Avoiding Babylon
Avoiding Babylon was started during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. During these difficult and dark days, when most of us were isolated from family, friends, our parishes, and even the Sacraments themselves, this channel was started as a statement of standing against the tyrannical mandates that many of us were living under. Since those early days, this channel has morphed into an amazing community of friends…no…more than friends…Christian brothers and sisters…who have grown in joy and charity.
As we see it, our job here at Avoiding Babylon is to remind ourselves and those who enjoy the channel that being Catholic is a joyful and exciting experience. We seek true Catholic fraternity and eutrapelia with other Catholics who, like us, are doing their best to live out their vocation with the help of God’s Grace. Above all, we try to bring humor and joy to the craziness of this fallen world, for as Hillaire Belloc has famously said:
“Wherever the Catholic sun doth shine,
There’s always laughter and good red wine.
At least I’ve always found it so.
Benedicamus Domino!”
Avoiding Babylon
Timcast Debate Aftermath with The Lore Lodge
What happens when theological roads diverge? In this thought-provoking conversation, we're joined by Aidan Mattis from The Lore Lodge, whose spiritual journey has led him from non-denominational roots through Methodism and ultimately to Anglo-Catholicism - with a controversial detour through Freemasonry along the way.
Our guest articulates why he believes Protestant churches inevitably "fall away" without apostolic succession, while sharing his hesitations about embracing Roman Catholicism fully. We dive deep into church history, examining how the Catholic Church's moral steadfastness on issues like contraception stands in stark contrast to other denominations that compromised during cultural shifts. The discussion tackles thorny historical questions about papal authority, the legitimacy of various ordinations, and whether multiple "branches" of Christianity can claim authentic apostolic lineage.
Perhaps most fascinating is our exploration of Freemasonry's relationship with Christianity. Our guest defends his participation in what he describes as "regular" Freemasonry, distinguishing it from the "Oriental Lodges", while acknowledging the apparent tension this creates in his religious worldview. The conversation takes unexpected turns as we consider how theological understanding shapes our perception of current events, particularly regarding evangelical dispensationalism's influence on foreign policy toward Israel.
Whether you're a devout Catholic, a curious Protestant, or simply interested in how religious identity forms in our modern world, this conversation offers valuable insights into the ongoing search for authentic faith. What theological positions are worth standing firm on? When does unity matter more than doctrinal purity? And how do we navigate a religious landscape fragmented by competing claims to truth and authority? Join us as we wrestle with these questions and more.
Sponsored by Recusant Cellars, an unapologetically Catholic and pro-life winery from Washington state. Use code BASED at checkout for 10% off! https://recusantcellars.com/
Sponsored by Recusant Cellars, an unapologetically Catholic and pro-life winery from Washington state. Use code BASED at checkout for 10% off! https://recusantcellars.com/
********************************************************
Please subscribe! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKsxnv80ByFV4OGvt_kImjQ?sub_confirmation=1
https://www.avoidingbabylon.com
Locals Community: https://avoidingbabylon.locals.com
RSS Feed for Podcast Apps: https://feeds.buzzsprout.com/1987412.rss
Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/AvoidingBabylon
Shows avoiding Babylon, and it frustrates me because I really like the producer of the show but I can't stand the host of the show. The host, anthony, just constantly says the absolute dumbest I've ever seen. Example one of his tweets was that the, the one criminal on the cross who was saved, was saved because Mary prayed for him. And I'm like I don't know if he's just trying to piss Protestants off or if he genuinely believes that or what, but it's just constant with him. I stand by that. I stand by that. That was what got me to say the thing.
Speaker 3:We had to start with that, of course.
Speaker 1:I know.
Speaker 3:Thank you to Taffy for putting that little intro together for us. Um, yeah, that it's it is. It is interesting because it did absolutely start as a little bit of a troll, so much so that it got james white's attention. And james white did like an entire two-hour sermon on my tweet and it was like wait, I was just, this was just like a throwaway line. It was like here's what it is when you a throwaway line. It was like here's what it is.
Speaker 2:When you even texted me you're like I can't believe that throwaway tweet got that much attention.
Speaker 3:It's because, okay, so my issue with the thief on the cross thing, that evangelicals I'm not going to say Protestants there's a very big difference in like historical Protestantism and evangelicals and we'll get into. You know, your um, what you, what you were saying with the uh, anglo Catholics on the debate and stuff, we'll get into that. But the evangelical approach to finding like the lowest common denominator and it's like, well, the thief on the cross was saved, but, and it's like, well, okay, but just because the thief on the cross was saved that way doesn't mean you should just base your entire theology off of one throwaway line in scripture. So it's like I just wanted to annoy a Protestant so I like I just I was like, you know, the thief was saved because Mary was praying from the foot of the cross and that freaking it worked.
Speaker 1:It got all of us we were like what are you talking about?
Speaker 2:man, the funniest part was is I was. I was because you did that on one of your monday podcasts yeah and I was listening to it the next day and all of a sudden I hear avoiding babylon. And then, and then you rip on anthony. I was like, oh, this is this is.
Speaker 3:Oh, we were so excited to play it on the show, I'm sure. All right, so you just were on Tim Pool's show. It was you, Jay Dyer, Tim Gordon and I said to you in the green room like I personally would not want to debate either of those guys. They both like regularly do debates. Tim, if he specializes in a very particular area, he will like obliterate his opponent. But Jay, I knew, I kind of knew Jay was going to do what he did where?
Speaker 3:Jay? Because he spent time in traditional Catholicism and then went to orthodoxy, he knows the internal arguments amongst traditional Catholics, amongst traditional Catholics, and because Tim is like kind of caught in a position of having to defend some of the things that Catholics find controversial within the church since the Second Vatican Council. Jay knew that was a tricky spot for Tim to defend, so he jumped right into that. But he wound up going into such minutiae that it kind of ruined the conversation for the whole show. In my opinion, like for the normie listener, Like I don't think the average person had any idea what the hell you guys were talking about.
Speaker 1:No, I mean also the thing was going into the debate. My understanding was that it wasn't going to get so into ecclesiology, that it was going to be a lot more about sociology and the church's place in the modern world. You know, and I know that's where Tim was. Tim Poole was going especially was how, how does the Catholic church fit in? How does the Orthodox church fit in? Which one is best for society? Basically is, I think, where Tim was kind of at, and then Jay and Tim Gordon used it just as an opportunity to go at each other about very specific little bits of orthodox and catholic. Uh, it wasn't even theology, it was ecclesiology yeah, yeah, it was very esoteric.
Speaker 3:Uh, for for like, so it was. It was entertaining for a guy like me because I understand those debates and it's interesting to watch like a catholic and orthodox and you know both of them and I know both like like we've had jay on the show twice.
Speaker 3:Tim gordon is like one of my good friends, so it's like um, like for somebody like me. I was interested in it, but I know like the average listener was like, what the hell am I tuning into here? But I did. I was interested um to know, okay, so like the everybody's throwing around that you're a freemason like I'm, I am curious like how you came about to your anglo-catholic position. Was this was like? Was this through study? Like what? How did you arrive at the, at the conclusions you have?
Speaker 1:sure. So, as I was telling you guys before the show, uh, I in college studied medieval studies and religious studies. I also I got I had a whole bunch of minors because I just had a very interdisciplinary major. But while I was in college, I had grown up non-denominational and after studying a little bit more, I came around to Methodism because I felt like it was the I like. I like a lot of the theology, I like a lot of the way that it views scripture, and I had some serious problems with Catholic history, more than anything, more even than theology.
Speaker 1:And then, as I got out of college, I was a 2020 graduate, so COVID year, and I was sitting around watching National Treasure in my parents' living room in probably like April of 2020. And I went. You know what? I wonder what the whole Freemasonry thing is about. So I decided you know what's what better way to to learn about Freemasonry than to become one? My?
Speaker 1:My curiosity, primarily, was coming from a place as a historian of oh, so there's the, the Templar connection. How real is that? Do? Is there actually a connection between what we know of as Freemasonry today and the Knights Templar post-1314? And I'll be honest, as I have gone through it. I have not found much of a connection to exist. It seems like it's mostly symbolic. There is a very interesting poem from around the year 1400 called the Regius Poem. That might be the connective tissue, but we don't know so far. But yeah, so I was a Freemason for a while, I still am, and my priest doesn't like that. He's not happy with me.
Speaker 1:But no, over the last year or so I started, as I got a little bit more into the apologetic sphere, as I started learning a little bit more about how the church works and functions, it occurred to me that there is a reason that Protestant evangelicalism, some of the mainline churches, have fallen so far away from what Christianity was up until about a hundred years ago and in my opinion that reason is that we left behind the apostolic succession. We left behind having an actual structure of the church that allows for a group of bishops, a group of priests, when somebody is out of line, to go and kind of pull them back in and say, hey, you either need to stop teaching heresy or you're going to be excommunicated from the church. So I decided, all right, I want to go and look at the apostolic churches and I have to be honest, I have a long history of not gelling with the roman catholic church, so that wasn't exactly on the table. But I started looking into lutheranism, orthodoxy, anglicanism, and I was baptized episcopalian. So when I I was like, oh, maybe I'll just go back to that. It's methodism sprung out of that anyway, so maybe I'll go back to the episcopal church.
Speaker 1:And then I went and looked and I was like what happened here? It's? It's like the uh, the community, the TV show community, the episode where Donald Glover walks into the room and I everything's on fire and people are. I was like what happened to this church in the last 30 years? So I decided that couldn't be it and I was really frustrated. And then somebody in my audience was like, hey, have you ever heard of Anglican Catholicism? And I went no, what's that? Started looking into. It Turns out there's a church right up the street, and one of the only three in Pennsylvania, I guess.
