Pints With Aquinas - Biblical Foundations for Catholic Beliefs About the Blessed Virgin Mary (William Albrecht) | Ep. 560

Episode Date: January 12, 2026

In this interview, Matt sits down with William Albrecht for a discussion about the Blessed Virgin Mary, the biblical foundations for our beliefs about Mary, what Protestant Reformers (particularly Luther) believed about Mary, what Catholics get wrong about Mary, plus Eastern Orthodoxy, the papacy, and more! Enjoy! Ep. 560 - - - 📕 Get my newest book, Jesus Our Refuge, here: https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Our-Refuge-Matt-Fradd/dp/1968630023/ 🍺 Want to Support Pints With Aquinas? 🍺 Get episodes a week early and join exclusive live streams with me! Become an annual supporter at 👉 ⁠https://mattfradd.locals.com/support⁠ - - - Today's Sponsors: 👉  Truthly – The Catholic faith at your fingertips: https://www.truthly.ai/ 👉 Hallow – The #1 Catholic prayer app: https://hallow.com/mattfradd - - - 💻 Follow Me on Social Media: 📌 Facebook: https://facebook.com/mattfradd 📸 Instagram: https://instagram.com/mattfradd 𝕏 Twitter/X: https://twitter.com/Pints_W_Aquinas 🎵 TikTok: https://tiktok.com/@pintswithaquinas 📚 PWA Merch – https://dwplus.watch/MattFraddMerch 👕 Grab your favorite PWA gear here: https://shop.pintswithaquinas.com - - - Privacy Policy: ⁠https://www.dailywire.com/privacy⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Primarily, the woman of Revelation 12 has got to be Mary, because if you read the text, that woman gives birth to a child. Well, who in history gave birth to the Messiah? It's got to be Mother Mary. I think so. Yeah. You read the early Protestant reformers, or the Protestant reformers, and they speak very beautifully and, you know, Catholic, kind of Catholic words about the Blessed Virgin, Luther in particular.

The one piece of advice that I've offered Catholics and I offer it to them to this day, Matt, if there are any channels out there that you think are doing videos just for clicks and they're doing sensationalistic headlines or what have you. And they're not really looking at the statements of the Pope or even examining church teaching. Why are you tuning in? Yeah. Why are you tuning in and tune in to something that is valuable and tune in to something that's not going to darken your faith? William Olbrecht, thank you very much for being here.

Wonderful to be here again with you, Matt. Been a minute, but great to be back with you, brother. Yeah, it is. Thanks for making the trip. Last time I had you on the show, it was you and Dr. Capus. Copus. Yeah. Father Coppice, the Reverend Dr. Coppus. Okay. Yeah, and we discussed everything about Mary. Wow, yeah, we did.

And people should go check that episode out because it's had over a million views, I think. I believe a 1.5 million now. Wow. And we've had a lot of people, I gotta tell you, Matt, a lot of people that have loved it and have told me, after watching that show, they've come into the fullness of the faith. They become Catholic. A lot of people who said, they talked about everything that I wanted to ask about Mary.

And they have now become Catholic. I have, by the grace of God, and it is not a brag at all. It is everything, all glory to God. I've lost count of the amount of people that have told me that. And that is the beauty of the glory of the things, the way the Lord is working through, pints of the quietness. Yeah. Beautiful, beautiful.

Well, I often think of Mary as it, like if you start, let me put it, this way, and I'm being a little tongue in cheek, but Protestants are right to keep her at an arm's length. Because it seems to me that if you develop any sort of affection to her, you'll be Catholic within five minutes. You will, without a doubt. If you begin diving into the Bible about Mary, reading about Mary, well, then you're gonna eventually

begin looking at the early church fathers and eventually begin realizing, how did the earliest followers of Christ view Mary? And you're not gonna remain evangelical very long, man. How do they view Mary? They viewed Mary as, number one, mother of God, Theotokos, the Godbearer, as perpetual virgin, as all holy, as the new Ark of the New Covenant, and of course, as we know as a woman who had a holy bodily assumption into heaven,

when we look into the Bible, the portrait we have of Mary is a beautiful portrait. And as you bring up a great point there, the more time you spend with Mary in the Bible, the likely you are to become Catholic. And I mean that. And I will, and I have great respect for my Orthodox friends, Oriental and Eastern. But the fullness of Maryology, the full Mary, the historical Mary, rightly so can be found within Catholicism. Because I suppose the objection would be that Catholics took Mary and then got way too enthusiastic about her and started saying all sorts of things. It can't be vindicated by scripture or even the early church.

I mean, Gavin Ortland's done some videos in which he shows, and I think he might be right in this. You correct me if I'm wrong, that patristic testimony of the assumption of the mother of God isn't as early as Catholics would like. it to be. Right. Well, the one area where we would disagree with Gavin, we'll agree that maybe we don't have a lot of early fathers talking about the bodily assumption early on, but for that matter, we've got fathers to talk about it before we've got the canon of scripture spoken about. But even earlier than that, a Catholic would argue that in the book of Revelation, we have Mary there present in heaven and bodily present. Indeed, if we want to go into the early fathers, Matt, the earliest Greek commentary on the book of Revelation from Eukuminios interprets Revelation 12 as a Maryological, in a Meriological way.

Wow. What did you say the earliest? Oikomenios, 500s. Okay. And that is the earliest Greek commentary on Revelation. He interprets the woman of Revelation 12 as Mary, but not only as Mary, but Mary bodily present in heaven, body and soul. That's the bodily assumption right there. Wow. So a Catholic, rightly so, I think Matt, would point to Revelation 12.

We've got Mary there in heaven, but not only Mary present in heaven, a lot of bodily imagery. When I say imagery of the bodily presence of Mary there, there's a crown in her head, and you've got her present in heaven with the moon under her feet. Very, very consistent with what we believe about Mary being bodily assumed. So even if I grant, okay, well, Gavin Orlin is right in one, hundreds, two hundreds, maybe we don't have any really fathers talking about Mary being bodily assumed. But without a doubt, when we get to the 300s we do, and we have them talking about her assumption before, as I mentioned, we even have the canon being spoken of. Wow, that's really

interesting. Yeah. Well, that's interesting too about the first Greek commentary understanding the woman is Mary, because that was going to be my response, and that's probably the response that many, say, of our dear Protestant brothers and sisters who are watching right now, they'll say, no, it's Israel. It's clearly the church. It's Israel, the 12 tribes. It's, it's, it's, uh, it's, uh, the church and the 12 apostles. It's not Mary. And it, look, it's filled with imagery anyway. And you guys are just sort of shoehorning Mary into that Revelation's 12 where she actually isn't. And that is an early view. There's no doubt, Methodius of Olympus, uh, Victorinus. That is a very early view that the woman is Israel. Okay. The new Israel, the church. But with that in mind, Matt, there's

something wrong with having a dual imagery view there. What do we mean? What do we mean? Well, the Bible is supernatural. If we can say Mary is the woman of Revelation 12 and the church too, there's nothing wrong with that. And I'll tell you why. In Revelation 12, we read about a child that will rule the nations with a rod of iron. Now, that is quoting from Psalm 2. That is a messianic Psalm. And that is about our Lord. Well, Matt, in Revelation 2, that is applied to the whole church, that all of us will rule the nations with a rod of iron because we are connected to the head, Christ, showing you that the Bible can have dual imagery.

There's nothing wrong with it. So our Lord is the one that will rule all nations with a rod of iron, but then we're told that we will too. So why is it wrong to view Mary as a woman of Revelation 12 and the church? There's nothing wrong with it. Indeed, I would argue, Matt, that primarily the woman of Revelation 12 has got to be marrying

because if you read the text, that woman gives birth to a child. Well, who in history gave birth to the Messiah? It's got to be Mother Mary. I think so. Yeah. Yeah. Real quick, what would be the single introduction volume to the Blessed Virgin for those

who are watching who go, okay, I'm open to what you Catholics say, but I still think it's kooky? Yeah, well, I'm going to be biased. I really like the book that I co-authored with Father Koppas, Mary Among the Evangelists, where we really approach it from a, a, Bible, a Bible-based perspective. And we talk about Mary and how you can find Mary in the Bible and how there's a lot about Mary that maybe people are overlooking. I'd really recommend that book, but there are a lot of really good books out there as well. Now, another very good book

that I recommend is probably not as popular, but you can find it online written by Father Manelli. He's not alive anymore, but called All Generations Will Call Me Blessed. Very, very good book about Mary. You might be wondering, Matt, why am I recommending, number one, why did I recommend our title? And the other book, the one from Father Manelli, they rely heavily in the Bible. And I know our evangelical friends want to find the Mary that we're talking about in the Bible. And Matt, I believe you can definitely find her in the Bible. I heard once this contrast between how the Catholics view Christ and the church and how the Protestants do. They said, and I'm sure you've heard this, you walk into a king's palace.

There you have in the Protestant room, the king up on the throne, and he's in a bare room, nothing else. There's nothing there that could steal your attention. But you go into the Catholic room, and you've got the king, and you've got his court, and you've got tapestries and flowers,

and all sorts of things. How do you think this divide took place? Because you read the early Protestant reformers, or the Protestant reformers, and they speak very beautifully and, you know, Catholic. kind of Catholic words about the Blessed Virgin, Luther in particular. Yeah, and indeed the imagery of that imagery of the wonderful throne room, if you will, with a king in the throne room.

Well, who was the queen? It was the mother. It was not the wife. It was the Ghibera. It was the great mother, the queen mother. That imagery is preserved in Catholicism. and that imagery is biblical too. If we want to talk about Mary as queen mother,

we go directly to Luke 128. Now, people may be wondering, what do you get that in Luke 1, 28? Well, people are very well aware of the text that says, full of grace. But that Greek word right before at Cairo, hail is a royal greeting, indicative of royalty. And then we have Mary presented in royalty in Revelation 12

with the crown on her head, and the queen of heaven presented as the queen of the, the church, the mother of the church. With that in mind, Matt, every proto-prostan, if you will, and by proto, they use that term for people like Yan Hus, Wycliffe, figures like that. When we talk about them and we talk about all of the early reformers, Matt, they had great respect for Mary, great respect. And you talked about Luther. Yeah. My goodness, Matt, let me tell you one thing about Luther. My whole family comes from Germany. As you know very well, I'm a convert to Catholicism. the majority of my family remained Lutheran.

