Finishing Up on the New Vatican Document, Quick Retort to Joshua Charles

I look over at Twitter, literally as the music is playing, and a tweet, three seconds, pops up, ex -post, whatever we call them anymore, from my daughter, picture, glass with candy canes and gingerbread and Christmas tree cookies on it.

There's something inside it, I'm sure it's some type of coffee thing. Okay, it says, "'Tis the season, it's a homemade white mocha with protein, obviously."

Okay, look, you know, she was a manager at Starbucks for a number of years. She was one of the youngest managers they had, and she knows that stuff really well.

She tried, she tried to find something with coffee in it that I like.

It didn't matter what we covered it with. There was this one thing that had cinnamon and vanilla and stuff, but it was literally like 740 calories, it was just like an absolute sugar bomb, didn't really have much in the way of coffee in it.

I tried, she tried, and I just, I can't do it, it doesn't work for me.

But yeah, talk about distracting me, that's what happens as soon as we start. Hey, I am extremely tempted to talk about the fact that the nation that fought communism in Korea and other places in the world is succumbing,

I'm gonna be, got something in my back of my throat, I'm sorry, I'm gonna be coughing a bit today, is succumbing to communism.

We could follow the tracks, we could see exactly how it happened. If you want to see how amazingly ignorant

Americans are of history, watch them vote a system into place, and this includes

Christians. I had a seminary student send me a note yesterday about how we need to get rid of capitalism.

Vote in a system, establish a system, because the only difference between this democratic socialist and a communist is whether you establish it at the end of a gun or by making people so stupid they enslave themselves, that's the only difference.

The result's the same, the state is the source of everything, the state is all, the state is

God, that's communism, that's what it is. So where do rights come from?

Ask those questions, no one does anymore, no one's been taught. So the system that killed 120 million people in the last century, well, that was the last century.

Utter ignorance of history, I can't go there, we've got other stuff to talk about, but I just,

I'm just, yeah, they didn't do it right the first time, we'll do it right this time, we'll do 240 million instead of 120 million because we're much better at it.

Oh my, so anyways, you can tell what my viewpoints are on certain people that were just elected, and the only reason they were elected is because starting many decades ago, the electoral process in this nation was subverted.

I'm not talking just about the cheating, there's been plenty of that. I'm going to say something extremely unpopular, but it goes right back to the founders of this nation, the people who vote should be the people who are impacted by the vote.

What I mean by that is, if you are a person who owns property and hence has a vested interest in the continued betterment of your community, then you get to vote.

If you're dependent upon public services, you don't get to vote. Why not?

Because you'll just vote yourself more money, and that's exactly what's going on here. It's exactly what's happened all around us, and there are lots of people going, what's good?

That's the way it should be. I said, well, that ain't going to last long, okay? That's self -suicide, but Europe's doing it, we're doing it.

You have lots of folks going, this is what's going to happen, and it won't make a difference. Anyway, isn't it amazing that it was only two days ago that a document comes out of the

Vatican didn't get a whole lot of major public interest, at least

I didn't see it. Again, religion reporters seem to have been sports reporters that offended somebody and so they got demoted because they know next to nothing about what they're talking about.

The stuff that I see in religious news service and stuff like that, you just sit there going, wow, this person doesn't have a clue what they're talking about.

There were some real simple summaries of it and stuff like that that closed the door on this movement that's been going on for decades, and it's not been decades, it's been centuries, and at least a century and a half,

I would say. Anyway, it's going to be a few weeks,

I think, until the counter documents, the counter statements get written and researched and published.

Like I said, I think Miravalli, if he chooses to do so, he may not choose to do so, because of what it would cost, or what it would cost the universities to do.

I don't know. Or maybe they might go, let's go ahead and push back because we could become the darlings.

We're expected, we've had millions of people that have given us millions of dollars to promote this stuff, so let's be faithful to them and press on and hope for a different pope in the future that'll change, change, and the problem is that could happen.

There is a reason because this document does not represent apostolic tradition.

The statements of John Paul II using co -mediatrix, co -redemptrix did not represent apostolic tradition because there is no apostolic tradition.

It's mythology. That's what this demonstrates. And hence, hey, you people that believe in co -mediatrix, co -redemptrix, you've got those paintings, you've been posting them all day on Twitter, with the grace coming from God, from Jesus down through Mary to all the world.

You've seen them. They're out there if you want to find them. Don't lose heart because this may be

Pope Leo XIV in 2025, but 30 years from now, it could be completely different.

It could be defined as document 30 years from now, and if it is, and someone goes, it's the exact same thing when it comes to the fact that when fiduciary supplicants came out in December of, what was it, 22, 23, probably 23, fiduciary supplicants reversed a papal statement from 18 months earlier.

18 months earlier. So 18 years, you can have a lot of stuff happen in that period of time.