Speaker 1:And I was like, well, that's a sign. So I went for Easter service and I was like you know what? This is awesome. I like that we have a lot of the Catholic aesthetic and the liturgy. I like that we have a book of common prayer and the liturgy. I like that we have a book of common prayer. I like that the priest is so open and involved in the congregation and it was kind of cool to see a congregation that was people my age, with kids up through, people who can barely walk anymore. So I decided that was something I really liked and I started diving into it and at the end of the day that's where I feel the most at home Did you grow up with a lot of uh, anti catholic is there's different types of like.
Speaker 3:If you're growing up in the american church, there's a lot of anti-catholic sentiment in the american protestant church. Is that, is that like? Is some of that stem from that? You think?
Speaker 1:no, I actually. I had a very good relationship with catholicism growing up. Uh, half of my family are Italian Catholics, half of my oh, we don't like those here. Well, so my grandfather and my grandmother were very Catholic. A lot of my aunts and uncles still are. About half of them ended up switching over more towards Protestantism and ended up pretty much non-denominational, because I think they had that experience of Catholicism growing up where they were like I don't know that I like what I'm doing here.
Speaker 2:So for me, most of my resistance to the Roman church came about in college. What was it about? Catholic history?
Speaker 3:What is it about?
Speaker 2:Catholic history that kind of gave you that opposition.
Speaker 1:There's a few key moments. One is the donation of Constantine. I don't like that. The church forged a document in order to secure temporal authority over the kings of Europe and then, of course, the Dictatus Pape just piling on to that same thing and then it turning out to be a forgery many years later. Another one is I did not love the way that the church conducted the European Crusades.
Speaker 1:I felt like reading about specifically the Siege of Bitsie and what happened there, arnaud Amalric saying the admittedly badass line kill them all, god will recognize his own. But when you realize what that meant and what happened there, that bothered me a lot. So I felt like looking back at. And then, of course, the murder of Jan Hus and some of the other early reformers. It looked to me like there was a period between the end of the 11th century and up through the 16th century where I felt like the Catholic Church fell away, like there was something going wrong. Maybe the schism had something to do with it. But I looked at it and I said, ok, you have to admit, the Protestant Reformation didn't come out of nowhere. It was bubbling for 500 years before eventually, martin Luther nailed 95 theses to a door. So there were a few things, and I think most of all it's probably the dogmatism about certain things that just don't seem like they should necessitate excommunication and things like that, like the bodily assumption of Mary.
Speaker 3:Okay. So what convinced me? Because, like you were saying, like a lot of the things that you see, like you know, churches falling away from like their historic Christianity, things like that One of the big things that convinced me was seeing the church stand firm on the moral stance on contraception. It was like I watched every single Christian denomination give into this, this thing, right, like it was like, oh well, married couples. You know it started with the Lambeth conference in 1930, the Anglicans allowed it first. Then every single Protestant denomination, one by one, basically fell to it and said, okay, we'll allow for contraception. And it was only the Catholic church that stood firm and said no, no, no. You guys don't understand what you're doing here.
Speaker 3:If you allow for contraception, what you're doing is allowing a spouse to use their spouse. You're separating the procreative act from the unitive act and once you do that, you're using sex just as an act of pleasure. Now, if a married couple can use sex as just an act of pleasure, who's to say an unmarried couple can't? And it would. Just, I see every problem we have in modern society stems from that issue, and part of part of me, seeing catholicism as true, was like man. It just took such moral courage to stand up in the face during, during the sexual revolution, to not cave into the pressures that were coming upon the church, because it was everywhere that pressure, you know. But so that was like the start of it, and then the further I went back, just seeing how the church actually formed the Western world and seeing how even the church's stance on the relationship between men and women.
Speaker 3:So if you go back to like the Roman Empire, a lot of people think like, because you'll hear people talk about how we get democracy from the Greeks and you know we all have this Romanitas in us. Like we still speak of the Roman, like this question that goes around. It's like, oh, how many times a day do you think of the Roman empire, about men? So we have this idea of like being Roman that makes us, makes a lot of people in the modern world think that the world we're in today just kind of came about, but they don't recognize how much of a part Christianity and the Catholic church specifically played in that. It's like, um, the like women were seen as, uh, a receptacle for men to dump their fluids in in the Roman world. Like they had the same name for their mouth, anus and vagina Like a woman was just a a toilet for a man.
Speaker 3:It took the catholic church actually starting to teach on marriage and things like that. That actually forms the western mind and like gets men away from that savagery. But it, as you get further on and you start getting these groups start breaking away. You kind of do see exactly what you were saying with the Protestants. And it happens with every single group, including the Orthodox, including, I mean, every group I can think of, where they just find something that they're willing to buckle on, whether it's remarriage in the Orthodox Church and contraception or whatever it is. It's just like it seemed like the Catholic Church is the only one who maintain that moral foundation throughout all of history, even after the crazy changes that happened in the sixties that Jay and Tim were getting into.
Speaker 1:Sure, yeah, and I I respect that a lot. I, like I said, you know there's a reason I ended up Anglican Catholic and I'm still learning a lot. I've been talking a lot with priests and and other faith leaders in the community, trying to understand more and more where everything comes from, what our positions are on things, because coming from a Methodist background, it's like we have a lot of the same stuff, but also obviously it's a lot more liberal. Um, you know, I think and for example, with the contraception issue, I asked my priest about that when, when I first started looking into the church and he told me that there is not.
Speaker 1:The basically the Anglican Catholic position on it is that you should not avoid having children in general. So vasectomy is not a good thing, hysterectomy is not a good thing, using contraception all the time, even once you're in a position to have children, not a good thing but also that you know there is something of pleasure to that experience. God created it that way for a reason, and that if you're a husband and a wife, you know you don't. You don't have to be trying for a kid constantly, all the time, just as long as you're not avoiding being fruitful and multiplying. So, like you know, don't have just one kid, don't just have two kids and then stop, but also like don't have 12 kids If you can't afford to have them was kind of where, where.
Speaker 3:I think that's a slippery slope.
Speaker 1:I think that's a slippery slope, but, um, all right. So I will say also one thing that I I think you might appreciate about. I don't know how much you know about Anglo Catholicism, but it actually was a step back, it was a step towards conservatism out of the Episcopal church. So the 1978 Missouri Synod we basically said, okay, ordination of women, that's, that's a bridge too far. We're leaving a lot of things up to pious opinion. But that that's too much. So we're going to step away, we're going to separate, and we, in doing that, maintained our ordination, going back to both Aristobalus of Britain and Augustine.
Speaker 3:So that was kind of the way that we look at it yeah, no, I know, because calvin robinson's a uh, he's like an anglican catholic, so that's what they were. So that's why I was I wanted to get to like. So they started bringing up the branch theory and that's kind of calvin robinson's position, where they it seemed like you really didn't even know where they were going with that like I wasn't familiar with the terminology.
Speaker 3:Yeah, it's basically like it's basically what you're describing, where they try to trace their lineage back to a bishop and say that the catholic church branches off into all these different branches but they still have valid ordinations and things like that. But there is something to even with calvin robinson when he got ord, he wanted to make sure he was ordained by a bishop whose ordination was recognized by the Catholic church. It's like because what it comes down to for me essentially is people can claim whatever they want, but if you don't have a valid priesthood, then even if you claim to believe in the sacraments and stuff like that, you're going to run into problems. Now with Jay, I watched you brought something up to Jay where, um, you even pointed out to him that his bishop or something recognized yeah.
Speaker 3:You're right. And what did he say to that?
Speaker 1:Yeah, I found a document that comes from the Anglican Catholic Church and it basically was going through in 1922 through 1936, I believe, there was a movement within the Orthodox community to decide do we recognize the ordination of the Anglican Church? And this is, of course, before any of the stuff that happened to the Episcopal Church and the Church of England, the Anglican community as a whole church and the church of england, the anglican communion as a whole, and basically unanimously they went yeah, we don't see any problem with the, the ordination process of the anglican church at all. Uh, I so I posted that and it was. It started with the ecumenical patriarch of constantinople and that was, uh, milletios at the time.
Speaker 1:And I posted that and I said, hey, jay, you know, I know, I granted you had me during the bait, the debate, like I'll fully admit that I will cede, you won that debate, but you might find this interesting. And I posted a couple of screenshots from that letter and I think he only read the very first one because he said Maledios was a Freemason and the opinion of one ecumenical patriarch doesn't matter. And then I said well, you really should have read the rest of the thread where it goes through. You know, the patriarch of jerusalem, the patriarch of alexandria, uh, the hierarch of cyprus, the hierarch of romania, they all agreed with this and he just said goodbye and then blocked me yeah, I think.
Speaker 3:I think there's a tendency now. So this is kind of how I see everybody, everybody kind of just wants to disregard what the hierarchy says and just follow their own thing.
Speaker 1:So it's, it's which sounds a lot like branch theory to me, to be honest.
Speaker 3:Yeah, I agree, I think I think jay, as much as he wants to claim the orthodox church is the one true church, sounds to me like he's just a set of a contest. Essentially like he's. He's a set of a contest with a couple of differing opinions. But, um, all right, we'll get off this topic because I it's just whatever. But um what, uh what, unless you got stuff.
Speaker 2:Well, I was curious. So you said you came, you. You first came to um, uh, the method. You know methodism. In college, what like what were you raised as what? What did you grow up in?
Speaker 1:kind of non-denominational but with a Baptist. My stepdad was a Baptist. My mom was a, grew up a Catholic uh, and probably wouldn't call herself a Catholic anymore, but she's just kind of the same kind of thing, like just non-denominational Protestant, um, because it's just, it's not that big. They're like God's a big deal in their lives. They're definitely Christians, they care quite a bit, but the the church structure itself hasn't really mattered. And I've been trying to actually get them to come to church with me.
