Every Low Tier Trent Horn Argument Refuted in 1 Hour -Jay Dyer

Summary

---

Podcast Summary

Episode Overview

Title: Every Low Tier Trent Horn Argument Refuted in 1 Hour - Jay Dyer
Host: Jay Dyer
Date: February 14, 2026
Theme:
Jay Dyer critiques and refutes arguments commonly made by Catholic apologist Trent Horn—particularly foundationalist claims, Catholic natural theology, and papal authority. The episode juxtaposes Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic positions on foundational theology, epistemology, and ecclesiology, with pointed discussion of the Papacy, Church authority, and the doctrine of the Trinity.

---

Key Themes and Discussion Points

1. The Problem of Foundationalism and Properly Basic Beliefs

• Jay challenges Trent's use of strong foundationalism and properly basic beliefs as a basis for natural theology, questioning their self-evident status and exposing inherent circularity.
• Debate on “properly basic beliefs”:
  • Jay presses Trent about whether the very proposition "only beliefs that are self-evident, incorrigible, or evident to the senses are properly basic" is itself properly basic or justified (01:20–02:51).
  • Trent avoids directly answering and instead appeals to immediate perception—Jay labels this as "circularity" and "begging the question".
• Epistemic roots:
  • Jay: “Every system at root is circular. And that’s what I’m demonstrating to you in your strong foundationalism.” (06:58)
  • Admits that meta-logical questions are unavoidably circular but argues it is crucial to recognize this limitation.

Notable Exchange:

• Jay (01:47): "You just said it's immediately apparent. That's circularity."
• Trent Horn (01:50): "No, it's not."
• Jay (03:37): "That's circularity. That's, that's the problem of properly basic beliefs."

---

2. Natural Theology and Presuppositionalism

• Natural theology (Trent's view): Asserts some truths are self-evident or “properly basic”—accessible to all, forming a shared base for argument.
• Jay’s critique:
  • Asserts that empiricist, foundationalist approaches require unjustified presuppositions about sense data, the external world, induction, and logic.
  • “Trent’s natural theology is an empirically based natural theology. So he’s going to have to demonstrate the justification for the empirical argumentation that he’s doing…” (15:47)
  • Jay argues for an Orthodox, Trinitarian presuppositionalism where the categories themselves (logic, epistemology, metaphysics) are grounded in the Trinity.

Notable Moment:

• Trent Horn (07:36): “Why couldn’t I take your same presuppositionalism, swap out the God of Orthodox Christian faith, and put in the Catholic or Protestant concept? What breaks the symmetry to pick your presupposition over the others?”
• Jay (08:02): Asserts that only “the unique revelatory character of the Trinity in Orthodox Christianity” gives an account for the metaphysical problems (one and many, universals, logical categories).

---

3. The Trinity, Old Testament Worship, and “Triad” Terminology

• Jay highlights confusion and inconsistency in Catholic and Protestant handling of Trinitarian doctrine, especially regarding whether Old Testament figures worshiped the Trinity or a Unitarian God.
• He asserts the patristic and Orthodox view that the Old Testament saints, including Abraham, worshiped the Triune God—the “triad”—and criticizes Trent for misunderstanding the term “triad” as Arian or pagan, rather than its established meaning in Orthodox theology (41:10–44:45 approx).
• Jay (11:49): “Did Abraham believe God? Do you think Abraham had an explicit knowledge of the Trinity?”
  Jay: “Yes. And St. Maximus says he did.”

Notable Moment:

• Jay (44:01): “Trent doesn't even know that the Old Testament teaches the Triad... they worshiped the Father, his angel, and his Spirit.”

---

4. The Papacy: Authority, Clarity, and Contradictions

• Jay questions the practical and doctrinal necessity of the papacy, particularly in light of ongoing crises and confusion within the Roman Catholic Church post-Vatican II.
• Argues that Catholic apologists rely heavily on pragmatic, low-tier arguments for the papacy—“it just makes sense” or “it brings unity”—that are not borne out by reality.
• Papal authority’s ambiguity is revealed in continual reinterpretations of papal infallibility and authoritative teaching; Jay asserts this makes the system arbitrary and self-contradictory.
• “This whole system should at least give us the list. What do the Roman Catholics always come over to us and say, where’s your list of dogmas?” (20:44)
• Jay (23:03): Points out that even Catholic authorities (e.g., Ratzinger) have admitted Orthodox churches preserve faith and unity without the papacy, undermining arguments for papal necessity.

Notable Quotes:

• Jay (19:11): "Remember, 90% of their apologetic... is you need this office because it's going to solve all the problems that you have. Yet... we don't find that it actually provides the thing that it's supposed to do. It doesn't provide unity, it doesn't provide clarity."
• Jay (25:20): "The only things that matter to them are Matthew 16, right?... The rest of the time I don't care what the Bible says. And they don't, especially the trads."

---

5. Catholic Epistemology: Infallibility, Magisterium, and Canon Law

• Jay critiques the epistemological circularity at the heart of Catholic claims to infallibility:
  • Catholic code of canon law asserts, “No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.” Jay parodies this as laughable circularity: “How do I know what’s ex cathedra? It’s the ones that are manifestly evident as ex cathedra.” (61:43)
• Catholic apologists oscillate between claiming binding, authoritative teachings and privately dissenting from them when contradictions arise, particularly over Vatican II and new papal statements.
• Jay highlights that appeals to canon law and magisterial documents themselves presuppose a system whose infallibility is unclear and inconsistent—a circle that differs from the acknowledged transcendental circularity of his Orthodox presuppositionalism.

Notable Moments:

• Jay (47:14): “His answer is... the ones that are infallible are the ones that are manifestly evident. You can't make this up. This is... t jump level...”
• Jay (59:31): “What's the official teaching, Trent? Where's the list?”
• Jay (61:43): “This is the greatest reaffirmation of a circle that I've ever seen. Could you imagine something being more stupidly circular than this?”

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Jay (06:58): “Every system at root is circular.”
• Jay (08:02): “The Trinity is actually the ground not just of epistemology or logic... but actually the entire paradigm... a holistic epistemology and metaphysic that is the grounding of the natural world."
• Jay (19:11): “90% of their apologetic... is you need this office because it's going to solve all the problems... It doesn't provide unity, it doesn't provide clarity."
• Jay (25:20): “I'll use the Bible for when it backs up the papacy. The rest of the time I don't care what the Bible says."
• Jay (44:01): “Trent doesn't even know that the Old Testament teaches the Triad..."
• Jay (47:14): “You can't make this up. This is the stupidest, most...”
• Jay (61:43): “This is the greatest reaffirmation of a circle that I've ever seen.”

