Pope Francis, "Growth" and "Consolidation," and Trent Horn

Well, greetings and welcome to The Dividing Line. I just now tweeted it. So we'll see who is able to catch on fairly quickly. We are live here in Phoenix. Let's see. We head out on our next road trip one week from today.

And I'm thankful that the weather looks like it might be below 100 degrees on that day. I would not mind that at all, especially when loading stuff. In fact, I saw a few 78 degree lows over the weekend.

And you need to understand for us, it hasn't been down there since June. Sometimes that would be the case all the way back into May. Like I said, summer skipped us in June and then shot us real well. What?

What? No, I'm not going to. Anyways, so week from week from today, we start heading out. And we will be in Amarillo toward the end of next week and be speaking there. I'm one of the one of the talks on the way out.

And then just got a scoop out to Pennsylvania. Get in there, get set up and get ready for the debate on the 16th with Gregory Coles. Lots of folks are contacting us now. There's clearly a very serious concern on the part of many people about the influence that the Sprinkle Coles Center for Faith Sexuality Gender Group is having amongst evangelical churches, that they are speaking at a large number of churches.

Certainly what I've seen online, there's one particular interview. If you just put in Gregory Coles interview on YouTube, you can watch the same things that I've seen. There was the pastor who was interviewing him had no pushback at all on anything.

And I think that is a problem. I think a lot of people are sort of scared to have any type of pushback, lest you be seen as some kind of terrible, heartless, mean person or something like that. Boy, this shirt really is blue on that on these cameras.

It's not quite that blue in real life, but it's sort of like it she glows. Well, if 4K makes it more blue than it is in real life, then there you go. Well, we'll we'll run with it. I'll make sure to bring this one, because I bet you with the the color changing background, it should drive you completely insane.

And I'm looking forward to that. Anyway, so lots of folks concerned about all that and. I've still got a lot of listening and reading and a lot of work to do between now and then for that debate, I'd like to at least have a good outline of it before I leave.

But I've got I've got books to listen to on the drive, so I can't really finish it. And in fact, that just reminded me I need to contact. The folks there and ask about whether we're going to be using PowerPoint slash keynote, I assume we will.

And I've been told the location, the venue is really nice, that it's a weird name, but really nice. So we should be able to do that. So I need to have that, you know, going on. And of course, I'm also thinking through I'm speaking twice aside from the debate at a conference in a church.

Then the next week, of course, is G3. And I've got the presentation, the Wednesday presentation. I think I speak Friday morning in the plenary session at G3. There's probably Q &As in there. I just don't even know what they are yet.

And so, yeah, there's there's a lot head in my direction. And then all the all the little things you have to remember. I don't think I have yet done a trip where I remembered everything and didn't have to buy something along the way that I had at home.

But I just forgot it. Not major, major stuff, but yeah, it's just sort of how it goes. So and I'm watching the gas prices going through the roof, heading up to five bucks a gallon for diesel again. And that could just be a long weekend coming up, you know, right before I leave.

And maybe that'll come down a little bit afterwards. Who knows? We all know that if the elites get their way and we all just roll over and play dead, that they're going to imprison us in little cities where we can't ever leave and never visit anywhere again and just work for them.

Scott Hahn, Pope Francis, and the Crisis of Roman Catholic Consistency

And that's that's what they want. And it seems that a large majority of people in the United States are like, oh, hey, sounds good to me. So there you go. OK. Today on the program. I want to start off.

With a I was actually looking at some when it came across my feet right before the program started about mobs coming for Scott Hahn. The funny thing was the one that popped up immediately. The revolution comes to Scott Hahn dated yesterday.

From Crisis Magazine. He wouldn't he wouldn't link to what he was talking about. So I do a search and I find an almost identical article. Called The Mob Comes for Scott Hahn. From our Sunday visitor from December 20th of 2021, almost two years ago.

So I'll admit, I'm not sure what that's all about. I'd be really interested. Evidently, he's not maybe as big a fan of Francis as some people think he should be. I don't know how anybody who knows the history of Roman Catholicism could be a big fan of Francis.

