Need Help Responding to Attack on our Faith

[Kingdom]

The obvious troll is obvious.

"Uh-uh, I was browsing YouTube and then I LEARNED about this Rebbe - oh my G-d, you wouldn't believe it, but he's so right! He SHREDS the X-tianity, uh, I mean our faith, appart! This Rebbe, he has so many of our fellow followers!
My fellow xtians, please help me to defend our faith! We must open our mental borders and let the snakes in or our religion will not survive!"

One would think that in 2000 years the Jews had not exhausted all methods of smear and that all their questions had not been answered to this very day

If anon needs to know the Church's stance on Judaizers, anon should read "The Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" written by St. John of Damascus in the 8th century.
https://archive.org/details/AnExactExpositionOfTheOrthodoxFaith

The Apostles and Holy Fathers never had "constructive dialogues" or debates with heretics. They at first preached to them, then admonished them, and at last exposed their teachings as heretical, or wrote epistles against them.

Their position on heretics and their teachings is that the common people SHOULD NOT read it, that is, expose themselves to it.

Considering that most people have incomplete knowledge of things, they are vulnerable to half-truths, verbiage and linguistic manipulation. And that is exactly what snakes do, every single time. They present themselves as benevolent bringers of enlightenment and truth, at first. Of course, they will later erect a monument to their father on top of Meneltarma and sacrifice any bigot who disagrees with them - for the greater good, of course. But first, they have to worm their way in, as they have for the past several centuries.

---

Considering the New Testament, "we are virtually certain about roughly 99% of the Greek New Testament (scholars debate this number, but this is a conservative estimate). The remaining 1% involves either difference of no significant consequence and/or of no doctrinal or theological importance."

Considering the OT, we Eastern Orthodox Christians do not regard the Torah as monolithic in the overly literal sense as the Jews do:

Patristic hermeneutic insisted that the difficult passages–those passages that depict YHWH as engaging in ways that would be unworthy of the God of Jesus–are to be read figuratively, typologically, allegorically. They must be read in and through Christ. Only thus are they truly Scripture. To read and preach the Old Testament only through a critical-historical lens is to read it as historical artifact, not as Scripture.

As John Behr has stated a number of times: if you aren’t reading the Bible allegorically, you’re not reading it as Scripture.

“The Old Testament achieved and maintained its status as Christian Scripture with the aid of spiritual interpretation. There was no early Christian who simultaneously acknowledged the authority of the Old Testament and interpreted it literally.”
-Jaroslav Pelikan, church historian

Clement of Alexandria, Origen, the Cappadocian fathers, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, Maximus etc. considered it possible that there are “obstacles” and inaccuracies on the literal level.

"If a biblical text contradicts either the moral teaching of Jesus or the nature of God, it must be interpreted figuratively."
-The hermeneutical rule stated by St. Augustine

In his 'On Christian Doctrine', St Augustine’s states:
“We must show the way to find out whether a phrase is literal or figurative. And the way is certainly as follows: whatever there is in the word of God that cannot, when taken literally, be referred either to purity of life or soundness of doctrine, you may set down as metaphorical. Purity of life has reference to the love of God and one’s neighbor; soundness of doctrine to the knowledge of God and one’s neighbor.”

De doctrina christiana III.11-12: “Matters which seem like wickedness to the unenlightened, whether merely spoken or actually performed, whether attributed to God or to people whose holiness is commended to us, are entirely figurative. Such mysteries are to be elucidated in terms of the need to nourish love.”

That is the patristic hermeneutic and we see it worked out again and again in the Fathers. Exegetes who use this hermeneutic may differ on the interpretation of a specific text, but they are united in their recognition that the Scriptures must not be interpreted in a way that is unworthy of the God made known in the crucified and risen Christ.

"Judaism (as we know it today) and Christianity came into existence in much the same period of Graeco-Roman culture, and both reflect the religious thinking of their time. Neither was ever literalist in the way you apparently are. The only ancient Christian figure whom we can reliably say to have read the Bible in the manner of modern fundamentalists was Marcion of Sinope. He exhibited far greater insight than modern fundamentalists, however, in that he recognized that the god described in the Hebrew Bible—if taken in the mythic terms provided there—is something of a monster and hence obviously not the Christian God. Happily, his literalism was an aberration.