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

| Timestamp | Segment | |-----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 01:20 | Jay challenges the circularity of “properly basic beliefs” | | 06:58 | Discussion of epistemic circularity—comparison of foundations | | 07:36–10:55 | Debate over presupposing the Trinity vs. Catholic or Protestant concepts| | 11:49 | Abraham and explicit knowledge of the Trinity in Orthodox tradition | | 19:11 | Jay critiques pragmatic arguments for the papacy | | 23:03 | Orthodoxy’s preservation of unity without papacy (Ratzinger quote) | | 44:01 | Jay critiques Trent’s misunderstanding of “triad” and OT worship | | 47:14 | Epistemological circularity of canon law and infallibility | | 61:43 | Summary: Catholic magisterium and ultimate circular reasoning |

---

Conclusion

Jay Dyer delivers a sustained, pointed critique of Roman Catholic foundationalism, natural theology, and magisterial authority, using both philosophical analysis and Eastern Orthodox theological argumentation. He highlights unresolved epistemic issues, doctrinal ambiguity, and systemic contradictions in Catholic thought, repeatedly contrasting them with Orthodox presuppositionalism and Trinitarian metaphysics.

The episode is rigorous, polemical, and replete with both scholarly references and biting humor, targeting not just Trent Horn but broader trends in Catholic apologetics. Listeners gain insight into deep inter-Christian controversies over epistemology, revelation, and ecclesiological authority, as well as the distinctive claims of Orthodox theology.

---

Transcript

[Advertiser]

It's a strange shift, isn't it? The parent who raised you needs some help and you want to be there. With care.com, you don't have to do it alone. Whether you're clear on the kind of care your aging loved one needs or still figuring it out, we've got support. Find background Checked in home senior caregivers for anything from companionship to dementia care. Or browse senior living communities. Read reviews, even schedule a tourist plus access to safety checks to help with your peace of mind. Still not sure what's best? Our senior care advisors, who are all master's level social workers, can help you build a plan for a limited time. Use the code podcast20 for 20% off your initial care.com subscription. That's podcast20 all one word good for 20% off start your senior care journey with confidence why choose a sleep number Smart bed? Can I make my site softer?

[Jay]

Can I make my site firmer?

[Advertiser]

Can I?

[Jay]

Can we sleep cooler?

[Advertiser]

Sleep number does that cools up to eight times faster and lets you choose your ideal comfort on either side your sleep number setting. Enjoy personalized comfort for better sleep night after night. And now during our President's day sale, take 50% off our limited edition bed plus free premium delivery with any bed and base ends Monday only at a Sleep number store or sleepnumber.com Again, the.

[Jay]

Question here is about presuppositions for sure, and I've listed many things and many problems for the foundationalist approach that you're advocating. You replied with something to the effect that, well, there's a trilemma that we could refer to and there's really not many other options here. Well, the fact that you don't think there's many other options actually doesn't count as a justification for the starting point. In other words, you started with properly basic beliefs, and all I have to ask you is that do you think that the notion of properly basic beliefs themselves is self evident?

[Trent Horn]

Do you mean the idea a properly basic belief?

[Jay]

Well, if I said only beliefs that are self evident or incorrigible or evident to the senses are properly basic, the problem is that you're in an infinite circle of regress because the proposition itself in terms of its you knowing it, is not part of your sense data, nor can you show that it's properly basic without assuming it well, I would.

[Trent Horn]

Agree that the idea of a properly basic belief may itself not be properly basic, but one could just have no self.

[Jay]

That's not what I asked. Okay, what did you ask the Proposition itself about properly basic beliefs. Is it properly basic?

[Trent Horn]

The proposition there are properly basic beliefs?

[Jay]

The proposition only beliefs that are self evident or incorrigible or evident to the senses are properly basic.

[Trent Horn]

Well, I would just, I would say that it's true. You're saying how do I know what properly basic beliefs?

[Jay]

I didn't ask if it's true. I'm asking is that notion itself properly basic?

[Trent Horn]

So you're. Okay, so you're saying that if it is properly basic, it creates some kind of circularity? If I say that, yes. Okay, well I. As I said before, I don't know if the description of an idea might be properly basic, but the experience itself is. And then we, then we have terms to describe what the experience is.

[Jay]

It doesn't matter how you redefine it, because the point is that there's no self evident origin or incorrigible propositions like that found in sense data. So what's the justification for that?

[Trent Horn]

The justification is that there are some, there are some propositions that we encounter and upon entertaining the proposition, the justification is also immediately apparent. And so it is.

[Jay]

That's circularity. That's, that's the problem of properly basic beliefs.

[Trent Horn]

No, it's not.

[Jay]

You just said it's immediately apparent. That's circularity.

[Trent Horn]

No, because.

[Jay]

Begging the question.

[Trent Horn]

Okay, it's, it's not that, because if I say, for example, I am having an experience right now, I am just reporting something that is happening.

[Jay]

That's not all you're doing. No, I gave you multiple examples which you said I didn't do in critiquing the cogito.

[Trent Horn]

Like what?

[Jay]

Of all the metaphysical things that are assumed in the sentence.

[Trent Horn]

Okay, but even if I don't understand all the concepts that are involved, we can also.

[Jay]

It doesn't matter. This is about justifying the beliefs.

[Trent Horn]

Okay, so what you're. So it sounds like you're saying to me natural theology is false because there are no self evident truths.

[Jay]

I'm creating your position of a strong foundationalism.

[Trent Horn]

Okay, but even if someone picked a weaker form of foundationalism, I think a.

[Jay]

Lot of what you picked. So.

[Trent Horn]

Okay, what I would, What I would.

[Jay]

Say that's not the position you defended five minutes ago.

[Trent Horn]

Okay, but even the position that I have, I would just say a lot of people, even people who are non believers or atheists would agree there are just basic facts about existence that we have agreement on. Okay, so from there we can build our.

[Jay]

You're going to appeal to the master? That's actually a Fallacy. It's not a justification.

[Trent Horn]

No, I'm, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it's.

[Jay]

Well, I asked for justification, so what's the justification?

[Trent Horn]

The problem is. The problem is I gave you a justification, but your system just won't allow it.

[Jay]

Because those aren't justifications, those are fallacies.