So the usefulness for all of us at this moment is this document helps us to be able to illustrate and demonstrate why it is that Roman Catholic apologists constantly attack the doctrine of solo scriptura.

Partly, it's pragmatic because they find most non -Catholics incapable of defending solo scriptura.

They just assume it. They don't know why. They've never read anything about it. They may have heard a few words in a sermon, but not really in a position to do a lot about it.

So, but the other reason they have to attack solo scriptura is because if scripture was sufficient, then the specific dogmas that define modern

Roman Catholicism would have to be admitted to be without foundation.

There isn't any question that the apostolic witness represented in the

New Testament knows nothing of the things that Rome has defined as being based upon apostolic tradition.

So they have to attack solo scriptura. They have to at least, it's not so much that they want to present a positive case for their own position in the sense of, here is the logical foundational argumentation for how belief in the papacy answers all the objections that we are raising against solo scriptura.

They know that's not true. They know that when they say, oh, but look at all division solo scriptura creates, and right now they are busily ravaging each other over the interpretation of what, well,

Pope so -and -so said this 170 years ago, and Pope said this 70 years ago, and we put that Pope together with that Pope and that Pope, and that's better than your two

Popes. And it's like, it's like, it's like Roman Catholic cards, you know?

Who's got the better hand? Because all you're doing is you're multiplying the number of words you have to interpret, and it just gets bigger and bigger and bigger.

And in the final analysis, it doesn't matter what you think. Your opinion is irrelevant.

History is irrelevant. Interpreting Popes in their context is irrelevant, because what's going to end up being taught is what

Rome wants to teach. And if that changes over time, it changes over time.

Big deal. You have no grounds for complaining. That's just the way it is.

You're stuck with it. So, you know, if you were a Roman Catholic who wrote a book on the biblical arguments for and the civilizational necessity of capital punishment, you know, early in Francis's pontificate, and then he comes out and he changes the catechism and makes the statement that this has always been sinful, and you know you well know that Popes taught this and councils taught this and the catechism of the

Council of Trent talked about it positively in the sense of God allowing nations to do this kind of stuff.

You know that. But Pope Francis says, nope, all was sinful.

And what are you going to do? Submit or not?

Well, there's been lots of times when people had to make that decision. The old Catholic split took place because there were lots of Catholics who recognized that Vatican I and its proclamation of papal infallibility was just a historical crock.

That's why Newman had to come up with the development hypothesis. Oh, acorn to the tree.

We had the acorn before, now we've got the tree. Oh, it looks very different, doesn't it? Yeah, okay, that's how it ends up working.

That's how that works. What did

I click here? Oh, anyway,

I'm going to go back to where we were here. All right, so I want to finish reading the document, the important parts of the document.

There were all sorts of other things that we could, you know, it would be useful, though the audience will start shrinking, to work through a lot more of it.

Like I said, there was one point I caught where they cite Pope Francis from a homily.

They're allowed to do that in producing apostolic guidance and teaching. But if anybody else does that to demonstrate inconsistency, well, he doesn't always talk about it.

Incoherence is palpable. We already read the section on co -redemptrix and the conclusion, after talking about Pope Francis's clear opposition, the statement, given the necessity of explaining

Mary's subordinate role to Christ in the work of redemption, it would not be appropriate to use the title co -redemptrix to define

Mary's cooperation. That's the very thing these people wanted. That's what this book's all about. That's what the tear -out petition that you can send to the

Vatican, asking the Pope to define this very doctrine. Co -redemptrix is part of what exactly they want.

That is the key statement. I didn't expect that.

But the problem is, I've already seen other

Roman Catholics produce a list of things that, okay, fiduciary supplicants.

You don't think that didn't require a fair amount of explanation? That was one of the things that said, when an expression requires many repeated explanations to prevent it from straying from a correct meaning, it does not serve the faith of the people of God and becomes unhelpful.

The list of doctrines and dogmas of Rome that have to be explained very carefully, indulgences.

I mean, you can look back. I can sit here and I can pull up the list of relics that Frederick had purchased in Wittenberg.

Breast milk from Mary, a wing from the angel Gabriel, a piece of straw from Jesus's manger, and of course, all sorts of pieces of the true cross, one of the nails.

It was nailed in his hands. Just on and on and on and on.

Well, you have to explain all that, right? You have to explain all that. So it seems like having to explain stuff seems like a fairly weak foundation for saying, we're not going this direction, despite the fact that popes have said it over and over again.

So that's the Corredemptrix part, and then it went in the Mediatrix, and it tries to give some background.

It says that in 1521, there was a petition to Pope Benedict XV, Bratzinger was 16, to issue a dogmatic definition of Mary's universal mediation.

However, the Holy Father did not grant this request. He only approved a feast with its own mass and the office of Mary Mediatrix.

