense? The Papacy. Good enough for me. Matthew 16:18-19. I think the Catholic apologists are the best because they're on the defense all the time, but sometimes you just have to have faith in the Lord and his one true Church. Love the channel! God bless you all.

[@zzzzppppooooo]

Do you have an example of jay dyer claiming that "since catholicism false, therefor EO true" ? I have never heard him make that argument

[@aureum7479]

Same

[@JW_______]

Wait....did you provide reasons for saying that? I didn't hear any, maybe I missed it?

[@letrewiarz]

I'm not 100% sold on this, but I honestly think that if some EO apologist convinced me that Catholicism is false, then I would be closer to converting to some traditional form of protestantism rather than going East

[@Justeelisjust]

Same. I'd re-interpret Peter being the rock the protestant way and claim it means the church built on the faith Peter professed. In that case, the gates of Hell not prevailing against it would be interpreted as the faithful christianity (in general way) not dying out before the Second Coming. The biggest problem is the apostolic succession though

[@rass4609]

I would probably become Anglican or something like that

[@serbo-bulgarianorthobro]

​@harleymann2086 The Voice of God is the Tradition of the Church. And we Eastern Orthodox are unified in our teaching. There are some debates regarding certain issues that plague us today, but that does not compromise the unity of the Church or the established nature of its doctrine. ​

[@ZachRhodes-wz7px]

@letrewiarz What normative authority does Protestantism to verify if they have the same doctrines on the Trinity as the first few Ecumenical Councils?

[@serbo-bulgarianorthobro]

​@harleymann2086 I know you said that I shouldn't feel like answering any of these, but I will nevertheless: 1. Traditionally, the Orthodox Church has taught that the baptisms of heretics (Papists and Protestants included) are invalid, so baptism into the True Church was always required. Some modernist, ecumenist people claim this is not true, but they are mostly Western converts. Go to an Orthodox country and see what the practicing Orthodox faithful and clergy say about this there. 2. I think the above response applies to Eastern Catholics, but I am not well informed on this issue. 3. There is an infallibly binding Canon of Scripture - it's the same as that of the Catholics, though we also have Maccabees 3 and 4. For us, the Apocrypha are not Apocrypha at all, they are canonical texts, unless we are considering the Book of Enoch or something of that caliber. If there are Orthodox who reject books like Tobit, Maccabees, etc., they would not be speaking in-line with Church teaching. 4. The Orthodox Church does not allow contraception. If there are Orthodox who disagree, they are as trustworthy as a Catholic who supports abortion. I noticed you used the term "Orthodox Churches." That's not a good way of phrasing it. The Orthodox Church is one. Those "Churches" are jurisdictions of One Church. Serbian, Greek, Russian, etc.

[@gerry30]

It seems when it comes to Lord, there are no coincidences. I only recently started to see your videos and I just saw that Jay Dyer just did a video that is perfect for you to react to, if you're interested. I would love to rebut it but I don't make videos. I'm older and don't have the capabilities. :) He bullied a hapless Catholic teacher brutally. (which shows you the naivete of teachers thinking opposing apologists are of good faith who want to learn something ) And of course he blocked me and all of my posts when I directly called him out lining up the transcript of what he "read" vs the actual text. But you'll see that the highlights of his grab bag of lies is that he... 1) Gives a quote from Mortalium Animos as the basis of his argument. The problem is, the quote isn't in the document. 2) He quotes from Lumen Gentium chapter 3 section on the Moslems. The problem is he falsifies the quote. 3) At the 7 minute mark, he actually claims he's reading directly from Nostra Aetate on the screen. The problem is he again reorders and falsifies what the text says to conform to his false assertion. The whole video is a Russian Doll of errors, falsehoods, lies and deceptions. it's disgusting to watch. The guy is not a good man at all and he's deceiving souls. It's beyond a doubt deliberate lying on his part. . kzbin.info/www/bejne/rZ_clZaXm8yVgM0&lc=UgzoDDM75fEdIc4t_kV4AaABAg.A4nVnFIPbVuA4xJnzU5z3B

[@charlesnunno8377]

Why is saying "You are both wrong" and "Both screwed" such a horrible thing to say? This was always my intiutive position when observing Christians and how it obstructed my life while priviling the least worty who could not even understand much less PAY FOR your creed. I paid. And was cast into the gutter. And when I said, "I think you are simply all wrong" I was treated like the crazy one. I don't think so.....the more I understand the differences that you argue on, at 36, the more I gradually return to my original intuition at 15, when I was cast into the gutter. This is not about my understanding or my morality. ( I was always more moral than you people, despite the sneers and jeers ) Yes, you are both wrong.

[@huey7437]

So, cope for not "smoking EO" in your debates... The Catholic position has specific and unique authority claims over EO and protestants... you're damn right you have to defend them. why is it "unfair" to defend 😵‍💫

[@hayeshopper8998]

Exactly. Extreme claims require extreme proofs. Burden of proof rests of Catholics.

[@bottomoftherabbithole]

This is such a goofy and shallow generalizaton (the whole bit about angsty anti-catholic protestant baggage). Basically on par with "which orthodox church???" response quality. Of course falsifying VI *while presupposing* that the ecclesiology of the first millennium Church contradicts Orthodox ecclesiology would render both paradigms false. But like...only if you presuppose that. Why would you assume we all accept that premise? Just because you think Erick makes a compelling argument? I'm genuinely confused.

[@MilitantThomist]

Small minds cannot understand examples.