Much of the Judaism of the first century, like the Christianity of the apostolic age, presumed that a spiritual or allegorical reading of the Hebrew texts was the correct one. Philo of Alexandria was a perfectly faithful Jewish intellectual of his age, as was Paul, and both rarely interpreted scripture in any but allegorical ways. Even when, in the New Testament, the history of God’s dealings with Israel is united to the saving work of Christ—as in Acts or Hebrews—it is in the thoroughly reinterpreted and intenerated form that one finds also in the book of Wisdom (a worked audibly echoed in Romans, incidentally).

(...) From Paul through the high Middle Ages, only the spiritual reading of the Old Testament was accorded doctrinal or theological authority. In that tradition, even “literal” exegesis was not the sort of literalism you seem to presume. Not to read the Bible in the proper manner is not to read it as the Bible at all; scripture is in-spired, that is, only when read “spiritually."
-David Bentley Hart

“So there was this wide tradition in the early Church of reading the Bible metaphorically and not always also literally; it was the Church of those centuries, the Church of Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, and Augustine, which established the canon of Scripture which taught that this was the way in which it ought to be read. It was the Bible understood in this way which they declared to be true.”

“But in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries the Bible came to be interpreted by many Anglo-Saxon Protestants in perhaps the most literal and insensitive way in which it has ever been interpreted in Christian history. This literalism was encouraged by the basic philosophical mistake of equating the ‘original meaning’ of the text, gradually being probed by historical inquiry, with the meaning of the text in the context of a Christian document. We may hanker after the ‘original meaning’ in the sense of the meaning of the separate units before they were used to form a Bible, but that sense is not relevant to assessing its truth; for the Bible is a patchwork, and context changes meaning.”

“Of course, if we are misguided enough to interpret the Bible in terms of the ‘original meaning’ of the text, that original meaning is often false: there is scientific, historical, moral, and theological falsity in the Bible, if it is so interpreted. (...) Yet, as the Church of the first 1,500 years of Christianity always taught explicitly, the Bible must be understood in the light of the Church’s teaching, and this will mean at least what I have called central Christian doctrines. And the rules for interpreting passages seemingly disconsonant with Christian doctrine or known truths of history or science are there, sanctified by centuries of use by those who claimed in accordance with Christian tradition that the Bible was ‘true’. If we wish to take seriously claims for the truth of the Bible, we must understand it in the way that both philosophical rules for interpreting other texts and the teaching of the Church which gave canonical status to the biblical books indicate; and this includes their admission that it contains deeper truths which future generations wiser than themselves might detect by using their rules.”
-Richard Swinburne: "Revelation: From Metaphor to Analogy."

“We must show the way to find out whether a phrase is literal or figurative. And the way is certainly as follows: whatever there is in the word of God that cannot, when taken literally, be referred either to purity of life or soundness of doctrine, you may set down as metaphorical. Purity of life has reference to the love of God and one’s neighbor; soundness of doctrine to the knowledge of God and one’s neighbor.”

That is the patristic hermeneutic and we see it worked out again and again in the Fathers. Exegetes who use this hermeneutic may differ on the interpretation of a specific text, but they are united in their recognition that the Scriptures must not be interpreted in a way that is unworthy of the God made known in the crucified and risen Christ.

In this way the Church retained the Scriptures of Judaism as her own.

https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2022/...d-the-figurative-interpretation-of-scripture/

 

[Lawrence87]

Seriously OP? I gave this vid a chance. The Jew is obviously a liar. He gives the genealogies in Matthew and Luke claiming that they are contradictory genealogies of Joseph, yet he neglects to mention that one gives a genealogy of Mary whilst the other gives a genealogy of Joseph. This is supposed to a devastating attack on our faith? Some fat Jew who can't get basic facts straight?

 

[Raskolnikov]

This is good. Thank you for the response. Any further advice as to how to "hone" these abilities? You have a good grasp of how to defend our positions (as well as the weaknesses of the other side, which are perhaps not so visible initially). I'd like this ability as well, but don't know where to start.

I mean, I would just start reading Church fathers. If you're interested in debates, you can just watch debate content from Jay Dyer and Sam Shamoun against various opposing positions. After a while, some of it will stick with you.