I'll just be honest with you. But who knows? Anyway, I can't I can't say because I couldn't really track anything else down there, but I may do so again. But speaking of Francis, let's let's talk a little bit.

Let's do a little Roman Catholicism here at the start. Well, it'll be most of the program, actually. The Reverend James Martin is a Roman Catholic priest. Who is. Well known for his pro LGBTQ stance, and it has been documented numerous times over the years.

That Pope Francis is very amenable toward Father Martin. And, you know, we've mentioned a number of times he'll write personal notes. Martin will be doing a conference on these issues and and he'll write and hope they have a wonderful time and blessed by the spirit and all this kind of stuff.

And so. When we when we talk about. Roman Catholicism. And its claims of consistency, its claims of being the 2000 year old church. We have true reasons. We have good reasons. To question. That claim.

On numerous grounds, you would not need to have had a man by the name of John Henry Cardinal Newman. A celebrated convert, the Roman Catholic Church in the late 1800s. You would not need to for him to have developed the concept.

Of the development of doctrine. If there. If there was a consistency over time, the first Vatican Council in the 1870s, when it promulgated the doctrine of papal supremacy, papal infallibility. A lot of people point out that this just simply wasn't a historical stance to take.

That if this was what had been believed by everyone at all times. There wouldn't have ever been a need, for example, for the great councils. Why need the Council of Nicaea just if everybody believed. That the bishop of Rome was the vicar of Christ on earth and had infallible authority over Christ Church.

Why even bother just appeal to Rome and the vicar of Christ will answer the question for you? But clearly, that's not what anybody believed back then. And so how could you promulgate a doctrine that says that this is you have to believe this or your anathema.

And call it the ancient and constant faith of the church when it clearly wasn't the ancient and constant faith of the church. You have to find some way of emptying that claim of what it's supposed to mean and filling it with something else.

And so Newman comes up with the development hypothesis. And that way, you know, there's a hilarious, but excellent little short video where they take that that commercial that you'll see late, probably still see it late night.

They've got some type of a patch or something. And, you know, you've got water pouring out of a tank and they just take that patch and slap it over it and it seals it immediately. And you're supposed to buy this stuff and think it's actually going to work for you.

And they replaced the seal name with just slap some Newman on it. So it doesn't matter what you look at in history. You can look at Honorius. You can look at the pornography. You can you can look at how councils functioned in the ancient church.

And when it doesn't fit the modern Roman Catholic narrative. Slap some Newman on it. It just had to develop. And so what they they do is they claim that there is this this root, you know, it's the acorn growing into the tree, you know, and acorn doesn't look like that big, huge tree once it's developed.

But but there's a connection between them, you know. And so that's what that's what you have with Roman Catholicism. And so, yes, it is the ancient church. Yeah, doesn't believe the same things. And, you know, I've said over and over and over again, no one will even bother to try because they can't and they know they can't.

There was no one at the Council of Nicaea that believed as dogma. Everything you must believe as a Roman Catholic today as dogma. Nobody. So you have to explain that. And they they come up with various ways of doing so.

Pope Francis, Development of Doctrine, and the Sap of Revelation

So. What's fascinating is if if the current pope who started off his pontificate, you know, being asked about homosexuality on a plane ride, now, who am I to judge? And who talks to a young kid about his atheist dad and yeah, his atheist dad's going to go to heaven because he had his kids baptized, you know, no problem.

And at first, it's real easy. Well, you know, these aren't official statements, but when they when it gets repeated over and over and over again, and when he does officially change the Catholic catechism of the Catholic Church.

To say that capital punishment is a sin when the Council of Trent's catechism specifically said that it is a an authority given to the state. And that it's just and righteous and and required by scripture.

These are doctrinal changes. You start realizing, yeah, this guy, this guy would not have fit in only 50 years ago, but certainly not 100 years or 150 years ago or anything before that. No bishop of Rome would have recognized him even as a compatriot.

As a as a fellow bishop. And so the handstands that you have to do to make that work. And to figure out what this development can actually add up to. Is is pretty, pretty difficult. And so. I reposted this thing about Pope Francis invited James Martin to participate in a major weeks long gathering of bishops and laypeople at the Vatican later this year.