From then until 1950, theological research on this question continued to develop up to the preparatory phase of the

Second Vatican Council. The Council did not enter into dogmatic declarations, but preferred to present an extensive synthesis of Catholic doctrine on the place to attribute to the

Blessed Virgin Mary in the mystery of Christ and the Church. So, once again, what you get is this, well, this doctrine is developing, and we don't know what it's going to develop into, but it's developed.

That's what it says, continued to develop up to. What is the nature of this development?

What is being developed? Well, it's the positive faith that has been given to the

Church, and the Church ponders it, and the Church thinks about it.

In the case of the bodily assumption of Mary, it took 1900 years of contemplation.

Well, here's the secret. They weren't contemplating it for about the first thousand years of that, and maybe even longer.

There was no contemplation going on. There was no thought. Hence, how can there be development? It doesn't make any sense.

But this kind of language, this is the weasel words. This is the, well, you know, it's not yet fully formed.

There's development going on. It's almost like I've got a baby going on in there, and it's eventually going to pop out, and this is the form it's going to take.

Bodily assumption baby came out in 1950 and had been a bun in the oven for a thousand years before finally saw the light of day.

These are the kind of languages. But if this stuff's actually contained in apostolic tradition, if it has any connection to the apostles at all, then the very essence of the dogma would have already been known.

There may have been development about how to express it, but when you have stuff like the

Immaculate Conception, Bodily Assumption, Mary is co -redemptrix, co -mediatrix, all that kind of stuff, you have dogmas where the central affirmation is clearly and unquestionably disconnected in any rational fashion from the apostles of Jesus Christ.

They passed on nothing of any of this. If you want to get continuing revelation, you want to get new stuff, then stuff's got to develop over time.

The theologians, ah yes, the great wise theologians, have to think through it and have to come to a certain conclusion.

It says that they presented an extensive synthesis of Catholic doctrine on the place to attribute to the

Blessed Virgin Mary and the mystery of Christ in the church. The biblical quote, the biblical statement about Christ's exclusive mediation is conclusive, which is exactly what we said in a little book that I wrote on this topic, specifically on Mary as another

Redeemer. Yeah, you did turn it down, didn't you? But we'll turn it down one more just to cool things off a little bit in here.

Christ is the only mediator for there is one God and there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ is who gave himself as a ransom for all.

But we saw that Vatican II talked about Mary suffering at the cross and almost dying. That's really the foundation that people have utilized to say there's this mediation because Mary does have a ground for mediation because she suffers and almost dies for the cross.

That's where it comes from and that's why they have to deal with it. They will here in a second.

What is assert? I read this last time. In this precise sense, the incarnate word's role is exclusive and unique.

Given this clarity in the revealed word of God, special prudence is required when applying the term mediatrix to Mary. In response to a tendency to broaden the scope of Mary's cooperation through this title, it is helpful to specify the range of its value as well as its limits.

On the one hand, we cannot ignore the fact that the word mediation is commonly used in many areas of everyday life where it is understood simply as cooperation, assistance, or intercession.

As a result, it is inevitable the term might would be applied to Mary in a subordinate sense.

Used in this way, it does not intend to add any efficacy or power to the unique mediation of Jesus Christ, true

God, and true man. Okay, let's listen to the other hand.

On the other hand, it is clear that Mary had a real mediatorial role in enabling the incarnation of the

Son of God in our humanity since the Redeemer was to be born of a woman in Galatians 4. That's a real mediatorial role?

Did Joseph have a mediatorial role? Did Mary's parents have a mediatorial role?

I mean, you could take that genealogy all the way back and say everybody in this list had a mediatorial role in that sense that God used them to bring about the birth of Messiah, right?

The account of the Annunciation shows that this involved not only a biological mediation since it highlights

Mary's active involvement in asking questions and accepting with a firm resolve, let it be done unto me.

Mary's response opened the gates of the redemption. Did you hear that? Mary's response opened the gates of the redemption that all humanity had awaited and that the saints described with poetic drama.

At the wedding feast at Cana, Mary also fulfills a mediatorial role when she presents the needs of the newlyweds to Jesus and instructs the servants to follow his directions.

Again, I've mentioned this over and over again.

Every single verse on Mary, and there aren't that many, but because there aren't that many, every single verse on Mary has been buried under an avalanche of theological speculation.

Just massive amounts. Mary is impatient at the wedding.

There are a number of early church fathers who said that, who blamed her for the sin of impatience because it's not apostolic to believe that Mary's sinless.

That's documentable. It's all right there. The idea that she is a mediator in a way that makes her the central person in the art, in the literature, in the worship that you see, especially,

I mean, there are churches in the United States like this, but especially central in South America.

Wow. I mean, Mary is everywhere in art and in sculpture.

If you compare Mary to the Holy Spirit, there's no way to even go there.

We see these citations, John chapter 2, Mary's role, all the rest of the stuff.