Speaker 1:Uh, start going back, cause they didn't have the same church to go to and my mom didn't love my stepdad's church. My stepdad didn't want to go to the churches my mom was okay with, so it just was a whole thing. So I was raised non-denominational for all intents and purposes. I went to a lot of different churches. I've been to Catholic masses, I've been to Orthodox masses, I've been to Protestant sermons, just kind of. Once I got to college I was like I think that there's, there's gotta be a way of doing this properly and I decided that I just really liked what John Wesley and Charles Wesley were about.
Speaker 3:Yeah, I think you're going to keep. Look, the reason I don't want to keep pressing you is just cause I don't want to have like an argument or a bait on here. I think you should just keep keep going, Like you, I think if you just keep going and looking back to like how, especially cause you're a history major like if you, if you study the early centuries of catholicism in the catholic church, like you kind of see how, like the kingdom of heaven on earth is very much a part of the gospel and what the church is actually doing is spreading the kingdom on earth. Yeah, so when the church is building those cathedrals, like those cathedrals are meant to be the the kingdom on earth, you know. And and the the pope wearing all of his garb is meant to be the kingdom on earth, you know. And and the pope wearing all of his garb is meant to signify the kingship of Christ and all those things.
Speaker 3:Like the symbolism of Catholicism is unmistakable, and I think even even the non Catholics, like you, watched it during the election of Pope Leo. It's like the whole world was looking to Rome. It's like what the hell is going on here. It's like like, regardless of what any ecumenical patriarch in the East says, or regardless of whatever an Anglican bishop says. Everybody still looks to the Bishop of Rome, including, like the secular West. When Francis was in and he would change something, they'd be like oh that's it. The church has changed. Like everybody's waiting on the Church of Rome to make a decision on things even to this day, and it has a lot to do with how much the Church of Rome played a part in forming the culture we're in today.
Speaker 1:Oh, definitely, and I wouldn't disagree with that at all. I think that what I find attractive about the Anglican position is basically that up until the 1500s we're part of the Catholic church and we we didn't consider ourselves Protestant, that Anglicans don't consider themselves part of the reformation in the same way that Lutherans and Calvinists do, because it wasn't. It really was just about the council of Trent and some of the issues of people supremacy. Well, the Henry VIII was his own thing, Okay.
Speaker 3:We don't look to him.
Speaker 1:We don't look to him we don't look to him yeah, no, but he did start something he did and I and, and then that winds up coalescing in in his successors, with mary coming back in and then elizabeth after her which and elizabeth's interesting because we don't know a ton about what her personal beliefs were it seems like it at that point became a very much, very much a political thing. But I think what I appreciate about the, the philosophy of the time within the Anglican church, was basically then saying like hey, we, our biggest problem here is is the Pope claiming to be just unquestionable in so many aspects. Because if the entire catholic church just follows along with whatever the pope says, then that early church formula of the various bishops being able to have opinions and argue about things and kind of needing to respect the opinions of everybody, if everybody's just in lockstep with the pope, that that kind of takes away.
Speaker 3:the church ever functioned that way, Even after papal supremacy was announced, though there's always, you know, we still have church councils that we come to In anything.
Speaker 2:it's only functioned that way in the last 60 years, yeah.
Speaker 3:It's been a bit rough in the past 60 years, but I don't think even after papal infallibility was declared, things like that, like the church, has never functioned as a total monarchy where the pope just unilaterally makes decisions. Until recent history it's always been, you know, a collegial type thing, and especially when it comes to doctrine and things like that. But you know, the church it really would come down to. Does peter have a special grace given to him to not err? I?
Speaker 2:mean the.
Speaker 1:The anglican position is that there is papal primacy, but that it has gone too far into people, at least as I understand it, uh, but it's gone too far into papal supremacy, where it should basically peter was the the top guy, but an entire church council would overrule a pope, and I think that that's kind of where where things got off the rails and why the Anglican Church came about. Was this this recognition of, even if it wasn't at the point of being total yet, trying to stem that tide and say wait, I think you'll, you'll see, a lot of Anglicans will say that, especially Anglican Catholics will say that they would be, they would welcome communion with Rome and returning to the, the fold of the Roman Catholic Church if a few things were addressed.
Speaker 3:Do you not see the absurdity of that? Though I don't like, we'll come back to you if you do what we want, it's like? No, the seat of Rome is the one who says what you need to do.
Speaker 1:But that's my point. You know that it's. If the seat of Rome is wrong, what are you going to? And we believe it's wrong, I mean.
Speaker 3:Yeah, well, the thing is you are kind of new to the whole, looking even deeper into apostolic Christianity, so keep going. That's all I'm saying. Like just because you feel comfortable in a specific place. Like because what, what it should come down to is the truth, like if something's true or not, it shouldn't come down to, um, I don't like this thing like the, the hardest things in catholicism, like even like you were saying, like the um, uh, the assumption of mary or the immaculate conception, things like that. Like if you, if saying like the, the assumption of Mary or the Immaculate Conception, things like that.
Speaker 3:Like if you, if you think about the churches that don't believe in the Immaculate Conception or the churches that don't believe in the sinlessness of Mary, you look at what, what, the actual fruits of this, of the church's belief that Mary was sinless were, and it is monasticism Right. Belief that Mary was sinless were, and it is monasticism right. So, like the, the idea of holy virginity actually spurts from the belief that Mary was a perpetual virgin. So these monks would go out to the desert and take vows of celibacy and go live out in monasteries and you wind up getting some of the, the most profound, um, uh, the profound understanding of prayer and, uh, just the deepening of the western mind into, into, in theology, things like that. Then, once you break away from that, once you get to the time of the reformation, that's when feminism starts encroaching in and like it. I mean, it's just whatever. I'm not, I'm not a great debater, I'm just saying these are the things that I had actually.
Speaker 3:These are the things that had sparked me, like my thinking along the way. What did you so you got out of college as a history major? What made you start a podcast?
Speaker 1:COVID. I was working a digital marketing job because that was all I could really get. I was waiting to go to grad school. I had actually gotten accepted to Bangor University in Wales. I was going to go get my master's and end up being a professor.
Speaker 1:I was sitting at work my last Friday at work, I think it was, and nothing to do, just scrolling on TikTok on my phone and I saw a video that was like what's a conspiracy theory you 100% believe in but you can't prove. I had been working on a concept for a script, I think, for like a TV show or a novel. I can't remember exactly what I was working on, but it was the idea that, like, the national parks exist because they're a containment area for monsters, and so I made a little stupid tick talk about it. It got 7 million views and so people were like hey, you know, you should start a YouTube channel, you should start talking more about this stuff. And I did that and I at first it was just hey, this is kind of cool, we have extra beer money for for going out to the bar on the weekend, which isn't really something we could even do that much at the time, cause it was June of 2021.
Speaker 1:Um, but no it was like hey, beer, money, cool. And then after a few months it started to grow and then it got to a point where my my best friend and I were like hey, maybe, maybe we can do this, maybe this is something we can actually do as a full-time job. We were both working 40 hours a week at the time, um, and yeah, it just kind of grew. We, we sat down and went is this a risk that we can take? And we decided to go for it and it was the best decision we ever made what was the first one that like blew up, besides that tiktok oh man, um, it was really once we started diving into Um.
Speaker 1:It was really once we started diving into missing 411 stuff, uh, when we were probably a year and a half in um. I can't remember if there was any one big, huge. I have to give so much credit to Wendigoon. I don't know if you've watched any of his stuff, but he took us under his wing and exposed his audience to our stuff and that just kind of all at once in November of I want to say, 2022, just like skyrocketed it Suddenly. We were getting, you know, we, we went from 75 to a thousand subscribers to a hundred thousand in like three weeks. Um, wow, yeah. So it just right place, right time, knowing the right people. Um, I think that was definitely what it was was working with him. But, yeah, after that it was just kind of a steady growth period and trying to do our best and going from being a channel that was just kind of talking about fun, scary stories to basically doing academic research on them.
Speaker 3:So how much time would you guys spend? How often do episodes come out and how much time do you guys spend doing them? Oh God, them.
Speaker 1:Oh god, I. I I'd say probably, probably 80 hours of work goes into each episode between the two of us at least, if, if not 100, really depends on which one?
Speaker 3:what do you put about? Once every other week or something once every week, once a week?
Speaker 1:yeah, so it's usually me doing, me doing about 30 to 50 and my co-host doing about 30 to 50 uh, on either end of it, depending on what we're looking at, like the john benet ramsey stuff, I'll sit there and stare at my screen probably for 70 80 hours writing a script, and then he has to go do the same thing to edit it. Have you guys had any?
Speaker 3:blowouts like video you guys been doing this since 2020 right.
Speaker 1:Have you guys had any 2021?
Speaker 2:2021 have you guys had any arguments, yeah, like big blowouts where you guys are just like.
Speaker 3:I don't know if we can continue with this.
Speaker 1:Honestly no, we trust each other a lot. We've known each other since we were 16. So we're now 27. There have been a few tense moments, I'll say, but most of the arguments we've had have been in our personal life.
Speaker 2:If I knew Anthony when he was 16, that would not have been good.
Speaker 1:If most of the people I know knew me when I was 16, they would not have liked me. I've definitely become a lot more mellow All right, they want me to fight with you.
Speaker 3:Everybody, everybody's telling me they're going to take my man card away. Everybody wants me to get get ruthless with you, all right. Wants me to get get ruthless with you, all right. So bobby asks all right, you guys want me to fight with him? I'll fight with him a little bit. I don't like confrontation on a show that I invited somebody on, but we could do it.
