The Roman Catholic Church's claim to infallibility on faith and morals faces significant challenges when examining its historical teachings, as the Church has reversed positions on fundamental moral issues like the death penalty (previously supported for nearly two millennia, now condemned as against the gospel) and temporal papal supremacy (required from the 11th to 13th century until Pius IX, no longer required for salvation), which contradicts Vatican I's teaching that the ordinary magisterium is infallible and indefectible.
Deep Dive
Prerequisite Knowledge
- No data available.
Where to go next
- No data available.
Deep Dive
How Roman Catholicism FailsAdded:
[music] >> Perfect. Go ahead, Edgar.
So, I got a question on Nostra Aetate.
Uh I'm a Orthodox, but I was previously Roman Catholic. So, I hear the argument that Nostra Aetate is not dogmatic. So, what's your thoughts on that? Does that like help their case in any way? No, it doesn't. It's uh it's not just Nostra Aetate, it's also Lumen Gentium. Every one of the documents of Vatican II is signed off with full apostolic approval for the entire Roman Catholic Church with Petrine authority, and it deals with faith and morals. Even if you could argue that it was not extraordinary magisterium, even if for the sake of argument, I don't grant that it is, even if it was ordinary teaching, you still have to submit to ordinary teaching with docility. So, it doesn't matter.
It's a deflection.
>> Okay.
Thank you. Thank you. That's clear for That's Actually, that's helpful, yeah. I got one last >> Roman Catholic canon law, I think it's Canon The Canon 752 says that you have to submit even if it's not ex cathedra or even if it's not magisterium, you have to submit to the ordinary teaching whether you believe it or not. That's their uh whole thing, and notice how many of them don't care and don't abide by it. So, it's just a joke.
Text like interpretive?
Like how how does that work?
>> What?
What?
Do Do they believe like the text is interpretive or they It says it is cuz uh for example, like the word adore, right? They they interpret that many ways. It's like a cheat for them.
In their own In their own There's no adore There's no cheat code there. It doesn't like the the word is used for them for worship, adoration of the sacrament. It's a It's a worship term.
That's even worse for them.
Yeah, yeah, I see that. Okay. Notice right here, Canon 752 says your intellect and will must be submitted even if it's not dogmatic.
Even if it's just normative teaching.
So, the whole system is predicated on even if you think they're wrong, you submit. There is no I do my own thing in the Roman Catholic Church. It's all Okay. Okay, yeah. Thank you. That That helps, yeah. Yeah, Canon 752 of of their Canon Law. And notice, they don't care.
Like, you can tell them this a million times a day and they don't give a They just say, "I don't care."
Uh Errol, what's up?
I expect better from my Slav bros.
Errol, what's up?
AJ So, I believe in Old Earth creat- as well as Catholic, so I'd be happy to As well as what? either of [clears throat] those positions.
>> As well as what?
Uh I'm also a Catholic, so I'd be able to depending on which topic you want to You know I'm going to go to the papacy, dog.
Okay. All right. Um So, yeah. I mean, you actually had a guy on here earlier Uh-huh. talking about how um the Pope basically a lot of the Vatican II documents, so even if they were ordinary, they're still binding.
Um I just don't see that. If it's not infallible, I don't see it as a defeater for the position um because Well, first of all, it is, but even if it wasn't, you don't have to follow Canon 752.
I'm I'm saying you still have to follow it. It's not a defeater for the the the whole church and theology. Okay, so you have to so so I have to submit to Muslims, Catholics, and Hindus worshipping and adoring the same God?
Well, Muslims are are going to are separate in in in the documents.
>> No, they're not. No, they're not. in terms of gods.
Uh No, they're not. in terms of the specifics of the language. No, they're not.
It says Hindus have refuge in God in love and trust.
Um yeah, I mean Yeah. Yeah. They don't have refuge. problem with the language to to be perfectly honest.
>> care whether you have the problem with the language. What's the argument that makes this work?
How do Hindu How do Hindus love God in the same way?
They they explore or try to apprehend.
They're basically have a They're like looking at God through like a keyhole, basically.
>> Yeah, but it says It says a flight to God with love and trust.
Yeah, they're they're trying to I mean, they're trying to apprehend God.
>> Where in Hin- Where in Hinduism is capital G God?
Sorry, say that again one more time.
They, Hindus, seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition through ascetic practices or profound meditation or a flight to quote capital G God with love and trust.
Yeah, a flight to God doesn't actually mean that you're that they reach it, right?
But it doesn't matter because there's no ascetic practices or meditation in Hinduism that gives you access to God in love and trust.
It says capital G.
Um, yeah, I mean, So, is all Is Hinduism a demonic religion?
I um You don't know?
You [laughter] don't know? I'd probably say so. I mean, I'm not saying >> Probably. How did How did the Roman Catholic Church prior to Vatican II consider religions like Hinduism?