[Trent Horn]

No, I told you that some propositions that we immediate, that we encounter, their truth is immediate and we do not have to infer them.

[Jay]

I'm asking for the justification. You're just saying that it's immediate, but that that rests on the assumption that the external world is properly caused to impress upon your senses.

[Trent Horn]

I would, I would say the, the justification that the self evident truths in my epistemology are true would be the same as whatever justification led, you know, leads you to believe that the God of Christian orthodoxy is the ultimate foundation.

[Jay]

I'm not subject to that problem. I don't make the strong foundational's claim that you just did. So I don't have that problem. I admit circularity at this level, okay, but.

[Trent Horn]

But only at that level.

[Jay]

Right, because it's a meta logical question where circularity is unavoidable. That's the point with set theory and the incompleteness theorem.

[Trent Horn]

Okay, Are there any other circular. So circular reasoning with God being the ultimate foundation of reality, that is not invalid. Are there any other kinds of.

[Jay]

By the nature of the system itself.

[Trent Horn]

Okay, so it's not invalid. Are there any other kinds of circular reasoning apart from God, have nothing to do with God that are also not invalid?

[Jay]

Yeah, sure. The categories themselves have to be presupposed for the possibility of knowledge. So in other words, the way I make the argument is just simply that knowledge presupposes the categories. The categories themselves are grounded in God.

[Trent Horn]

Okay, so the categories themselves, their foundation is not circular. Their foundation isn't God.

[Jay]

Well, they're circular when we're considering whether we can justify them at the human level.

[Trent Horn]

Right, so we can't say that logic is true because the laws of logic themselves show that they're true. It sounds like you're saying. Yeah, it sounds like you're saying circular reasoning is invalid, except when we're talking about God being the foundation of the universe.

[Jay]

I'm saying that every system at root is circular. And that's what I'm demonstrating to you in your strong foundationalism. And I'm showing that that's not going to be then how we justify or explain the different systems themselves. It's a comparison of systems and not A comparison of evidence.

[Trent Horn]

Well, Jay, I'm actually not necessarily opposed to using logic, knowledge or morality to show God exists or even a kind of transcendental argument. My concern is the, the specificity of the presupposition. Because your case seemed to be very negative to natural theology, its inability to prove a rigid designator, the, the triune God of Christianity.

[Jay]

No, I, I do. All right, I agree.

[Trent Horn]

So, so my question for you is what would prevent. Why couldn't I take your exact same presuppositionalism, right? Swap out the God of orthodox Christian faith, put in the Catholic divine simplicity God, or William or Cornelius Van Til taking his Protestant view of God using the same argument. What breaks the symmetry to pick your presupposition over the others?

[Jay]

Because in this case, what I'm. The way I would make the argument is that the Trinity is actually the ground not just of epistemology or logic or things like that, but actually the entire paradigm. In other words, it's an argument for the entirety of the Christian paradigm, not merely an argument for this or that piece. Piece of it. So the Trinity comes with, in terms of orthodox theology, as I understand it, Saint Maximus's grand metaphysic, it actually comes with a holistic epistemology and metaphysic that is the grounding of the natural world itself. So it's not just an argument for an abstract concept or some logical thing. It's the entire Christian paradigm and the metaphysics of the trinitarian theology that we have as orthodox, which is unique to us. And this is why. One last point. This is why in, for example, questions and Doubts, Saint Maximus goes to great lengths to show that there are natural proofs for the Trinity. He actually thinks the existence of the world, the modal existence of the world itself is triadic and is a proof, not an adumbration or a trace, but an actual proof of the Trinity.

[Trent Horn]

Okay, but why? I didn't hear a reason. Why. Why is our presupposition going to be a Trinity versus a unity, a unitarian God?

[Jay]

Oh, I see why.

[Trent Horn]

That's point one. And point to why your concept of the Trinity as opposed to a Catholic or Protestant concept. Why?

[Jay]

Well, because first of all, the, the, the, the triune God is not just posited. I'm actually saying that God and the Christian worldview in the Christian orthodox paradigm gives an account for, or the metaphysical problems for the, the one and the many, for the universals, for the, for the, you know, logical categories, the, the Aristotelian categories that, you know, Maximus basically squishes into natural contemplation. I'm saying that the structure of the world as well as ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, all of that is justified given an account for and grounded in a specific triune God and the specific revelation of what he, he says about how the world's constructed. So it's a revelatory theism and a justification via revelation as opposed to autonomous, you know, the, the unaided reasoning approach that you're defending.

[Trent Horn]

So you're saying that we should presuppose the God of Eastern Orthodox Christian theism.

[Jay]

Correct.

[Trent Horn]

Because the God of Eastern Orthodox Christian theism has revealed we ought to presuppose him.

[Jay]

No, I'm saying that we should presuppose him precisely because the self revelatory declaration gives an account for the problems of ethics, metaphysics and epistemology that I keep raising. Why is it worldview solves those problems?

[Trent Horn]

Why does only Orthodox Christian. So, so I guess what I'm trying to.

[Jay]

Unique revelatory character of the Trinity in orthodox Christianity.

[Trent Horn]

Right, but Protestants and Catholics also believe in the Trinity.

[Jay]

Yeah, but you don't have it because you have heterodox versions of it. Not. I'm not personally attacking you, but I'm.

[Trent Horn]

Saying that that's fine. But. Okay, so we would pre. We would say your conception of theism is the only one that explains reality because we would deploy arguments of reason to show that the competitors are false or don't succeed.

[Jay]

Correct, but that's a category error. But because I'm not. Just because I'm using arguments from reason doesn't mean that they have logical or epistemic or ontological priority. That's a category error that Thomas, that Thomas constantly make that because I'm using an argument that it therefore has epistemic or ontological priority, or that I use it first in a chain.

[Trent Horn]

Okay, would this also include. We only got a few seconds here. My question earlier. Did, did, did Abraham believe God? Do you think Abraham had an explicit knowledge of the Trinity?

[Jay]

Yes, and Saint Maximus says he did.

[Trent Horn]

Okay, so he knew the Father, Son, Holy Spirit. All right, all right.