Speaker 3:We disagree on like this much stuff bobby wants to know. By what authority do your bishops declare the successor of peter wrong? Okay, you guys want me to ask questions?
Speaker 1:ask them let's go, we'll fight with our guests, you guys want it yeah, I think that the response to that would be like well, why is? Why is he the valid successor of Peter? Is, if the successor of Peter is saying things that are heretical, is he a valid successor?
Speaker 3:Who declares heresy?
Speaker 1:The church councils the church declares heresy yes.
Speaker 3:The church declares heresy and if they have a valid successor from I mean we say it in the Roman canon like we've had a continuous successors to the chair of Peter since since Peter. So I mean I don't know how you can.
Speaker 1:The manner of succession has changed a number of times. There's been times when there were two popes. There's been times there was a time there were three popes, and then we get times when, like Pope honorius, the first was a an out and out heretic. Um pope alexander the sixth, who we mentioned earlier, you know, wasn't a heretic, but he was a fornicator. So I think I have no issue with that, though, yeah, looking looking at the, the catholic church, and saying like hey, is this, is this person? Is the direction things are going really the way that christ intended it? Because I I think that that's really where the, where the orthodoxy splits off. Where the Anglican split off is, is the chair of Peter and sitting in that seat enough to make somebody the successor of Peter?
Speaker 3:I bet you there's some Catholics that would declare that questionable too. No, but I would say that the church, the catholic church, is the only one who has the ability to call a church council. Right, so, even the orthodox are like they. They try to make the claim that they paused in the 11th century and their liturgy is unchanged and all these things are unchanged. But yeah, but the world has changed a lot and only the catholic church is able to call a council to bring the world's bishops together to address these issues.
Speaker 2:I think what you mean when you say that only the Catholic Church is able to. I think you're really saying only the Catholic Church has successfully done so since the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Right, Because I think the Orthodox would say they could, but yet they haven't, they could not call a world council I, I agree, I agree with you, but they would, I think they would claim otherwise is that because they can't?
Speaker 1:or because, if they did, the catholic bishops wouldn't attend? Um modern bishops probably would attend that's the thing is like if if leo the 14th said hey, we're pulling together an ecumenical council, we want constantinople there, we want canterbury they did want missouri. There they did go in the second vatican council there were.
Speaker 3:There were eastern patriarchs at the second vatican council, so it's like so they have a vote though I don't know if they were voting members. But that's not really how a council works either. It's not like it's not a democracy. It's more like documents are produced from the council and then the Pope will sign off on them after the.
Speaker 2:after the college of bishops. The college of bishops sign off on also sign off on them.
Speaker 3:There has to be agreement upon what they're putting forth. But that's the thing. It's like the times where the church actually, where the Pope actually acts in the manner you're saying, where he's spouting heresy, like that would be, when the Pope is speaking infallibly is very, very rare, and when he's speaking ex cathedra, so from the chair, and he's saying this is binding on all the Christian faithful. So now, if you don't have that position in the church, how can there be unity? It's like cause.
Speaker 3:I like Jonathan Peugeot a lot, but he's always talking about hierarchy and how things kind of work up and they have to cut Like if Christ doesn't have a prime minister upon the earth who does get to say this is heresy, this is not. Like I don't see how any ecclesiology outside of Roman Catholicism could actually work. And when I say Roman Catholicism, I don't mean the Latin church, I just mean with the Pope as head of the government, you know, as the governing body over the entire church. It kind of it then comes down to oh, we don't like what the Pope says, so we're going to break off and start our own thing. I'm not saying you don't have a closer relationship to historical Christianity as an Anglo-Catholic, of course you do than a modern evangelical, because modern evangelicals, that theology is literally 100 years old. But I don't know how you can justify just saying well, I don't agree with this thing, so we're going to go start our own thing.
Speaker 1:I mean, I guess I can understand where you're coming from, but at the same time, do you understand the Protestant position that if the Catholic Church, under the Pope, says something that really seems to be at the very least improper, if not heretical, why should we respect that office? I mean, if the Pope were to, can you think?
Speaker 3:of something offhand that you could Give me an example on that. As a heresy that you think that the Pope is.
Speaker 1:The current Pope? I can't think of one, but, like I said, anoreous monothelitism right, okay, uh, but his successor corrected that right? Yes, exactly. But what if he had declared ex cathedra what, what he did, but, but what? But if he had? That's my point is, and even and even honorius.
Speaker 3:I don't know. I don't know the history of Honorius too well, but I don't know. I think his was. I'm pretty sure it was more just like a conceding to keep for the sake of unity type of thing, but he didn't pronounce it or anything. I don't know Honorius that well. Yeah, he wouldn't declare it ex cathedra. I got Tim Gordon texting me but he could, you know, no, but he wouldn't declare it ex cathedra.
Speaker 1:I got Tim Gordon texting me, but he could you know.
Speaker 3:No but he couldn't. Yes, that's the claim, right. So the Catholic position is that the office, like the claiming, the Pope has infallibility when speaking ex cathedra is not saying the Pope can declare anything to be doctrine, it's saying that. God prevents him from proclaiming a heresy Right.
Speaker 2:It's a negative charism.
Speaker 1:And that just doesn't do it for me. I don't know what to tell you. Beside that, it's just saying that it can't happen. Because it can't happen is circular reasoning. Well, it hasn't. That's why I'm saying it can't happen because god prevents it but god didn't prevent the college of cardinals from electing multiple popes who were flagrant sinners yeah, but that's not what.
Speaker 3:That's not what we claim like you can have. That's. The point is that you can have a guy like pope alexander the six, who clearly had um, uh, had mistresses and he had children out of wedlock and all these things, but what he wasn't doing is changing church teaching to suit his lifestyle. Sure, but again.
Speaker 1:somebody who is representative of Christ on earth should be as Christlike as possible, and like with Irvin too, he was literally insane.
Speaker 3:They elected an insane man. We've had gay pedophiles as popes, but they didn't change.
Speaker 1:The teaching of the church is the point Until they did, and that's when things like the Council of Trent come about and the Anglicans go OK, no.
Speaker 3:OK, so if the church council like Trent, because you said the church councils are the ones who claim heresy.
Speaker 1:The Protestants weren't given a vote there. The Protestants didn't have a say at the Council of Trent.
Speaker 3:The whole point of the Council of Trent was to correct the Protestant errors. But it was still a valid church council, right?
Speaker 1:So like, I understand that, but if you're, if you're going to have a council and say, hey, we need to discuss these things, and then you don't give the people who are arguing with you a say that's not.
Speaker 3:They address their arguments specifically, though.
Speaker 1:Like. That's what the Council of.
Speaker 3:Trent is is addressing the Protestant arguments specifically and saying this you, if you believe this, you are cursed. Right, so so, but like even you as an Anglo-Catholic right Like well, that's a good question.
Speaker 1:Why? Why is our ordination declared invalid? Our ordination?
Speaker 3:declared invalid? I actually think there's. Isn't there a document specifically saying from the Catholic Church that the Anglican ordinations are invalid?
Speaker 1:Yes. I can't remember it off the top of my head, if I remember correctly, it came about in the 1560s and the reasoning was that we took out the submissiveness to the Pope. That bishops must be subservient to the Pope. That's about all.
Speaker 3:I believe that wouldn't invalidate their ordination though, because the Orthodox ordinations are still valid and their sacraments are still valid.
Speaker 2:It was actually Leo XIII in 1896, and the papal apostolate curé concluded that Anglican ordinations were absolutely null and utterly void due to defects in the form and intention of the Anglican ordination rite, particularly following changes made during the Reformation.
Speaker 1:I very much love Leo XIII because he's always extremely vague.
Speaker 2:I bet the document is more specific.
Speaker 3:I'm sure if you've read the document, it's not that big.
Speaker 1:I have read his uh. I was it him that did inhumanum genus? Uh, or was that pious, uh, whichever one, when?
Speaker 1:when pope leo generous yeah, uh, when that's yeah, that that's that's the one I was thinking of for when they originally banned freemasonry. But when Pope Leo XIII comes along and reaffirms the papal ban on Freemasonry, his reasoning came entirely from a con artist who lied to him and everything he said was like all of these things, and then he didn't actually give examples and evidence. More from a a logical point of view than a theological point of view is I. I need to see the explanation of why something is wrong, not just we decided this is wrong. And I think that that's the way a lot of Protestants feel is. There's a lot of church decisions that they just say and we have declared this anathema, and then they don't explain why I would take the opposite approach.
Speaker 3:I would say that the church is actually very thorough in explaining why those things are wrong.
Speaker 2:So, for instance, in the papal bull about the Anglican ordination, there was two main reasons given. One is that the Anglican Rite of Reformation, as revised during the Reformation, removed the references to the priest's role in offering the Eucharistic sacrifice, in other words, removed the references to the priest's role in offering the Eucharistic sacrifice, in other words, removed the references to the role in offering it as a propitiatory sacrifice.
Speaker 2:And then the second was that there was not enough elaboration to signify the order being conferred in the ordination. So in the Catholic ordination it is specific whether that person is being ordained a deacon, priest or bishop. And it was judged that the Anglican Rite lacked that specificity.
Speaker 1:But we do have deacons, priests and bishops.
Speaker 2:Right.
Speaker 3:It says that the phrase— it's the same reason why they call deacons fathers in the anglican church, like like father calvin robinson was father calvin robinson when he was just a deacon interesting.
Speaker 1:Yeah, to be honest, I'm I'm too new to it to really argue on that, on the finer points of it um, hang on, let me just say, uh, um, okay, so what?