They have remained Lutheran. I pray every day that they come to the fullness. With that in mind, I'm very well aware of everything Luther believed about Mary. And let me tell you right now, Matt, Luther believed in all of the Marian dogmas. And I know the argument. They will tell you, well, okay, William, Matt, yeah, you're right. But as he went onward in life, he would abandon believing in him. No, he didn't.

Really? To the end of his life. And I know, because I've traced the trajectory of his writings, Luther never, abandoned believing all of the marrying dogmas. Now, what he did abandon, he didn't like them being called dogmas or doctrines, but he believed in them to the very end, meaning he believed Mary, of course, his mother of God, believed Mary was perpetual virgin, believed in the immaculate conception, and believed in the bodily assumption. Indeed, long after his death, Matt, the feast day of the bodily assumption continued in Lutheran churches. So really, we've got to ask, when did the disconnect

happened. I'm going to argue, Matt, probably around the 1800s. Now, we gradually have it on Calvin. When we get to Calvin, you begin to gradually realize there is a moving away from the beautiful view, the beautiful portrait we have of Mary. Then we get to Turton, a Calvinistic performer, later one, and he is quite anti-Catholic and quite anti-Mary. But believe it or not, Turton believed in the perpetual virginity as well. So the full break from the beautiful imagery we have of Mary comes very, very late. So the Protestant might say, I just don't understand why it seems like you're majoring in the minors. Why can't we just focus on Christ?

Why do you Catholics even have to make any kind of big deal about Mary? Yeah. Mary points directly to Christ. We would say as a Catholic, everything we believe about Mary points to Christ. Mary as mother of God. Well, Mary as Mother of God means the incarnation is true, that Christ truly is, Holy man and fully God. Mary as perpetual virgin means that the Lord truly did preserve Mary and her vow as she was a

perpetually vowed virgin. And then Mary, of course, all immaculate, all holy. The Lord fashioned her perfectly like the old ark. Well, Mary's the greater arc, the new ark of the new covenant. That points to the wonderful things our Lord did for his mother. And then Mary is bodily assumed truly does show you that everything our Lord did for Mary did come true. He didn't allow his mother to decay in the grave either. her bodily into heaven, body and soul, a Catholic would rightly argue everything we believe about

Mary points to Christ. And it has got to, Matt. It has to. Indeed, one of the wonderful titles we have for Mary is Ark of the Covenant, the New Ark of the Covenant. But if Mary is the new Ark of the Covenant, think about it. What did the Old Ark house? It house the manna. Now, what did the new Ark carry within her womb, the true manna from heaven, our incarnate Lord and Savior. Everything we believe about Mary points to Christ. And we would say, we're not focusing on tiny details. We're focusing on very important ones. And we would also argue if they're biblical, if they are in divine revelation, we should believe

them. What do you say to those who say, yeah, okay, maybe that's right. But the church is wrong to say that they must be delieved with divine and Catholic. faith. Yeah. And that is one, that is an objection you'll hear brought up very often. Now, I would reply by saying, if anything is true laid out in the Bible and in early sacred tradition, then we are bound to believe it as the church tells us to. And I'll note one other thing, Matt, even before the Immaculate Conception in 1854 was dogmatized and the bodily assumption in 1950. The document for the immaculate conception is ineffabilis deus, and then in 1950 munificentissantism

deus deus. Well before that, Matt, built into the liturgy of the church was the belief that Mary was all immaculate and the belief in the bodily assumption, meaning you had to believe that. Even if the church had not formally defined it yet, people believed it. We had feast days all around the Catholic world, so people did believe it. So when the church said that this is formally defined and you are bound to believe it, I would say, perfectly fine. The church has already been believing this from the earliest of times. And it's perfect timing, everything in God's will. I believe that when the immaculate conception was dogmatized, I think it should have been done earlier, but it was done in a perfect time as well.

And it was done with the unanimity of the bishops agreeing that it should have been done at that time. You mentioned earlier, Mary being a perpetual virgin. Are you taking that from the proto-evangelium of James? Or what are you using to justify that? A lot of people believe that. A lot of people will believe, well, William and Matt, you're taking that from the Proto Evangelium. That's from the 150s.

You have nothing before that. I'm going to tell you that I believe we have very solid imagery of Mary being perpetual virgin from the Bible. Number one, when the Archangel Gabriel greets Mary and tells Mary that she will be overshadowed, Well, even before that, when Mary gives her fiat, let it be done to me according to that word, and indicates that the child that she will have, she says, how can this be since I know not man? Very often people point to this, Matt. Holy Mary was betrothed already to St. Joseph, meaning Mary knew the normal way children came about. but the one thing that tends to get forgotten,

because it may not be so easy to notice, are the words that Mary utters are echoing the words from Judges 11. In Judges 11, the perpetual virgin, Jeff does daughter, she ends her life as a perpetual virgin. She utters the words, I know not man, towards the end of her life. Those exact words are uttered by Holy Mary. Now, you may be wondering why. in the gospel of St. Luke, Mary clearly was a vowed virgin.

Now, that isn't a view that we get only from the proto-evangelium. I believe that's very clear there in the Bible. The early fathers believed it as well. They believed Mary was a vowed virgin. But that isn't the only other clue we have there, Matt. Her uttering the words of a vowed virgin, that isn't the only clue we've got. At the foot of the cross in John 19, when our Lord hands her over to the apostle, John, behold your mother,

behold your son. Those wonderful words uttered. You got to wonder, why not hand her over to any other brother or sister? If there were brothers, they would have been legally bound to take her in.

Now, Matt, I know the objection. I know it. Well, they weren't believers were going to get told. They didn't believe. So our Lord had to hand her over to John. But our Lord on the cross would die on the cross

and he would bodily write. from the dead three days later, our Lord who is all knowing, don't you think he would have thought in his head, he would have known? Well, in three days, I'm going to rise from the dead, and they're going to believe. Why hand her over to the Apostle John perpetually? And she was handed over, because we read in the text, from then on, from now on, she was taken into his care. Had there been any other children, they would have been required under law to take the mother in, whether they were believers are not, Matt, but there are no other children. And there are no other children, Matt, primarily, I believe we've got a key clue in the gospel of St. Mark. Right there in chapter six,

when we read about our Lord being a prophet without honor in his hometown and among his own relatives. Well, in that verse, you read about the brothers, James, Joseph, Jude, Simon, but then our Lord will identify how their brothers met. We read about the brothers. We read about the brothers and even sisters, and then it'll tell you their brothers, Adelphos is the Greek word, and the females Adelphi. But then our Lord will identify them as kinsmen, as relatives, using a Greek word that can never, ever be used. It's never used in Greek literature for actual children from the same womb, meaning their relatives of it.

Now, how are they relatives, Matt? Then the debate does open up to, okay, well, we know they're not. not children of Mary, are they cousins or are they children of Joseph from a previous marriage? Or are they cousins and maybe one or two are children of Joseph from a previous marriage? And we have a variety of those views in the early church. I'll tell you, well, in one view, we don't have Matt. We don't have any early father believing Mary had other children, not even one met. How does the Coptic and Orthodox Church's view of the Blessed Virgin Mary differ from

the Catholic view and why should they go in your opinion, in the opinion of the church, one step further? Yeah. Now, the Coptics, and by and large, the Oriental Orthodox, they will believe, of course, they believe Mary is Mother of God. There's no doubt. And they believe Mary is all holy as well. And they believe in the bodily assumption. The one area where they will, and they believe in their perpetual virginity, forgive me, forgive me there. My friends are, their ears would have perked up there. One area where they will likely diverge Matt is the immaculate conception. Why? Well, they by and large believe Mary had to have contracted original sin because Mary died. Not all of them believe that, but a good amount of them.

And they don't have Mary's Immaculate Conception as a dogma. Now, why do I believe they should take the next step forward? Well, if we're talking about our Coptic friends, Matt, they highly venerate Sanef from the Syrian. They love him. He's a titan for them. and he taught the immaculate conception. And I would argue it is biblical. If Mary is the new Ark of the New Covenant, Matt,

well, how was the old art made? Overlaid with gold, pure. Acacia wood. Oh, yeah, incorruptible would. But if you look in the Greek Septuagint, the Greek is very clear. Even the Hebrew, I'd argue. Pure elements were used, pure.

And you have the word pure used over and over. With that in mind, if the old ark was made that way, all pure, well very clearly the new arc will be even better than the older arc and the new arc of the covenant is mary think about how mary would have had to have been made mary would have had to have been created perfectly made without any stain of original sin now how could we argue that the mother of god had original sin and in genesis 315 matt we read a prophecy called the proto-evangelium now we're not talking about the protevangelium of james we're talking about the proteo-evangelium in the book of genesis and Now, why is it called Proto Evangelium? We've got two Greek words. The Greek word Protas and the Greek word Eugenelion.

And you put them together, you have the Proto Evangelium, the first good news. It is a prophecy about the Messiah that will come and defeat the devil. But we read about that Messiah, Matt, being at enmity with the devil. Now, what does that word enmity mean? In the Hebrew and the Greek, it means at complete odds with the devil. literally at war with the devil. If you look at that Greek word Ekhran, literally at war

with the devil. But that enmity is not only via the son and the devil, that enmity is shared by the mother as well. The woman of Genesis 315 is also at enmity with the devil. So if our Lord is at complete odds

with the devil, his mother will be as well. And if we're going to argue Mary had originals, then Mary would be under the dominion of the devil, moment perishes a lot. So you said, Sennephram, the Syrian, taught the immaculate conception. Obviously, there's a distinction that needs to be made between

the Catholic teaching that Mary was preserved from original sin at the moment of a conception, and then a view that Aquinas may have held, namely that she certainly was sinless, but would have been cleansed of sin in utero. Yeah. So do you agree with that? Sometimes you'll talk to Thomas. They get pretty frustrated when I say that. Big time. I'll tell you one thing. This will be this will create an enormous debate. We open up that kind of worms.

But I'm willing to talk about it. Now, that is one area where I agree with you. I love the great Thomas Aquinas. St. Thomas, the angelic doctor, one of the greatest ever. But unfortunately, I cannot agree that he taught the Immaculate Conception. I know a few people do think that he did. But I remember being hoodwinked once listening to a debate between Father, I forget now. But they said Thomas Aquinas denied the Immaculate Conception.

And they gave the impression that Aquinas said she was sick. and throughout her life. No. He says she was completely sinless. He was just trying to figure out. Yeah. Anyway, so my point... Without a doubt. And to add to that, man, that's a great point. I want to really hammer that home. By me saying that I don't believe St. Thomas taught the Immaculate Conception, I don't believe that he denied it. I want to be very clear. And I can quote the great Thomas, modern day one, and you know him. You've had him on a new show, the great Dr. Minard. And Dr. Minard, who is, in my opinion, him and Father Thomas White are the best Thomas saliva right now. And I've talked to both and they'll both agree on that particular point.