There's only a certain number of people being invited from the United States. He's one of them. This says something when when Pelosi and Biden go to Rome and the pope gives them the mass, this says something.

It says that these these people. Are some of the greatest promoters. Of sexual perversion or the destruction of pre-born life, the destruction of already born life in mutilating boys and girls and the fantasy of transitioning and all the rest of this kind of stuff.

And he he makes sure, hey, we're not we're not making any statements about that. You are left going, how exactly are you supposed to know what the pope believes today? How are you supposed to be in communion with him?

Exactly. When he's doing these types of things and he does it with consistency, are you supposed to just close your eyes and mind and just and just come up with excuse? What are you supposed to do? And so here he is doing it again.

He's doing this right in our faces. But the majority of conservative Catholics have just, you know, over the past number of years, how many when did he become? It's been about 10 years, hasn't it? Somewhere around there.

And they have just had to learn how to Francis it. That's another way of saying spin it, but it's you have to Francis it. And I don't know who the next pope is going to be, but really good chance he's going to be very much like Francis, if not even worse.

And so we'll have to keep coming up with new words all the time for how you can keep pretending that there is some objective meaning to saying we are the 2000 year old church. There's got to be some content to that.

That is now becoming more and more nebulous with each passing day and more and more impossible to define. And so when I posted this, someone helpfully pointed out that our Lutheran friend had posted a clip from an article earlier this month.

And I don't have it up on Twitter right now, sorry, I just just have the article itself. Where the pope took questions. From young Jesuits in Portugal. Now, what's useful about this, you know, y 'all some of you, I'll go and people like I'll go.

We'll remember that when we were when I was doing majority debates overseas with Muslims, we would talk a lot about. You know, from about 2006 to, you know, 2016, for about 10 years or so. We would cover some really in-depth Islamic topics on on the program.

Well, to the person who just texted me, and you know who you are, um, this one will be an interesting one for you. In fact, the comments I was just making, I was wondering, is he listening? Is he going to find this interesting?

Is he what's what is his comments going to be on this? Anyway, we went into some. In-depth on Islamic topics and and things like that, and one of the most useful. Things that we found at that time was listening to Muslim scholars talking to Muslims.

That was the best way to really get an understanding of the Muslim mindset and what was really being said. And so here is Francis talking to his fellow Jesuits. Now, the Jesuits did not start off as flaming liberals.

They were the Pope's henchmen in the Counter-Reformation. They were flaming conservatives, flaming literally because they result in lots of people flaming, literally. And but. What's fascinating. Is that they.

Adopted. Theological perspectives. That were meant. To undercut. Protestant foundational beliefs, especially in Scripture, their founder Ignatius Loyola was famous for saying. If the church should pronounce what appears to me to be white, to be black, then I shall pronounce it to be black as well.

And so. The idea was full fidelity to the epistemological authority of the church led them to adopt perspectives that they would then. You've heard about Jesuitical reasoning and Jesuitical infiltration of schools, things like that.

They would then promote. Perspectives that would undercut any other authority, specifically an authority of Scripture. Well, it was it was effective. The Counter-Reformation was effective in in Europe.

But. Once you start doing that, it's a little bit like what's happened to Mormonism. The Mormons sent their young people out starting a few number of decades ago to get PhDs outside of Utah. And what they didn't count on is these people then came back infected with a critical methodology that Joseph Smith and Mormonism cannot survive.

And so they have a generation coming up in leadership that doesn't really believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet, doesn't believe the Book of Mormon is some ancient record. And it's destroying what's left of the of the Mormon church.

It's it's it's either just going to wither and die or it's going to eventually fracture. The only thing keeping it going right now is just it's just filthy rich is what it is. So in the same way, the Jesuits ended up being infected by the virus they tried to infect Protestantism with.

It did infect Protestantism. And you've got these liberal mainline Protestant churches don't really believe much of anything at all. There's certainly no threat to Rome. But the Jesuits became the flaming liberals.