Speaker 3:uh, what is your position? What is your take on? Have you ever read the ultima nida? I can't say that I have. You've never read the ultimate. Indeed, rob, bring the ultimate nida, because I I've heard you say um that catholics oh yeah I didn't know by that name.
Speaker 1:But yeah, I, I've read some of it. It's, it's nonsense. It's not masonic, it was created by the church you think the ultimate data was created by the church and not by, not by freemasons unless, hang on, I might be mistaking it with something else, but ah, yes, it's the 100-year plan to get their own guy in, essentially so that's the thing.
Speaker 1:Freemasonry never had a problem with the Catholic Church Like actual, to this day regular Freemasonry, which is mainly just the United States, canada and Britain, has no problem with the Catholic Church. There's no ban on Catholics, there's no. There was actually a ban on discussion of religion in the lodge and the discussion of politics in the lodge. What the, what the Illuminati and the French Masons and and, to an extent, the Italian Masons were doing in the the 18 and 1900s actually is why we denounced them as a group. So, and like I said on on the show last night, if I come to a point where I see something that is essential to freemasonry, that is a core doctrine of freemasonry, not just, you know, personal opinion about something that were to contradict christianity, I I would walk away, I would leave in a heartbeat, I think I think the god rob I was just gonna say I do think, um, there is a conflation between, like english and scottish right freemasonry with, like the oriental lodges yeah um, now I I would say that the, the, the big problems with the oriental lodges are still somewhat there in in the, the english and scottish right, sort sort of I'm in the scottish right for that
Speaker 2:yeah, um, but in, in terms of those who you know were responsible for, say, a lot of the, the violence against the church, and like the french revolution, yeah, and in, you know, the italian freemasons that, like garibaldi and those who fought against the church, those, yeah, those are the Oriental Lodges and they are the extremists in a sense.
Speaker 1:I take a much more hardline stance on this than most Freemasons that I know, in that I don't think that Oriental Lodges should be recognized as Masonic at all. I think that anything that isn't in perfect lockstep with the English branch basically is wrong, almost in a very similar way to the way Catholics view Protestantism. I don't think that the French lodges are Masonic, because Masonry has a few core requirements. You have to believe in a God. The French don't require that. You have to be a man. The French don't require that. You're not allowed to talk about politics or religion in the lodge. The French actually encourage you to foment insurrection in the lodge. All of that is disgusting to me and I hate it For me.
Speaker 1:What I like about Freemasonry is the stuff that goes back really far. I think that after the year 1800, things kind of went off the rails. I think that the people who deny that the Illuminati influence remained within Freemasonry and that it permeated are insane. I think that that's exactly what the Scottish Rite is. I think that most Freemasons probably don't realize how bad the things they're involved in are. But on the other hand, if you're going to become a member of the Commandery, the Knights Templar and Freemasonry you must be a Trinitarian Christian. So there's a very stark difference between the kind of almost more universalist I wouldn't say Gnostic, but universalist position of the Scottish right, as opposed to the explicitly Trinitarian viewpoint of the York right.
Speaker 3:As opposed to the explicitly Trinitarian viewpoint of the York Rite To me even the idea of secret societies and stuff like that are. I don't know enough about this, but I would think this is why the church was condemning them. For hundreds of years. The Catholic Church has been condemning Freemasonry yes, in 1788. The Catholic church has been condemning Freemasonry yes, the the. The idea that Protestants would like would mock the rituals of Catholicism and then go into these secret societies and then have their own rituals. It just seems so like contradictory to me.
Speaker 1:I'm curious what you mean about mockery.
Speaker 3:The Protestants in general don't like. I'm talking about american protestants, I'm not talking about like anglican and stuff like that, like american protestantism. They don't like liturgical christianity, but then they came here, like the puritans came here and they started all these secret societies with it and doing all these rituals behind closed doors. But I think ritual is actually inherent in humanity, like God made us to perform rituals and stuff like that. But I mean, I just, I just know the church has explicitly condemned Freemasonry for the past 300 years or so.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and and, to be honest, in a in a weird way. Like I said, if if I found Freemasonry to be in contradiction with my Christian faith, I would walk away immediately. But in a weird way, one of my biggest issues with Catholicism has come through the way that they have responded to Freemasonry over the years for it. But what Pius wrote in 1738, if you read it, his reasoning is literally just they meet in secret, therefore they must be doing evil and perverse things. But in reality it was a membership only organization. You couldn't be in it if you. You couldn't come into a meeting if you weren't a member. It wasn't that they were deliberately keeping secrets from each other or from the outside world. It was like this is a membership society that helps each other do things, that discusses things that are kind of close to the best for the members, things that you know might be private. And so we you can't come into the lodge if you're not a member, because the lodge does things with its money, like to support each other.
Speaker 3:So why would you be able to just walk in, you would take an issue with the, the documents where the church was trying to say we like, we view the Muslims with esteem, and things like that. So you're like, adamant that Muslim, I agree, muslims do not worship God. But then you'll. You're like adamant that muslim, I agree, muslims do not worship god, they don't um. But then you'll, you're in. You're a freemason where you're specifically in a group that's saying like, because they push human fraternity, like amongst like, you're not allowed. So how, how do you have that contradiction? That and that like, you want to be part of a christian church that that explicitly says the muslims don't worship god.
Speaker 1:Then you're I don't know, oh no. I think that is a major contradiction within Freemasonry that developed later on. When, in 1723, the Masonic Constitution comes about and it says that Freemasonry is open to all faiths. I think that there's something very important to recognize about that. I think that there's something very important to recognize about that. All faiths for practical purposes in England in 1723, was Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism. That was why they opened up to all faiths was because they were in the midst of a severe series of civil conflicts over the Protestant and Catholic positions. So what they were doing is saying, hey, we're not going to let whether or not we're Protestant or Catholic divide us, because we're all Christians.
Speaker 1:Over time, as the diversity of religion grew, there were probably some moments where Freemasonry should have stopped and said no, we're not going to let Hindus in. No, we're not going to let Muslims in, no, we're not going to let Norse pagans in. And I think I can't. There are things I can't defend about the way modern Freemasonry operates in a lot of ways. There are a lot of people I know through Masonry who are good people, but I don't think that they belong in Freemasonry. I think that they are bringing things into it that they want to see justified, when in reality that's not what Freemasonry was supposed to be about. It was supposed to be a group of Christian men working together in concert to both keep each other safe and provide for one another in times of hardship, and to also go out and do charity and to work together to better their communities. I think that was the original intention and we've fallen away from that. So as far as Freemasonry goes, I'm a reformist.
Speaker 3:You're a Protestant Freemason, I'm a Protestant Freemason. Yeah, In a way. Yeah.
Speaker 1:And I've gotten to a point recently where I feel like if I get through and this really is where I'm sitting on it If I get through up through Knights Templar, and I'm sitting up there, the tippy top of that chain of Freemasonry, and I look down and I see that there's no hope for it, I'll walk away. That's kind of how I felt for years.
Speaker 3:Christian Marion wants to know if you'll debate Freemasonry with him.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I'd be willing to.
Speaker 3:Yeah, I don't know. Oh, man, I don't know.
Speaker 1:I think Albert Pike was the worst thing to ever happen to Freemasonry.
Speaker 2:He was a weird one.
Speaker 1:Yeah, he's a weird, weird, incredible scholar, by the way, like as far as ethnography goes, like it as as an ant I this is like an ancient anthropologist term, but as as an anthropologist basically incredibly important figure, very important in recording. I think it was the language of, I want to say it was the seminoles, some of the Muskogee and Creek languages. We know a lot of what we know because of Albert Pike but at the same time he got way too into the feeder kid aspect of Freemasonry and forgot that you're supposed to be a Christian and he does say. He says I'm a Christian, he says I believe in God. He's just a little too into the mysticism, a little too into the mysticism.
Speaker 3:What's your, uh, what's? Your position on uh what's your position on the?
Speaker 1:people of the old covenant being involved in free masonry. Um I, I haven't had any issues with any of them.
Speaker 3:No well, I mean a lot of people are saying that it's very cabalist, Like so.
Speaker 1:I think that has more to do with Christians, Christian mysticism, than it does Jewish influence. Looking back through it, like like Albert Pike, when he talks about Kabbalah he's talking about Christian Kabbalah, which of course is based upon Jewish Kabbalah, but he wasn't doing it as like Judaism is you know, like Christian Christianity is wrong Judaism is, you know, like Christian Christianity is wrong, Judaism is right. Kabbalah, all of that, it was kind of the extension of it. So I don't think that the, the changes to Freemasonry are the result of Jewish influence so much as Christian mystic.
Speaker 3:And I, I just see, uh, I see the oh man, we can't do this on this side. We'll have to do this on the other side, because we'll talk about world events too. I think all of us are pretty disgusted with what we're seeing happening in the world right now, so we can probably agree on that.
Speaker 3:All right, guys, have you got a couple last questions before we jump over to locals? Yeah, it was. The thing is we wanted to have Aiden on just to shoot the crap at him before the debate, just to talk about his podcast and stuff, and then the debate happened. I do think that Tim Gordon did really the best out of the three of you on that debate. I think you were kind of outmatched. You didn't know what you were getting yourself into. I think you were kind of outmatched. You didn't really. You didn't know what you were getting yourself into.
Speaker 3:I think Jay jumped in way too deep and got way too esoteric to even make the the, the conversation like cognizable for the average person watching. But Jay does that when he debates and then you know that's just because we've had Jay on twice and I refuse to have a discussion about orthodoxy with him Cause I know it'll just get like that. But I think Tim came out looking like he actually understood the arguments the best and had the best replies for everything. And I think that Jay purposely chose the hardest things for a Catholic like Tim, who's tradition minded to defend those positions. So let's see if we got any quick questions before we go. Does Aiden know that the Dictatus Pape was never an official document of the church and has stuff that Catholics don't believe in and have never believed in?