Well, she's mediating. No, she's not.

She's the one that presents the needs of the newlyweds to Jesus. She's the one mediating through whom this is taking place.

The Second Vatican Council's terminology regarding mediation primarily refers to Christ. It sometimes also refers to Mary, but in a clearly subordinate manner.

Miravalli has always argued that mediation of Mary is subordinate to Christ.

In fact, the council preferred to use a different terminology for her, one centered on cooperation and maternal assistance.

The council's teaching clearly formulates the perspective of Mary's maternal intercession.

Well, all this stuff is maternal intercession too. Or maternal assistance.

The council clearly formulates the perspective of Mary's maternal intercession using expressions such as manifold intercession and maternal help.

These two aspects together define the specific nature of Mary's cooperation in Christ's action through the

Spirit. Strictly speaking, we cannot talk of any other mediation in grace apart from the

Incarnate Son of God. Therefore, we must always recall and never obscure the

Christian conviction that must be firmly believed as a constant element of the Church's faith regarding the truth of Jesus Christ, Son of God, Lord and Savior, who through the event of his incarnation, death, and resurrection has brought the history of salvation to fulfillment and which has in him its fullness and center.

I'm fairly certain from that. At the same time, we need to remember that the unicity,

I would say unity, anyway, the unicity of Christ's mediation is inclusive.

He enables various forms of participation in his salvific plan because in communion with him, we can all become in some way cooperators with God and mediators for one another.

And then it cites 1 Corinthians chapter 3, verse 9.

And so I look for the document that I just closed.

There it is. Ah, for we are

God's fellow workers, you are God's field, God's building. So you are sunergoi,

God's fellow workers. And so that's supposed to basically say, wait a minute, we can all become in some way cooperators with God and mediators for one another.

I guess it was focusing on sunergoi, sunergon, synergy, and then somehow pulling out of that that we're somehow intercessors.

Precisely because of Christ's infinitely supreme power, he can elevate his brothers and sisters to make them capable of a genuine cooperation in the accomplishment of his plan.

The Second Vatican Council affirmed that the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude, but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation, which is but a sharing in one source.

For this reason, the content of this participated mediation should be explored more deeply, but must remain always consistent with the principle of Christ's unique mediation.

Well, what do you mean explored more deeply? For Rome, exploring the death penalty more deeply led to the conclusion that it didn't come from God.

So keep that in mind. That may be the way I was saying, and if we change our mind in 25 years, it's okay.

It's not a big deal. But must always remain consistent with the principle of Christ's unique mediation cited from 1

Timothy chapter 2 above. Do I want to go there?

I'm not sure. The Second Vatican Council affirmed this unique mediation of the

Redeemer does not exclude, but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation, which is but a sharing in one source.

Here's where the problem is. Vatican II left these doors open.

Vatican II did not give clear direction. We read

Lumen Gentium 62 last time. It's very clear what it says.

At least everybody thought it was very clear in what it said. What is the basis of Christ's mediation?

The basis of Christ's mediation is his self -giving. What then would be anyone else's basis for participation in mediation?

No one else has a basis. No one else has a foundation, and that includes

Mary, especially when you recognize that Mary calls

God her own Redeemer. Please don't tell me she believed in the

Immaculate Conception and all the stuff that goes with that. It's very plainly obvious, and it's not the case. She has no ground for mediation.

I'm thinking of the movie Signs right now. I don't know.

Maybe the little girl was right. It's been sitting around for a while, and probably some dust has landed in it.

We live in Arizona. It's just sort of the way it gives it a little extra taste, maybe. I don't know. You're not cooperating.

You're not mediating anything there. You're watching the chat channel.

You're watching all the... We got any visitors today? Not really.

They all repented. They all believe now. That's good. That's good. We'll run with that as the explanation, because we had...

Rich told me after the last program, we had quite the interesting conversation going on in the comments on YouTube.

We don't have it right now. Sorry. It's getting toward two o 'clock genetically. Baptists fall asleep at two o 'clock.

That's the problem there. Vatican II was wrong.

Vatican II did not give good guidance. Vatican II, again, said things that no apostle would ever say.

The unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude, but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation, which is but a sharing in one source.

When the mediation is based upon the unique death of the Son of God, it remains unique.

There is no participation in that. And when you have to go...

This is what you get all the time. You have to go, yeah, well, the saints intercede in Revelation, the souls that are under the altar.

What do you mean, mediation? They themselves have been redeemed.

They're not saying that because of our death, we have merit to share with someone else or something like that.

What are you even thinking? That's not what it's about. So if Rome is trying to say, you know, that terminology, it raises a lot of questions that we're tired of answering, and so let's just not use that terminology.

You're the one that created it. You're the one that created it.

So I'm not sure what you've got to complain about. And then you've got this, and this is scary.