Now, here's one thing about St. Ephraim. Yeah. And real quick. I just want to... Yeah, I'm sorry. So when you say that he taught the Immaculate Conception, are you saying that we have enough in his writings to say she was sinless or are you saying that he goes one step further? He goes one step further. Okay. And I can tell you where it's Nisabin him 27 or 28, depending on how they're numbered, because we have a different number in an Latin edition. You got a great memory. I mean, I live and breathe Maryology by the grace of God. I love our Holy Mother Mary. And she's drawn me closer to her son. Now, when we read that particular text, Matt, not only do we read Ephraim saying Ephraim telling us, Mary has no stain like Christ. He goes further. And he will then say, Adam. Now, when he brings up

Adam, he means fallen humanity. Adam did not procreate you. And he will use the plural. for Jesus and Mary. Wow. Meaning they are not fallen. Now that is very powerful. And for people then may be wondering, well, William and Matt,

maybe you're reading a little bit into it. You guys don't know any Syriac. I grant that, but I am very good friends with the top Syriac scholar in the planet, Dr. Brock. And I have reached out to him to confirm the reading of that text.

And that is the proper reading of that text. I would tell our Oriental Orthodox friends, those that deny it, because some do not deny it. Those that deny it, Matt, I would tell them they need to embrace it. And I would make the argument, man. It's going to be a controversial one, but I make the argument,

it is only within Catholicism. We have the fullest, most beautiful, proper portrait of Holy Mother Mary. How do Catholics, and you might say, and I would say that they're bad Catholics, take devotion to Mary too far. Is it possible the Protestant wants to know? Or can you just be offering sacrifices to her and all sorts of things? And Catholics are okay with it. I think there's definitely a way to take it too far.

And that would be mirroring what the Coloridians did. Yeah. Now, people may be wondering, who are the Coloridians? They are an early group that offer the Echorus to Mary. Right. Now, we don't do that. Yeah. I've never met a Catholic who thought it was in any way confused about her not being divine.

Never, ever, ever, Matt. But I will tell you this, there is a big cult-like movement in Mexico, but not of giving that worship to marrying, but of giving that kind of cultic worship to other pagan-like figures. But the problem is people that don't know better confuse that movement with being part of Catholicism. And I want to give the tip of the hat,

our Catholic clergy have called that movement out over there. They've condemned it, rightly so. But there's not a living Catholic, Matt, that I have met. I've been Catholic over 20 years now. I'm a convert. I have never, and I've been, praise the Lord, travel the whole world. I've never met anyone, Matt.

that tells me they worship Mary or that offer the Echarus to Mary. No, everyone I've met, even the most devout old ladies, Matt, they have a healthy love for Mary. And they've told me, flat out told me, Holy Mother Mary does lead me closer to Christ. And that is the whole goal. Think of John chapter 2, verse 5. At the wedding of Cana, Matt, people are drawn closer to Christ

by seeing the miracles, by him, by his holy mother interceding for the people. He begins his public ministry. It's a beautiful thing. Yeah, I've never met anybody with a strong devotion to the Blessed Mother who hasn't also had a strong devotion to the Holy Eucharist. Oh.

So, yeah. Okay, let's talk more about, if it's okay, orthodoxy, Coptic Christianity. This is something you've studied a lot. Oh, yeah. And I love my Orthodox brothers and sisters. I, you know, for a while, I attended a Byzantine Catholic Church,

so feel a sort of an allegiance to the liturgy that they celebrate. So, yeah, you take it away. I love them as well. I do a lot of work with Eastern Orthodox scholars, priests, even Oriental Orthodox. But we would be lying if we didn't say we had differences. We do.

Without a doubt, we do. Now, how about we go into Oriental Orthodoxy first? It's an area met where very few people ever talk about. Maybe a lot of people don't even know who they are. Well, let's begin there. What is it? Well, talking about the Coptics. We're talking about the Armenians,

our Syriac friends, they reject the council of Calcedon. They will have the council of Nicaea, Constantinople, and then for them, it ends at Ephesus in councils that we have in common. After that, there is the break where people usually think, well, when we broke off from our Eastern friends, that was in the 11th century, no, the very first schism was in the 5th century. And that was between our Oriental friends and the Catholics. They do not accept Calcedon.

In fact, Matt, they believe our Christology is downright heretical. Because we are what is called, are called diocesites. We believe Christ is fully man, fully God, dual natures. They believe Christ, they believe that in what is called Miafacitism. Christ has one nature. Okay, now you may be thinking, well, they don't believe he had a divine nature. No, they believe the human and diviner so perfectly united that it is. is one nature in the Godman, Christ.

I want to tell you about Hello, which is the number one downloaded prayer app in the world. It's outstanding. Hello.com slash Matt Frad. Sign up over there right now, and you will get the first three months for free. That's like a lot of time. You can decide whether it's useful to you or not,

whether it's helpful. If you don't like it, you can always quit. Hello.com slash Matt Frad. I use it. My family uses it. It's fantastic. There are over 10,000 audio guided prayers. and music, including Mylophy.

Hello has been downloaded over 15 million times in 150 different countries. It helps you pray, helps you meditate, helps you sleep better. It helps you build a daily routine and a habit of prayer. There's honestly so much excellent stuff on this app that it's difficult to get through it all. Just go check it out. Hello.com slash Matt Fred. The link is in the description below. It even has an entire section for kids.

So if you're a parent, you could play little Bible stories to them at night. It'll help them pray. fantastic hello.com slash matfride. I mean, we say the very same thing, but we say two natures. In a perfect union, that we call the hypostatic union. They believe that that can lead to all kinds of problems, and they reject the diaphasite language. We are called diaphystite, dual nature. They call themselves maphocytes.

They reject chalcedon fiercely. And they reject Pope St. Leo the Great. And there are differences as well. Of course, as you know very well, they don't accept the papacy. They're great people. A lot of them are really, really good people. What would I see to that, Matt? I believe that our Christology is compatible.

I think we're trying to say the same thing using different terminology, Matt. And I think that if we come to the table, we're trying to understand something so complex. The incarnation, that's tough. Really, really tough to understand. And I believe there is a lot that we agree upon. And I don't think Christology should really separate us, Matt. I'll tell you what does separate us, and that's the papacy. They clearly do not believe the Pope is a supreme head.

Now, what would I answer to that, Matt? No, I'm going to say something that will definitely, there will be a lot of comments down here below when people hear this. At the Council of Ephesus in 431, when we were united, there at that council, the Pope, was recognized as supreme head. but not only that, Matt, that office was recognized to be a perpetual office, meaning that after Pope Celestine, the popes of Rome would reign perpetually to the end of time. They agreed upon that.

That was when we were still united. Well, what church still holds that up today? It's Catholicism. And they don't have the Bishop of Rome. They don't believe in the Pope being the Supreme Head. But at the Council of Ephesus, they agree to that. I don't think they have very good answers to that, Matt. What's the structure of their ecclesiology?

Outocephalus. Yeah. It is autocephalus. With that in mind, that's a great point that you bring up. A lot of them don't agree with the others. Maybe some of our Armenian friends don't agree with some of our Coptic friends. And those are some pretty strong disagreements. Sometimes they disagree on things like original sin.

and I have encountered some of the disagree in those particular issues. With that in mind, the papacy is a big, big point there. And if we can come to the table and we can show, and I believe that we can, Matt, that when they were united to us, they agreed to the papal claims. Those papal claims didn't pop up at Vatican 1. I'll tell you that. They agreed to the papal claims. And if they agree to the papal claims when we were united at an ecumenical council,

well then they've got to return home. Right. Yeah. So the Protestant would have us go back to the scripture to make the case of the papacy. Yes. Our, yeah, Oriental Orthodox friends would have us make the case not so far back. So where was that case made then in those first few councils? Yeah. So the case was made. We would argue that, number one, we argue it's biblical. We argue the Catholic would argue the model of the papacy is a biblical model.

Then we would argue that in the early church, very clearly the early father, recognize the Pope as the Supreme Head. I mean, you have it as early as Pope St. Clement of Rome. In his letter to the Corinthian Church, he is writing with papal authority. But our Oriental friends will agree. They'll say, oh, yeah, I know, Matt. I know, William. We agree.

But the one thing that they do not agree upon is they don't agree that the Pope is the supreme head. They'll agree that he is the head. But the Supreme Head, they don't agree with that language. But then we get to the ecumenical councils where we're all bound to the language there. if you are an apostolic Christian, you are. By that, I mean Catholic, Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, they're bound to the language.

So if we have the language of the Pope being in that office, the head of the church in perpetuity, and they agree to that, well, what is going on today? They don't have that. They have fallen away from that truth. That is why in charity we call them to return to the faith of their fathers. There's obviously an explosion right now in interest in Christianity, and then it seems to me that in particular there's a lot of men who are gravitating towards apostolic churches. Certainly I see that in orthodoxy.

Yeah. Is the same thing happening in Oriental Orthodoxy too? It is. You have more and more people being pulled towards Oriental Orthodoxy. What do you think that is? I think a lot of people really love the beauty of the faith. the ancient faith. They're called to the beautiful iconography,

but not only that, they're called to the beautiful liturgy. And I'm right there with them. And I think that, and I say this with all due respect, for a lot of our evangelical friends that are very anti-Catholic, it is a way to become apostolic,

but not have to go the dreadful route of becoming Catholic, that they've dreaded for a long time. So they become, whether they become Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox, it's happening a whole lot more now. People are being pulled towards the apostolic churches. Now, the beauty is, though, Matt,

a lot of people are coming into the Catholicism too. We're getting a lot of converts. That's a beautiful thing. But a lot of people are being pulled towards the beauty of the liturgy, the beauty of the apostolic faith. And I'd say it's a great thing. Yeah, I think it's interesting. The grass is always greener on the other side, as they say.

Right. And so what I'm seeing is people have spiraling to one green pasture and then finding another green pasture when they realize it's not as green as they had hoped. And so I often see this. People will leave one faith,

become another, become another, become Catholic. And if that happens too quickly, I don't mean to be cynical, but I sometimes think, okay, let's, I wonder how long they'll be here. And then they might go to Greek Orthodoxy and that's not trad or hardcore enough so they go to Russian Orthodoxy.