Speaker 1:I'd say it was never an official document. I feel like is is a cop out. It was. It was put together is a cop out. It was put together by Gregory VII. It was the positions he held. While the document itself wasn't published, most of the stuff in it was in other encyclicals and indexes and papal documents. So, yes, the Dictatus Papae itself wasn't published as it stands in I think like 27 articles.
Speaker 3:But most of those articles were published elsewhere. All right, let's see if you guys got any others before we jump to the other side, because I want to talk. I want to talk about the war that we seem to be getting pushed into right now.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I'm draft age. Yeah to right now. Yeah, um, I'm draft age. Yeah, yeah, I'm, uh, I'm getting closer to not being.
Speaker 3:I'm gonna be 28 in a few months, oh, all, right, bobby's got one. Uh, what's the point of the hidden teachings and veiled symbolism restricted to masons if it's just supposed to be a christian fraternity like? It sounds to me like you were saying like, uh, what freemasonry was supposed to be? Just sounds like you guys should all just been catholic, and that's exactly what you had.
Speaker 1:I think to an extent the reason freemasonry became possible, popular, was because it was a way for christians to meet. While you weren't supposed to discuss religion as an official business of the lodge inside of the lodge, like building building you could meet as Protestant and Catholic and talk about things. Um, so it was a way to kind of keep, keep the faith together, even with that that split going on, which is probably more popular with Protestants than it is with Catholics. But when the organization began around 1400, in the uh, the Regius poem, it's an explicitly Catholic document. Everybody, everybody, was still Catholic at the time. Um, so what they say is that, you know, a Mason must love God and the Holy church with all his heart. It's a very explicitly Christian fraternity at the time and a lot of that, the symbolism and everything wasn't supposed to be hidden or secret.
Speaker 1:Uh, it was more a matter of, was more a matter of teaching lessons. Without just teaching lessons, everything in masonry is a play. All of the degrees and everything are just play acting that is meant to teach a lesson about such and such thing. And at least in the York Rite I haven't done the Scottish Rite stuff, I've read some of it, but in the York Rite, there was nothing in it that wasn't purely based in the Bible. Most of it's based around the Temple of Solomon. Actually and I saw that on the screen my grandfather was a third degree knight of Columbus. Realistically, for me, it's like I think it's a little silly to join the Catholic version of the thing that already exists. It's like I think it's a little silly to join the catholic version of the thing that already exists. I would prefer to see masonry return to its roots and be the be the organization it was meant to be, rather than be something weird, which is what it's become all right, all right, we're gonna go over to the other side.
Speaker 3:Um, yeah, I'm sorry. Sorry, we didn't have a fight over here, guys. I know you guys were all hoping I'm not gonna invite somebody on my show and have a fight over here. Guys, I know you guys were all hoping for that. I'm not going to invite somebody on my show and have a fight. It's different if you set it as a debate, but we specifically said we weren't having a debate tonight. We were just having a moment to talk. Yeah we all know what our positions are None of us are theologians.
Speaker 3:Yeah well, especially because you are kind of just delving into apostolic Christianity and you've found the Anglican Catholic communion, that's just where you are right now. I don't think you'll stay there. I think you're going to have to see the preposterous nature of breaking away from Rome always kind of devolves into sign. You'll see it like even within the Anglican community it's like oh well, they went too far, let's go start our own group. Oh well, they went too far, let's go start our own group. And that can only go on for so long, like it.
Speaker 1:There has to be a final authority in the end there is a conservative movement in the Episcopal church right now and I was talking to somebody about it and I was like, well, why not, instead of trying to reform the Episcopal Church from the inside, why not everybody switch over to the Anglican Church, the Anglican Catholic Church, and just overwhelm them with numbers?
Speaker 3:Well, that's my position on the Catholic.
Speaker 1:Church. I guess the Episcopal Church has a really good job of like keeping everything it owns.
Speaker 3:You should check out the Anglican ordinary and if you like the, if you like the, the, the patrimony.
Speaker 3:Yeah, yeah, the Anglican patrimony. Check out the Anglican ordinary. It's like the best of both worlds. You get to be in communion with Rome and keep all of the things you like about the Anglican Catholic communion communion with Rome and keep all of the things you like about the Anglican Catholic communion. But all right, we're going to go over to the other side, guys. Go to recusencesellerscom. Use code BASE at checkout for 10% off. They have a fine assortment of wines and fruit over there. They're our sponsor. We love them. You have an obligation to support Catholic businesses that support us.
Speaker 2:I don't care, it's a mortal sin to not buy wine from them. To clarify what Anthony just said you should support Catholic businesses. You don't have an obligation to support them. That support us.
Speaker 3:No, you do. Don't listen to Rob. He's always trying to undermine our grift. Don't listen to him. All right, we're going to go over to locals If you guys want to come over there. I want to talk about current events.
Speaker 2:So we'll see you guys over on the other side, take us out, rob, okay I'm just going to remove the streams here for those we don't need.
Speaker 3:Give me just a moment. Yeah, I knew we were going to catch crap from everybody on that one. They want. They wanted us to like go for your jugular, but it's like I don't, I just didn't want to do that I don't know why so many catholics online seem to think that you can convert protestants by being mean to them but that's, that's kind of the point. It's like and it's not gonna work, it's not and I don't. I don't know if those conversations are even like fruitful for anybody like our audience is all catholic.
Speaker 3:They all agree with us. Like you're kind of preaching to the choir, and actually that that is my girlfriend.
Speaker 1:I'm guessing she's just gotten home, which is perfect timing. God, do you think that's really quick?
Speaker 3:yeah um, the uh, yeah, he's got to go open the open the door for his girl. Um, I had tim gordon texting me the whole time. He's like uh, saying the same thing. We were that a pope wouldn't declare that ex cathedra. Then he said St John Damascus, st Thomas Aquinas Pope, st Gregory VII, all said Islam worships the one God. So that's the thing. The way those documents are worded are annoying. But they but, because they are a bit vague. But yes, islam worships one god, but they don't worship the one god and it's like they don't even worship.
Speaker 2:You know what I mean.
Speaker 3:Like they don't offer sacrifice but they're monotheists, right, in a natural sense they don't believe in, they're not like, uh, they're not polytheists.
Speaker 2:So okay, fine, they worship one god, but I don't believe the jews worship the triune god like, like I get the whole philosophy, philosophy aspect of it, where if there is only one god, then anyone who is giving worship to what they believe is one God then has to be giving worship to the one God. But how is that possible if everything they do is demonic?
Speaker 3:Demonic and they're giving attributes to God that he doesn't have Right Like they're claiming he has attributes that he just doesn't have. It's like. It's insane to me. So I get what the church was trying to do.
Speaker 2:And it would have been better if they had said something like the Muslims and the Jews attempt to worship the one God or, you know, intend to worship the one God, or something like that.
Speaker 3:Yeah, whatever, I don't want to discuss council documents tend to worship the one God or something like that. Yeah, whatever, I don't want to discuss council documents. Yeah, when he comes back, I do want to talk about. I want to talk about Israel and what the mess that they're getting us into, because I'm just like beside myself.
Speaker 2:It will be interesting to get his opinion Cause, like obviously, you and I have long, well, not long ago, but we've come around to well, I don't know how to describe it. What many people would describe as anti-semitism, you know, but what is someone who is more normie in that regard? What do they think about what?
Speaker 3:yeah, because I think that. I think that israel is the the kingdom of satan on earth at this point. So I want to see I want to see what he thinks.
Speaker 2:Tim gordon giving me crap on twitter see I'll be like, I'll be honest, like so I enjoy his channel, right, I enjoy watching his channel. I enjoyed the content he makes when it's about the missing people and stuff like that. Yeah, it's entertaining. That's what I watch it for. I would have never said we should have a monitor.
Speaker 3:Well, no, look, the thing is I I didn't want it to be a, uh, an argument the whole time, because I'm hoping the conversation leads to something that sparks his, sparks, his thought process that he's never thought of before. You know, it's like so okay, he's back. I didn't want it to just be us arguing with him the whole episode. You know, yeah, um, I and aiden, I am curious what? What is your? What is your Like? Because I'm seeing a lot of younger guys Starting to come around on the Israel question and starting to see how Israel seems to be the one Provoking us into all of these foreign conflicts. Like I do see that you want nothing to do with war with Iran. Are you Like, is your position that Israel is getting us into? That Is your position? You just don't want us in foreign wars? Do you think, like, do you support Israel's right to do this? Where are you at with that question? You're muted.
Speaker 1:For as long as I can remember, as long as I've really been a conscious adult, as far as politics goes, I was a lot more involved in politics in college. I was vice president of college Republicans for a hot minute. Um, as far as politics goes, I was a lot more involved in politics in college. I was vice president of uh, college Republicans for a hot minute. I got impeached for calling a neo-Nazi gay somehow, Um, but I was vice president of college Republicans. I was president of young Americans for Liberty. So I was very involved back then and I had a very firm stance that foreign wars are bad. We should not be sending our military anywhere unless we're actually threatened. So I think the Iraq war was a mistake. I think Afghanistan was a mistake. I can't really think of a war we've been in in my lifetime that wasn't a massive error.
Speaker 1:With this one specifically. This is the first time that I've really been able to see a Middle Eastern war developing in real time, because the Syrian war was ending as I was getting into college. What I'm seeing now is I understand Israel is scared of Iran having a nuclear weapon. I get that. If if we were next to Iran and they were chanting death to America, I would be terrified. At the same time, that doesn't mean that America needs to be involved. If Israel wants to go in and hit Iran, that's a regional conflict. The second we get involved, it's a global conflict. We don't need that. If Israel can keep around from getting a nuclear weapon on their own, why do we need to be involved?