[Jay]

So I think that what I really wanted to get to here was the epistemic problems of a. An approach that Trent has to strong foundationalism which he affirmed early on regarding the way that we go about doing natural theology. What I heard from Trent throughout the debate in many, many instances was actually equivocating and word concept fallacy, shifting between natural law, moral law, the revelation of God in nature, and his Thomistic conception of natural theology. My whole point in this debate was that those things are not equivalent. But multiple times in debate, Trent seemed to switch back between these different things, which are very specific and nuanced, as if they're all just talking about the same thing. Of course, my questioning here is to raise that very, I'm questioning that very assumption right there that I don't think those are all talking about the same thing. I wanted to really stress that this approach that Trent's doing is an empirical approach. I didn't say Trent or Aquinas was an empiricist. I said the approach is empirically based on. And that's not in doubt because in De Veritate, Aquinas clearly says that there's nothing in the intellect that's not also in the senses. He also affirms the distinction between what is better known in itself and what is better known by us. And this is really the basis of the, the foundationalist approach that we have here. If we're going to take that approach, we have a series of problems that I raised. 1 as an example of properly basic beliefs, in terms of the section when I was questioning Trent about circularity of properly basic beliefs, this is just one problem for any empirically based epistemology and make no bones about it. Trent's natural theology is an empirically based natural theology. So he's going to have to demonstrate the justification for the empirical argumentation that he's doing to say natural theology is the case. When I am saying that natural theology isn't the case, because I can come to the table and critique the presuppositions in the exact same way that Hume and Kant do, that you're going to have to give an account for? And why do you have to give an account for it in that way? Because of the nature of your presuppositions and the foundationalism itself. Foundationalism is saying these are self evident, these are the things that everybody agrees on that we start with. What does it matter how many people agree with something or disagree with it? That's a appeal to the masses fallacy. And so if Trent's going to have a foundationalist epistemology, he's going to have to answer not just that, but the questions of what is the metaphysical content of all the words that you're listing here in terms of this sense data? What is the status of the external world that you're presupposing in these metaphysical claims? What is the certitude that you have that the sense data matches up to the Objects in the external world? How do you solve seller's problem of the myth of the given? How do you resolve the under determination of data? How do you account for the fact that the parapathetic axiom itself is not in sense data? How, if that's the case, do you account for induction and deduction on an empirical basis? What are the primary. What are the properly basic beliefs? Given the fact that I don't think the ones that you listed are actually properly basic beliefs, given the critique that I gave of Descartes Cogito, if that's the case and we start with induction, how do we get to the justification of universals right from induction? So if deduction is a problem. Excuse me, if induction is a problem, deduction also goes. What is the justification for the epistemic bootstrapping project at the outset that. That Trent is involved in, given that, as I tried to show, there are no properly basic beliefs, and also given the fact that things like the uniformity of nature, that logic works and operates in an external world, or that the external world actually has a causal relationship, that it imprints data upon Trent's mind. Nothing in that was a affirmation or an accusation that Trent is a human empiricist, or that Aquinas is an empiricist. I never said that. So Trent was replying to a strong man. I simply said, how does Trent reply as a foundationalist to these classic problems? For any foundationalist system, it really doesn't matter which one we pick. One thing that I really wanted to conclude with was about the arguments of Saint Maximus for the Trinity. And I'll just run through these really quick. Maximus thinks that the modes of natural contemplation lead us to the logi, which leads us to the Logos. The Logos is a rigid designator, not for generic reasoning or Marcus Aurelius's Logos, but in fact, for, as Trent said, the Wisdom literature, Logos of Ecclesiasticus, Proverbs and John 1, who is the second person of the Godhead. It's a rigid designator. Creation, then, according to Saint Maximus, is fundamentally Christological and fundamentally triadic. Ambiguum 10 shows that creation is a veil for the Logos. The creative world, Maximus says, is a book. It's a book that's the same as the Logos in terms of the Bible book. Right, Maximus? This goes on of course, to say that the created order is a theophany. And my main point here is that natural theology posits a deity that does not allow the created world to actually be a theophany. And I think the Thomism demonstrates that. Matt Fradd and Trent Horn Are we not supposed to be orthodox? Calling all fun lovers and memory makers, Texas invites you to cheer from our stadiums and dance like no one is watching. Culture seekers can find the art that truly inspires. And from our shopping hubs to our chic boutiques, fashionistas will never leave empty handed. Texas is an unforgettable experience that's waiting just for you. Visit traveltexas.com and plan your trip today.

[Advertiser]

Let's Texas Dinner time. It's more than just a meal. It's when work comes to a halt, where macaroni masterpieces are made and little moments turn into lasting memories. With the Blue Cash Preferred card, you can get 6% cash back at US supermarkets. So you can bring home the flavors that bring everyone together. We did say everyone make the special moments even more rewarding. Learn [e-mail] Explore BCP terms and cash Back cap apply with Blue Cash Preferred.

[Trent Horn]

And for me, the Papacy is a gift that God has given the Church. That makes sense. It's one of the important things in being Catholic.

[Jay]

If the Papacy makes sense, then why is the papacy such an issue of contention right now in the Roman Catholic world, especially since the time of Vatican ii? I mean, again, you'll find that they always just appeal to this sort of the simple pragmatic argument. Look, it just makes sense. Look, it's just going to help with unity. Look, it's going to solve the problems. And does it actually do that? No, it doesn't. Remember, 90% of their apologetic of these guys is you need this office because it's going to solve all the problems that you have. Yet when we do the problem analysis, we don't find that it actually provides the thing that it's supposed to do. It doesn't provide unity, it doesn't provide clarity. In fact, if you remember when we did the four the two four hour streams, the eight hours of response to Trent, remember that?

[Trent Horn]

Right?

[Jay]

Got a lot of views on that. We saw that Trent himself was struggling consistently with how to make sense of and here's your various ways to interpret Francis on the death penalty. Why do we have to give varying interpretations of something that's supposed to be a clarifying statement on basic morals? Why do we even have to have the Pope clarifying the basic morals which are now ambiguous, which related to quote natural justice in the traditional Roman Catholic view. But remember, what's he doing here? Just falling back on these kinds of pragmatic low tier. Oh, it'll just make it easy. Oh, it'll make it simple. It'll solve the problems again. The last 70 years of Roman Catholicism illustrate nothing but the opposite of that. Chaos, collapse, lack of clarity, greater and greater confusion, greater and greater moral revulsion, especially when it comes to the Rome. To Rome itself on, quote, clarifying moral issues. So the irony is that the selling points that these guys always fall back on are the very things that they're also always having to deal with, that it's not practical, it's not clarifying anything, it's not making anything better, it's not producing unity. And this is 90%, 95% of their apologetic is what papal lawyering. We debate these guys, they're always like, I'm following Peter. And by Peter they mean the papacy.