And I wonder if at that point when the grass isn't as green as they had hoped, are they then looking to Oriental Orthodoxy since it's less known and less large as Russian orthodoxy? Well, in Rochore Russian orthodoxy or Greek orthodoxy, there are no bishops or priests that are ever involved in scandals, or so they believe.

The grass isn't always greener on the other side. A lot of the times they'll convert, and then they'll realize the very same problems in Catholicism are present over there. And I'm going to rewind even further back, Matt, those problems were there in the Bible. St. Paul was not happy in writing to the Corinthian church. He flat out tells them in 1st Corinthians 3, I can't even feed you with solid food.

I'm feeding you like babies. Why is that, Matt? They're living carnally. They're living divisive lives. So if you look at the church and you say, man, there's some bad priests or some bad bishops. Well, there've been bad priests and bishops from the very beginning. And the Bible warns us of wolves that will try to rip the flag. lock apart, we've got to remain firm. Number one, we got to pray for all of our leaders,

all of our priests. We have to pray for them all and realize there's some bad ones out there. If there were bad ones in the Bible, well, they're going to be bad ones today. And I think people are of the mindset that, well, over here, there are no scandals. You know, there's no worry about any of these kinds of movements. No, but when they go over there and they realize, oh my goodness i'm i'm i'm in for the very same here than i would be that i'd find anywhere else the fact of the matter is you're doing the wrong thing if you're judging your religion by how saintly the people are there you're going to encounter people that are wonderful and saintly and then you're going to encounter people that are wolves um i'm playing with this idea i've been

thinking about it lately see what you think about it uh in the mid to late 90s we had the real world and then there was this thing called the internet. It seems that increasingly the internet is becoming, for many of us, the real world. And by the real world, I just mean the place that we confirm our identity, assert ourselves, find friends, fine. And then the actual real world is becoming this thing

that we go to when we need supplies when Amazon can't deliver them or something. And so I think it's interesting, and I want to kind of accuse Catholics before maybe accusing those who are going to orthodoxy here, just so it seems, I hope I'm being fair, one of these memes that I hate seeing is,

they'll show what a Catholic church looks like, and then a Protestant church, and the Protestant church is a clown show, and the Catholic church is this glorious cathedral. And it's just, okay, have you been to your local Catholic church? Or do you live on the internet? Are you of the opinion that the Catholic church is like AI Gregorian chant? Is that what you think it is?

Right. And so I think there's something similar. Like online, I heard somebody say to me, Eastern Orthodoxy has terrific curb appeal in the same way that you might say that the traditional Catholicism has beautiful curb appeal. It actually does. I'm not saying it does, it really does.

You've got these beautiful monks and their Jesus prayer rope and their big beards and the candles and the incense and similarly with the... But then you've got to go out into the real world. Like then you've got to go to your parish up the road and your parish up the road, whether it's Catholic or Orthodox or whatever it is,

probably doesn't look like the idealized version. of the Instagram accounts you've been following. Right. That then opens up the door. What are we judging the religion by? By the mere looks of it? Or are you actually studying what they believe?

Now, let me tell you one thing, Matt. I was in England about four or five months ago. I went with my family. And I took my wife to an Anglican church over there. We walked in gorgeous church. Gorgeous. But let me tell you something first, Matt. We walk in and we sit down.

My wife thought it was a Catholic church. She didn't know. I made that mistake before myself. Yeah, right? They're beautiful. With that in mind, I've got a big problem with those memes, man. A lot of the times they're caricatures, Matt. Because there are some Protestant churches that are beautiful.

With that in mind, we've got to look at what is the belief, what is a dogmatic teaching? What are they teaching? Because if we went to an Anglican church and we said, well, man, this is a beautiful church. This must be the truth. Well, then you begin hearing exactly what they teach and it doesn't line up with the faith of the apostles. A lot of those memes don't really represent the truth. And that is a problem. A lot of these people, a lot of these people don't go to church, I feel.

With the people that make these memes. That's my point. They're in the real world of the internet. This is the new real world. It's like we one day we'll go and colonize Mars and leave Earth behind. I feel like we've left real life behind and we're now colonizing the internet. Right. because the real on the boots people that go to church,

they realize that there are all kinds of problems. They do. And the real people in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy, there are a lot of really, really good people over there. Oh, my goodness. That's my point too. When I meet Orthodox people and we get into a discussion, I'm so impressed with them.

And then I go online and sometimes I am, but often less so. There's sort of an aggression and an arrogance and a condescension that I keep coming across. Now, I'm not saying that doesn't happen in Catholicism too. Right. It definitely does. Oh, we've got the people doing that too. 100%. Yeah. God forgive me for the times that I've fallen into that. So I, yeah. But my point is just this weird disconnect, isn't there between the online world and the offline

world? A big time, big time disconnect. The real people, the real on the boots, on the ground, people going to church, they're not as hostile as the people you're going to encounter online. Now, in the online world, as you're right, there's a lot of nasty people in Eastern Orthodoxy, in Oriental Orthodoxy as well. I've got to tell you, there's some nasty people there. All right. Haven't seen them yet. Oh, yeah. They're becoming as nasty as the Eastern Orthodox online.

But I'm going to call our own out too. Thank you. I have to, Matt. In Catholicism, we've got our own people that are as bad. And these are the online people. In the real world, people that are going to Mass don't act this way. They don't act this way. Why is it?

What is it that makes us do that online? I think there's an idea of a blood sport online. People who've got the wrong idea that you're going into an online dialogue to annihilate your opponent. It used to be, I don't know, we're probably roughly the same age. Yeah. Did you grow up? Do you ever play video games like Doom or Walthenstein? Man, I love those games.

Great games. Back in the day. Here's the analogy, and I'm getting this a little bit from Eric Ybarra, right? So you and I were playing Doom maybe, you know, where we were shooting aliens and feeling like kings. And then, you know, a little, the internet comes in and then you could play with friends. And at the beginning you had to hook your computer up. And it was all the more exciting

when you and your friend were playing. And then, you know, well, now it's almost like, well, we've dropped the fake guns and now Twitter is the new Doom. Oh, yeah. And so all of the attacks and all of the outrage, it's just a shallow entertainment that gets our blood pumping

and our heart beating, maybe the way the Doom used to. Without a doubt. And I think that it can become nastier than Doom, could have been back of the date. Too right. It really can. It can get to the point where the charitable is lost.

Yeah. Because I feel that a lot of these dialogues, look, if you're not doing this to glorify God, why are you doing it? If you are doing this for pride, why are you doing it? Because all glory goes to God. Now, I'm not going to sit here in Lydie and Matt

and say that I don't go into debates wanting to win. I do. But I prepare and I realize, well, I want to do well because I'm glorifying God. And I realize a lot of people are going to hear the debate and I want to bring people to our Lord. But the idea is not, let me tell you something, Matt. The idea is not to go into debate and crush and, you know,

annihilate the opponent. Let me tell you one thing, Matt. The Lord has blessed me. I have debated some of the top atheists in the world, Muslims in the world, Protestants. Let me tell you an odd thing, Matt. I remain friends with all of them to this day. Friends with all of them to this day.

I have some of the top atheists around Christmas time that will message me. Merry Christmas. I remain unfriendly terms with all of them. The reason being behind the scenes, they know this and they can say it on the air. I tell them, I really want you to come to Christ. One of them, you may know him. He's been in your show, Dr. John Loftus. After debate we had a year ago, he called me after.

the debate and he told me, man, you really believe this, don't you? I said, I do. I do. He said, why do you keep debating me? He said, because one day I hope that you are side by side with me at mass, worshipping God in the Eucharist. And he went quiet. He said, you really, you really want that. I said, that's the goal. The goal is not to humiliate anyone. The goal is to bring them to Christ. And if you've lost that vision, you shouldn't be doing that. I think that's terrific. I couldn't agree more. I think what happens, though, is when people on the internet world, in the internet world, who they're listening to us here, when they hear that language of charity and kindness, they think those are mush words and that we're really somehow compromising. And there's this

new idea, it seems to me, maybe I'm just an old man and I'm trying to understand the youngans, but the youngans are dropping F-bombs and shouting at each other and that this is, you know, this is the litmus test. Are you really passionate about this or not? And I just never saw the church fathers. Well, I mean, there was one church father that came close to maybe that kind of graphic language of. Well, I think the fathers had a perfect balance that we should try and strike of being fiery, passionate, and all the while remaining charitable. I believe it's very possible, Matt. What do we mean by fiery, mean by you being on fire for your faith, convicted, truly defending your faith all the time?

And then charitable, meaning you don't have to insult your opponent. you don't have to degrade him or try to, you know, lessen his value. He's got human dignity. Think about it. Made in the image and likeness of God, we're all made in the image and likeness of God. And we've got to keep that in mind when dialogueing with anyone. And in the online world, I think it really does get forgotten a lot. I'm not on Twitter a whole lot.

Good idea. But every now and then I'll pop open my phone. I don't have the time to be in Twitter a lot. Every now and then I'll pop open my phone. And I gotta tell you, Matt, I don't know how often you use Twitter. Almost never. Almost never. I'm a complete what would be called a noob.

I'll open it up every now and then after maybe a month, maybe once a month, and I'll see like about hundreds of notifications, meaning people have mentioned me or whatever. And I'll tap it and I'll go and I'll look. And my goodness, Matt, if I was thin skin, well, the amount of, I mean, tap it them, the amount of insults that are there. And I click the, every now and then I'll click the pro. It'll be a random profile with no profile picture.

Because people think that they can say anything online and they can get away with it and they have no, there are no consequences. Well, there are always going to be consequences because the Lord is aware of everything you're doing, of everything. And I find that to be very toxic, unfortunate. I remember I interviewed a Dominican priest, Father Nikanor Ostriarcho and he said this one line

that I'll remember till the day I die, he said, humility rarely goes viral. And I think that explains why we all feel We need to be bombastic and ridiculous online because we need people's attention. We'd like to be liked. We'd like people to notice us because we feel alone and scared. You need those clips, Matt. Yeah, it comes from us, can come from a lonely place.

Okay, so this charity that you hope to have and show towards your opponents, is this something you've grown in? Did you come out the gate swinging hard and realize you had to repent of some of that? I did. I did. I did come out of the gate. In the early days, I was very bitter, Matt. Oh, yeah?

Very, very bitter. Now, I've been debating for a long time. I had hair back then. I don't have hair anymore. Way back when Matt, I was bitter and mad. Why was I bitter and mad? I felt lied to.