Of the Roman Catholic Church. There are almost no exceptions to that other than Mitch Pacwa. I mean, he's the one utter weirdo as far as the Jesuits are concerned. And so I say that with great respect.

Vincent of Lérins, Development, and the Meaning of Consolidation

So. Here's. A liberation theologian. We know Francis is so far to the left of Cardinal Ratzinger. That trying to put these two together and say, here was here are two infallible. Leaders of the one true church just creates a cognitive dissonance that is just too much for a lot of people to handle.

And he's talking to young Jesuit. People training for the priesthood, stuff like that. And so he's asked a question, and I want you to hear his answer. Because this is going to transition us into. A clip from Trenthorne, because.

We have to remember, Francis has significantly more impact upon the direction of Roman Catholic Church than Trenthorne does. And so here's what the. The guy in here, a guy named Francisco. Pope Francis, I would like to ask you a question as a religious brother.

I am Francisco. Last year, I spent a sabbatical year in the United States. There was one thing that made a great impression on me there and at times made me suffer. I saw many, many I saw many even bishops criticizing your leadership of the church and many even accused the Jesuits, who are usually a kind of critical resource of the pope, of not being so now.

They would even like the Jesuits to criticize you explicitly. Do you miss the criticism that the Jesuits used to make the pope the magisterium in the Vatican? Francis responded, you have seen that in the United States, this situation is not easy.

There is a very strong reactionary attitude. It is organized and shapes the way people belong, even emotionally. I would like to remind those people that now. I'm not. Sure. Why they're throwing. Foreign terminology in here.

And whether I didn't look it up, whether it is Portuguese, you know, he speaks multiple languages, Spanish, Latin. But it's the term in the trees, Mo. And then they give a parentheses being backward looking.

Being backward looking. I'd like to remind people to remind those people that being backward looking is useless. And we need to understand that there is an appropriate evolution in the understanding of matters of faith and morals.

As long as we follow the three criteria that Vincent of Leirion already indicated in the fifth century now. You're probably familiar with Vincent for his. We believe that which has been believed always and in all places.

Well. That sounds nice. Even he didn't do that, and he got into trouble as to his orthodoxy. But he defines these. He's defines Vincent's perspective is. Um. Doctrine evolves with honest consolidate or the latter to a temporary sublimator, I take it.

In other words, doctrine also progresses, expands and consolidates with time and becomes firmer. I'm sure all this is in translation, and that's where some of the issues are. But is always progressing.

Now, if that's the last phrase, sublimator, I take it. I'd. Hmm. Anyway. But it's always progressing. Change develops from the roots upward. Growing in accord with these three criteria. Well. Um. Three criteria.

That are defined how you see you need to recognize. It. Whether it's Catholic or Protestant. The mindset of the progressive theologically. Begins with the fundamental rejection of any objective standard.

That's not where Rome was in the past, but it is now. So how does it survive that? Because that's a. That's that's an absolutely transformational. The type of type of thing. Vincent of Le Rennes, Vincent of Le Rennes, makes the comparison between human biological development and the transmission from one age to another of the depositum fide, positive faith.

Which grows. And is consolidated with the passage of time, what is consolidated? If you have a definition. In church history. When for 400 years. Every man. Who ascended the papal throne? Condemned with anathema.

As a heretic. Honorius, Bishop of Rome for 400 years. 400 years. Can that be changed? What does it look like for that to be consolidated? You see, you can you can fill these words with almost any meaning you want.

And once you give to the pope the right to define such words, is there any way to stop? Any kind of fundamental radical transformation? Of the Roman Catholic Church over decades and centuries. Ask yourself that question.

So he says. Change develops in the roots upward, growing in accord with these three criteria. Let us get to specifics. Today, it is a sin. To possess atomic bombs. The death penalty is a sin. This is what he says.

The death penalty is a sin. At one time in Roman Catholic history, it wasn't. Now it is. There's been a 180 degree turn. Rome used the death penalty. The history of the Inquisition, while disputed. There is no question that many lost their lives at the hands of Rome.

You've had popes apologizing for these things. So is this consolidation? If consolidation can mean complete change. 180 degrees turning around. Then what can't be changed? So today, it is a sin to possess atomic bombs.