As for the opponent positions, you'll have to study those yourself. Orthodox Shahada has a lot of great content regarding the common positions in Islam, and a lot of those work for Jews as well. It's kinda funny, but Muslims usually have a more solid argumentation that Jews even bother to articulate.

The main hangup for Jews is usually one based on their supposed continuity that Christians allegedly lack. But the Jews have the Talmud, which they will have to agree was codified post Christianity, and there is no proof of its authority before that. If they commit to the Talmud, then you can point out that it delivers plenty of positions that the person you're talking to would never be willing to commit to because they are absurd.

If the Jew commits to Kabbalah, then he got nothing on you, both in terms of continuity or "monotheism". Brother Augustine's youtube channel has some info on Kabbalah and the Zohar, specifically.

When it comes to ancient Judaism, you can refer to generally acknowledged research by Michael Heiser and Alan Segal (a Jewish scholar and a certified rabbi, I believe) to disprove their claims of strict "monotheism". The strictly unitarian model simply wasn't a thing.

To summarize: Jews historically haven't adhered to unitarian monotheism, the majority of them do not today, and they have broken continuity of both scripture and rite. Plus, there is absolutely no unified doctrine.

 

[Raskolnikov]

The reason I’m a Christian is because the gospels resonated with me from the start, it has nothing to do with the merits of the trinity or whatever.

I think ultimately, that's how it works individually for most people, but we all sometimes stumble in our faith, particularly when it's attacked, and that's why apologetics has value. I don't think it's possible to force anybody into Christianity by simply having better arguments. But demons are constantly trying to get us to let go of our faith and follow distractions, and then not having apologetics becomes a problem.

I've had numerous times since my baptism where I felt let down or confused by my faith and short of abandoning it, I could have fallen into despondency, stopped going to Church, whatever. But knowing dogma and knowing how to critique other points of view has helped me stay on track, and that's why it's good for Christians to learn apologetics.

I also think discursive knowledge of dogma is helpful to shield oneself against ideological traps and seductions and get an idea of how the Christian faith ca or should manifest in the world, besides individual practice.

 

[Samseau]

But okay, as just one example: his main argument is that if a book claims to be divine, but has even one human error in it, it's automatically invalidated as divine, as God doesn't make mistakes like humans do.

So if I was debating this guy, I would immediately stop here. This is obviously a false premise, and a false premise yields false conclusions 99.99999999999999% of the time.

I don't even need to know whatever textual criticisms come next. I already know anything said afterwards is wrong because he's starting with a false premise, which logically means the argument is garbage.

This premise is false because the Bible is not divine, it is divinely inspired. The OT isn't written by God, it was written by men. This means errors are possible.

Conversely, Jesus was God, given his ability to perform miracles and rise from the dead. Thus, what Jesus taught was divine, authoritative, and is why Jesus was able to correct parts of the OT such as Eye for an Eye was actually just a compromise God made because Jew's hearts were hard, and that God truly desired mercy and not sacrifice (which is also stated in the OT).

The OT contradicts itself constantly, in fact, because it was written by humans, and hundreds of thousands of atheists across time have attacked the Bible specifically because it is riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions. This is also why the Talmud is riddled with contradictions, because no one can interpret the OT on their own without coming up with wildly different conclusions. This is why during Jesus's lifetime there were countless sects of Jews (such as the Samaritans) who had their own interpretation of the OT - there was no standard to resolve the inconsistencies of the OT, so if you had 20 Jews you ended up with 20 different interpretations of the OT.

Christians always defend the Bible by stating that Jesus came to correct the OT, and fulfill the old Law, by giving the correct interpretation of the OT. And Christ was perfectly logical, and everything he said about the OT is without contradiction to his own teachings and doings. He indeed fulfills the prophecies of Isiah, Jeremiah, many of the Pslams, among other prophecies of the Messiah as well. Combined with his resurrection, and the holy power that was imbued into his disciples (who also healed the sick, and rose the dead), massive numbers of Jews and Gentiles converted because of what they saw. It didn't take faith back then - no one had to pay them - they simply saw and were changed forever.

That is why the NT exists, and that is why the OT must be interpreted in light of the NT. Jesus is the only source of divine knowledge we have, since he was God, whereas the OT was merely divinely inspired and needs human interpretation to resolve it's difficulties.