I was a Protestant for a long time. And when I began reading the early fathers, I felt, man, I was really deceived. I was upset. And my goal was to try to not convert anyone, but to pulverize everyone, including family, because I felt overwhelmed

that the amount of people around me that were still Protestant. As time went by, my outlook has completely changed. My goal is to bring people to Christ. My goal is to evangelize. My goal is to use the gifts the Lord has given me to teach,

to help people out. In the beginning, it was very different. It was a very different thing because I was bitter, I was angry, I felt lied to. Today I have much more charity towards people that I don't agree with. And I don't agree,

we disagree strongly with our evangelical friends, Protestant interlocutors. We do. And of course, we disagree with our Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox friends. We disagree. But there are ways of disagreeing and remaining charitable. We're at the end of the day, I can tell an Oriental Orthodox friend, man, I don't agree with you. But hey, how about we go get a beer? I consider you a brother. And there is a there is a good friend of mine. He's a near and dear friend, close friend of mine. He's one of their best in the online world and in the real world. A guy is very charitable, but we heavily disagree to the point where we'll go back and forth and, you know, I'll tell him flat out, I think you need to become Catholic. He'll tell me, I think you need to abandon it and become Oriental Orthodox. But at the end of the day, we have never had that rupture in friendship. If you think of Catholicism as an island and it's being attacked by different ideologies and religions, okay? So who do you think some of the best offenders are who are warding off these attacks?

and are showing why the attacks don't work. Maybe let's go through the list of orthodoxy, different Protestantisms, Islam, atheism. Yeah, so let's think about who I think are the very best. There's a few that whose names he probably never heard, doing really good work. Now, we both know our near and dear friend Eric Abar. Eric Avar is great. Love him. He's phenomenal.

Not only is he great at doing what he does, Matt. He's a great guy. He's such a kind fellow. He's a great guy. Brilliant. Oh, yeah. A near and dear friend. I'm privileged to call him a friend. Good. And I can't go beyond mentioning our friend, Sam Shimon.

He's the best against Islam. There's nobody better. The guy is phenomenal, man. I had him on back in the day, really enjoyed my conversation with him. I think this was before he had announced. He was definitely was before he announced. Yeah, it was. God bless him. And praise the Lord, he's come to Catholicism. Praise God, he's relatively new to it. He's even says in the air, he's learning. He's someone I see getting attacked a lot online from different sides. Do you know why that is?

Is it because he's so good? I think it's because he's so good. He's really good against Islam. He can memorize the Bible. He can memorize the Quran. The guy is phenomenal. And I really think that he'll go to war for Christ. He will defend what he believes to be the truth.

And a lot of the times that's offensive to people. But he's really, really good. Now, there are other names that maybe a lot of people haven't heard of. In fact, Eric Abar would agree with me. Elijah Yossi. He's great. Very, very good in the papacy. Another good friend, Divine Mercy, James. He's a really, really good guy. He does a lot of good work.

And then my friend, Joe Heschmire, he's good. He does solid work. Trent Horn does solid work as well. Joe and Trent do very good work against Protestantism. What really does set Elijah Yassi and Erica Barr apart is they're dealing with Oriental Orthodoxy and Eastern Orthodoxy as well. And they're doing a really good job. a really, really good jobs. The beautiful thing is we've got a lot of people doing great work here, Matt.

And please forgive me if there are some names of friends that I've forgotten, there's a lot of people doing great, great work out there that are really holy people and they love the Lord. Yeah, it's interesting. I've been in this long enough to realize that there are different waves, hey?

So when I joined Catholic Answers, Protestant apologetics was sort of on the decline and atheistic apologetics, or apologics against atheists was the new thing, right? And so I imagine in a time like that, people kind of like forget about the Protestants and try to defend or go after the atheists. But then now it feels like, well, the atheists are in decline. And maybe now many of us attempted to forget that that's even a battle that will need to be fought today and in days to come.

You know what I mean by that? It will. You know, there's no doubt because I can tell you right now, they're out there, the atheists and they're publishing books. They're attacking the faith. I will tell you one thing that is good that has come to the forefront. front. And that is a lot more dealing with Eastern Orthodox apologetics and Oriental orthodoxy. Yeah. Now that's something back in the day when I was at Catholic Answers. You didn't hear about that, right? We had like two sentences. Right. We thought that would suffice.

And now, now, you know, praise the Lord, it's, uh, now why don't I say praise the Lord, we get to learn a whole lot more about our faith as we respond to them. We get to learn a whole lot more about church history, about the Bible. What do we have in common? Where do we disagree upon? Now, I'll tell you one thing, man. It has helped me grow in the faith. faith, dialogueing with them more and more. And I know they're not going to want to hear this, but I've become more and more convicted of my Catholic faith. The more and more I dialogue with my Eastern Orthodox friends and my Oriental Orthodox. And I've had debates on hearing pites with Aquinas. In fact, I don't know what we're at right now. The last I checked 100,000,

there was a debate we did in the Immaculate Conception against Father Ramsey. I remain very good friends with Father Ramsey. I've debated him a number of times. Yeah, he seems like a lovely man. He's wonderful, wonderful. But the more. and more and more that I look into and I and I and I and I study Eastern Orthodoxy and or in Orthodoxy the more I'm convinced that I made the right choice because I tell you one thing Matt one thing people don't know when I became Catholic I dabbled around in Eastern Orthodoxy for a full year it was between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy it took me a year I did discern and at the end of the day I chose Catholicism now the reasons you chose

Catholicism and rejected Eastern Orthodoxy, are they the same reasons as today? Or do you sometimes oscillate thinking, well, maybe everything's on fire here, maybe I should go over there. They've expanded because back then, papacy was a big thing, of course. Immaculate conception, that was a big thing. We're divided in other topics too. Pergator is another area where they've moved further away from the belief in purgator that I would argue is the ancient apostolic belief.

but there's another one Matt that maybe you haven't heard before a lot of people don't know it the canon a lot of them have a different canon and then that opens up the the door to the door to okay well what does that even matter was the canon ever settled early on and i will argue that yeah there's a point where they agreed with us on the canon and today it's very difficult finding any of them that agree now what do i mean by that matt i've done a lot of work here in fact I've debated Father Rams in this point. This does concern me, Matt. There are a lot of our Eastern friends

that have a canon very similar to ours. And maybe there's a book or two extra. I've got no problem with that, even though I don't agree with that. But then there's a lot within Russian orthodoxy that have full out rejected the Dutero canon, Matt. When, since when? I want to say since the last 20 years.

Not prior to that. there were rumblings prior to that. There was a problem. There was a problem in the 17th century when a patriarch embraced Calvinism. But the church responded and condemned that and restored the Deuter Canon. Wow.

Now that's a problem, Matt, because the Deuter Canon has been part of the Bible from the beginning. And I have flat out asked scholars of theirs on the air. What do you consider these books? readable. So, okay, hold on. That's what the Protestant reformers said. Precisely. Is readable? Revolters, sorry, not reformers. Right, revolters. Is readable? Is it synonymous with canonical?

And they've told me no. Well, I've got a big problem with that because the Dutra canonical books, they belong in the Bible. And I'm not going to mention names, but they're apologists online that identifies Eastern Orthodox that reject them as well. So that's a problem. It's what's going to ask. So does Rokor, for example, is there a particular position? Rokor will have particular scholars that reject them. In fact, there are Bible societies that reject them, that lower their status. When I say reject them, I want to be careful. They will believe they're readable, they're valuable, but they are not on the level of holy writ like the other books.

That's a big problem. And again, just for those at home, this is exactly what happened with the original Protestant Bibles, right? that they were in the book. They were in the Bible, sometimes in an appendix, and then eventually discarded. No doubt. A great point there, Matt. As you bring that up, Luther never removed the so-called apocrypha. Remember, faithful, when we're talking about Duteron,

Dutarchanan is what our modern-day evangelical friends call apocrypha. Luther didn't remove them, but he did make it very clear. He didn't believe they were canonical, and he did move them from their usual place. Later in history, they were dropped from pre-proved from, Protestant Bibles. My concern is when our Orthodox friends tell us, well, these are readable and they're valuable, they can even be called ecclesiastical. We then ask for the clarification, and we've done it. Is ecclesiastical tantamount to being canonical, the way that we use canonical? Because in the West, canonical means holy writ, part of the Bible. And there are Bible societies

say no. And then there are some that say yes. That is a concern. Why is there no unity on that particular part? And that is yet another strike against Eastern Orthodoxy, that they lack that unity there. And in Catholicism, it's very clear. The Tridentine canon, Trent was very clear. The canon includes those books. And for people that are wondering, Deuter Canonical, we mean first, second Maccabees, wisdom, sarac, all of those books that were including Tobit, additions to Daniel. And that to me is a big problem, Matt, a big, big problem. Now, speaking of Eastern Orthodoxy, there's obviously been several debates that have taken place between Catholics and Orthodox around the question, do we worship the same God?

Right. That has come up a lot. But there really shouldn't be a big issue there. The Eastern Orthodox agree with us here on the particular issue. And I believe you're talking about Islam. Is that what you're talking? Yeah, sorry if I didn't say that. Yeah.

Yeah, within the world of Islam, do Muslims worship God, the one God? Do they worship the one God? And it has caused a lot of controversy. It caused it for a few months there. There's a big uproar in the online world there for a little while there. And we had our Eastern friends up in arms. Say, what are you talking about? How can you guys say that you worship the one God? Now, the church has always been clear. Do we worship the one God? Do Muslims and Christians worship the one God historically? And they have said yes, metaphysically. No, they're not Trinitarians. Truthly is a groundbreaking Catholic AI app built to help you know, live and defend the Catholic faith with clarity and confidence. Whether you're navigating a tough conversation, deepening your understanding, or looking for daily spiritual guidance,

Truthly is your companion on the journey. It's like if chat GPT went through OCIA, got baptized and made it its mission to proclaim the truth of the Catholic Church. But Truthly is more than just a Q&A tool. It's formation in your pocket. Take audio courses on topics like the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Eucharist, Pergatory, and why the Catholic Church is the one founded by Jesus Christ. Each course is designed to be accessible, engaging,

and deeply rooted in the teachings of the church. You'll also receive daily audio reflections, short, powerful meditations to help you grow in prayer and stay grounded in your spiritual life. Already downloaded by thousands of people worldwide, Truthly is transforming the way we learn, share and live our faith. One question, one course, and one prayer at a time. Start your seven-day free trial today. Download Truthly on the app store. But that statement, Matt, is echoed by our Eastern friends.