For this reason, the content of this participated mediation should be explored more deeply, but must remain always consistent with the principle of Christ's unique mediation.

It should be explored more deeply. What does that mean? Who knows?

I mean, you could argue that in some fashion, when this document, and documents before it, of course, have quoted the text in reference to Christ's mediation, and said, well, you know, here it is.

It's 1 Timothy 2, 5 -6, right there. But I would imagine, personally,

I think most Roman Catholic theologians would argue that this does not constitute an infallible definition of anything.

Most Roman Catholic theologians have agreed that there are only about seven verses that have, quote -unquote, been infallibly interpreted.

And even then, I'll never forget listening to Tim Staples in the year 2000. I was in Southern California for our debate, and I was listening to recordings he had done for St.

Joseph Catholic Radio, and he explained that, yes, the church has infallibly defined

Matthew 16, 18, but they allow for polyvalent understanding.

So in other words, there can be other accurate understandings other than the one that the church actually presents.

Sort of just leaves that hanging out there for you. So then the next section is

Mary in the unique mediation of Christ. Again, Mary's participation in Christ's work becomes evident when one begins from the conviction that the risen

Lord promotes, transforms, and enables believers to collaborate with him in his work.

It does not happen due to some weakness, incapacity, or need on Christ's part, but because of his glorious power, which is capable of taking us up generously and freely as collaborators in his work.

What must be emphasized in this case is that when Christ allows us to accompany him and under the impulse of his grace to give it our very best, it is ultimately his power and his mercy that is glorified.

Well, you know, there's not much to argue with, but that doesn't tell us anything about Mary and the fact that books like this, dogmas like perpetual virginity, immaculate conception, bodily assumption, referring to her constantly as the queen of heaven, um, carrying her in processions through the streets and doing that for hundreds of years sort of makes it tough for you to sit back and go, yeah, well, you know,

Mary's just sort of one of us doing, who else are you carrying in processions in the streets?

Sensors going and pointy hats and it becomes a holiday for everybody and all that kind of stuff.

The following text is particularly illuminating in connection with this theme, particularly illuminating.

I've heard a lot of people preach like that, but this is supposedly

Rome and the quotation is John 14, 12. He who believes in me will also do the works that I do and greater works than these will he do because I am going to the father.

Believers united the risen Christ who has returned to the father's right hand can accomplish deeds that surpass the wonders that were done by the earthly Jesus, but always thanks their union through faith with the glorious Christ.

This was evidenced, for example, in the marvelous expansion of the church and the risen one shared this work with his church.

In this way, Christ's glory was not diminished, but was made all the more visible, showing itself to be a power that is capable of transforming believers and making them fruitful together with him.

Doesn't tell us anything about Mary. Goes through some more stuff that nothing to do with Mary.

Talks about if this holds true for every believer whose cooperation with Christ becomes increasingly fruitful to the extent that one allows oneself to be transformed by grace, how much more must it be affirmed of Mary in a unique and supreme way?

So, if God uses plain old believers and allows them to enter into being used as instruments of Christ transforming the world, well, think about Mary.

Wow. Ooh. For she is the one who is full of grace.

Luke 128. If you haven't read the discussion that provided that in the

Roman Catholic controversy, or that was provided at the time of the Reformation by people like Calvin, you probably need to, because you take an angelic greeting and you expand it out to be an assertion of Mary's sinlessness and full cooperation with God in the work of mediation and redemption and all the rest of it.

So, when Mary is addressed as full of grace, this is only addressed to her.

It's absolutely unique. Actually, believers are the recipients of this grace and have received this grace without measure.

The angelic greeting, again, clear fulfillment of the fact that this is what

Rome does. They've got to load every verse with 14 tons of theological assertion.

None of these are true. She's called mother of believers. Not really.

Mary's spiritual motherhood has some defining characteristics. Mary's maternal cooperation is in Christ and is thus participatory.

More on Mary's spiritual motherhood, it just goes on and on and on and on, and then starts talking about her intercessory roles as well.

Let's see if there's anything else I have marked down here that's maternal closeness, mother of grace.

Well, mother of believers, but certainly not mother of grace.

There's certainly nothing like that. This is interesting. Back up to here.

She is also frequently portrayed or imagined as a fountain from which all the grace flows. If one considers the fact that the trinitarian indwelling uncreated grace and our participation in the divine life, created grace, are inseparable, we cannot think this mystery depends on a passage through Mary's hands.

Did you all? Well, of course you didn't. I wish I had saved it. I don't think

I did. It was yesterday afternoon because it was in response to this document.

It could have been yesterday morning. You have these rays coming out of Jesus' immaculate heart.

Jesus is up here, the rays come down here, Mary is here. She gathers them and refocuses them and bends them back the other direction so that grace comes down to the world.

That's what Mary does. All that grace comes through her. She's not the source, but she determines where it goes.