[@bottomoftherabbithole]

​​​@@MilitantThomistthe substance of your entire video was centered around refuting the argument of Orthodox apologists who claim that "if VI is falsified, Orthodoxy is true". Yet the argument you presented asserted that the falsification of VI would essentially result in the falsification of Christianity (as you personally don't find any alternative church's ecclesiology reconcilable with the first millennium witness). This was your whole point. I'm simply pointing out that your climactic argument here *presupposes* that the ecclesiology of the 1st millennium church contradicts Orthodox ecclesiology. ...yet no serious Orthodox apologist would accept that premise. Neither is it a shock or surprise to us that a RC apologist would accept this presupposition. So really, this rebuttal and it's necessary conclusion would only be relevant/applicable to a convinced Roman Catholic who accepts Erick's argument that the ecclesiology of the 1st millennium Church is irreconcilable with Orthodox ecclesiology. For everyone else, this just brings us back to square 1 and highlights the heart of the entire debate. So I'm not sure what you think is so powerful here. I'm not really sure what you think this accomplishes at all actually. Is this what top tier RC apologetics looks like?

[@AppalachianPaisano]

Which "Orthodox" church btw? I think HOCNA is the true episcopacy.

[@serbo-bulgarianorthobro]

​@@AppalachianPaisano There's only one Orthodox Church. HOCNA were schismatics.

[@tymon1928]

@@bottomoftherabbithole yes, that's literally top tier RC apologetics

[@feliped2443]

6:10 fire analysis tbf

[@watsonblack7481]

Yo why not try a debate on all the Old Testament Theophanies and weather they are created holograms like Star Wars 😂🤓

[@EgonCholakian69]

How would you respond to the Alexandrian Document?

[@Corpoise0974]

What document?

[@pero33403]

@@Corpoise0974 SYNODALITY AND PRIMACY IN THE SECOND MILLENNIUM AND TODAY, Alexandria, 7 June 2023

[@dianekamer8341]

​@@pero33403 Not official magisterial teaching. The Vatican commissions these goofy commission things all the time. They carry zero magisterial weight.

[@pero33403]

​@@dianekamer8341 The same way the Vatican commissioned other goofy documents....like forged documents?? the Donation of Constantine, pseudo-Isidore or pseudo Symmachian? I personally don't care.

[@novaxdjokovic9592]

@@pero33403 You seem like the exact type of person who lets emotions get in the way of Truth. A very common thing I've noticed with orthobros

[@johnsayre2038]

"On". Ahhh yes, I hear the Maryland in that pronunciation. We can't hide it.

[@MilitantThomist]

WE LOVE MARYLAND

[@S.LouisIX]

@@MilitantThomist bro you’re in maryland? gotta go to church together sometime ❤

[@aureum7479]

1:00 what ?, they don’t use this argument This is a strawman

[@sichtweisen478]

"They". So you now every single orthodox apologetic? This is a fallacy lmao

[@chronic_corpse4638]

tollhouses man

[@jakajakos]

Spot on. They are ridiculous

[@UnionistInitiative]

TEOD

[@user-vv1do1wg1j]

"it would be so bad if orthobros had to debate this" okay, organize that then? own the orthobros

[@Esch-a-ton3]

I’m Roman catholic, and I have to say, it’s unsettling that this is what our apologetics on the topic amount to. No one can beat Jay dyer, although Ybarra held his own. No one sufficiently handles the attacks on Vatican 1 or 2. And then we have, “ well if we’re wrong, you’re wrong too”

[@brianortiz809]

"amount to" Yeahhh concern troll

[@Esch-a-ton3]

@@brianortiz809 not sure what you mean.

[@notsparctacus]

The Unbeatable Dyer conceded to Bro. Peter Dimond without even accepting his debate challenge. ("The Dimonds are meanies")

[@dianekamer8341]

LOL, Ybarra *shellacked* Dyer. 😂 I don't believe you're Catholic. You clearly have at least one foot out the door.

[@newglof9558]

This is one element of our apologetics, a small element, and one that needs addressing. Nobody is saying this encompasses the entire RC apologetic at current.

[@TNFLHT]

Like him or hate him Jay Dyer literally does lives all the time that are basically three hour AMA. He often times even begs someone to disagree with him. If you feel so strongly about your statements call in and hit him with your best shot. Thing is most people who aren't even Orthodox would agree Jay is yet to lose a debate.

[@TNFLHT]

@@achilles4242 Jay pointed out a huge inconsistency in Astro's thinking and instead of addressing the problem Astro just continued to restate the thomist position. Jay called him on it countless times and asked him to address the problem not restate they already know and agreed upon position of thomism. Jay ended this debate not unlike many others he does in his lives when people attempt to justify their argument with circular reasoning.

[@TNFLHT]

@@achilles4242 @achilles4242 I don't believe Jay didn't understand, I would concede he should have let Astro finish instead of immediately challenging his point. Maybe if he did Astro would have provided a better explanation but as I remember it when Jay confronted Astro he just kept adding distinctions to his argument then a bit of gaslighting occurred and Jay peaced out. I also seem to remember Jay talking to someone off screen saying he was almost done and had to go, so I don't think the abrupt close of the conversation was necessarily all a rage quit. Admittedly this talk was a while ago I would need to go back and listen to it again.

[@newglof9558]

​@@TNFLHT​that's not what happened. A commenter broke down the debate beautifully in Allen Ruhl's comment section if you want to check it out. Jay lost that one and lost with Ybarra too.

[@TNFLHT]

@@newglof9558 I will go check it out.

[@Hreodrich]

@@newglof9558jay was an asshole in his debate with Ybarra. He didnt loose.