[Trent Horn]

Right.

[Jay]

Because we believe the sea of Peter is in every bishop. And bring up for the audience your argument from indefectibility. It's a great one. Yeah. So essentially what we've gotten to in modern day Roman Catholic apologists that are in this sphere is the idea that rather than I'm going to, you know, to move away from the question of infallibility. Not that you can't debate infallibility, I think it's funny. And you can go down that route, but they'll just always have this out where they'll just say, well, but he's only infallible in XYZ cases. And I will tell you when that is right. So every individual Catholic will have their own list of when he's being fallible, when he's not being infallible. And so the better way to construct this argument is to talk about indefectibility. And this is better because we know Vatican I is teaching very clearly that the Roman See will never defect from the faith until the end of the world. It will contain valid successors until the return of Christ. Vatican one says the Sea of Rome is indefectible until he defects, which is to say nothing. So basically a meaningless statement which allows every individual Roman Catholic to simply say that I will accept and reject the papacy insofar as it applies to my own version of papalism. And that's why every single Roman Catholic will have a different list of what the infallible teachings actually are. And again, this whole system should at least give us the list. What, do the Roman Catholics always come over to us and say, where's your list of dogmas? Where's your list of dogs? Where's your list of dogmas? Oh, they don't have it. Exactly what do they have? They have a couple criteria of categories to rank the the authority of the various teachings and dogmas, which is then up to every individual Catholic to apply and to try to make sense of with mental gymnastics how this system isn't chaos and nonsense.

[Trent Horn]

An orthodox council of just the orthodox bishops. Well, one guy can always just kind of.

[Orthodox Theologian]

They can't.

[Trent Horn]

And so you're not able to address. There's. You don't have that unity that a person who is given a special authority from Christ to be, you know, the, the first among bishops and the orthodox say the Pope has that title, but it doesn't really mean much.

[Jay]

Well, that's interesting because if this is the case, then why does Ratzinger, and by extension the post Vatican II Vatican, why do they admit that the Orthodox Church has preserved its faith and its doctrines, its unity for the last thousand years? So that's an admission that we preserve this.

[Advertiser]

This podcast is supported by the RealReal. Meet Christine. She loves shopping. And this is the sound of fashion overload. Too many fabulous things, not enough space. So Christine started selling with the RealReal.

I've always loved collecting designer pieces, Gucci bags, Prada heels. But my style keeps evolving. Selling with the RealReal game changer. I earn more. And they do everything seriously, just drop.

Off your items or schedule a pickup. We handle the photos, descriptions, pricing, even shipping. You just sit back and watch your items sell fast to our 40 million members.

And I get peace of mind knowing I earn more selling with the RealReal than anywhere else.

Exactly this. That's the sound of your closet working for you. The real real. Earn more, save time, sell fast. And right now you can get an extra $100 to shop when you sell for the first time. Go to therealreal.com to get your extra hundred dollars. Therealreal.com that's therealreal.com without the papacy for a thousand years.

[Jay]

So the papacy actually isn't necessary. So your own popes admit that we don't need the Pope. I mean, this is in Ratzinger's books. Now you might disagree with that. But my point is that, well, how come your authorities recognize that? Well, it's not an infallible statement. I don't have to accept that. Okay, so what? Right? This is all they do is spur out and go to this arbitrary of when it's infallible, when it's not infallible, which again, they're going to have to have an infallible criteria when they say what isn't isn't infallible or else that whole system falls apart is a contradiction. But as we've seen, they're not very good at logic and epistemology.

[Trent Horn]

But when you go back to the New Testament, it seems clear to me and even to many non Catholic commenters that Peter was given special authority in the early.

[Jay]

So here we go again. The only things that matter to them are Matthew 16, right? So it's like they don't care about the Bible at all until they want to do isegesis with Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16. They don't care about anything else. Do they go to. Do they go to Acts 15 where Peter is not the voice of God and the final authority, where it's James? No, they don't do that. Or they do this stupid thing where they try to argue that it's a different peter in Galatians 1 or in Acts 15. I mean, just silly mental gymnastics. The whole system is nothing. But I'll use the Bible for when it backs up the papacy. The rest of the time I don't care what the Bible says. And they don't, especially the trads. I mean, they even, they even say that they're happy that they don't read the Bible. Many of the trads, they've said it on the Twitter. On Twitter all the time, right? Reading the Bible is a Protestant thing. They think this is how delusional and idiotic these people are. But I mean, these are just terrible arguments. This is, this is car salesmanship.

[Trent Horn]

Paul will stand for the truth and he'll even stand up to Peter.

[Jay]

Oh really? That sound like Vatican One.

[Trent Horn]

Trent now why does he make note of Peter? Because Peter has the most authority, right? I will even oppose Peter.

[Jay]

So mouthpiece authority, none of that equates to Vatican 1. Again, all non sequiturs. The whole thing is bait and switch. Just telling you that because there is this place, because Rome has this preeminence, that the Roman, therefore Roman Catholic doctrines are all true. It doesn't follow. In other words, there's an orthodox. Maybe the orthodox reading is wrong, right? But my point is that there's an orthodox reading of all of this stuff and it's ignored because the idea is just that look at all these quote minds. Look at my reading of Galatians and all this stuff and therefore Vatican One. That's essentially what he's saying, even though he's not saying that or making any reference to Vatican 1. But he knows that Vatican 1 is the council about the papacy. So the whole point of this text of Paul is that even Peter can be rebuked if he errs. This is all spun to be the opposite in their exegesis, to be that Paul went to Peter to see if he was correct and Paul found out, oh, oops, Peter made a gaffe. He just kind of messed up. Is that what he says? No, he says that he departed from the Gospel. That equates to defecting from the faith. That is the very thing that Vatican 1 says Rome can never do. Peter is Rome. Their exegesis proves he departed from the faith. In Galatians, it's like, did they even read the text or did he just read, quote, minds from other Roman Catholic apologists? Or did he actually just even read Galatians? Is he just repeating dahlgreen and Hess's book?

[Orthodox Theologian]

Question difficult for people to discuss is that many people have a very narrow definition of worship. Worship is just giving God all the honor God is due.