See how easy that was? I didn't need to spend more than 10 minutes on this, because as soon as I saw the premise I knew the rest was nonsense. Likewise, save your time when watching these charlatans, and seek out their premises. If the premises of their arguments do not pass the smell test, then the rest is bullshit which can be skipped.

 

[paternos]

The obvious troll is obvious.

"Uh-uh, I was browsing YouTube and then I LEARNED about this Rebbe - oh my G-d, you wouldn't believe it, but he's so right! He SHREDS the X-tianity, uh, I mean our faith, appart! This Rebbe, he has so many of our fellow followers!
My fellow xtians, please help me to defend our faith! We must open our mental borders and let the snakes in or our religion will not survive!"

100%

Who falls for this shit? Guy needs to be flagged as a troll.

 

[Raskolnikov]

The obvious troll is obvious.

"Uh-uh, I was browsing YouTube and then I LEARNED about this Rebbe - oh my G-d, you wouldn't believe it, but he's so right! He SHREDS the X-tianity, uh, I mean our faith, appart! This Rebbe, he has so many of our fellow followers!
My fellow xtians, please help me to defend our faith! We must open our mental borders and let the snakes in or our religion will not survive!"

One would think that in 2000 years the Jews had not exhausted all methods of smear and that all their questions had not been answered to this very day

I'm not saying OP 100% isn't a troll, but browsing youtube and finding a hostile content creator who attacks your faith and not having answers to it is a pretty common experience.
It's pretty much ow I encountered Tovia Singer.

There's a tendency many people have to overcome a certain problem or acquire knowledge and no matter how much of a struggle it was, they want to act as if it had always been perfectly clear to them, and really, it's absolutely simple. But that's arrogance.

I think OP has been respectful and receptive towards answers, so I don't think one should accuse him of being a troll or a Jewish infiltrator.

He hasn't pulled a Cog Dis, he didn't accuse anybody of anything and he engaged with what others had to say, so I have no reason to assume he's being disingenuous.

I know we've had some interlopers recently, but we shouldn't drift into a state where we constantly accuse everybody of subterfuge just because they ask an annoying question.

 

[elevenBRAVO]

Seriously OP? I gave this vid a chance. The Jew is obviously a liar. He gives the genealogies in Matthew and Luke claiming that they are contradictory genealogies of Joseph, yet he neglects to mention that one gives a genealogy of Mary whilst the other gives a genealogy of Joseph. This is supposed to a devastating attack on our faith? Some fat Jew who can't get basic facts straight?

You spent all that time calling me a Jewish troll, and now you want to engage with me?

 

[elevenBRAVO]

There’s a much higher chance of me becoming an atheist than converting to a different religion. Not sure why these debates even matter. What is the premise of these debates? That I’m praying to the wrong God? lol. So if the Christian God doesn’t exist, but I pray to the “real” one I’m going to have all my wishes fulfilled? Give me a break.

I personally don’t like Muslims, I won’t even mention what I think of the Jews. I’m not sure what factors make these people so unlikable, but it’s not my place to figure out why they became this way, I just treat them as I see fit. If “Christians” want to do these gotcha games with them then that’s their prerogative. I already mentioned that I don’t support evangelizing unless it’s to the non-religious. The reason I’m a Christian is because the gospels resonated with me from the start, it has nothing to do with the merits of the trinity or whatever.

We have enough trouble being faithful ourselves than to worry about this “who do you pray to” nonsense.

Totally fair point. If this is your position, I respect it, but for me, I can't stand allowing such challenges to be unanswered. Maybe it's because I'm OCD. I don't know.

 

[elevenBRAVO]

The obvious troll is obvious.

"Uh-uh, I was browsing YouTube and then I LEARNED about this Rebbe - oh my G-d, you wouldn't believe it, but he's so right! He SHREDS the X-tianity, uh, I mean our faith, appart! This Rebbe, he has so many of our fellow followers!
My fellow xtians, please help me to defend our faith! We must open our mental borders and let the snakes in or our religion will not survive!"

One would think that in 2000 years the Jews had not exhausted all methods of smear and that all their questions had not been answered to this very day

If anon needs to know the Church's stance on Judaizers, anon should read "The Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" written by St. John of Damascus in the 8th century.
https://archive.org/details/AnExactExpositionOfTheOrthodoxFaith

The Apostles and Holy Fathers never had "constructive dialogues" or debates with heretics. They at first preached to them, then admonished them, and at last exposed their teachings as heretical, or wrote epistles against them.