[@Dybowski86]

Hi Scholastic Answers! I've been watching your videos for some time. On that presentation above you've said, that people in the USA don't like the RCC for stupid reasons. Well, I do come from a catholic country in the Eastern Europy (Poland). Here the Catholic Church is still strong, but morally bankrupted. Priests demand from people to pay for sacraments and for masses, if you don't pay for church services (f.e. funeral) you don't get it. In the last year a video became popular in which a young girl wanted to bury her father but she couldn't pay. She was from Lodz, one of the greatest and the poorest city in Poland (high unemployment, factories closed - a kind of Polish Detroit). The priest said, that he couldn't help her if he didn't see the money. Morever, it's commonly known, that if you are from a wealthy family and you can pay a bribe to bishop you will get a good parish (if you are priest) or second church marriarge (famous Polish politician Jacek Kurski). If you don't believe me you check these facts personally via websites.

[@milt2x]

How is this slimy? If RC is false, what other ancient apostolic church is correct? A bapstist church in Kentucky? Antoich is a succesor of Pter as well btw.

[@bobskanal]

I guess, he means, that the Orthodox theology has mayor problems, so that isn't has to be wrong. For him Orthodoxy is no alternative.

[@Brainboxreview]

I think the point is trying to make is that it’s easy to attack a position however when the roles are flipped, your position is also easy to attack and has problems.

[@marvalice3455]

The point is, that even if Rome is wrong all our objects against the Greeks still stand. And one one party being wrong doesn't make the other party correct

[@namapalsu2364]

If Roman Catholic Church is wrong and the Orthodox Church is wrong, then the true Church could be the Protestant or even the non-denominational or even Islam. The more important point in Wagner video is not only that "if Cath is wrong it doesn't mean Orthodox is right." But the more deeper and important point is, Orthodox can not give us reason why they are right. So, suppose you agree with Orthodox that the roman view of primacy is wrong, when you ask them "what then is the correct view?" They don't have an answer. Because their view is just "anything else but the roman view of primacy." Even now Greek and Russia are fighting over what "primacy" is.

[@mememe1468]

The oriental orthodox, the old believers, the old catholics , the Armenians, the assyrians. Or, maybe all of them are incorrect .

[@RepairerOfthebreach-zf5th]

The fathers didn't teach the philioque, quite the opposite.. a few did.. the fathers go against florence..

[@BMC867]

Because they thought it was worthless to embrace the true knowledge of God, God gave them over to a worthless mindset.

[@LeviSmail]

I’d rather be Anglican or old catholic than orthodox

[@genericname7020]

I think its just a fad

[@DoIoannToKnow]

Jay has a public invite to debate him every week - you apparently have advantageous insight on how to turn the table so why not do it? Go for it

[@dianekamer8341]

The "Debate Me, Bro" Dyerites have entered the chat. 🤣

[@newglof9558]

Jay has run from Christian in the past

[@DoIoannToKnow]

@@dianekamer8341 the "my points are true, just don't ask me to back them up in live dialogue" crew is endemic

[@DoIoannToKnow]

@@newglof9558 name them

[@novaxdjokovic9592]

@@DoIoannToKnow Jay clearly has his volume higher than the callers and mutes anyone who comes close to poking holes in his arguments. It's a horrible setting for a legitimate Catholic/ortho debate and you know that

[@Orthodoxology]

You’re reaching a bit here bro

[@matthewoburke7202]

No he isn't. He's exactly right. This is because EO deny that the Papacy has a particular Petrine primacy by divine institution, and the Church Fathers believed that, no question about it.

[@Orthodoxology]

@@matthewoburke7202 nobody denies primacy..

[@matthewoburke7202]

@@Orthodoxology No, but you do deny the primacy by divine institution. If you didn't, then you wouldn't think that the Roman primacy is defectible. It seems to me that the Orthodox notion of Papal primacy is that it held a merely honorary primacy purely circumstantially.

[@javierduenasjimenez7930]

​@@matthewoburke7202 Honorary understood in today's terms, rather than when the term was used by both East and West

[@matthewoburke7202]

@@javierduenasjimenez7930 Not sure what you mean, do you mean that by today's terms it was merely honorary?

[@Fili0qu3]

🧑🏻‍🍳

[@heavybar3850]

You should try and debate Jay Dyer on one the orthodox doctrines. That would be a great debate.

[@jackneals5585]

Jay will not debate Christian... lol

[@heavybar3850]

@@jackneals5585 How do you know that

[@DoIoannToKnow]

@@jackneals5585Jay has a public invitation for anyone to debate him almost every week. No one is barred from entering - everyone is invited

[@dianekamer8341]

​@@DoIoannToKnow "Debate me, bro." 🤣🤣🤣

[@jackneals5585]

@@DoIoannToKnow lol Christian has entered the chat before.

[@SimpleAmadeus]

The way I see it, there was One Church of Christ since the beginning, and after a 1000 years there was a split. Only one side of the split could be right, and my conclusion is that it was not Roman-Catholicism. I will not go too deeply into my reasons, but the core of it is that Roman Catholicism changed the faith, at an ever increasing pace, while Eastern Orthodoxy kept the original faith. Since there is no third candidate in this split, that does sufficiently show that Eastern Orthodoxy remains as the True Church. Unless you want to argue that an earlier offshoot like Arianism or Islam was the True Church all along, I suppose. Of course, my starting assumption is that Christ did start His Church, and that She has never died, and never will. If we assume that the Church can die and then be re-established 1000 years later, then it's Protestantism all the way, I suppose. But I reject that idea, because God is almighty and He promised to maintain His Church forever. At least that's how I see it. I'm not a scholar. I'm a simple man, working by simple concepts that I understand. My most important principle is "Truth does not change", and of every religion in the world, Eastern Orthodoxy seems to be the only one that agrees with this principle. Everyone, everyone else keeps changing their story.