[Jay]

And so that is not what worship essentially is. That's a very broad statement that you could say, okay, yeah, we give God the honor, but how do we give God the honor in the way that God lays down? This is why Roman Catholics always argue against Protestants, that Protestants are essentially failing at worship because they don't have a eucharistic altar and sacrifice. Yes, Protestants believe that Jesus died on the cross and that was a sacrifice, but they have discarded that eucharistic centrality to worship that's ongoing at an altar. And to most pop apologists in the Roman Catholic sphere, they love to make the argument that Protestants therefore do not really worship God. They might have a mental ascent, but the actual holistic worship, which is the entire person, the entire being of the person. This is why the liturgy, both in the east and the west, includes the whole man. It's not just a mental ascent, it's also actually eating God. It's actually partaking of. It's bowing down, it's crossing yourself. It's all of these actions that are including the physical body just as much as the mind. And Roman Catholics don't even have this for Orthodox, the heart. Keep in mind, in the Roman Catholic system, there is no noose or, or heart doctrine. They don't believe that. They believe in the Augustinian and Thomistic idea that it's body and soul. And for them, soul is essentially primarily identified with the intellect. So for them, salvation is ultimately an intellectual vision of the divine essence. This is known as the beatific vision. This is why for them, when they talk about worship, it's in that context of A mental ascent to a vision of God's essence. Ultimately, that's the highest form of worship. For the Orthodox, that is not the highest form of worship. We do agree that there is an intellectual faculty in man. But we think that, as Romans 1 says, man's heart, as a result of the fall, is darkened. And the heart is not identical to the intellect or the mind. The heart is the innermost being, the spirit in man. Which is why Paul talks about body, soul and spirit. He lists three things. Roman Catholics, they only believe two. So the whole man is deified. The whole man participates in worship, which is why we taste and see that the Lord is good, the fountain of immortality, as we've seen in the liturgy, and why the whole body is involved in worship. Kissing, praying, kneeling, bowing, all of these things go into the holistic element of man being involved in worship, which is because the resurrection is not just an intellectual resurrection. It's a resurrection of body and soul and spirit coming back together after death. Thus, the body plays a key role in the eschaton and in the resurrected state. These people don't really realize that because for them, the eschatological state is an intellectual vision of the divine essence. For the Orthodox, there's a new heavens and a new earth and it's mirrored and patterned on the resurrected body that you see at the end of the Gospel of John that Jesus possesses. Jesus has a new body that walks through walls and that can appear and disappear and yet he can still eat and it still has physicality, even though it's deified flesh. According to St. Cyril of Alexandria, that's the deified flesh that we're eating in the Eucharist, which by the way, disproves the Roman Catholics in the debate with Father Deacon Ananias because they argue that you don't actually taste and see God in the Eucharist because they're being consistent with their Thomistic theology that it's all created causal effects and not the actual uncreated divinity that you're participating in. I hope you see this, because this, all of this nonsense, the last two weeks, three weeks, is simply illustrating the vast differences between the Orthodox view and these other pagan systems. And I will include Rome in the pagan systems. It should be evident now and on display for everyone all the things that I've been telling you for the last 10 years. The entire Internet e religious world is able to now see this, that Rome has a severely heretical and deficient position on all of these topics as the.

[Orthodox Theologian]

Father, Son and Holy Spirit deserve honor. Refusing to honor each of these persons as God means a non trinitarian can't worship God. Critics also say that the Bible teaches that whoever denies the Son does not have the Father and that pagans offer worship to demons, not God. Therefore they say, but Muslims cannot be worshiping God. But we have to be careful about taking a few proof texts and using that to answer a complicated question. Zeus and Thor do not exist. And if they have any effect on the world, that's just the work of demons. And John says the Antichrist doesn't have the Father. But in the same letter he also says he who loves is born of God.

[Jay]

And yeah, but loving is still contingent in terms of being in the covenant and having the love of God. So just saying that anyone that loves is of God is not the sense that John means it in one John. He's not saying that anyone, even a Satanist who loves their spouse or their husband is of God. That's completely false.

[Orthodox Theologian]

Knows God. A person might not have God as a covenantal father, but the Bible says non believers can have God as the Creator to whom they must give worship.

[Jay]