Really? So Germany was this close. The atomic bomb. And it was only because we had German scientists that we got there first. The use of those weapons, as horrific as they are, saved lives in World War II.

I'm not gonna get into that debate right now. It's really not much of a debate. Everyone understands that the invasion of Japan by the United States. Some of the Allies would have been involved somewhat.

But that would have been on our plate. Would have resulted in minimally a million United States casualties. And many more, many times that, in Japan itself. The number of people killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a tiny percentage.

Of how many would have died. And how much longer the war would have gone on. So, how is it a sin if you keep... If evil people, if Germany was that close, how is it a sin to stop them and to use the same technology against them?

So I guess if having an atomic bomb is a sin, having a conventional bomb must be a sin as well, right? I mean, there are some whopper of conventional bombs. There are some fuel-air bombs that are close to at least a small nuclear device.

So all bombs would be a sin. That means all bullets are a sin. And so if you don't want to sin, you shouldn't have these things, and therefore you should just allow evil to run amok? See, it's not... it's just...

Progressivists, leftists, like Francis, you know, rose-colored glasses, they really do. But, anyway, the death penalty is a sin. So, this is a complete shame. You cannot employ it, but it was not so before.

So he's admitting. Here's what I'm talking about when I talk about progression. Progression can result in complete change. 180-degree turnabout. As for slavery, some pontiffs before me tolerated it. But things are different today.

So you change, you change. But with the criteria just mentioned. The problem is those criteria have no objective connection to history. The liberation theologians of South America have utilized that language to justify anything.

And remember, we're talking about this in the context of him inviting Martin to the Vatican. Who is openly LGBTQ. Not just supportive, but promotive of these things. Yes, no, this is not a Twitter recording.

I've got a Roman Catholic friend watching. So that's what that's about. I mean, this is just how we do it now. I guess you've not been watching for a while. Busy with other things, I guess. Alright, so this is what progression is.

He's literally saying, so you change, you change. But with the criteria just mentioned. I like to use the upward image. That is Ut Annus Consolidator. Same stuff he said before. Always on this path. Starting from the root with sap that flows up and up.

And that is why change is necessary. Who gets to determine that this is upward change? And how would the system... If you can already change death penalty. You can already have it in the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

You can have Rome using it. And now it's sin. So we know how progressivists think. We know how they understand things. So what is to keep over time. Not overnight. But over time. What is to keep the Francis Revolution.

From in 20 years, in 30 years. Progressing upward to a recognition. Of the arguments that James Martin. Is already promoting. And Francis is clearly not condemning. In regards to LGBTQ. Why can't it be an upward progression.

To come to recognize. The gift God has given to his church. In his gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender children. Because I hear that all the time. I mean I'm preparing for a debate on homosexuality right now.

And so I'm... You have to read all sorts of stuff. That I haven't had to read for a while. But I'm having to read it now. And this is a standard argument. And you can't be backwards looking. That's what caught me about what Francis said.

We can't be backwards looking. How do you hold anyone responsible. To an unchanging standard. Without looking back at it. How does that work? You see, liberation theologians don't want you looking back.

They only want you looking forward. As they redefine the language. And redefine the faith in the process. So always on this path. Starting from the root with sap. That flows up and up. And that is why change is necessary.

Then he says. He talks about Vincent Lorenz. He talks about. Here our understanding of the human person. Check this out. Let me repeat this. Vincent Lorenz makes the comparison between human biological development.

And the transmission from one age to another. Of the depositum fide. Now remember. From our perspective. The apostolic depositum fide. Is right there. Here is the apostolic depositum fide. This is what the apostles taught.

This is what the spirit of God gave to us. And despite the Jesuits. And despite Trent Horns buying into this. This is ontologically unique. It is theanoustos. And it doesn't just mean life giving. It is life giving.

That is a partial truth. But it is an insufficient truth. Because it is life giving. Because it is God breathed. God's breath is what gives life. So here is the apostolic depositum fide. Alright. So he says.