[@-Justinus-]

The problem is it isn't a binary. There are also the Oriental Orthodox, the Church of the East, the Old Believers, the Genuine Orthodox, Old Catholics, High Church Anglicanism, etc. "Debunking" Catholicism doesn't prove EO, especially since (presupposing the traditional, medieval byzantine, EO paradigm) the Genuine Orthodox utterly obliterate the modern EO church; and the Old Believers refute both. Moreover eastern orthodoxy has no way to demonstrate its claims against the other schismatic churches with material apostolic sucession other than by way of circular argumentation (how do you find the Church -> By identifying the body of bishops professing the orthodox faith -> how do you identify the orthodox faith -> through the teaching of the orthodox church -> how do you find the orthodox church (repeat ad infinitum). You have no way of knowing if world orthodoxy is the true church as opposed to the Church being found in the communion of a single genuine orthodox bishop in colorado. A fact that becomes more dire when one considers the fact that it is uncertain if sacraments even EXIST outside the EO church under EO ecclesiology. No EO can be certain that theyre part of the Church or if theyre an unbaptized infidel. Even Dyer admits his argumentation is circular, he just argues that circular arguments are valid at the "metalogical level" (a modernistic kantian absurdity dreamt up by some german rationalist, which would have been thoroughly rejected by the eastern fathers as absurd).

[@SimpleAmadeus]

@@-Justinus- Hello my friend, that is still binary! Binary doesn't mean "only two options", it means that you can make divisions of two. Every option that you listed is a binary split from another church or Church, and in each of those splits one or both sides were wrong. I can absolutely know that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the true Church! The vast majority of options that you listed is a self-contradictory mess that altered core theology throughout the centuries, while Eastern Orthodoxy demonstrably kept the true faith in every schism. The "Genuine Orthodox" are a small group of presumably still Eastern Orthodox Christians who disagree with a lot of us on minor issues. This is a normal and mostly healthy process within the Eastern Orthodox Church. In bad cases this can lead to schisms, but that is a matter of careful discernment. We can know that the sacraments are valid because the Church has real authority to declare whether a sacrament is valid. It's not like Christ is enacting a whole different set of rules while the Church is just guessing their way around it. The Orthodox Church is one with the Holy Spirit, with Christ, with God.

[@gerry30]

Someone want unravel this word salad from Jay Dyer? This is Jay's "strong argument' after he falsifies a quote claiming it is contained in the Pius XI encyclical "Mortalium Animos." He throws the caller off through deception and interrupts the caller frequently as he tries to unravel the falsehoods which he believes are errors of Jay. Caller: Yea, so that’s that argument is is is similar to the arguments that the sedevacantists have against… Jay: So? That’s a fallacy. The fact that the argument comes from that person has nothing to do with whether it’s true or false. Caller: No No I’m just describing… Jay: We’re we’re all aware of that. Okay Caller: Yea.. I would say that if there was a teaching that was magisterially…there’s different levels…I don’t know how much you understand Jay: I I understand, I bet I understand it more than you do. Caller: Well, maybe you do. I understand that there are different levels of authority in different kinds of documents…. Jay: That’s correct… Caller: ..and different kinds of statements So, an encyclical teaching, Mortalium Animos is a high level magisterial teaching. So if you are referring to an ecumenical movement or an action like like uh John Paul II, Assisi… Jay : Hmmm mmm Caller: or are you talking about… Jay: It won’t matter becau..and it won’t even matter of the status of that document because the status of the document is irrelevant to whether the actions of the Pope reflect actions that are contrary to Canon Law and constitute actions of apostasy. So, if it’s always considered in Catholic theology and in moral theology that certain actions display an inner state of apostasy the magisterial status of Mortalium Animos which by the way, I think you would could easily argue is uh ordinary magisterium at the least perhaps universal ordinary magisterium should be protected by the charism of Peter, correct? End of transcription. " I bet I understand it more than you do." 🤣 The embarrassing word salad he throws out at the end is utterly ridiculous. He's literally going for the kitchen sink using anything he thinks sounds like he knows what he's talking about.

[@nit2266]

i think what he was trying to say is "if the popes actions go against the Churchs rules then it doesnt matter what kind of document it is"

[@gerry30]

@@nit2266 Well, more likely he was just making things up like he invented the quote from Mortalium Animos. And he falsified the quotes from Lumen Gentium and Nostra Aetate. He deliberately leaves out the part where the documents states that it is the Muslims that believe they are linked to Abraham and it is the Muslims that "profess" to share the faith of Abraham. Further his problem is claiming that Catholic teaching indicates an inner state of apostasy, I'd like to see a reference since what popped into my mind was the quote from St. Pius X in condemning the Modernists. "Though they express astonishment themselves, no one can justly be surprised that We number such men among the enemies of the Church, ***if, leaving out of consideration the internal disposition of soul, of which God alone is the judge, ****he is acquainted with their tenets, their manner of speech, their conduct." Why he brings up "Canon Law" is irrational since there are two sets of codes of Canon Law, one for the Eastern Catholics and one for the Latin Church. And the Pope is the authority above all Canon Law of the Church. Juridically he's not subject to it. And his claim that Mortalium Animos is ordinary magisterium or universal ordinary magisterium and should be protected by the charism of Peter is conveniently ignoring the fact that the document is about a specific phenomena of Pan-Christian assemblies in which doctrine is subordinated to social and political goals. So, being a temporal series of events it refers to, it falls under the "authentic" magisterium and is not a matter of universal doctrine or morals. Furthermore the language itself indicates that the Church has never "permitted" Catholics to join assemblies of non-Catholics. That doesn't rule out the Church permitting Catholics and non-Catholics to assemble under events implemented by the Catholic Church. Had it been infallible it would state that the Church cannot ever permit Catholics to join assemblies with non-Catholics.

[@gerry30]

@@nit2266 No. He was just throwing words out there to make it look like he had a clue. The fact is, he knows he was lying when he invented the quote from Mortalium Animos (He even says the word, "quote" ) and it's not in the document. And he falsified the texts of two documents from Vatican II. The whole thing is a grift to fool the chumps he has believing in him.