For the wrath of God is revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth and unrighteousness. So notice that in the pagan world the truth is not revealed, it is not acknowledged, it is suppressed. Why? Well, it is manifest within them. Notice he's not talking about external reasonings at this point about syllogisms or Aristotle having a really supreme high IQ intellect. And that's why he got a lot further than the Amazon tribesmen did about who God is. Right? It's nothing to do with syllogisms and reasoning out in some Hellenic, philosophic, Plato, Aristotle sense. It's about the universal world of idolatry that all the nations fell into after the Fall, except for the covenant people who maintained the true worship of God. The only acceptable worship of God, by the way. And he says that these people had a manifest witness to them in creation, that they should have come to the conclusion that there is only one true God and that he lives and exists and so forth. But did they come to that conclusion? No. Paul says they are without any excuse. According to the Roman Catholics, they're all excused. Paul says they're without excuse. Roman Catholics say, well, but they didn't know God. But they reason from creatures to a Creator, so they are given a free pass. Paul says they're without excuse. Even though they knew God, they did not honor him as God. Now I think and there's different ways you could exude this passage. Some people might exeute this as if Paul is talking about any individual pagan at any point in their life. I think Paul's talking about the original connection that man had to God in Adam and that all of Adam's sons should have had to God had they been faithful. But since they fell, they are patterned and live after their father, Adam and Eve, and not after Christ. And so what happens then is that there's a sense in which back to Adam, man knew God and had a relationship with God, but the fall led to idolatry and universal pagan worship of the demonic and anything other than God. And so that's the sense in which at one time man knew God, but we have all then fallen from that. Oh, and have not glorified or worshiped or honored him as God. Now this right here refutes the Roman Catholic Vatican to excuse an invisible, invincible ignorance arguments, because they're trying to say, well, in the case of pagans, they're still worshiping God, they still acknowledge a Creator. But Paul is saying that even if they acknowledge the proposition that there's a creator, they're not worshiping and serving him in any way that God accepts. I mentioned the word triad in passing and Trent Horn assumed, as the original tweet shows, that he thought this meant something to do with Arianism. I said that, you know, in our debate you were incorrect by misunderstanding the fact that Abraham worshiped the Trinity. Trent thought this was mind blowing how no natural theology teaches me that they worshiped a Unitarian God in the Old Testament. And then he says, I asked if they knew that God was a trinity. Jewish multiplicity in the Godhead could be akin to proto Arianism. No. In fact, the very point of why we would argue that the Old Testament teaches a triad is to prove that they were trinitarian trends. So as you can see, his initial reply is quite literally a fundamental misunderstanding of the basics that every orthodox Christian knows by looking at the Rublev icon that the Old Testament saints worship the triad. And Trent says you even had to use the word triad to describe it. But you would say that modern people that worship triad, as in Jehovah's Witnesses, are not worshiping the one true God. So notice that very clearly, Trent didn't even understand the very common terminology amongst the Greek Fathers, the Byzantine theologians, the very theologians who dogmatized and solidified and explicated the Trinity, Cappadocians, St. Maximus, Etc. For Trent, he thinks this is somehow bound up with Arianism. Even though Trent attended, according to his own description, for many years, or presumably for many years, the eastern right. The eastern right hails Palomas as a saint, which actually makes no sense given the fact that he was considered a damnable heretic for many centuries. And to notice that the most famous work that he has is called the Triads. A simple search would tell you that amongst the orthodox world, triad refers to Trinity. Does Trent simply say, oh, I misunderstood, you're correct. No, he doubles down because he. It shows that he's not even familiar with basic terminology in the very fathers that dogmatized the Trinity, doubles down and says, no, this is an Egyptian term. What? The word can be synonymous with Trinity, but it's more common as a grouping of deities. Look at the 1996 Egyptology book from John Griffith. Now, the more common use is not something from an obscure Egyptologist, Trent. The more common use is what you should know from the uniate world. In the orthodox world of triad meaning Trinity, this is just silly. Now Trent doubles down again and says that Old Testament Jews did not worship the Trinity. He says it right here. Did the faithful Jews who live before Christ's incarnation worship God? If they did, then they must have worshiped the same God of the Trinity of the Christians, even though they didn't worship. Trent does not believe that the Old Testament saints worship the triad, even though Jesus in John 5. 9 says that they worshiped the Father, his angel and his Spirit. So Trent doesn't even know that the Old Testament teaches the Triad. Now I pointed this out in at the time of the debate and after we had our debate and Trent and other people tried to save face and tried to do damage control. He says right here, literally a few seconds ago, that they didn't believe in the Trinity. So do you understand that Roman Catholics do not understand the Trinity? And I don't mean in terms of an intellectual comprehension. They fundamentally have ridiculous stupid theology. And in order to save face and defend his natural theology, a La Vatican 2's Nostratate, Trent is literally saying that they believed in a Unitarian God. The very thing that I said was the problem in the debate. Trent still thinks that the Old Testament people believed in a Unitarian God and not the Triad. So this refutes all of the Roman Catholic liars that sat here saying that's not what Trent means. Why do you Roman Catholics feel the need to lie? And how could you be this silly in your theology to be so ignorant of the Old Testament? Again, proving my point in the debate that how would you argue against A Muslim. Do you not understand that to debate any Muslim requires going to the Old Testament to prove the Trinity? I even showed a video that was my opening statement in the Daniel Hikikachu debate to Trent, which apparently he hasn't watched because it refutes his stupid heresy. And Acts 17 in no way says that they worshiped a Unitarian God. It's just like this guy is on a another planet and doesn't even understand what the debate is. And now the libertarian says he can't hop on. Dude, I sent you the link. There's no reason why you can't hop on this debate. It's an open chat. You wanted to debate. Now you're saying he can't get on here. Give me a break. Here you are. You hopped on here. Now where's the actual video? I hope you guys understand that this means that Roman Catholics don't have the basics of the Trinity. I'm pretty sure the Trinity is a pretty important doctrine. And you just saw Trent say that in the tweet that he just put up the very thing that all of his defenders were saying he didn't mean. He says it again. Now let's remind ourselves of a few moments of the debate with Daniel Hakikachu, because it turns out Trent and Daniel have the same God, the Unitarian Generic God of natural theism. Now, I know that Trent would confess to believe in the Trinity and the deed of Christ, but he doesn't understand that he's got two conflicting, contradictory positions in his worldview. And he doubled and tripled down in the last hour on Twitter on this. So I repeat again, did the Old Testament saints worship a generic Unitarian deity, the very thing that Trent and Roman Catholicism Nostratate and Trent just now, within the last five minutes, reaffirmed? Or did they worship the triad? As every orthodox person knows, you understand, this is fundamental to us. And they're still wandering around groping in the dark like the pagans of Acts 17, not understanding that it's a triad in the very beginning because their theology is all jacked up and dumb. That's why. Because they're in a giant machine that they have to make all of these pieces work and make this giant algorithm that's a giant bunch of contradictions fit together. And they don't. They don't even know what recapitulation is. They don't even know what monarchical trinitarianism is. If you've read Justin Martyr against Trypho the Jew, is Trent even aware that Justin Martyr argues from the Old Testament Theophanies to prove the deity of Christ and his attempt at proving triad. It's like Trent's never talked to a Muslim or never read these Church fathers. Oh, but wait a minute. Trent didn't know what the word triad meant. He thought it was a pagan, anti trinitarian term when it's constantly used in the Eastern Church fathers. So now Trent is doubling down, as we said, tripling down that the Old Testament saints did not worship the Trinity, they worshiped a Unitarian God. Has he Never read John 5 through 9? Has he not read 2nd Corinthians 3 where Paul says that Moses looked face to face with Jesus? If no man sees the Father at any time, as Jesus argues in John to the faith pharisees in John 5, then who was Moses talking to? This is the point of Jesus argument to the Pharisees. I don't think Trent knows the Bible very well at all, and particularly not the Old Testament at all. I think Trent knows a lot of pop apologetics because remember Trent was not too long ago a deist who converted to Roman Catholicism. And so I don't think Trent knows the Trinity.

[Orthodox Theologian]

A Catholic teaching that has not been infallibly defined could be an error.

[Jay]

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? 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 argument, say 10 ex cathedral statements, I need to know where the list is that is also ex cathedra. Because if the list of ex cathedral 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 infallible list of ex cathedral statements? You just refuted yourself.

[Orthodox Theologian]

But they are not all infallible because the Catholic Code of Canon Law says no doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

[Jay]

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 system and Trent Horn's career. This is so stupid. Imagine Trent Horn saying the same thing as T jump. Let's replay that. Because this was. This was better than I hoped. 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, canon law. Trent, is canon law infallible? Most Roman Catholics would argue that canon law is not infallible. So wait a minute. The thing that Trent goes to to know the canon, what's infallible is itself fallible. You can't make this up. This is what you get when you 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 cogito.