Their own clergy, their own patriarchs say the very same thing. Then you've got to wonder, Matt, if there are people in the online world are up in arms about it, are they following their clergy? Are they listening to their clergy? Because they have their patriarchs making these various same statements. And then they're saying, no, it isn't true. And then I flat out asked them, okay, do you not agree with your leaders? And they've told me, no, we don't have to agree with them.

Then I've asked them, are they heretical? Some have told me yes. I said, oh, so you're united to a heretic? that's a big problem Matt a very big problem at that point and that's certainly not all orthodox but at that point if you're willing to say that then it feels like Protestantism

with incense that is to say kind of what you said earlier like I want everything that Catholicism has I don't like the Pope thing I don't like the scandal thing I don't like whatever but I'll go over here and I'll pick and choose what I want and I'll reject my leaders if they say something is it is that fair

or not it is protestodoxy is what I call it and I want to be very clear, not all of them are like that. But there are many that have gone from having been very anti-Catholic. And they have flat out said, it was way easier to become Eastern Orthodox. I can continue hating the Pope, some have said. And I can now become part of an apostolic church. I can take the Eucharist, meaning all the while they will tell you,

oh, you know, I am now apostolic. It has been very easy for them to make that switch. And that is a concerning thing. It really is. Do you see any kind of reconciliation between the Catholics and the Greek Orthodox? I do. I think there's a whole lot where we agree with one another. And in this online world where there is, in the online world, you would think, Matt, that we are in planet Earth.

And the Orthodox are so far apart there on a wildly lost planet way out there in space. but in the real world our leaders love one another Pope Leo has met with their patriarchs not only the Eastern but the Oriental and we have great relations with them that's the real world and I applaud that

for people watching and thinking well you know hold on William I thought you said Catholicism is the fullness it is the fullness of the truth but we have great relations with our Eastern friends and I think reunion is definitely possible I do we were talking about Catholic apologetics earlier

and how different waves come and go. I think one thing that we clearly need to focus on right now is an understanding of the role of the papacy in the church. I don't mean to refashion it into something that it isn't already. But one of the reasons I think we need to rethink it, relook at it, examine it, is that we live in a day and age where we get communication from Pope Leo

whenever he says a thing immediately. Here it is. That's not something the church had to deal with after the first Vatican Council. Not at all. And it seems to me that Catholics, and maybe myself in the past, I hope not, but have to liberally use the word schismatic or, you know, we're trying to sort of separate people

without realizing the large tent that Catholicism is. You have to understand that in the right sense. But what do you think about that? How should we view the papacy in this digital age? Yeah. And I've said this before, so forgive me for boring people. But when I worked at Catholic Answers, the thing we always said was we're not saying

that everything the Pope says is infallible. And then we had Pope Francis, and he said a lot of confusing things and unhelpful things, I would say. And then it felt like many Catholics just went to bat for him at all costs. And if I were a Protestant, I'd be like, well, why do you even need to do that?

Because you just told me that you don't need to do that. And so there's obviously a ton of confusion in the Catholic Church right now. There was a lot of hope about Pope Leo. There's been some things at Pope Leo. has done, some appointments he's made that have just it's almost like children who are traumatized and another father comes into the home and we're just

maybe we overreact when we sense. And I can tell, I can sense that on both sides, Matt, with Pope Leo. Now, here's the question, do you have to go to bat for every little thing Pope Leo says? Absolutely not. And I don't think Pope Leo would even want that. Let me give you an example, Matt.

My goodness, I lost count of the amount of videos that were made when when pope leo did an interview not long back and the interview was talking about traditional marriage and you know homosexuality and many other things that are hot topics today and pope leo uttered a few words that seemed lacking clarity but then later in the interview he made it very clear that marriage was between a man and a woman made it very very clear that that was a church teaching. And I feel that the internet blew up trying to defend every jot and tittle as if he had released an encyclical, as if in Ephabilis deus has just been dropped and you have to look over every, comb over every word. I don't think Pope Leo even wanted that.

Pope Leo was giving an interview, a casual interview. Right. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to have begun, at least prominently with John Paul II, right? He's writing to journalists and doing interviews. And this isn't something that historically that Catholics have had to deal with. And so I think Catholics are right to be confused, wouldn't you say? Right, no doubt. I think Catholics are right because again, there has to be some clarity. People need to realize, okay, well, not every jot and tittle or not every Twitter statement

are going to be viewed upon as encyclicals or infallible even. And we're living in an internet age, Matt, where we're going to hear from the Pope multiple times in a week. And that was very different in the past. Very different. Imagine back in the day of a Pope Liberius. I mean, how often would you hear from a Pope Liberius? Or let me, even later, even Pope Agathao, Pope Hadrian, or Agatho, or even later, popes when we get to the 1900s, you're not hearing from them very often. Today in the digital age, you're going to hear from the Pope a lot. But not only are you going to hear from the Pope a lot, you're going to see the Pope a lot. Well, I was just going to say, not only going to hear from the Pope a lot,

but you're going to hear from 8,000 people who need their YouTube channel to do better than it's currently doing about what the Pope just did. Absolutely. It's funny. I remember being at Catholic Answers when Pope Francis was elected and then going to my computer in my office and refreshing. And no one was live streaming back then. Right.

I mean, just that short amount of time, the difference in how quickly information is getting to us. Yeah, and I feel a lot of the commentaries are for clicksmat. I feel a lot of them out there. The one piece of advice that I've offered Catholics, and I offer it to him to this day, Matt, if there are any channels out there and people don't think I'm calling anyone out, I'm not calling anybody out, if there are doing videos just for clicks and they're doing sensationalistic headlines or what have you. And they're not really looking at the statements of the Pope or even examining church teaching. Why are you tuning in? Yeah. Why are you tuning in and tune into something that is valuable and tune in.

and tune in something that's not going to darken your faith. That's another thing. But here's another important thing. In the digital age that we live in, we need to understand the role of the papacy. And we need to realize not every little thing the Pope puts out is going to be something that we need to look at and say, hey, I've got to follow that, jot and tittle.

What if the Pope puts out a tweet? And there are a bunch of typos, and it has a theological error there. Are people going to go to bat arguing that that has got to be? That's the correct spelling now. Right. It's wild. It's wild, Matt.

Right. First off, the Pope has admitted himself. A lot of the tweets don't come from him. A lot of the times they don't come from him. I think we need to realize, we need to understand what the role of the Pope is. When he's protected in his infallible office, that as well has got to be understood. Pable infallibility has got to be understood. And I think we live in a day and age where there's an unhealthy obsession with everything that comes out of the Pope's mouth that

there are certain people out there that believe every word that comes out of his mouth is infallible. So back during the very unfortunate sex abuse scandal, I tried to make it a point to show the friends in my life who weren't Catholic and who were asking me about the scandals that I was angrier than they are. Oh, yeah. And I think that's important. And if the first thing you were doing was trying to go, well, I mean, technically more teachers commit abuse and the church has deep pocket, if that's the first thing you're doing,

I think it doesn't look, not only does it not look good, but, you know, You shouldn't be doing it. Not at all. The church should be held to a higher standard. But I think something similar has to happen maybe. So I guess here's my question. How do you thread the needle? When the Pope does something that you can look at,

engage, this is probably objectively unhelpful at best. I think it's similarly unhelpful to our Protestant brothers and sisters to go to bat for everything. Yeah. And I think it actually might show more credibility to say, yeah, I agree with you. I think that was unhelpful.

Yeah. And I believe that we, can have that healthy way of saying, I don't agree with the Pope in that issue. I don't think there's any problem with that at all, that we can say, okay, well, this is clearly not a dogmatic issue. I don't agree with the Pope there. And there's nothing wrong with that. I think people live in a day and age where they think, man, if he doesn't agree with the Pope, he's schismatic. Or they'll toss out terms like, you know, well, that guy's a rat trad. Or hey, that guy's, that guy doesn't believe in the Catholic faith.

And it becomes an all out attack. There is a way to disagree with the Pope in a healthy manner without being a nasty person. And I think we've got to really thread that very, very, very key, that important line of distinction. We've got to have that healthy ability to be able to disagree with the Pope while remaining passionately Catholic.

There's something wrong with that. What are you working on right now? Working on multiple books. multiple books and multiple debates I'm working on. Two books on Mary, perpetual virginity and the Immaculate Conception. Yeah, really excited about that. Yeah. Anytime I get to defend Holy Mother Mary, very excited about that.

And it comes at a very exciting time, as you know very well. A lot of people talking about, oh, hey, hold on, wait a minute. Matt and William, is Mary co-redemptrix or is she not? So it comes as a good time, you know, anytime Mary's in the headlines, it's great. Let's talk about that. Definitely. What just came out of the Vatican talking about Mary's co-redemptrix? Yeah.

So the Vatican has said that co-redemptrix as a title seems rather unhelpful because it requires a lot of unraveling for people that may not truly understand what is meant. Now, the one thing the Vatican did not do, the Vatican did not condemn the theology behind Mary as co-redemptrix. We need to be very clear. But number one, what is the theology behind it? a lot of people have asked me, Matt, what do you mean co-redemptrix? Mary's a, you know, she's another redeemer, you know, she redeems and Christ, you know, was Christ just on her level as a redeemer? What co-redemptics means is it comes from the Latin word, co-means with, a female with the redeemer. It doesn't mean she's another redeemer. It means that she plays a role in salvation history.

But even the very fact that you had to explain that to our listeners shows why there's concern. Yes, it does. It does. Because it is confusing. It can be confusing. And with that in mind, I've got no issue with what the Vatican has said at all. But then I hear other Catholics saying, okay, William, there are a lot of evangelicals that are applauding this move. Yeah.

What do you say, William? What do you and Matt say? What has changed in Mariology? Nothing. Nothing has changed. But then the other question gets asked. In the online world, Matt, leading up to that document, there were, I counted at one time, and I stopped counting, 30 articles in my Facebook page of people announcing there's going to be a fifth Marian dogma.

Oh. Never in my mind did I ever imagine there would have been a fifth marrying dogma. And I don't think we need one. Now, I hope people aren't disappointed because a lot of people look at me as the Mary guy because I do a lot of work in Meriology. I don't think we need another Marian dogma. I think that what is said about Mary, a lot of beautiful pious titles we have for her, Matt. I think we can find them in all of the dogmas. Now, the teaching behind Mary is co-redemptrix, I have no problem with it.