[@nit2266]

@@gerry30 ive never read mortalium animos, so i cant tell you

[@gerry30]

@@nit2266 It's easy to find out. The encyclical is all over the internet in many languages and Jay even pretends he's reading from the Vatican website . You can look it up and do a word search on what Jay quotes if you want to prove to yourself that he's lying to the people that think he's honest. As it is, it's an easy and worthwhile read.

[@kyoto8911]

based leiden synopsis is the background

[@georgeluke6382]

3:52 - wouldn't this make the Prots right?

[@gerry30]

George! Surprised to see you here. Sorry to interrupt. I don't even know if you got my response to your questions about the Magisterial level of Mortalium Animos. I responded to a comment on the Jay Dyer video from Jay himself and when I pointed out that he gave a quote that wasn't in the text of Mortalium Animos and that he falsified the text of both Lumen Gentium and Nostra Aetate, told him to prove me wrong. He blocked all of my posts. Since I don't make videos, I thought I'd alert some apologists to see if they were interested enough to make a rebuttal video of their own where Jay can't delete them. God bless, man! Thanks for being civil in the discussion over there.

[@georgeluke6382]

⁠hey there! I think I saw the quote- sometimes my YT comments seem to disappear. I looked into Mortalium Aninos, and Lumen Gentium, and saw your comment- the sentiment of a contradiction seemed clear to me when I looked at the exclusivity of the first and the inclusivity relative to expanding Abraham’s family out without the “day of Christ” in Lumen Gentium. I didn’t compare the exact quotes, but the sentiment of exclusivity as the ark of salvation transitioning to an appeal to sharing a common root of faith in Lumen Gentium seemed to me a magisterial development that contradicts the former deposit, and changes the ethics of the faithful. I’m not totally experienced with all the terms, but you’d say all three are magisterial, and dogmatic, correct? Is the argument you’re making that Jay’s misquote undermines his central argument?

[@gerry30]

@@georgeluke6382 Hey George, All three are magisterial, but they are not dogmatic. They are on the "authentic" level. Meaning they are statements from the office holders of the teaching authority. In the first place, Jay isn't paraphrasing Mortalium Animos. He says he's quoting Pius XI. The quote isn't in the document. One of the key elements is the use of the phrase the Church has never "permitted" Catholics to attend assemblies of non-Catholics. This means that the Church could hypothetically permit the practice. If it were dogmatic, it would say something like "absolutely forbids and can never allow." But regarding Jay's claim: Later when comparing the exact quotes, you come up with pure deception. Lumen Gentium says, "In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God," Jay deliberately removes the part where it states the "professing" and claims the Catholic Church is stating that the Muslims hold the faith of Abraham. Then he demands that the caller supply him with how the Catholic Church explains how they share the faith of Abraham. And in Nostra Aetate the text is this ( emphasis added by me): 3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in*** linking itself,*** submitted to God. Jay when claiming to read the "actual" text says this: 3. The Church regards with esteem the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful all- powerful, Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who spoke to man; they take pains to submit - to His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in submitting to God. He then asks the caller, "Do you think that Jews and Catholics and Muslims have the same faith as Abraham?" Notice that Jay removes any wording that indicates that the documents are describing what the Moslems claim about themselves and instead implied that he's reading what the Catholic Church teaches about Islam as if it validates the opinion. The proper question is "Do you think the Muslims believe they have the same faith as Abraham? " So, yes the real text undermines Jay's claims which is why he had to falsify the quotes.

[@wauliepalnuts6134]

To be fair, the Roman Catholic church does all the work for us. We don't have to do much to prove that it's heretical.

[@universalflamethrower6342]

Jesus conquered Rome from the cross. Guess where he left his Rock.

[@wauliepalnuts6134]

@@universalflamethrower6342 Thank you for proving my point and doing all the work for us. Roman Catholics misinterpret Matthew 17-18 by willfully omitting that verses that precede it, namely Matthew 13-16 where we see the true rock: Peter's statement of faith of Jesus being "the Christ, the Son of the living God". The gates of Hades have not prevailed against this faith and Jesus has built His church on it. Unfortunately for Roman Catholics, the gates of Hades has prevailed against their church with its countless heresies and culture of pederasty. Not to mention the Roman Catholic church being the first protestant church that lead to the thousands of other heretical protestant churches. Plus, Peter founded the church in Antioch, not Rome. There were already Christians in Rome when Peter and Paul arrived, as evident from the Paul's Epistle to the Romans. Further, no apostle was ever bishop. They consecrated bishops. Rome's first bishop was Linus, whom was consecrated by Paul.

[@universalflamethrower6342]

@@wauliepalnuts6134 yes your pride makes you a very good Christian. NOT

[@wauliepalnuts6134]

@@universalflamethrower6342 If I were prideful, I would boast that my bishop is the center of my church, has supremacy over all, and never makes a mistake.

[@universalflamethrower6342]

@@wauliepalnuts6134 dude, you baically commit the same sin as Satan, no humbleness in your posts whatsoever. If you do not belief me. Try take a step back from your own opinions. I'll wait...

[@connorohare229]

I nearly converted to Orthodoxy recently because I found them using terms such as Logos appealing(meaning there's a coherence to understanding God) However when I walked into the church walls, it was the opposite. It was such a blind appeal to ritualistic authority and strongly enforces pure magical thinking to whomever is your 'church father' It was such a bait and switch from an appeal to LOGOS into blind dogmatic MYTHOS

[@aureum7479]

I’ve literally been to no Orthodox Church like that

[@connorohare229]

@aureum7479 well that exists, I don't know what to tell you

[@charlesnunno8377]

Don't all Christians all and all Apocalyptic Revealed Creeds play these slimey tactics?