Their position on heretics and their teachings is that the common people SHOULD NOT read it, that is, expose themselves to it.

Considering that most people have incomplete knowledge of things, they are vulnerable to half-truths, verbiage and linguistic manipulation. And that is exactly what snakes do, every single time. They present themselves as benevolent bringers of enlightenment and truth, at first. Of course, they will later erect a monument to their father on top of Meneltarma and sacrifice any bigot who disagrees with them - for the greater good, of course. But first, they have to worm their way in, as they have for the past several centuries.

---

Considering the New Testament, "we are virtually certain about roughly 99% of the Greek New Testament (scholars debate this number, but this is a conservative estimate). The remaining 1% involves either difference of no significant consequence and/or of no doctrinal or theological importance."

Considering the OT, we Eastern Orthodox Christians do not regard the Torah as monolithic in the overly literal sense as the Jews do:





https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2022/...d-the-figurative-interpretation-of-scripture/

Another paranoid detective calling me a troll. Go right ahead. I'll continue my conversation with those who are taking it seriously. I think I've shown myself to be legitimate. If you don't think so, ignore me. What do I care?

 

[elevenBRAVO]

I mean, I would just start reading Church fathers. If you're interested in debates, you can just watch debate content from Jay Dyer and Sam Shamoun against various opposing positions. After a while, some of it will stick with you.

As for the opponent positions, you'll have to study those yourself. Orthodox Shahada has a lot of great content regarding the common positions in Islam, and a lot of those work for Jews as well. It's kinda funny, but Muslims usually have a more solid argumentation that Jews even bother to articulate.

The main hangup for Jews is usually one based on their supposed continuity that Christians allegedly lack. But the Jews have the Talmud, which they will have to agree was codified post Christianity, and there is no proof of its authority before that. If they commit to the Talmud, then you can point out that it delivers plenty of positions that the person you're talking to would never be willing to commit to because they are absurd.

If the Jew commits to Kabbalah, then he got nothing on you, both in terms of continuity or "monotheism". Brother Augustine's youtube channel has some info on Kabbalah and the Zohar, specifically.

When it comes to ancient Judaism, you can refer to generally acknowledged research by Michael Heiser and Alan Segal (a Jewish scholar and a certified rabbi, I believe) to disprove their claims of strict "monotheism". The strictly unitarian model simply wasn't a thing.

To summarize: Jews historically haven't adhered to unitarian monotheism, the majority of them do not today, and they have broken continuity of both scripture and rite. Plus, there is absolutely no unified doctrine.

Thank you very much. This is exactly why I came here.

 

[elevenBRAVO]

So if I was debating this guy, I would immediately stop here. This is obviously a false premise, and a false premise yields false conclusions 99.99999999999999% of the time.

I don't even need to know whatever textual criticisms come next. I already know anything said afterwards is wrong because he's starting with a false premise, which logically means the argument is garbage.

This premise is false because the Bible is not divine, it is divinely inspired. The OT isn't written by God, it was written by men. This means errors are possible.

Conversely, Jesus was God, given his ability to perform miracles and rise from the dead. Thus, what Jesus taught was divine, authoritative, and is why Jesus was able to correct parts of the OT such as Eye for an Eye was actually just a compromise God made because Jew's hearts were hard, and that God truly desired mercy and not sacrifice (which is also stated in the OT).

The OT contradicts itself constantly, in fact, because it was written by humans, and hundreds of thousands of atheists across time have attacked the Bible specifically because it is riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions. This is also why the Talmud is riddled with contradictions, because no one can interpret the OT on their own without coming up with wildly different conclusions. This is why during Jesus's lifetime there were countless sects of Jews (such as the Samaritans) who had their own interpretation of the OT - there was no standard to resolve the inconsistencies of the OT, so if you had 20 Jews you ended up with 20 different interpretations of the OT.

Christians always defend the Bible by stating that Jesus came to correct the OT, and fulfill the old Law, by giving the correct interpretation of the OT. And Christ was perfectly logical, and everything he said about the OT is without contradiction to his own teachings and doings. He indeed fulfills the prophecies of Isiah, Jeremiah, many of the Pslams, among other prophecies of the Messiah as well. Combined with his resurrection, and the holy power that was imbued into his disciples (who also healed the sick, and rose the dead), massive numbers of Jews and Gentiles converted because of what they saw. It didn't take faith back then - no one had to pay them - they simply saw and were changed forever.