But a lot of our Protestant friends are confused by it. But let me tell you another thing, a lot of Catholics too, Matt. A lot of Catholics, too. They don't get it. Okay, wait a minute. Well, if our Lord is a redeemer in the sense of him having done, died on the cross. That's how he's a redeemer. Well, how was Mary another redeemer? And then, of course, we've got to get into the dialogue explaining what does it mean to call Mary co-redemptor? Well, it very

clearly just means it simply means she played a role in salvation history and she did so at her fiat. Let it be done to me according to thy word. She did do that. She played a role in salvation history. But I completely understand when the Vatican says a lot of people are confused. Yeah. Well, I want to go over to our local supporters and throw some questions at you, which you have not seen. So, just so people know. I love it. JJ says, in your opinion, was it likely that Jesus may have spent time among the Essines in his hidden years? It definitely could be possible.

We don't have any early church fathers speak about that, but it definitely could have been possible. They were a group that were prominent at that time. So whether or not he hung out with them or spent some time with them, I would say, yeah, that's possible. K.T. Decker says, if we are in a location where there are no Catholic churches and only Orthodox churches, can we receive communion at their mass or no? How do we know which orthodox are in union with the church and which are not? So very clear answer. None of them are in full communion with the Catholic Church.

And with that in mind, people may wonder, okay, hold on, Matt, William. None of them are in full communion. Is there a partial communion? What do you guys mean by this quasi communion? I'm confused. When we say none of them are in full communion, all we mean is they have valid holy orders. They have real priests. They have apostolic succession. So they do have valid priests.

Are we allowed to partake of communion? We are. If there is no Catholic church anywhere nearby, it would be considered a grave situation and we would be able to partake in that manner. Now, the other question that comes in is, will they allow you? some of them are very opposed to Catholics partaking of communion.

Now, if you are allowed, let's put the wild scenario out there, Matt. We're in the middle of the desert. There's only one church there. It's Rokor. Only one. There is no Catholic church for thousands of miles. And you've got to make your Sunday obligation. Are you allowed to attend their service and partake of communion?

Yes, you are. And maybe a distinction needs to be made, too, between Eastern Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholic churches. there was a confusion there. Ah, my bad, I didn't know they said, did they say Eastern Orthodox? You were correct. They did say that. But when they asked,

how do we know which are in union with the church? I wonder if they're confusing Eastern Orthodoxy with Eastern Catholicism. They could be. Every Eastern Catholic Church is in communion with Rome. All of them. That is a great question, man. I'm so glad that that was even asked

because a lot of people tend to ask, okay, they'll say, hey, my family and friends go to an Eastern Catholic Church. what do they believe that I don't believe? I go to Aladdin right. Well, they believe everything you believe. They are in communion with Rome, meaning they believe the Pope is the head of the church.

They believe all of the councils that we hold to. They believe they're ecumenical. We do not believe anything differently. What will look different is the liturgy. Yeah. Now you used full communion earlier, and now you're only saying communion. Why are you doing that?

Yeah. So when I say they're in communion, I mean they're in full communion because they are a Catholic church. So it is Catholic Church. Yeah. I'm glad to you've done. brought that up though. Allain says two of my in-laws left the Catholic Church and became Orthodox

this past Easter from my understanding they were reconfirmed or chrismated. My question is do the Orthodox deny Catholic sacraments if not why confirm them again? What is their teaching on confirmation? Yeah, some of them do. In fact, some of them will even rebaptize. Now, depending which one you encounter, there are certain Russian Orthodox churches that take a very strong stance. They will even believe that our baptismal modes are incorrect. So if you convert to Orthodoxy, they'll re-baptize you. And of course, you know, they don't believe our sacraments are valid. Some of them don't.

There are people within Russian Orthodoxy that don't believe any baptism that is without the three modes, meaning triple immersion. without that it is not valid. Now that is not a majority view. That would be a minority view, but you're going to encounter that. Philip Z. asks, many Catholics believe in abundant graces coming from daily mass and frequent communion. Is it correct that in many Orthodox churches, the Eucharistic liturgy is celebrated usually only on Sunday?

How would you explain, the orthodox approach to receive communion less frequently? Yeah, that is definitely true. Now, the case within Eastern Orthodoxy is they have been following that tradition for a very long time. But there are certain areas within the world of Eastern Orthodoxy where they do have masks much more often, not only Sundays. There are certain ones within Russia and certain areas where there's only mass on Sundays, but in America it's much more frequent. So with that in mind, we would say, well, over there in the eastern part of the world, they do have mass less frequently. but they're not going to argue that they do that because, you know, it's wrong or that they wouldn't want to have masks more often. They're following an old tradition.

In the U.S., you'll find that in a lot of parts of America, there is mass multiple times throughout the week in Eastern Orthodox churches. Scott GK. says, I'd like to know more about the Lyon and Florence reunifications. How do these impact the argument of papal primacy versus first among equals debate and the schism that continues? Great question. Florence, I assume he means a Florentine council from the 1500s, 1400s, I believe. So if he's referring to, and that's a phenomenal question, at the Council of Florence, which is an ecumenical council for Catholicism, there were a lot of things up for debate, meaning where are they,

it was a reunion council, by the way, East and West. The goal was to reunite. Beautiful, man, we're going to reunite. Everything's going to be as it should be. as it should be. What is on the table? What do we disagree upon? What came to the table was the filiocchio,

it was one area where there were differences. The other area was purgatory. And the other area was papal primacy. Do we agree or do we disagree? Funny enough, Matt, one thing that was not on the table for disagreement was the immaculate conception. And there were many dialogues about it at the time.

It had not been dogmatized in, but it was already believed. Many within the East believed it at that time. They firmly believe it. Mark of Ephesus believed in the Immaculate Conception. With that in mind, at that failed reunion counsel, unfortunately, it would later become a failed one. They agreed upon the papal claims. They agreed with papal supremacy. In fact, Mark of Ephesus gives indication that he believed in papal supremacy.

Mark of Ephesus is their main guy. That's their main guy, man. They agreed with that. They agreed with the claims of purgatory, the filioque. Unfortunately later, it would get rejected. And the one that did not sign upon it that did agree, even though at one point he agreed, was Mark of Ephesus. He was the one that held out in terms of signing and agreeing,

and that would eventually become a failed reunion council. But the beauty of that question is, Matt, that at one point they agreed to all those statements. That was an ecumenical council where they agreed upon everything. Fortunately later, they would pull back upon that. Is that because the people revolted when the bishops came back and announced such? They did. They did.

Mark of Ephesus was a big reason why. Was a big reason why. But I feel that if you read the actual documents from Mark of Ephesus, by the way, a very little cool, very cool little thing is on my blog, thanks to Father Coppice, we translated a homily for Mark of Ephesus. That was nowhere available in English before because I wanted to know what on earth happened afterwards. And if you read the document, man, my goodness, Matt, he clearly believed in purgatory. They believed in purgatory. It's unfortunate that once they returned, so much fell apart. That's so unfortunate.

Sean says, do you believe we hold back graces God wants to give the world the longer we prolong the declaration of the fifth Marian dogma? I didn't know this is going to come up. Of Our Lady of Co-redemptress and Mediatrics or Grace is similar to when we delay the heating, Our Lady. these messages in apparitions like Fatima? Yeah, I don't think so. I don't think that we need to have a fifth Marian dogma. And I hope I don't let people down by saying that. Because number one, for anybody wondering,

do I believe the theology behind Mary is co-redemptrix? I do. Do I believe Mary is mediates, I do. I don't believe we need a fifth Marian dogma. I believe that Mary as co-redemptrix flows from her as mother of the church, as queen of heaven. and that's the beauty for intercession as well. Nicholas A. says,

I just discovered that the Eastern Orthodox have declared Constantine a saint, whereas the Roman Catholic Church is not. Would you have any insight as to why that is? Yeah, so there are various Orthodox churches that believe that Constantine had a full conversion before his death and they venerate him. There are also some Eastern Catholic churches

that believe that as well. Let me shock you another one. There are certain Orientals, I believe, Pontius Ponce's. pilot converted before the end of his life and they venerate him. There are these little tiny tea traditions within these faiths and they venerate certain saints that ordinarily in the Latin right church we were not aware that they're being venerated. We get some really intelligent questions from these people.

Great man, you got great people, man. Devin Stewart says, I've heard before that you are a scotist. What were the main reasons for choosing scotism over tomism? I think that scotus was the greatest merriologist ever. I think that his love for Holy Mary was phenomenal, but I think the one area where people tend to not realize how wonderful Scotus was on his Christology. The reason being we hear about the great Blessed and Scotus,

we think about Mary, which is great, but he was also a great Christologist. Now, I'm going to be honest, in terms of a greater theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas, you know, he's got him there. But Scotus, in my opinion, the greatest Maryologist, and I love Holy Mother Mary. and I've dedicated my ministry to SCOTUS. CETIC says, please just tell him,

debate, brother Peter Diamond. I'll do it. Just to get his reaction, he says. Oh, I'll do it. It's an inside joke because he debated him years ago. Many years back. Really? Peter Diamond has avoided me ever since then.

In fact, for those at home, who is Peter Diamond and tell us what happened? Peter Diamonds is a state of the contest, and we debated many moons ago. The final debate we had was on the new mass, and we were going to debate in Vatican 2 right after. that but Peter Diamond pulled out of it and I am open to debating him. In fact, Peter Diamond reached out to you Matt and said hey I want you to host it and I want to debate. Peter Diamond, I know you watched the show so reach out to us we'll make it happen. We'll make it happen.

And why did he pull out of the second debate? My opinion, I don't think he did very well in that debate on the Neimanas. I don't think he did very well and I don't think that um I don't think the topic would have been one where he would have done well in. That is what I personally Yeah, I'm not a debater. I'm not good at it. It's not my gift. So I choose so I choose not to do it because I don't want to bring shame to the Holy Mother Church. You are very good and I'm glad you are doing it. Are there other people you've invited to debate that aren't getting back to you? Of course, I want to point out.

Not every, you know, just because someone invites somebody else to bat doesn't mean that person has a right to be responded to. No doubt. And in all charity, people that have declined debating, many of them have told me, I'm not a debater. Yeah. And in all charity, one person that I reached out to, in fact, I reached out to to get him to debate on Pines.

This was years back. In fact, I was going to try and get him and then call you up. It was Mike Winger. Oh, Mike, yeah. But Mike was very charitable. I want to tell you, I got nothing bad to say about Mike.

Mike replied to me, told me, William, I'm not a debater. I don't debate. But there are other people that I've reached out to. In fact, I'm going to call him on the show right now.

Because he has done multiple shows about you. Oh, who's that? James White. Oh. James White has done many shows rebutting you. challenging you to debate him. Yeah, did you see my response? I did not. I said, no, thank you.