[@caratacus6204]

Odium theologicum when Caths and Orthos fight like cats in a bag. You are all a little bit wrong and a little bit right, you are part of the True Church, but neither are fully the True Church.

[@pero33403]

I am an ex Catholic from Croatia. The fact that Vatican signed the Reichskonkordat with Nazi Germany and helped many of the Nazis to escape via ratlines and that the Catholic Church here is full of people who are racist and crypto Nazis made me switch to the Orthodox side. There is nothing catholic in the "Catholic Church" with that kind of attitude of its parishioners.

[@ComputingTheSoul]

So are you going to say that Sergius wasn't the real Patriarch because he essentially signed a concordat with Stalin? As for Crypto Nazis in the Catholic Church, are you seriously going to pretend to me right now that the massive surge in Orthodox membership recently isn't coming from the dissident right?

[@jackneals5585]

Right... So the Orthodox church cozying up with atheistic Communists in the past never happened? This is one of the most ridiculous reasons to leave a particular church I think I have ever heard. By this logic you couldn't be a member of ANY apostolic church because a simple reading of church history will reveal plenty of instances of bad and or corrupt behavior by men. Lastly, the people you speak of are not Nazis lol those are just typical Catholic Croats who take pride in their nationality and Catholic culture. Nothing out of the ordinary there... One more thing... MANY Croatians fought in the Wehrmacht during The Second World War so why is this a surprise at all? Croats have a good history with Germany. That's all. It's really getting old hearing people constantly accusing others of being racist Nazis. That line is so dried up at this point it's not even funny.

[@novaxdjokovic9592]

I don't think you really understand what WW2 was if you're making a comment like that

[@jackneals5585]

​@@novaxdjokovic9592 1000% agree. I wrote a big response to his comment but it seems to have been deleted...

[@mojejaje2073]

Za dom spremni. Živio Ante Pavelić

[@thissaintme]

8 mins

[@KEP1983]

That's a GREAT point that it's almost always the Catholic Church that has to defend herself, but it's practically never the EO that have to defend themselves.

[@DCWoodWorking]

Because all the arguments against protestant and Catholics are valid to some extent. The East was immune to the west disease.

[@MisterDevel]

They're mostly just a kind of puritan.

[@Gofaw]

It's good to see a catholic channel that doesn't get all pretentious and high brow with Aquinas stuff

[@dianekamer8341]

Excellent. Thanks.

[@dynamic9016]

Thanks much for this video.

[@jackneals5585]

Oh boy...

[@HilareBelloc]

The orthodox apologetics comolex lol

[@GTMancz]

FWIW I agree, this is the placement of the onus needs to be corrected. That said, the main force behind such arguments seems to be the perceived truth of *some* "Christianity". So, by exclusion, if not the Proddies or Rome, then EO. So, I've been led to believe by some that presenting people with such alternatives as the falsehood of Christianity may not be the best approach. But then, can these people be helped otherwise?

[@Sosarchives]

muslims do this too

[@cardboardcapeii4286]

Only time people convert to orthodoxy is when there’s sin in the Catholic Church

[@georgeanderson87]

wow this is weak

[@GhostofFranky]

This dude didnt even know his position and is saying orthodox are slimy? Ive been arguing about the papacy for x amount of time and I finally picked up a book to learn about it. Also ortho bros are slimy 😂😂 the low hanging fruit you gotta go for

[@MilitantThomist]

Small minds cannot understand examples.

[@GhostofFranky]

@@MilitantThomist you said you just picked up the book to learn about the papacy, the very pin upon what your entire religion hinges upon. You thought defending the pope was for normies? You didnt say that? That is the crux of roman catholicism. What does catholicism look like without that doctrine? Its much more influential than the filioque and your first foray into the topic is eric ybarras book?

[@Totustuus-gu9do]

Isnt this also true for what protestants do?

[@C1tr00z]

Is this damage control, when you can’t defect RC and blaming EO apologists for that?

[@nkoppa5332]

how is the papacy an issue you can put off as a catholic

[@rass4609]

His expertise is Filioque

[@MilitantThomist]

Because it's not as important as other issues.

[@j.johnson2190]

The papacy as a topic of expertise, not as the general doctrine in apologetics. The papacy itself can be an intricate topic but in apologetics is mostly reducible to other issues, such as Church authority, Apostolic succession or Church-as-forma. That is not the same as the question of infallibility.

[@GhostofFranky]

I dOnT hAvE to KnOw aBoUt tHe PoPe to Be a RoMaN CaThOliC!

[@nkoppa5332]

@@achilles4242 why do we know the filioque is true, and if papal infallibility is false, then Catholicism by definition would not be true. And if eastern Catholicism says palamas is a saint, then what does that mean for Rome?

[@JW_______]

The strongest voices for the papacy in the early church were all popes. Talk about having a motivation to advance a doctrine that directly benefits their interests.

[@RomanusVII]

Very bold to accuse holy men of selfish and vainglorious behavior

[@JW_______]

@RomanusVII one sees it throughout church history, so it's not such a hot take.

[@jackneals5585]

Don't you mean Eastern Orthodoxy Saints? Lol

[@JW_______]

@jackneals5585 lol all you want. I believe that saints are very much capable of committing error in their lifetimes and that some of these men were likely not saints

[@lovefilledhearts]

Friend, what is the oldest systematical theological work of Church?

[@MilitantThomist]

Probably Origen’s On Principles

[@lovefilledhearts]

@@MilitantThomist An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith by John of Damascus. Almost 400 years before the great schism. Highly recommending to read it. Compare with Catholic theology, see if it's Orthodox. Blessings.

[@AimiliosChristidis]

You have our brother Kyle and Dyer in the thumbnail and yet you claim that the only apologetics against catholicism is the 6:10-6:35. Thats rather a frustated and emotional response. I encourage everyone unfamiliar with the contra catholicism arguments to look for himself critically.