That is why the NT exists, and that is why the OT must be interpreted in light of the NT. Jesus is the only source of divine knowledge we have, since he was God, whereas the OT was merely divinely inspired and needs human interpretation to resolve it's difficulties.

See how easy that was? I didn't need to spend more than 10 minutes on this, because as soon as I saw the premise I knew the rest was nonsense. Likewise, save your time when watching these charlatans, and seek out their premises. If the premises of their arguments do not pass the smell test, then the rest is bullshit which can be skipped.

There is much more to it, of course, but I do see your point. (Much of his argumentation, and supporting dialogue, centers on the fact that the OT was divinely inspired and its lack of errors, which he insists is the case, is proof of this. His YT channel has video after video of him speaking to this and offering proofs, etc.) I say that not to be a contrarian, but just so you understand the full picture. It's not as dismissive as you're making it out to be, if I may say. If it was, the debate wouldn't have irked me as much as it did/does.

 

[Lawrence87]

You spent all that time calling me a Jewish troll, and now you want to engage with me?

I never called you a Jewish troll but I mean I'm starting to believe you are

 

[elevenBRAVO]

I never called you a Jewish troll but I mean I'm starting to believe you are

I mean, it’s no skin off my back if you want to think that about me. It’s weird, but what do I care? I’ll continue to have this discussion with the rest of the people here, who aren’t being paranoid and weird.

 

[Samseau]

There is much more to it, of course, but I do see your point. (Much of his argumentation, and supporting dialogue, centers on the fact that the OT was divinely inspired and its lack of errors, which he insists is the case, is proof of this. His YT channel has video after video of him speaking to this and offering proofs, etc.) I say that not to be a contrarian, but just so you understand the full picture. It's not as dismissive as you're making it out to be, if I may say. If it was, the debate wouldn't have irked me as much as it did/does.

Why shouldn't a false premise be dismissed? You even admit he uses this false premise constantly in his videos. This means he has terrible judgement and a mediocre mind. This is very easily dismissible.

 

[elevenBRAVO]

Why shouldn't a false premise be dismissed? You even admit he uses this false premise constantly in his videos. This means he has terrible judgement and a mediocre mind. This is very easily dismissible.

False premises should, of course, always be dismissed. Which one are you referring to, please? I'm getting a little loopy; I have some people here calling me a troll and others giving sincere responses that I appreciate and I'm getting a little confused at this point about who is saying what (!).

 

[Lawrence87]

I mean, it’s no skin off my back if you want to think that about me. It’s weird, but what do I care? I’ll continue to have this discussion with the rest of the people here, who aren’t being paranoid and weird.

Dude, I engaged with your posts. I took some of my time to watch the vid and quickly realised this Jew has utterly trash and dishonest arguments. I never called you a troll but then you respond to me in a weirdly combative way when I took the time to explain why this guys arguments are trash. Its a weird way to behave.

 

[elevenBRAVO]

Dude, I engaged with your posts. I took some of my time to watch the vid and quickly realised this Jew has utterly trash and dishonest arguments. I never called you a troll but then you respond to me in a weirdly combative way when I took the time to explain why this guys arguments are trash. Its a weird way to behave.

Yes, sorry. I just went back. I thought you were another poster. My mistake.

 

[Unending Powerhouse Match]

But why are you debating a noahide? You need to ignore these people. I get it, I really do, I used to be really into these types of debates. But you're not going to convince someone who became a big shabbos goy to come back to Christianity by deboonking his arguments. It doesn't work like that. It never does. That guy you're dealing with, his problem is spiritual in nature and not a matter of logical discussion.

 

[staddlelateen]

I mean, it’s no skin off my back if you want to think that about me. It’s weird, but what do I care? I’ll continue to have this discussion with the rest of the people here, who aren’t being paranoid and weird.

Do you attend and follow the bogus Vatican 2 religion, or are you an actual Catholic elevenBravo?

Almost all Vatican 2 adherents don’t have a basic understanding of the Catholic faith and its apologetics, so I’m not too surprised that a YouTube video was enough to shake their faith.