It all flows through her. That's what's being said here.

So this says, we cannot think that this mystery depends on a passage through Mary's hands.

It's said in here all the time. Doctor of the Church, Tucho Fernandez. I don't know if the words actually come out eventually as to who actually wrote all this.

That may be a very closely kept secret. Evidently, a more closely kept secret than U .S.

Supreme Court decisions. We never did hear how that got leaked, did we? You think somebody knows?

Yeah, I think somebody knows too. But whoever it was, you just have to go, who is this person to stand against all this other tradition?

It's not even a relevant question. It's whatever Rome officially says. And so Rome gets to quote from stuff like this when they want to and not quote from it when they don't want to.

It's pick and choose. When you're the arbitrary ultimate authority, you get to pick and choose.

And they do. They do. Such notions elevate

Mary so highly that Christ's own centrality may disappear. Really? Really?

You're saying this in public? It's like, no, duh.

Remember I told you, I should have kept it, that video of this

Mary statue. She has this big long veil that represents her grace and her love and all.

And it's big enough to fill a room. And so they take her down the center aisle and the veil fills over the pews and the people are sitting there and they're touching it as it goes by.

And it's like, I think the horse left the building a few centuries ago, guys.

You're really trying to slam the door down shut now? Such notions elevate

Mary so highly that Christ's own centrality may disappear. Who has said things like that before?

Yeah, I put it away, but I shouldn't have. 1999.

It's a strange feeling to be agreeing with Tucho Fernandez.

We're not close. We talk a little football once in a while, and of course, down there, football is soccer.

But we haven't had coffee in a long time. It's just weird to be reading this and it's like, yeah, been saying that all along.

Such notions elevate Mary so highly that Christ's own centrality may disappear or at least become conditioned.

Yeah. May I suggest something to you? In the vast majority of Roman Catholic worship, especially in Central and South America, the role of Christ has been eclipsed.

It has disappeared, has become conditioned upon being able to approach him how?

Through Mary. Through Mary. Do we have to flood? Do I have to play 10 hours of videos showing this?

It could be done. It could be done. It's there.

Cardinal Ratzinger. Now, I know, I know. Let me see what the...

Okay, yeah, this is February 1996. How do

I go back? Oh, wait, here. Let's see if this does... Good. All right. Sometimes those links, they take you to the end note and then good luck finding out where you were.

Cardinal Ratzinger, so this is before he became Pope, already affirmed the title,

Mary Mediatrix of All Graces, was not clearly grounded in Revelation.

I can't tell you how many times I have had Roman Catholic apologists defending, as the teaching of the church, that Mary is

Mediatrix of All Graces. What they can do is they can say, well, that's common piety.

Yeah. Doctor of the Church. Doctor of the Church. 800 plus editions of this book.

Are those editions going to be pulled now? Is there going to be some warning against Alphonsus Deliguri?

I don't think so. I don't think so. What did

Ratzinger know as a non -Pope that...

And he says this when John Paul II is Pope. Could John Paul II have defined this document or this doctrine, dogma?

Yeah, he could have. He didn't. And it's probably due to Ratzinger. At least that's sort of, you know, you're getting a little bit of an inside the

Vatican thing here. Because coming up to the year 2000, there were lots of indications.

I mean, I'm sure Miravalli knew that Ratzinger was opposed to Corredemptrix and Comediatrix.

I'm sure he knew that. The fact that they continued to hope that the dogma would be defined,

I'm sure it tells you there was discussions going on, but there wasn't any unanimity.

To avoid these difficulties, Mary's motherhood... Oh, I'm sorry. Well, it's clearly not ground in Revelation.

In line with this conviction, we can recognize the difficulties this title poses, both in terms of theological reflection and spirituality.

A lot of people, a lot of people are saying this is an ecumenical move toward Eastern Orthodox.

Now, I've encountered Eastern Orthodox folks that use this type of terminology, at least conceptually.

But a lot of people are going, the only thing that explains this is a big ecumenical move in the not -too -distant future.

Maybe. Maybe. I don't know. I don't know. To avoid these difficulties, Mary's motherhood and the order of grace must be understood as a help in preparing us to receive

God's sanctifying grace. This can be seen in how, on the one hand, her maternal intercession is the expression of that maternal help which allows us to recognize

Christ as the sole mediator between God and humanity. What apostle taught that? Absolutely none.

What evidence that that was delivered to the church of Thessalonica or any other church? Absolutely none. What does this demonstrate?

You don't have something called apostolic tradition. You're using a word that has no meaning, which just simply means believe what we tell you to believe.

And if we change our minds 40 years from now, believe what we tell you then. Yeah. Yeah.

And forget that we told you this. That's right. We didn't actually mean that back then. Yeah. Pay no attention to the man behind the...