[@gerry30]

Just got off a thread with Jay Dyer bullying a Catholic teacher. He quoted from an encyclical that didn't contain the quote and then falsified two quotes from Vatican II and literally lied. His whole argument was lies in the demonstrable way. No excuse is possible. He could be functionally illiterate and not give 3 near perfect "errors." Go the 7 minute mark of his video and watch him read from Nostra Aetate. But look up the document and read along with him. Then you'll see how he butchers the passage, omits key text and totally misrepresents what is actually written. Instead of being a man and admitting his failure, he's simply carrying on deleting the people that have caught onto his deception. That's a craven character. "Catholic Professor's Meltdown." kzbin.info/www/bejne/rZ_clZaXm8yVgM0&lc=UgzoDDM75fEdIc4t_kV4AaABAg.A4nVnFIPbVuA4xJnzU5z3B

[@dominikdurkovsky8318]

​@@gerry30 just got off from watching and reading that, and he didn't butcher it at all. If you were bluffing and relying on me to not see it for myself, then congrats on the strategy, but you messed up. Next time you make accusations, make sure to do it properly.

[@gerry30]

@@dominikdurkovsky8318 That's weak. You didn't demonstrate any indication that you did anything at all. I don't bluff. It's against my religion. I was actually hoping you would honestly assess the facts. But you're playing games. And let's stick with "this time" and not the "next time" since I'm calling you out on this. I've got the receipts and I'll walk you through it. We'll see if you can disprove anything I say or whether you scamper away like little chicken Dyer. Go back to the 7 minute mark on the video and watch him claim to read what he says is the "actual" text. In Nostra Aetate the actual text is this: ( emphasis added by me so Jay's deception isn't missed ): "3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in*** linking itself,*** submitted to God. " Jay, when claiming to read the "actual" text says this: "The Church regards with esteem the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful all- powerful, Creator of heaven and earth, who spoke to man; they take pains to submit to His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in submitting to God. He then asks the caller, "Do you think that Jews and Catholics and Muslims have the same faith as Abraham?" Notice that Jay removes any wording that indicates that the documents are describing what the Moslems claim about themselves and instead implies that he's reading what the Catholic Church teaches about Islam as if it validates the opinion. The actual question should be "Do you think the Muslims take pleasure in linking themselves to the faith of Abraham? " That's because he butchered and falsified the real text. You'd have to be functionally illiterate to not see that. He even makes it seem that it's the Muslims submitting to God and not Abraham as the text states. He did the same thing with Lumen Gentium. Search in vain and you'll not find him saying that it's the Muslims that profess to hold the faith of Abraham, but he pretends it's the Catholic Church teaching that they have the faith of Abraham. And you can read Mortalium Animos and you won't find the quote he keeps using. So don't be like lying cowardly "brother" Dyer who doesn't have the integrity to admit his sins of deception. I'll be curious to see if you admit the truth, double down on the gaslighting or go silent like the coward Dyer.

[@gerry30]

@@xravenx24fe No, Jay is the deceptive one and for you to believe him is insane. A functional illiterate would get more right than Jay does. You know he's deliberate. I"ll show you why he's blocked my comments. From the video: Jay : Do you want one example that I think is really strong? Caller : Yea Jay: As late as 1928 Mortalium Animos of Pius XI stated that to even have inter-religious ceremonies with other” quote “Christian groups is a surrendering of the gospel and an action of Apostasy. So I can’t believe that uh a few decades later, Vatican II, the affirmation of the ecumenist movement as a movement of the Holy Spirit is now a good thing. That’s a straight up contradiction. " Go find the quote that Jay was "quoting" from Mortalium Animos. It doesn't exist. www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos.html So, Jay bases his "strong" argument on a lie. He also makes a BS encapsulation of the encyclical that he obviously hasn't actually read. Jay claims to cite Lumen Gentium Jay poses the question : "What is the hermeneutic of continuity that shows that prior to Nostra Aetate Jews and Muslims have the faith of Abraham in Catholic Theology? " This is what Lumen Gentium really says: But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, PROFESSING TO HOLD THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html Jay: "I quoted you a Council dude!" No he didn't. He's a fraud. Hey! Let's do Nostra Aetate: This is what Jay pretends to be reading right on the screen from the Vatican website. He says he's reading the "actual text." About the 7 minute mark on the video This is what he "reads" off his screen: "The Church regards with esteem - the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful all- powerful, Creator of heaven and earth who has spoke to man; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in submitting to God. " Jay then asks "Do you think the Jews and Catholics and Muslims all have the faith of Abraham?" But the real "actual text shows that Jay did some lying in order to mislead you and impress you. "3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham,WITH WHOM THE FAITH OF ISLAM TAKES PLEASURE IN LINKING ITSELF , submitted to God. Notice how the scumbag deliberately falsifies the text in order to promote his lies? And don't give me any nonsense about "not dealing with Jay's argument. Jay's too much of a pathetic worm to own up to his lies. And he knows he's caught. This is why he hid all of my posts exposing him. @jaydyerlivestreamsabsurdities 2 days ago That’s actually a fallacy. Not surprised RCs don’t know that. @gerry30 2 days ago @jaydyerlivestreamsabsurdities You're wrong. Actually you're wrong about everything. You never quoted anything from Mortaliium Animos. It's not in the document. You falsified the text of Nostra Aetate and you falsified the text of Lumen Gentium. You are a lightweight. You can't make an argument without lying. Prove me wrong. There are numerous other blunders and asinine statements and claims he makes that I can give you as well. He's pathetic. You're a sucker if you trust him. Now, let's see if you've got the morals and integrity to own up to being wrong or if you'll double down or simply go silent like that pathetic lying worm Jay.