But he knows he don't debate. I was really honored because, you know, like he's, I used to watch his debates all the time, and I saw Patrick Madrid wipe the floor with him. I saw Jimmy Ake and absolutely wipe the floor with him. I'm surprised I didn't put a warrant out for Jimmy after that. Yeah. So my point was, no, the reason I wouldn't debate James White is because I'm not a good debate and James would beat me. So good for you, James. However, I will say every debate I've looked at on YouTube, the comments are filled with James White brought me to Catholicism. So I encourage him to keep debating Catholics.

Definitely. Just not me. And to be very clear, the one thing James White said over and over, it's a recent video he came out with. It barely came out with a video, challenging you over and over. He knows you don't debate. I haven't even watched the video. What did he say?

Claiming that he's been challenging for the longest time and he don't respond to him. So I just saw a tweet, and that's where I responded to. doing a video. Oh, yeah, he's been doing video after video. Really? Yeah, and he puts up video clips of shows you've done and I'm thinking, I'm honored. He's got to know that you don't debate. But I'm honored. He does know that I've debated for you many times. And he does know that I do debate. Yeah. And one thing that he has said many times over is people aren't willing to debate the Marian dogmas. Will you do it? I'm willing to debate any of them. James White. I know you watch the show. And in all it is. Right now, you've got a very charitable, intelligent Catholic.

Any and all of them. Any and all. Baudily. assumption, perpetual virginity, macular conception, I'll debate them all. With charity, if people watch James White and follow him, please respectfully let him know that that offer, I'll agree to it right now. We will absolutely do it in a time that's agreeable to him and to William. And of course, James doesn't have to respond if he doesn't want to, and I'm not asking everybody to go hound his comment section. Please don't do that. I find that obnoxious. Don't flood it. No, don't do that. But yeah, yeah, respectfully tell him about this conversation because I think that would be very enlightening

to both Protestant Christians and Catholic Christians. Definitely. Definitely. Has he responded to say no? He has responded to say no. Yes. But he definitely wants to debate you. Who doesn't debate? But the one thing that he keeps requesting are debates on Mary.

Well, I'm ready. You're ready. Let's do it. Well, thank you. Joe Ward says, if reunification were to happen, God willing, then would we adopt the Orthodox canon? Yeah.

What canon is what I'd ask him? Which one? That has got to be the one we've got to ask. Does he mean the truncated one? Or does he mean the one with more books? That's the one thing we've got to ask. If it comes to the truncated one, there's no way. But if it comes to the canon, and I think I know what he means,

that does have extra books, I think there'd be a middle ground to where, within Catholicism, we would not say, They are canonical equal to the other books, but they're ecclesiastical, meaning they're valuable to be read, and we can utilize them. But in terms of the canon being opened, the canon is closed. That is one thing I've got to say on the air. The canon is closed.

Trent was very clear about that. That's interesting. So we don't have to name names, but you would take issue with Catholic apologists who would say that the church has declared what is the word of God, but it hasn't made a definitive statement about those books that aren't. that's well, yes and no. So, and I'm going directly to the Council of Trent.

And at the Council of Trent, the church was very clear, even before that, because Trent was merely reiterating what Florence had already done. And believe it or not, Florence was merely reiterating what Agatha had done. People don't even realize that. Meaning laying out what was canonical. What Trent did do was clearly said, these are canonical, the canons closed, and Trent did point to which certain books that were. apocryphal. They were called apocryphal, meaning they're to be rejected. But there are other

certain books that Trent did not comment about. That is important to point out, meaning, well, what about those other books that weren't commented about? Can they be used in a valuable, you know, edifying manner? I believe so, Matt. I believe so. But you don't think that they can be declared. Never could they be declared canonical. And I would be willing to debate that. Yeah. Tell me who the black Hebrew Israelites are? Because I keep hearing about them, but if I'm honest with you, I suspect they're black and maybe Hebrew.

I don't know. Yeah, well, they're definitely not Hebrew or Israelites at all. It's a movement gaining a lot of traction, Matt. A lot of people converting to the movement as well. Now, their very anti-Christian movement, I will tell you this. They believe that they are truly the chosen people of God. They are the chosen ones of God, they believe.

And they deny all kinds of biblical teachings, like they deny the virgin birth. What's their origin? You may have been able to get into that. Yeah, well, their origin really comes from the early 1900s. But the current movement, there are so many different splintering groups that is very difficult to really pinpoint when the current iterations of the group really began. But as far as the real theology behind them, well, a lot of the theology behind them comes ancient heresies. But the Black Hebrew-Israelite movement itself in the 1900s pretty much began to

get off the ground. And it's a very anti-Christian movement that denies the Trinity, denies, of course, Christ is Almighty God, denies the virgin birth, denies a lot of key doctrines of our faith. And if you deny the virgin birth, well, I've got to be honest, you're not Christian. They believe that they are the true followers of Christ. That early on, their beliefs were suppressed. Then when you ask, well, where's the evidence of that early on? Well, you're not going to find it in the early church fathers, because the church fathers, many of them, they believe, killed their people.

Well, where is the evidence of the church fathers having done that? Well, it's nowhere there, but they believe it happened. But they believe many radical things. It's a movement that is gaining a lot of traction. And I've got to say it's problematic, Matt. It really is. And as Catholics, as Christians, we've got to be very well. aware of what they believe and we need to be able to deal with it.

What's the indication that they're growing in popularity? There are a lot of centers of theirs in Texas now. People are beginning to follow that movement around America. There are plenty of them in New York, I'll tell you that, a great amount of them. So in addition to denying the virgin birth, what other false things do they teach? They'll deny the writings of St. Paul. I'll tell you that. So they're pretty much... What for? What's their rationale?

They believe that St. Paul deviated from the teachings of Christ. So many of them doubt his writings. They deny his writings. Depending on what group you encounter, some do believe the whole Bible to be canonical. But some deny the writings of Paul. They are all over the map. But they are a radical movement that are gaining quite a bit of followers. In Texas, they're gaining plenty more people that have followed them. And in the online world, they are making a lot of noise. in terms of followers as well. They've got big channels. They've got big sponsors. They're even appearing on big time radio shows. They're being given platforms on big time radio shows, which is very concerning. Forgive my ignorance, but they're black? Yes.

Is that a big, is that a thing? Is that the basic part? You have to be black to be part of this? Yeah, the basic thing is you don't have to be black. But your leader will be somebody black, is their theology. And at the very, at the very heart of it, it is racist. What's the theological justification for the racism and the black leadership only? Yeah, well, they believe that Christ was black.

They believe that the true followers were black. And they believe that if you get to heaven and you're not black, well, I mean, you can get to heaven, but you're going to be one of their servants in heaven. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And well, even before you get to heaven, you'd be one of their servants here on earth. Ah, so there's full on racism.

It's full on racism. So it fit in really well with the left, presumably, right now. Very well. So is that way where the growth is taking place? massively where the growth is taking place. And if you ask them, and I flat out, I have flat out asked many of their leaders this. How can you condone that racism?

And their response is, no, well, you all owe the real races. That is why we can condone it. Because really, you all all are the real races, and we are the superior race. And because you are trying to hold us back, it is condoned. And you've done a debate recently with one of these people? I did.

A debate from one of their, one of their main leaders, goes by the name of Tizariak. I did debate him and we're planning another debate. How did it go? I think it went very well to the point where he was not very happy at the result. By all glory to God,

they're very aggressive, maybe overly aggressive. Have they always been like that? I wonder, has the internet made them such. Maybe the internet played a little bit of a role there, but they're quite aggressive to the point where they, they'll hurl insult so you during the debate.

Thank the good Lord, it went very well. Not so well for Tisarek, though. I'm looking here. Core beliefs, black Hebrew Israelites assert that black people are the true inheritors of Israel and have been suffering under Euro-Gentile dominion in the United States. Some groups claim that the Israeli government is controlled by a Jewish conspiracy and that modern day Israelis are not the true descendants. Okay.

Fun. A lot of fun. It's great being a Catholic apologist. Yeah, no doubt. You run. And I'll be honest with you, man. When I ran into this group, I didn't think anything of it. Yeah.

I said, well, you know, a little tiny little group. Why am I going to waste my time? But I told the person trying to set the debate up, I'll do anything to give glory to God. Yeah. And when the person told me, go look at the movement and the growth. So my goodness, you know, they got a lot of people that follow them. So I said, well, I thought a debate was worthy enough to do. And it was a lot of fun.

It was probably one of the few debates that I've ever done or after the debate. Let me tell you this, Matt. And the moderator says it on the air. After the debate, the moderator says, I am never moderating in another debate like that again. And why? The behavior of the Black Hebrews were like, the behavior during the debate. It was a Muppet, was he? Yeah.

Sort of talking over you. Yeah. Kind of yelling over me, talking over me. And... Always a great way to make it seem that you, the logical cases on your side. when you say yelling. There's one point during the cross-examination where he's cross-examining me.

Yeah. And he makes a bold statement on the early church fathers. And I said, well, hold on. You read part of the quote. We're going to read the rest of it. And he flat out told me no. Say, wait a minute.

This is cross-examination. Not time for you to pontificate. Yeah. And he responded by calling me an expletive. And I said, cross-examination means I get to reply. And for about 10 minutes, he fought not allowing me. me to reply. Said, wait a minute, if we're debating and you're cross-examining me.

Right. It's not another opening statement that you're giving. You don't get a closed rebuttal. Yeah. You're cross-examining me. I'm going to reply and I'm going to read it. And I told the moderator, moderator, we'll be here to nighttime if you want. I'm going to be here till the evening if I need to be. But I'm going to respond to what he said because he only read part of the text. And he fought and fought it and fought it and wouldn't allow me. At one point, I told him, what are you afraid of? And clearly, because the rest of the text prove the virgin birth. That is why.

God bless him. Where can people, thank you for the, by the way, for coming. I travel now occasionally and I do not like it. So I know it's a sacrifice. Maybe it's not as much for you as it is for me. I just, I don't know if it's the introversion or just whatever, man, but it's tough. But thank you very much for coming out. It really means a lot.

Thank you. Where can people learn more about you? Where can they follow your stuff? Your new books coming out. new books coming out. I think people are going to love them. They can find me at www. www. patristicpillars.com. Let me give them an easier one. www. www. early church fathers. Take you to the same place and I'll tell you you're going to find a lot of myriology there and a lot of trinitarian studies as well. I think people will really,

really love it. All right. Thanks, William. Thank you for having me, brother.