On the other hand, her maternal presence in our lives does not preclude various actions from Mary aimed at encouraging us to open our hearts to Christ's activity in the

Holy Spirit. Mary can do that? Well, they're still affirming an absurd view of Mary that is far from apostolic.

But anyway, so they try as best they can to explain participation in various fashions.

The wedding at the Cane of Galilee, all this stuff gets dragged up. Roman Catholics tend to be extremely long -winded when they write documents.

Where'd it go? Where did...

I hate when this happens. That's not what... It refreshed on me.

Yes, it did. There it is. Okay. Joshua Charles.

Joshua Charles' creeds and confessions had posted the famous picture of Luther that is not accurate, where he's pointing to the 95

Theses with a hammer, and it never happened. But then they quote from his last words before the

Council, the Diet of Worms. Unless I am convicted by Scripture in plain reason, I do not accept the authority of Popes and Councils, for they have contradicted each other.

My conscience caps the word of God. Here I stand. I can do other... We know what that's all about.

And Joshua Charles commented on it by saying this. Imagine a

Christian saying this to the Apostles and Presbyters when they made their dogmatic decision at the Council of Jerusalem.

Okay, stop. Luther was talking about Councils outside of Scripture, was not talking about the

Council of Jerusalem in any way, shape, or form, and we're talking here

Apostles. So he has to assume that the actual authority of Apostles is possessed by all the

Councils after that, which is what they assert. That's the problem. That's a falsehood.

And since we know these Councils have contradicted one another, that is a fact, that's why you have the development hypothesis to begin with, then you're basically opening up the idea that we have no idea what even the

Apostles believe. They contradicted each other, etc., etc., which is probably taught in a whole lot of classrooms of Roman Catholicism, Roman Catholic institutions, or the

Council Fathers of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, etc. So there you have the idea.

Council of Jerusalem Acts 15 is the foundation, the life source, of all the

Councils that come after them, as if it was the

Apostles' intention to set this up. Now, here's what happens.

I responded to that. Try saying that with a straight face while standing in front of Athanasius right after he read the

Sirmium Creed. What am I talking about? After the

Council of Nicaea in 325, for decades, Nicaea was in the minority. The Nicene position was in the minority.

The vast majority of the professing external church became at least semi -Aryan.

Even Jerome said it. The world woke up and was astonished to find itself Aryan. That was his own statement.

Athanasius Contra Mundum, Athanasius against the Council. And Ariminum, Sirmium, had greater numbers of bishops represented than Nicaea did.

And yet, Athanasius stood on the Word of God. He did not stand on some alleged ecumenical status of Nicaea.

He couldn't do that. Why? Because the term ecumenical council came from Constantine's calling.

Ecumenical council simply means a synod, a meeting drawn from the whole world. So bishops were invited to come from all over the place.

It came primarily from the East, but that's all it meant. At this point in time, nobody had the idea that there was something called an ecumenical council based on Acts 15.

That you could call a council that had infallible binding authority. The reason

Acts 15 did was because the apostles were there, but the apostles are gone.

And so to have this idea that, well, yeah, but you can have a council. And look, for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds, all the way down the captivity of the church in the 15th, 14th century, 15th century, you have disputes.

What is the relationship between the councils, popes, bishops?

There was argumentation all along. So I said, try saying that with a straight face.

Athanasius stood against the formal church of his day. He stood against councils. And the concept of an ecumenical council that has binding and absolute authority had not yet developed.

The term simply meant a bunch of people attended. It did not mean this is infallible authority.

That concept develops between basically between Constantinople and Chalcedon.

But it doesn't exist in the days of So he responds, not an ecumenical council of the church,

James. And I responded, please look up the term anachronism, Joshua.

And he responds, please look up the term irrelevant, James. I've read all of St.

Athanasius' writings on this topic. He's one of my favorite fathers. Nothing problematic from my original post.

Good night. To which I said, Joshua, you can't do church history.

Sorry, that stings, but remember sadis cognitum? Wherefore, in the decree of the

Vatican Council, as to the nature and authority, the primacy of the Roman pontiff, no newly conceived opinion is set forth but the venerable and constant belief of every age.

This is pre -Newman, I know, but it is the claim of Rome. It was not the constant belief of every age, but you are told to believe it.

So you believe it. And most importantly, all caps, you read history in light of your ultimate authority, which tells you that belief not only existed back then, but it's apostolic and constant.

This causes you to close your eyes to so much like you did right here. No one at the council, no one at Nicaea used the term

Constantine introduced in calling the council, the ecumenical synod, in the way it would be used only 150 years later.

Ariminum claimed it. The Sirmium Creed claimed it. If you think you would have been on Athanasius' side back then, you are only hoping, wishing.

Fact is, he stood against councils and bishops, even the emperor. And why? Same reason

Luther stood against the blasphemy of indulgences. Not a single apostle ever dreamed of such stuff.