Speaker 1:I think that it's just an escalation. It's just going to see the same thing, potentially worse than what happened in Ukraine, where that war should have been over years ago. I mean, the UN should have come in and said hey guys, let's have a referendum and end this. Do you guys want to be part of Russia or Ukraine? Okay, cool, make your decision. It's over. That should have happened years ago and I think with Iran and Israel right now, I don't know what Israel's motivation is here beyond taking out their nuclear capabilities. I understand wanting to get rid of the Ayatollah and and get rid of Islamic rule of Iran, especially because Persia is such an ancient and beautiful country. I mean the history of Persia is so rich and from a Christian perspective, I mean Cyrus was the one who sent Daniel and the Israelites back to Israel to rebuild the temple. Like Persia should be our friend. You know, even if they're not christian, they they were a friend to the, the abrahamic faith and prior to the mongols, they were christian.
Speaker 1:They were at the heart of a lot of christians there of a huge christian civilization so we're. We have no reason to be fighting with them, aside from islam and israel's handling that on their own. Why do we need to be involved?
Speaker 3:Well, the thing is they, they make it. They make it as if this is a war against Islam, but in reality, it's the Christians who suffer there, right? So before we went into Iraq, there was a very big Christian population in Iraq that got completely decimated. After we went over there, the same thing happened in Syria. They told us all these things about Bashar al-Assad, and as soon as Assad got out, the new guy that came in literally went around murdering all the Christians. Assad said the only ones you could actually trust were the Christians.
Speaker 1:It's kind of crazy how, every time we kicked out the secular ruler of an Arab country or a Middle Eastern country, they started murdering.
Speaker 3:Christians. It's Christians that wind up getting killed. From a theological standpoint, there is enmity between Jews and Christians right so like you guys were arguing and I did this on locals because I don't want anybody putting it out there on you, Like nobody's trying to get you I know.
Speaker 1:I'm already taking flack because Sam Cedar took 30 seconds of stuff I said and misrepresented it to his audience.
Speaker 3:So yeah, no, well, from a theological standpoint, like because my thinking on this whole topic has really changed over the last few years, I mean, if you were to talk to me five, 10 years ago, I'd have been. I mean, I, I supported the war in Iraq. I freaking Israel's the only democracy in the Middle East. But theologically understanding this issue, it's really come down to seeing it like through scripture and seeing how every single story in scripture is about the birthright supposed to go to the older brother and then it winds up going to the younger brother. So it's like, and it's just this same pattern happens throughout scripture, over and over, even when jesus is telling the the parable of um, not even the power, yeah, the parable of the of the um prodigal, the prodigal son, right, so the prodigal son is the younger brother, goes off and spends all his stuff, his birthright comes back and the father throws a party from. The older brother is the one that's upset with them. You have cain kills abel. Yeah, it's about jacob and esau every single one of these.
Speaker 3:It's about the father giving it to the youngest brother, or the younger brother, the one who wasn't supposed to get the birthright, and that actually happens with the gent brother, or the younger brother, the one who wasn't supposed to get the birthright, and that actually happens with the Gentiles. Get the new covenant right Now. That story plays out in real time and after the Ascension, and the Gentiles now claim the God of Abraham, isaac and Jacob has blessed us with the covenant and there's this enmity between Jews and Christians for 2000 years.
Speaker 1:And yeah, I mean I said on Tim cast IRL the default position of the church in the middle ages was antisemitism Like it was, and it went the other way around as well.
Speaker 3:It had to be, though like the idea of and I'm not going to get into like the, the conspiracy stuff of they control this, they control that. It's not even about that. It's like, since they have gotten a foothold in Israel, what they have done is infiltrate countries and like managed to set this thing up in Israel. That's dragged every single nation into war in their land, and it seems to me like what they're trying to do is set up a davidic kingdom, like a kingdom bigger than the davidic kingdom, which is kind of like what herod did. Herod went and he actually expanded the herodian empire bigger than david did, and it's just what it seems like to. I'm talking on a theological level here. I'm not even trying to get into conspiracy.
Speaker 1:Well, I believe that they. I believe the jew, jewish position is that the Messiah will be a human king, not God and man as one. Yeah, so that might have something. They don't have a Davidic king, they don't have somebody to fill that role. So I don't understand what's going on over there, what the thought process is. I wonder if it's just about like restoring the old, what they believe should be the true Israel.
Speaker 3:I'm just watching everything Trump's doing and I'm like I voted for this guy. I was so excited I remember being so freaking excited that like, oh, he's got Tulsi Gabbard in there and he's got he's got RFK Jr in there and we're're gonna get all these changes and every single freaking thing he has done has been dick cheney. It's like. It's like you, literally, no matter who you vote for, you get dick cheney and it's just none of his. None of the things he said he was gonna do has he done. They have any? I'm still whatever. It's just to watch him then talk. He ran on ending the war between Ukraine and Russia. He ran on ending the hostility between Israel and Iran and he gets in. Ukraine and Russia are blowing up even worse and now we're starting a war with Ukraine and I don't see how this doesn't end catastrophically, with the entire world at war soon.
Speaker 1:I don't know. I don't know what the goal is. I mean it's. I genuinely don't understand. I don't, I cannot. I'll give this to you guys. Sorry about dispensationalism, our bad.
Speaker 3:Probably should have nipped that one in the bud, but I don't know if the average like american who is like into politics, understands how much of our foreign policy is based on retarded protestant theology like evangelical dispensationalist theology like that that we are being dragged into this crap because like uh, what's his name's uh text to to trump um like, bring that up bring that freaking.
Speaker 3:Bring that off. It is complete insanity. If you guys have not seen this, it's um, I'll look for it. Just keep talking. Um, no, I have it. Hang on. Uh, here it is, I got it. Um, this is mike huckabee trump's uh, uh, m, m, m emissary to israel, or whatever the hell he is.
Speaker 3:Mr president, god spared you in butler pa, to be the most consequential president in a century, maybe ever. The decisions on your shoulders I would not want to be made by anyone else. You have made many voices speaking to you, sir, but there is only one voice that matters, his voice. I am your appointed servant in this land and I'm available for you, but I do not try to get in your presence often because I trust your instincts. No president in my lifetime has been in a position like yours, not since Truman in 1945. No president in my lifetime has been in a position like yours, not since Truman in 1945. I reach out to persuade. I don't reach out to persuade you, only to encourage you. I believe you will hear from heaven, and that voice is far more important than mine or anyone else's.
Speaker 3:You sent me to Israel to be your eyes, ears and voice and to make sure our flag flies above our embassy. My job is to be the last one to leave. I will not abandon this post. Our flag will not come down. You did not seek this moment. The moment sought you. It is my honor to serve you, mike Huckabee. Mike Huckabee, who wants the third temple in Jerusalem built, because these people think that if the third temple is built, the Antichrist will come and they will be raptured into heaven before the great uh, uh. What is it? The freaking tribulation? The great tribulation?
Speaker 1:yeah it's very funny. When I was, I took an entire 400 level college course on uh, on the book of revelation, and it was taught by an orthodox christian. He was not a priest, but he was an orthodox scholar. I pretty universally agreed throughout the class upon doing a reading of it and going through everything that pre-tribulation rapture is not in there. No, yeah, uh, you can't get it from the text. You have to read things into it. It's not a real concept. It wasn't something in something in Christianity until like 1870, something I genuinely don't understand why, why this is so pervasive in the United States, but it's definitely the problem and that's what I said on Tim cast too is I was like this this whole thing comes from a very specific form of uniquely American Protestantism. Um, and unfortunately I don't know if there's a way to put the genie back in the bottle.
Speaker 3:I don't either. I think like if you go back and you read the early church fathers, they talk about how, when the Antichrist does come, there will be throngs of heretics awaiting his arrival, thinking they are following Christ Like there's going to, and I don't know, man, the stuff with trump kind of scares me also, that you know he's sitting there reading that text from mike being, like this guy's, gay.
Speaker 1:It's such a weird that that it makes me think of like it's almost like a Lord of the Rings, like Wormtongue talking to Saruman level of psychopathy. It feels uncomfortable to hear that and to hear a president described that way.
Speaker 3:Watching like every single politician come out when they it's like it's. It's this crazy evangelical support for israel that gives them like a bloodlust. Like they, they want to see the war escalate so bad. Bill mitchell, why do I support israel? It's simple genesis 12 3. I will bless those who bless you.
Speaker 1:Like these people are nuts, as if and they really think that they're talking about the modern geopolitical state of israel too. Yeah, it's, he's talking. That's about the modern geopolitical state of Israel too. Yeah, that's about the church.
Speaker 1:Yes, and it doesn't matter how many times you tell them that and this is a position I held when I was a Methodist Like this is something I've held for years that Israel in the New Testament is very obviously the church. It wasn't even Israel as a nation at the time, it was Judea, it was Judah before that a nation. At the time, it was judea, it was judah before that. I mean, israel was not a thing after like 720 something, dc.
Speaker 3:What was israel like? What were the jews doing in that initial diaspora? Like where? Because it's it's interesting that, like you don't really hear about them popping up into, like the like around the reformation, like that whole period between when they get thrown out of jerusalem to the reformation you like do you mean after the barkovka revolt in the 120s, or that?
Speaker 2:what? What do I?