[Trent Horn]

What?

[Jay]

Dude, that's been savage by philosophers for centuries. It's laughable. And that's what every person who takes an Epistemology 101 class, that's like the first thing they think, dude, like Descartes cogito, man. It's like I like, I like I exist or whatever, right? It's like I think, therefore I am. So like, that's why self evident or whatever, right? And then the professor in your first class, your first day of epistemology shreds that because it's stupid. That's literally what Trent argued in the debate with me to show what's self evident. Descartes cogito. What? Are you serious? Dude, it's so easy to refute the co. It's not even self evident. First of all, it relies on time determination. Has Descartes proven time yet?

[Trent Horn]

No.

[Jay]

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 if it relies on all these other things to be the case, to say the sentence of the cogito, 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 what things are ex cathedra, actually goes to a thing that Roman Catholics say is not infallible. Now maybe there's a Roman Catholic triad 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, the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It's authoritative, it's normative. But I, I don't 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, so if it's fallible and changeable and mutable, then how are you going to the thing that is changeable, infallible to tell me where I identify the infallible? This is so simple.

[Orthodox Theologian]

This is Epistemology 101 says no doctrine is understood as 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.

[Jay]

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 II are normative and binding. So that means you are now bound by the Roman sea to error. That's the point. You don't get to reject mortality Nostratate 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. That's Canon 752.

[Orthodox Theologian]

A dogma that cannot possibly be false. And in some cases, Jay complains about statements from the Vatican that aren't the like.

[Jay]

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 about.

[Orthodox Theologian]

The Vatican, Trent, Aren't even Church teachings.

[Jay]

At all the actual Vatican source that Loft Dog Mc Loft Dog pulled up, which refutes what Trent says the Holy Spirit that guides 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 salvific value of the false religions. This is the 1997 Vatican document clarifying what you see in Vatican II. So notice they don't explain things, the pop apologists, because they have some idea that this is absurd and obviously a contradiction. They don't explain things the way their Vatican does.

[Orthodox Theologian]

The Catholic Church often permits theological opinions without.

[Jay]

Oh, but 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 this is so great that Leo, Leo is now going to be the great apologist like Francis, because they were able to hand wave. They tried to hand wave for the last several years, Chiedi and Alexandria, by saying that it's just a theological commission, it's not approved by Rome. Oh, but now turns out Leo has expressed his approval of Kadian Alexandria and that it expresses and fulfills his desire and his mind. So notice when I go to the same documents that Lofton uses against Trent and Tim Gordon, that document that Trent was talking about, the Theological Commission, 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 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.

[Orthodox Theologian]

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.

[Jay]

What does that mean then, Trent? That it's authoritative but not infallible. Are you bound by it? Or are you bound by the Apostolic Journey letter that you should joyously embrace what K and Alexandria say? Are you now supporting Leo in dropping the filioque? Just the recitation, not the theology. Do you not see how arbitrary and ridiculous this system is? This is the most Talmudic 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 it only appeals to suds and I don't know, people with Jew 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. Because people were alleging that Trent took money to promote stabbies during Koof. I asked Trent, was that the case? Trent said no, but I think that might have been what prompted this angry Trent video here. So.

[Orthodox Theologian]

So if the Pope were to. Instead, it publishes permitted opinions that have gained a consensus among members of the Magisterium.

[Jay]

Yeah, but Trent, Now Leo affirms K80 and Alexandria.

[Orthodox Theologian]

And the document Jay cites is not an error on the point Jay raises because it says salvation, quote, is not produced independently of Christ and his church.

[Jay]

Yeah. The problem is that it says that salvation occurs through the false religions.

[Orthodox Theologian]

It also does not outright say other religions have salvific value.

[Jay]

It does. It says that salvation can occur by Christ saving them through Islam.

[Orthodox Theologian]

It discusses the question of whether we can say non Christian religions that predispose people to truth have salvific value. This is why the document talks about, quote, the possibility of the existence of salvific elements and said so.

[Jay]

Look at this ridiculous kazustri. Just word games. No, it doesn't actually say that they can be saved in those religions. It discusses the possibility of them being saved to those religions.

[Orthodox Theologian]

As whether the religions as such can have salvific value is a point that remains open.

[Jay]

No, it says that it is possible.

[Orthodox Theologian]

So that document doesn't say what Jay claims it says it does.

[Jay]

That's why Lofton is actually correct here. So you understand that the Roman Catholics, with all the clarity between themselves and their pop apologists, refute one another every single day. What the papal teaching is on Casti Kanubi and marital relations is abundantly clear because of the papacy. Right, 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 going to make the argument that the papacy provides clarity, how come the top apologists completely disagree over fundamental questions about salvific roles of false religions? You can't even get that right. Now, I'm not 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 guidance on a basic issue of whether or not I can be saved in Hinduism or not? You and Lofton and Tim Gordon can't even tell me that.

[Orthodox Theologian]

And it isn't even an Official teaching of the Church.

[Jay]

What's the official teaching, Trent? Where's the list?

[Orthodox Theologian]

In that respect, it would be like many documents proposed by orthodox theologians that Jay or other online apologists might, might disagree with, but don't disprove orthodoxy. Now, Jay is correct that Catholics must submit even to the non infallible teachings of the Church.

[Jay]

Oh really?

[Orthodox Theologian]

Including the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. But since those teachings are not infallible, that means in rare cases a Catholic could privately, not publicly, but privately fail to accept these teachings.

[Jay]

If notice the level of, like how they're saving the system now when Vatican II teaches obvious contradictions and heresies, just privately keep that to yourself because you have to submit to the Pope. Canon 752. So I mean, I think you get what you deserve. So the people that want to follow this, the 40, 000 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 be around these creeps. You deserve what you get if they.

[Orthodox Theologian]

Have a proportionate serious reason for doing so. And such an act would not constitute the grave sin of heresy or.

[Jay]

Oh really? So private theologian random dude Trent Horn, 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 got to go back to this because this was the best thing in the whole. The whole thing. The best thing in the whole discussion.

[Orthodox Theologian]

All doctrines would be infallible, but they are not all infallible because the Catholic code of canon law says no doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

[Jay]

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, Jay, don't you argue that at base all arguments are self referencing and are self recursive? Yes, that's why I'm a presuppositionalist. That's why I believe in transcendental 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 do I know what's ex cathedra? It's the ones that are manifestly evident as ex cathedra.