And he goes, James, not doing this with you, I read much of the ancient witnesses as a

Protestant and saw the Catholic faith very clearly and very much contrary to my desires. The church wasn't telling me what to see.

I saw it before I had a Catholic bone in my body. Myself and others have decisively shown your misrepresentations of church history over and over again.

I'm in these documents every day, which is my great blessing and joy to be. Oh yes, we must bow before your great authority.

It's very clear in many of your takes that you are not. Even on this thread, you fail to read carefully. I never spoke about standing against just any council, but ecumenical ones.

And what did I say? The term ecumenical developed over time. See, he can't see it.

He can't hear it. His ultimate authority says this is what you must believe. This was what was back then.

You bow and therefore you find it. And so you engage in anachronism. You read back into these sources what you've been told to read back into these sources.

That's what he's doing. Catholics have no problem with standing up against local councils that contest ecumenical ones.

These are standards that didn't exist in Athanasius' day. He doesn't even know it. Well, you know what?

I bet he does, but he just ignores it because anachronism just overwhelms him.

He has to believe what Rome says. Nor is it an issue for Catholic claims.

You'll find nothing Athanasius contrary to this. Well, sorry. It is very, very, very clear that that is exactly.

I said, of course, Joshua, you can't deal with the facts I presented. So you default to the dismissal as if this has all been done before.

But your anachronism remains. Your misrepresentation of Newman does as well. He's trying to say the development doctrine that Newman became famous for existed before Newman, which is why it was so controversial in Newman's day.

Again, it's just Roman Catholics can't do history.

Oh, they can write great history here. Here's Richard Price's work on Nicaea too.

They can write great history, but when it comes to the interface of this with faith, they've got to abandon the history and agree with Rome, satis cognitum.

This has been the ancient and constant faith of the church. No, it's not. On so many of these things, all the

Marian stuff, no, it is not. Period. End discussion. That's the fact. And you have to go, yes, it is.

And then you start looking for every little reference and everything, and you try to, you can't do church history.

You can't do church history. If you don't want to respond, don't.

But if you post anachronisms publicly, and I happen to see them, I'll point them out. Not much you can do about that.

There was no anachronism, James. St. Athanasius did not accept the claims of local councils to be, quote, ecumenical and binding because he was

Catholic. As such, he knew that an actual ecumenical council had already spoken under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, he said, and he knew his local council's pretensions to be ecumenical were false.

That entire standard did not exist in his day, and you don't care.

You still read it in light of it, and you will not be convinced otherwise. That's why, I'm sorry, your conversion means nothing to me because you're just simply not truthful with history.

You just play these games. That is not what it meant in the days of Athanasius.

That developed afterwards. To read that back is called anachronism. It's what you do. It's what you have to do.

It's because Rome does it, and Rome tells you to follow her lead, and you have to do it because you don't believe in soul scripture anymore.

You're stuck with it. Nothing you can do about it. Nothing you can do about it. You're absolutely stuck with it. All right. Anyways, did that sort of fast because, you know, we were running out of time, and I apologize for that.

But that's because this document's long. It would take a long time to read the whole thing.

Folks, really quickly, why is this important? Over and over again,

I've had a lot of people recently, they're telling me the same thing I'm experiencing. They are seeing Mormons all over their social media feeds.

Facebook, Twitter, everything. Ever since, I think, the shooting in Michigan. I think it had something to do with it. They are seeing

Eastern Orthodox everywhere, and Eastern Orthodoxy denies soul scripture, but in at least in real

EO ways, slightly different than Rome does. There's real EO, and then there's, we're

EO, but we argue like Roman Catholics, by the way. And then you've got

Roman Catholicism everywhere. Marian posts, exploding all over the place.

And I'm concerned about the quality of the responses. I'm concerned about the quality of responses. I'm sure he won't mind my mentioning this.

Michael Fallon converted from Roman Catholicism, and I think it was his uncle,

I think his uncle was a Jesuit priest and was coming after him. He was going to convert him back.

And he's desperate to find information, and all he finds is Dave Hunt stuff. And his uncle's able to rip that stuff to shreds.

And then he somehow, especially because we weren't very big back then, somehow he stumbles across my stuff.

Answers to Catholic claims, fatal flaw, some of the first debates we started to do early on.

And that was what allowed him to stand his ground and to not succumb to the wiles of the

Jesuits, shall we say. You have to have solid answers. I'm not saying that just simply having those solid answers will guarantee that everyone's just going, oh, yeah, okay,

I accept, I believe. No, I'm not talking about that. But we got to do better than we're doing.

Especially Reformed evangelicals, serious about theology.

We should know. We should know what Rome actually believed what she believes today, where the changes are.

We need to see those things, and we need to be prepared for those things. All right. Out of time.

Thanks for watching the program. We'll see what we talk about next week. I don't know. Thanks a lot.