And the transmission from one age to another. Of the depositum fide. Which grows. And is consolidated. With the passage of time. It grows. That is why. Many a Roman Catholic. Doesn't care. That there was no one at the council of Nicaea.

That dogmatically believed. Everything they have to dogmatically believe today. Well that was back then. The depositum fide has grown. It has become clearer. I would argue. Anything but. But it has become clearer.

And it has grown. And it has consolidated. Now see when I think of consolidated. I think of truths that become. So. Fully. Grounded. In our understanding of scripture. For example. When we believe in the deity of Christ.

As revealed in scripture. There have been things. That have helped us to. Defend that belief. To a greater extent. Than we could in the past. We have made discoveries. I think of Granville Sharp. Constructions and issues like that.

Consolidation. Is not change. It's not. The death penalty is given by God. For protection from evil. To. It's a sin. That's not consolidation. That's de-evolution. Or evolution or change. But. The idea that the sap.

From the root. At one point. Said X. And now it says not X. Is not a rational. Position to take. But it's what Francis is saying. So. He says here our understanding. Of the human person. Changes with time.

Trent Horn, Sola Ecclesia, and the Limits of Catholic Apologetics

Really? I can hear. I can hear James Martin. Saying that. I can hear all of the promoters. Of LGBTQ perspective. Saying well you know. Up until. The last 20 years. The church. In big. Vague terms. The church.

Didn't understand what we've come to know. You see. Psychologists. And psychiatrists have helped us. To understand. Things that were just never known before. And now we understand. That there are people that just.

This is their orientation. This is what they are. God made them this way. And it's terrible. That up until now. This just did not give us enough. Insight into mankind. It had to be the late 20th. And early 21st centuries.

Where we finally come to understand. All those prophets. And all those apostles. They were clueless. They had no earthly idea. I can hear that. I can hear that. So. Our understanding of the human person.

Changes with time. And our consciousness. Also deepens. I'm sure that's his understanding of. His contribution. Death penalty is a sin. That is a. A deepening of consciousness. The other sciences. We know.

He fully accepts. Darwinism. The other sciences and their evolution. Also help the church. In this growth and understanding. Now stop. Right there. So. What happened to. The three legged stool. With scripture, tradition and magisterium.

Now we have a. Four legged stool. With human sciences. And believe you me. You know who kicked that door open. Wide open. His name was Thomas Aquinas. Okay. Kicked that door wide open. And so. Now we have.

The other sciences. And their evolution. Evolution is inevitable in this world. Also help the church. In this growth. In understanding. Growth. In understanding. Which can completely reverse. Previous positions.

It really makes me wonder. I mean I'm just theorizing here. In passing. If what he's done with. Capital punishment. Is a. Preparatory step. It's real easy. I mean liberals. Hate. What the bible says about law.

And what the bible says about. Capital punishment. They hate it. So. You would be offending. A relatively small group. Within your own constituency. To just simply close the door on it. Because there are already lots of people.

Had your position anyways. And it just makes me wonder. If that's sort of the first step. Toward the rest of this. Growth in understanding. Our understanding of the human person. Changes with time. Our consciousness deepens.

And look. We've talked on this program. Over and over again in the past. The current argument. From the affirming side. Amongst protestants is. This is a work of the spirit of God. The spirit of God. Is leading us.

To recognize the gift. To the church. Of the LGBTQ community. And they've likened it. To Pentecost. Now. As absolutely insane as that is. There's a lot of insane stuff. Being believed today. And so that can always be.

Put under evolution. Growth in understanding. And this is the language. Of the bishop of Rome. I'm quoting him here. The other sciences. And their evolution also help the church. In this growth in understanding.

And then here's the last sentence. Now there's. There's more to it. You can read it. The view of church doctrine. As monolithic. Is erroneous. The view of church doctrine. As monolithic. Is erroneous.

That's the pope. That's Francis. Talking about growth. And change. And evolution. And consolidation. And progress. And saying the view of the church. The view of church doctrine. As monolithic is erroneous.

Now obviously. There have always been areas. Where disagreement was allowed. Even within Roman Catholicism. So you could dodge. This statement. By pointing to that. You can point to. Well. Even in the last dogma that was defined.