[@gerry30]

@@xravenx24fe Haven't seen a reply since I posted the actual text of the documents and transcribed word for word how Jay falsified what he called "the actual text." Having trouble reconciling Jay's deception? I've got more of him being flat out wrong in that one video he posted.

[@notsparctacus]

Why is Dyer still considered an Orthodox apologist when he left Orthodoxy long ago?

[@spikestoyou]

What

[@sillysyriac8925]

Dyer is still Orthodox, genius.

[@notsparctacus]

@@sillysyriac8925 Nope. He "discovered" his jewish ancestry and practices Qabbala

[@newglof9558]

Jay's five-year-fiance is Wiccan

[@andrejuthe]

@@notsparctacus Evidence?

[@dauntless1377]

So debate him. Then we can see for ourselves if he really does these debate tactics.

[@steakfilly5199]

Opinion: The mass conversions Eastern Orthodoxy from Protestantism is an online fad and is just a reaction to the degeneracy in the secular world. They asceticism and tradition in Orthodoxy is appealing to them over the appearance of liberalism within some of the clergy of the Catholic Church.

[@hirakisk1973]

I think that is a valid observation and opinion. Protestants are realizing that they can't be right, but they also are still very founded in "Anti-Catholicism" whether they realize it or not, so the best alternative is Orthodoxy.

[@Jupiter__001_]

What would you say about Pope Gregory I's condemnation of the more recent (I guess from around the time of the Schism and onward) Popes' claim to be the "universal bishop"?

[@namapalsu2364]

The condemnation is because the patriarch of Constantinople at the time, John the Faster, used the title "universal bishop" to mean that he is the true bishop (other bishops are not true bishops). This is from Gregory the Great's Registered Letter, book IX, 68 (find it on newadvent): "For if one, as he supposes, is universal bishop, it remains that you are not bishops." From that same letter you'd also read this gem: "though without the authority and consent of the Apostolic See nothing that might be passed would have any force."

[@dianekamer8341]

Do you know how many times that has been answered? 🤦

[@Jupiter__001_]

@@dianekamer8341 Wow, so I'm not allowed to ask questions because someone else asked it before? Clearly you are opposed to any form of reasoning. What a great witness for the Roman church you are. I came interested to learn of the Papist response, but I received hostility. Nice. The other fellow provided interesting commentary, even if I think it's sort of mental gymnastics. I can now see and understand how he reconciles these tensions in his worldview, and I respect him for that. I do not have much respect for those who behave as you behave.

[@dianekamer8341]

​@@Jupiter__001_ Nobody said you can't ask questions. OTOH there are these things called search engines. 🤷

[@NicoFTWandMichael]

Dear Jupiter, the title of universal bishop has been used both before and after St. Gregory, that is not controversial. Second, Pope Pius IX clearly affirmed that the Pope being the head doesn't change the fact that the episcopate is divinely instituted and that every bishop is a bishop with his rights and duties.

[@PauloftherdMichiganinfantry]

Nope I give up I am settling if am going to Hell that’s fine I am leaving a becoming pius no reason to fight I got head from a satanist so already going there anyway I don’t need to be right I just have to be not wrong so I give up may the lord have mercy on me and all of us

[@littlechildinbigworld]

what's wrong neighbor? 🙁

[@TheMacDonald22]

You good?

[@DoIoannToKnow]

what "correct" heterodoxy does to a man:

[@lambochopo7635]

I know it might be a bit tricky to know which denomination is right, but you have to remember that God wants you to do to heaven and that His love for you is infinite.

[@jacob6088]

The Vatican machine runs on slime

[@ToeTag1968]

3:00 ding, ding, ding! That's why Catholicsm AND EO are both wrong. You did both depart. Your shared Marian doctrines, and iconography, for the most basic of starters, are doctrines that crept in after the first 400 to 500 years of Christ's church. Reformation isn't about a new thing. It's about bringing you both back to a simpler faith.

[@palermotrapani9067]

Man, where were protestants in the pre-Nicene Church, You can't even find a Church in most areas North of the Alps at the time of the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. Of the Latin Bishops, 1 Bishop came from SE France just to the other side of the Alps from what is the modern Italian/French Border. There was a Bishop from Iberia (Hosius), from Southern Italy, 1 from Libya, 1 from Dalmatia (modern Croatia/Serbia when it was Latin Rite) and 2 Papal Legates. Where were you protestants. You guys were not even n the picture. Modern 16th century heresy.

[@ToeTag1968]

@@palermotrapani9067 We were part of the catholic church while calling for reformation and return to Christianity before bad doctrine got inserted. We left when it was clear the pope and the councils weren't going to retract their pronouncements. I'm not a Calvinist, but John and the others were part of the Catholic church and were urging the church give up false doctrines but they wouldn't.

[@palermotrapani9067]

@@ToeTag1968 Well it is likely everyone North of the Alps, as in other regions of the Roman empire pre Nicea were pagan, unless you are of Southern European ancestry along with parts of France, areas of North Africa, the Levant, Anatolia,/Asia Minor and as far east as India since Saint Thomas the Apostle got there. Calvin was from Northern France and was indeed a Catholic Deacon (Luther a Catholic priest). They rebelled against the Catholic Church and hence the movements they founded are defacto not Catholic and not in continuity with the Apostolic Church.

[@DoIoannToKnow]

a great way to unify the Eastern and Roman people is by presenting your retarted reformed protestant stuff. Good job

[@ToeTag1968]

@@palermotrapani9067 Catholicism started going off the rails with Mariology, iconography, prayers to dead saints, belief in purgatory, and the papal hierarchy. Those are doctrines that crept their way into the church after approx 400 years and beyond. The church goes too far doctrinally. Get back to basics.