Um, I mean, pagans generally it was their responsibility for all rulers to kind of root them out.
Um, How did What are you talking about?
How did Roman Catholicism theologically view religions like Hinduism prior to Vatican II?
Well, not favorably. I mean, >> No, how Were they demonic? Why can you not just say they were demonic? Obviously, they're they're called demonic.
Sure, sure. Okay, so they're they're demonic, but through demonic demonism, there's a flight to God with love and trust.
Well, yeah, I mean people make mistakes and they're trying to like I mean So So So in in in the ritual where you burn your wife, is that kind of like the Eucharist or is Pachamama kind of like Mary?
No, I don't I don't think it is.
>> Is Pachamama like Mary though? Hold on.
So Lofton argue that Pachamama is kind of like Mary because they're both women.
So is that how it works?
I wouldn't agree with that, but um Well, why not? But it's the same it's the same line of argument.
Why is a person Hold on. If a person is engaging in seeking God in love and trust through Pachamama, why wouldn't it be like Mary?
Because it's not not the mother of God. It's not It's >> Oh, but who's the refer Who's the referent of the deity in Hinduism then?
You're By that you just you just destroyed your own argument right there cuz it's not God in Hinduism.
Okay. First of all, my whole argument was that you these these documents aren't infallible anyways.
>> First of all, yes, they are. First of all, yes, they are. Do you know there's like five statements from the papacy post-Vatican II reaffirming that they are binding on you? Where do you get that they're not infallible? I said infallible, not binding. I agree that they're binding.
>> Where do you get that they're not in So wait, you're bound by things that are wrong?
You could be, yes. So the Church of Rome errs?
Um Does the Church of Rome Yes, it can not >> Theologically? The Church of Rome errs in in faith and morals?
It can have um >> Have you read Vatican I? Not every every statement from the magisterium is infal No, see there there you go. Now you just shot yourself in the foot because anything by definition magisterium cannot have error cuz you have it You're not You're now rejecting Vatican I.
Vatican I says the ordinary and the extraordinary magisterium are indefectible, inherent, and infallible."
So, you're not even a Roman Catholic.
In err and the ordinary magisterium is infallible. That's what Vatican You didn't know that?
Um the ordinary mag- Well, You didn't know that Vatican 1 says that?
Okay, well, I I I could look that up right now. I mean, I know it's a short document. Um but, uh oh, well, then Yeah, but you didn't know that? You're trying to debate this. You You're trying to debate this and you didn't know this.
This is why I have little patience and respect for you guys is that you don't even know your own theology and you want to debate. You don't know that Vatican 1 teaches clear as day that ordinary magisterium is also inherent, binding, and infallible?
I know universal is That's what I'm talking about, universal ordinary magisterium. Okay.
Okay.
Okay, so I wouldn't hold to be universal ordinary magisterium. You wouldn't hold what?
I wouldn't hold Vatican 2 to be universal ordinary magisterium.
>> Okay. Is it from the papal chair binding on the whole church on faith and morals?
Um it's pastoral. That has nothing to do with in fact That has nothing to do with it.
That has nothing to Calling the council pastoral has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is magisterial and under the charism of Peter.
Mhm. Is it from the chair Is it from the chair of Peter for the whole church on faith and morals? Cuz that's all that's required according to Vatican 1 to be under the charism.
Faith and morals would be the the part that is maybe more contentious because So, you don't think the worship of God is under faith and morals?
It's not just Nostra Aetate, it's also Lumen Gentium 16. You don't think that both of those are count as faith and morals?
I think a lot of these documents that talk about we should interact and about other religions trying to how we can outreach.
This has nothing to do with outreach.
This is the opposite of that. That's because Have you read Mortalium Animos?
Um I believe I have. I just >> Oh, what is that about?
What is that about?
What is it about? You read it. What's it about?
I don't recall. So [snorts] Well, how do you know you read it then?
Welcome to do so. Mortalium Animos is the 1928 condemnation of interfaith gatherings and worship services.
So it's a condemnation. It's a condemned position in 1928. So if it's now approved at Vatican to do the opposite of what Mortalium Animos says, how is that an outreach when it it's condemned as not an outreach in 1928? It's a surrendering of the faith.
Okay.
Um Yeah, I mean I would I would I would probably say that the Yeah, again, it I don't know if the the teachings in in Vatican II are universal What does that have That has nothing So now you're just deflecting away from the argument that I just made.
>> So yes, it it could be it could be an error, you know. It could be an error.
Okay, is Vatican Are the documents of Vatican about faith and morals for the whole church from the chair of Peter?
They about faith and morals for the whole church >> Do you have to repeat every statement?
argue that, but you could also argue that they [clears throat] potential Where are you getting that it's not Where are you Where are you getting the argument that it's not binding or infallible or that you don't have to hold that it can have error?