Speaker 1:think so, yeah, after after 133 ad, okay, yeah, so yeah, I mean the roman. That's the funny thing too, is it's all I? I don't say this in next company, because I know how it'll sound, but from a from a theological standpoint. Like you look at it, jesus comes, he does his work, he dies, he's crucified, he dies, he rises from the dead and then, about 35 years later, rome smacks the shit out of the Jews yeah.
Speaker 1:And then another seven years later, they do it again. And how do you like? How, as an Israelite, as a Jew living in the first century and the second century, how do you not sit there and go? Hmm well, the Christians are everywhere and we're just getting our ass handed to us by Rome repeatedly. It doesn't seem like God's on our side. Maybe we were wrong to deny the Messiah.
Speaker 3:Maybe that was the time to come around.
Speaker 1:So I don't get that. But yeah, to answer your question about what was going on, the Romans did not really persecute the Jews beyond kicking them out of Israel, because the Jews would offer. Uh, this is a really interesting little bit of minutiae about how Christianity and Judaism were perceived differently in the early, the early period of the church. Rome did not have a problem with Judaism, even though Jews would not sacrifice to the emperor and to the roman gods, because they were sacrificing to their god on behalf of the roman emperor and the roman empire. So they took that and they said all right, well, if you won't sacrifice to our emperor, we'll tolerate this version of doing things. The christians, on the other hand, don't, don't sacrifice we. We eat our god on sundays, uh. So they, they saw that a little bit differently and they didn't get it because to the Romans, religion involved sacrifice. The gods demanded sacrifice. So Christians were being persecuted, while Jews, as long as they were doing their sacrifice on behalf of the emperor, they were tolerated, they were allowed to do whatever.
Speaker 1:And then, once the Roman Empire converted to Christianity which wasn't an immediate thing, that didn't just happen in 325, didn't happen in 382. It happened, I think, 395 or 385, 395. So once that happens and the empire slowly becomes completely Christian, the Jews started to fill roles that Christians didn't want or could not perform. So banking, for example. We couldn't do interest on loans. I wish that we still behaved that way. But Christians couldn't charge interest on loans, jews could. So Jews became the bankers.
Speaker 1:A lot of Christians outside of the church did not want to practice medicine, but, and part of it was that you weren't allowed to perform autopsies, you weren't allowed to mortify the flesh after death. The Jews didn't have that. So they could become surgeons. They could practice things that Christians couldn't practice. They also got very involved in law. So a lot of these things that are stereotypically Jewish today derive from Christians in the middle ages not wanting to or not being able to do these jobs, and the Jews performed them throughout the medieval period.
Speaker 1:But then every there are some times when, like we have documentation that proves that, yes, the Jews were doing coin clipping, uh like on mass. And then there are other times when the Jews just got blamed for things because somebody needed a scapegoat. Uh, you know, the whole 109 countries thing is nonsense, but there were a lot of times where Jews were kicked out of someplace, uh, where Jews were accused of things, um, and times when Jews accused Christians of things. It was a lot of conflict and it's why you see them kind of getting moved around so much and you see them intermixing with with European populations. Yet what Ashkenazi Jews are today, um, and then eventually, obviously, zionism starts to become a thing in the 1800s. Yeah, for a long time there.
Speaker 1:They were just doing whatever jobs we didn't want to do.
Speaker 3:Zionism. I can understand if you're Jewish. I just don't understand that if you're not Jewish. What worries me is that, because the Jews do have this 2,000 years of what they perceive as, because they see it as enmity between christians and them, and they finally do have their land back, like there's no scenario like we talked about russia being backed into a corner, like if, if you know, if they're backed into a corner and the world puts them in a tough like, they'll release nukes, like israel will literally do that. If they think that they're going to lose this land that they finally acquired, they will scorch the entire earth. So I don't know how we get this conflict to back down, unless it's just really just a quick, easy thing. Iran is incapacitated and this just is a quick war. But if this thing escalates and Iran really does try to do something, crazy it's I just don't see how this, this whole progression, ends.
Speaker 1:I think the the only real solution to the Iran situation is Christian mission work. The problem is that it's really dangerous to do that. I think the Iranians are probably one of the most almost genetically predisposed people to Christianity on the planet. You see, you see the inner, the inter, the interplay for thousands of years in Persia, with them being one of the most multicultural accepting of outside influence places on the planet and Zoroastrianism what they had before Islam and Christianity definitely had there at some point along the way, indo-european religion and Judaism mixed together to form something interesting, which is Zoroastrianism, which holds, is very similar to Christianity in a lot of ways. I very similar to the the way that we perceive the heavenly realm.
Speaker 1:I think the answer to Iran is convert them back to Christianity. Just how do you do it? Yeah, it's rough. You said I get it if you're Jewish Zionism. I think you've got to look back to the 1800s and put yourself in that mindset. I think a lot of people were sitting around going well, if they have their own country, they won't be here yeah, yeah, I understand why people were anti-semitic at the time.
Speaker 1:It was just a thing like they probably looked at like well, if we give them their own spot, they'll leave yeah, I think that was like hitler wanted to do that get rid of them entirely hitler wanted to just banish them from from germany, and that plan didn't work out and he had to go plan b. Oh my gosh I wouldn't say he had to go to plan b, I would say that was, that was probably a decision he could have not made um, what was your?
Speaker 3:uh, all right, because we're gonna wrap it up in a few minutes, but, um, if somebody was gonna go and watch a show, uh, your podcast, which episode would you would you recommend to them? Well, obviously, the freemasonry one.
Speaker 1:Um, uh, no, I would say, uh, torteria was a fun one, we just put one out on that. Just the whole history is a lie conspiracy.
Speaker 3:Um, if not that, then I think the john benet ramsey series is my best work that's a that's probably an interesting one to check out, yeah, especially for the younger guys, cause you guys don't most. You probably didn't even know that story until you researched it.
Speaker 1:Right, yeah, and I've been going into like extreme depth with with everything we are five episodes in and they average, I'd say, about 45 minutes each.
Speaker 3:We have covered about 14 days of the investigation. They never, they never, found out who did it right. Nobody was ever. Nobody was ever convicted. But was it the father, the brother? Who was it? Who do you think?
Speaker 1:I'm working your way up to that my hypothesis right now and this this is subject to change as I go deeper and deeper into it but my hypothesis right now is that, uh, burke hit her in the head with something flashlight hammer, I don't know. Burke is her older brother, he was 10. And then John who was the father, I think found her, realized that he either had to take her to the hospital or put her out of her misery. And if he took her to the hospital, there were going to be a lot of questions. So I think that he staged the whole kidnapping thing. I think Patsy, the mother, wrote the note. So I think that all three of them were involved in some way.
Speaker 1:I I don't think that how it went that night was necessarily evil on the part of the parents. I think they were in shock and panicking and and not in their right minds. What I think is evil is everything that happened afterwards, the number of people they blamed, the lives they destroyed, rather than just coming out and being like I did this, I'm sorry. So, yeah, that was evil of them, but there's little things like John Ramsey, 30 minutes after his daughter's body is discovered in his basement, calling his private pilot to arrange a flight to Atlanta and then saying, when the police asked him like why are you trying to go to Atlanta, he was like I have a business meeting. No, he didn't. He didn't have a business meeting.
Speaker 3:He definitely didn't have a business meeting.
Speaker 1:I think he was trying to get his family out of Colorado.
Speaker 3:Once he realized the FBI was getting involved yeah, he was trying to get his family out of Colorado. Once he realized the FBI was getting involved yeah, that's a really shady scenario.
Speaker 2:Anthony is shocked they're not in his right mind. Well, that's just usually correct.
Speaker 3:Yeah, did you ever read Tom Holland's book? What the hell is it called Dominion?
Speaker 2:No.
Speaker 3:I've heard of it.
Speaker 2:Not the Spider-Man actor.
Speaker 1:No, I know.
Speaker 3:Tom Holland's book Dominion, because if you're a history major, especially Rob and I did a two-part series based on his book. That was really good, just going into the pagan world and as Christianity starts coming in and how the Catholic Church developed.
Speaker 1:I think I have one of his books on my shelf and how the Catholic Church developed.
Speaker 3:I think I have one of his books on my shelf. Well, he's got a couple of good ones. His book on Islam is really good too. Something Under the Sword or something.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I think I have one of his books on the Viking era. Yeah, he's a good historian. I will say that was one thing I definitely had going for me. The Viking era. Yeah, he's a good historian. Oh yeah, I will say that was one thing I definitely had going for me. I had incredible professors at Penn State. Utterly incredible history program there. It's a hard school to get into. It's a hard school to get into the main campus. It's a very easy school to get into overall. Yeah, I did get into the main campus when all four years, but there is no better value for an education, especially if you're in Pennsylvania and it's in state tuition. Oh yeah, if you're in PA.
Speaker 3:Where in PA are you? What area Outside of Philly? Alright Aiden, it was fun meeting you, man. I hope the Catholics are dying down with teasing you for everything.
Speaker 1:They'll find somebody new to make fun of in a few days. It'll be fine.
Speaker 3:Yeah, things like this do blow over. Thanks for coming on with us, man.
Speaker 3:Yeah, thanks for having me, yeah, and what is it? Lore Lodge, yeah, the Lore Lodge. Yeah, go check out the Lore Lodge guys. Outside of my theology, I think you guys might appreciate what I do rob does. Rob watches your show regularly, so it's entertaining, yeah, and I think that you're on a theological journey right now, so I'm not. That's why it's like I didn't want to have you come on and start fighting with you about stuff I've you had to talk about the debate. It was like, yeah, of course, kind of had to, but, um, yeah, I don't know, we'll probably we'll. We'll, we'll talk in the future. We'll figure some other stuff out. It was nice meeting you, man. Nice to meet you too. All right, take us out, rob. Thank you.