About the bodily assumption. The church did not define. Infallibly whether Mary died or not. So you're allowed to hold either position. Now one position doesn't make any sense. If she had no personal sin or original sin.

Why she would die? I don't know. But. You can go that direction. But that's not what he's talking about. That's not even the context in which he's speaking. He's talking about. Fundamental change. And evolution.

And so when he says the view of church doctrine. As monolithic is erroneous. He's talking about the big ticket issues. And he's saying. The door is open for. Growth and understanding. From X to not X.

Because he's done it. Might he do it with something else? I don't know. Is this a long term thing? I would imagine. There is a bunch of Roman Catholics. Sitting out there. Who have been red pilled. Sitting there going.

Oh great. The protestants are on to what's going on. We know this is happening. The people that are the most concerned. About Francis. I think they came to these conclusions. Long before I ever did. The view of church doctrine.

As monolithic is erroneous. He goes on to say. But some people opt out. They go backward. They are what I call. Inditristi. When you go backward. You form something closed. Disconnected from the roots of the church.

And you lose the sap of revelation. Hear what I just said? If I can open my drink. You lose. The sap. Of revelation. I remember talking to. A Roman Catholic years ago. Who had come to the conclusion. You know.

In our more honest conversations. You can't look at church history. And look at the definition. Of the bodily assumption. Without fundamentally coming to the conclusion. That revelation is ongoing. It's ongoing.

We've always said. That it ceased to the apostles. But the reality is. The way we look at tradition. The nebulosity of tradition. The fact you can't define what tradition is. But then we use it. To define dogmas like this.

That's continuing revelation. And here he is talking about. The sap of revelation. Not an objective. Historical. There it is. This is what's always been believed. The ones for all delivered the saints faith.

That is far too objective. For anyone that far on the left. When you go backward. You form something closed. So you see. In the leftist mind. Openness. Is beautiful. But it's always. It's not an openness.

To the past. It's an openness. To revision of the past. Redefinition of the past. Abandonment of the past. But it can never be. You see this all across. Academia. When progressivism. Rots out. The academy.

The only thing you can do. Is to continue the revolution. You can't do scholarship. That simply. Establishes the truthfulness. Of what's already been believed. You have to do radical stuff. You have to change all the time.

So whenever you see. These wild leftist. Professors. Getting. Booted out of a classroom. And screamed out of a classroom. By their own students. Who have become more leftist than they are. That's the process.

That's all you can do. It becomes completely destructive. So. If you don't. Change upward. You go backward. And then you take on criteria for change. Other than those our faith gives. For growth and change.

Now what is. I wasn't going to spend all that much time on that. But. How is that relevant? Well I did not send this. And I'm sending it now. I've got the speakers right. I was sent this clip. I didn't need.

Trent Horn to. Prove my point. As quickly as he did. This is. Just a few days old. We all know. Who he's referring to. In this clip. But I want you to think with me. What all this means. In light of what we just looked at.

From Francis. So let's take a look at it real quick here. I also think this is helpful Joe. Because more when I hear. Protestant apologists making certain arguments. Like well we know. That Peter says that Paul's writings are Scripture.

So therefore they're Scripture. Of course what makes Peter Scripture in the first place. You saw the problem there. But even they're saying well look. We have early on this testimony. That the writings of Paul are Scripture.

What do you do though. When you have modern scholarship. That calls into question. Whether Paul really wrote. Especially things like 1st and 2nd Timothy. For example. I think most critical scholars. Don't hold that Paul wrote these.

But the Catholic position would still survive. Even if one of Paul's disciples. For example. Wrote one of those letters and attributed it to him. Because the church doesn't infallibly declare. All the historical circumstances.

Of each writing. Okay now. I didn't do it. I should do it. I may still do it. Part 1. I need to go back. And find. Because it's on a cassette tape. But I think I recorded it. It might still be available.

Online somewhere. But the debate. Denver Colorado. The night that I debated Jerry Manitix. On the first night of the papacy. Carl Keating. And Patrick Madrid. Versus Ron Nemec. And Johnson. I think the last name was Johnson.