Where Where are you getting this? You're just repeating something Trent Horn said.
Where do you get that? You didn't even know what Vatican I said. I didn't say Okay, separate binding from infallible.
Binding, yes, it is certainly >> Well, dude, you understand that if you're bound by it, even if you think it's fallible, then the then the papacy is binding you to error on theology and it's denying Vatican I. Any way you go, this is screwed.
Okay, so your argument is that it is if you're even in the short term bound to any sort of error that that counts as being >> errors on faith and morals. That's the thing that I'm not talking about can Ratzinger have a private opinion about the text of Genesis that's not binding.
It doesn't matter.
These are documents that then bind the entire church and Rome has bound everybody to confess this and act on this for 70 plus years. So that means that Rome has bound the entire world to countless errors for decades. That's impossible according to Vatican I. I.
Yeah.
Um a a a I I see your argument.
I don't I don't I don't really um Yeah, I I understand where you're coming from.
>> So in 1928, was it true that interfaith gatherings were uh abominable and apostasy?
Yeah, I mean I Okay, so 1928, that's true and that's on faith and morals.
That's Mortalium Animos by Pius XI. But a couple decades later, the opposite is now true.
Uh um >> [clears throat] >> Yeah, I mean no, I I see the difficulty you're pointing out for sure. Now, how does the papacy act on these Vatican II documents? Does it go in synagogues and pray? Does it go pray towards Mecca?
Does it participate in voodoo services?
Yes, yes, I I I I have them all right.
There you go. So appreciate your call.
Thank you so much for calling in. Go check them out. Aaron, what's up, dog?
It's your boy Aaron right here.
Yo, I'm a Levite. This is Aaron. What's up?
Yo. Yo.
So I'm a Protestant and I'm considering Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Specifically, I'm leaning more towards Catholicism.
Mhm.
What would your non-circular historical method um be that identifies Orthodoxy as the true church?
Well, if we're all trying to be in league with the church of the first thousand years. Everybody who's looking at Orthodoxy versus Catholicism admits that we want to will determine that by what the church of the first thousand years is.
If the Roman Catholic Church contradicts the teaching of what it itself taught at on fundamental issues, then I would say that's an easy kill shot.
Would you agree or not?
Um yeah, what what are those what are those issues?
Uh I'll give you easy one. Uh the death penalty was believed in and exercised by the Roman Church for almost two millennia and now it is quote against the gospel. That is a moral theological contradiction.
Well, would that be like a I mean, I I think that if it's like a dogmatic contradiction, No, you don't understand. The Roman Church is inerrant on faith and morals.
So, it can't prescribe a religious theological moral position on the death penalty for for centuries and millennia and then reverse and say the opposite that it's now against the gospel.
That's faith and morals. You understand?
The Roman Church is infallible and indefectible and inerrant on faith and morals.
Um O- Okay, so what's the what's the argument um that that's been something that's been taught for legitimately from the like how do the Catholics typically respond to that?
Uh they don't they don't have argument.
The arguments are Trent Horn says uh pick any way to make it work that you want. That's his actual answer.
Really?
Yeah.
Okay. All right. Well, I'll look into that. I don't I don't Yeah, I'll give you another one. Uh you have to believe in the temporal supremacy of the Roman Bishop from the 11th to 13th century all the way up until Pius the IX.
And now you don't have to believe in that to be saved. So, how do I have to believe in the temporal supremacy of the Roman Bishop?
And now I don't to be saved.
Chirp. Chirp. You got to go change your batteries, dog. You want me to send you a I'll send you a 9-volt, dog.
Over there chirping.
Just chirping.
Do chirping.
Like Captain Crackrock on our song.
Just beep. Just beep.
Who's next who disagree, dog?
Come and chirp at me, dog.
Listen.
Best argument against the Roman Catholic Church, go to it. Go check it out. And find out what it's actually like cuz guess what? It's not what the sales pitch people on the internet tell you.
Related Videos
BSA Goldstar - I gave up! And why animals beat humans!
thebingleywheeler
102 views•2026-05-31
The 'Islamic dilemma': Quran tells Christians to judge by the Gospel
canceledkings
1K views•2026-05-29
Letter to An Ex-Muslim
FarhanAhmedZia
5K views•2026-05-29
Seneca - Escape The Crowd, Find Your Inner Peace!
realfreewisdom
114 views•2026-05-29
Scholar Explains: WHAT IS A GNOSTIC?
fightbackpodcast
965 views•2026-05-31
Fulton Sheen: A Mente Tenta se Manter Jovem para não Sofrer com os Impactos do Tempo
SantoCotidiano-port
673 views•2026-05-29
Everyone is sprinting towards nothing.
ElinJen
2K views•2026-05-29
The fourth great humiliation. #jimmycarr #crowdwork #hecklers #standup
jimmycarr
576K views•2026-05-28











